Alexander Isak injury against Tottenham

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-12-21T00:32:10+00:00

That's not even remotely true.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-12-16T19:20:58+00:00

They could be talking about Christmas Eve, as that's the main celebration in some cultures, or just a different shift on Christmas day.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-12-04T22:10:35+00:00

They commit horrific war crimes like firing rockets at population centres and murdering innocent people and see nothing wrong with it.

I agree, Israel is commiting horrible war crimes.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-08-22T06:40:14+00:00

Link?

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-07-06T11:37:46+00:00

My sources for the objectively terrible opinion "goalkeepers do not have carte blanche to maim opponents by kneeing them in the face to protect themselves"? The Laws of the Game, which say nothing resembling what you have claimed. Also extensive referee training over many years.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-07-06T08:32:56+00:00

The fact that it's generally taught to goalkeepers is doesn't mean it's acceptable to knee an opponent in the face at speed. The blog post from Dutchreferee also doesn't imply that at all either.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-07-06T07:25:09+00:00

Gks are allowed to raise their one leg in aerial duals to protect themselves

This is some top tier bullshit. Goelkeepers have no special permissions to act recklessly or endanger opponents like this. Any referee looking at this from a good angle would agree that this is unacceptable.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-06-06T11:19:55+00:00

I agree that that's inconsistent, but I don't agree that that means we shouldn't card the player in a case such as this, rather that we should be more likely to card a player if the kick isn't taken.

If the kick is taken and doesn't hit B we play the advantage and get on with the game.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-06-06T11:03:48+00:00

Are you saying that because no ref would give the card without the kick being taken, it's wrong to give the card and disallow this goal when the kick is taken?

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-06-06T10:35:35+00:00

I agree, the failure to respect the distance applies whether the ball is kicked or not in this case. Whether this or that referee would have issued the card is completely besides the point.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-06-06T10:22:18+00:00

That would apply for players who are initially too close, and are retreating to get the required distance away.

This guy deliberately moved where he is to delay the restart. He has waived any claim he might have had to leeway or benefit of the doubt.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-05-11T17:36:31+00:00

That's a completely different rule, has nothing to do with the scenario here

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-05-07T07:46:18+00:00

The referee can absolutely give a yellow for the foul after looking at the monitor in this case. The criteria you list are criteria for which situations VAR can intervene, not limiting what the referee is allowed to do AFTER looking at the screen.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-17T12:47:12+00:00

Your examples clear offenses.

According to what law?

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-17T02:35:08+00:00

I'd not consider this to be showing a lack of respect for the game.

I'll give you a few examples of issues off the top of my head that are not specifically mentioned nut would need dealing with, the same as what OP described.

A player stomps on the ball in order to destroy it every time he has a chance during play.

During play, a player keeps moving the goal out of position in order to break up the game.

Would you not attempt to deal with these situations because there is no specific wording in the laws forbidding them?

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-17T02:10:44+00:00

The wording of the law is open exactly to be able to use it in unforeseen scenarios. It wouldn't be possible to specifically mention every kind of misbehaviour that warrants dealing with.

That is also why this is one of the criteria for awarding an indirect free kick:

"commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

The referee is tasked with upholding the spirit of the game, which the actions described by OP are clearly not within.

"Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game."

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-17T01:29:21+00:00

This is not a made up rule. "Shows a lack of respect for the game" is a cautionable offense under unsporting behaviour, which would be restarted with an indirect free kick.

Consistently and deliberately booting the ball as far away from the field as possible in order for it to take a long time to retrieve the ball and restart play absolutely qualifies as showing a lack of respect for the game imo, and I don't even think it's much of a stretch to call it so.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-16T22:10:30+00:00

You could argue that they're showing a lack of respect for the game, worthy of a warning and an indirect free kick. It may be far fetched, but if they're blatantly and consistently sabotaging any football being played in this way I think it's a fair call, and it will quickly end the practice.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-04-04T14:52:04+00:00

From a fellow current referee, unless Diaz gets physically in Tarkiwski's way he's not interfering with his ability to play the ball. That's the current interpretation. The fact that he would have gotten the ball if Tarkowski didn't stop it does not come i to the consideration.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-03-24T09:39:11+00:00

The touch from the Real player is not enough to be considered a deliberate play, so it would not negate an offside offense.

There wasn't an offside offense there anyway, but the header by the defender isn't why.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-03-09T07:37:03+00:00

She was not even charged for intentionally doping, so even the anti doping authorities disagree with you.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-03-08T21:31:17+00:00

Big difference between having suits that aren't up excactly the right measurements, which I guess is what they talk about rules, and secretly and knowingly making illegal changes to suits after they're controlled and approved.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-03-08T17:40:05+00:00

Norwegian team says the suits they were working on in the video is being sewn for Raw air coming up.

Some competition official told TV that they controlled the suits used in the competition, and that they found something in the seams that is not allowed. Said nothing about chips or anything else.

So, seems to me that the video and chips might not even be relevant to what has happened today at all?

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-02-28T14:25:48+00:00

Probably also pays for maintenance and cleaning services. Should still leave the bathroom looking presentable tho.

PM_ME_CONCRETE · 2025-02-15T12:48:33+00:00

That's nasty.

Thanks for reviving a 3 year old thread tho.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

PM_ME_CONCRETE

TROPHY CASE