jay

he was out there for plenty of time to get his point across. he is not entitled to an extended discussion

lmao they let him ask his questions for some time and then he refused to stop arguing when he was told to. this is a super easy ejection

🤨 why would this rule not apply to pre-snap fouls? seems like tonight's situation is precisely what this rule was written for

almost no one has, pretty sure this rule has never actually been invoked

palpably unfair act is similar but this is a slightly different rule

palpably unfair act is similar, but i'm pretty sure this is the specific rule in question

it's a pretty sensible rule tbh

"successive or repeated fouls by to prevent a score" is considered to be a form of unsportsmanlike conduct penalized by awarding that score. rule 12 section 3 article 2

rule 12 section 3 article 2

We kinda do know, tho

CIGNA DOC: “Cigna tracks every minute its staff doctors spend deciding whether to pay for health care. Dr. Debby Day said her bosses cared more about being fast than being right: “Deny, deny, deny. That’s how you hit your numbers.”
#MedicareforAll

www.propublica.org/article/cign...

ok

Law 14: The Penalty Kick Introduction A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13. A goal may be scored directly from a penalty kick.

and for the sake of completeness, the introduction to Law 14 specifies that this is a penalty kick rather than a direct free kick 👍🏻

if you check out theifab.com you'll notice that nothing in Law 12 mentions touching the ball as a factor in determining if contact between opponents is a foul

there's no doubt that Saliba is making an earnest attempt to play the ball. but since he made contact while doing that, it's a foul if he does so in one of the proscribed manners. even if you don't think this was reckless, Saliba's play was clearly careless at a minimum.

Saliba lunges his head toward where he thinks the ball will be with a foreseeable consequence ahead: the opponent's head is directly in his path. that consequence was disregarded when he chose to make this play on the ball

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed • Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned • Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

those three crucial words at the end of the above post are defined. Saliba got a yellow card, which means the foul was deemed to be reckless unless there was some other reason he decided to give a card that I didn't see

1. Direct Free Kick A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: • charges • jumps at • kicks or attempts to kick • pushes • strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) • tackles or challenges • trips or attempts to trip

sure — Law 12 says a direct free kick is awarded if a player strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force

what you've written here about what does and does not constitute a foul is nothing than a matter of your own opinion about how you think things should be and frankly has little resemblance to the text of Law 12

ever since carelessly striking an opponent in the head became a foul, which has been the case for decades as far as I'm aware. I'm not seeing anything about "50/50 ball" in the Laws of the Game, can you clarify why you think that's relevant here?

which part of the Laws of the Game says that "mak[ing] contact with the ball first" means the action can't also be a foul?