Who's ready for the World Cup?

[md4958]

Originally Posted by yourchoice

Okay, but if there's a foul, play continues and when ultimately possession goes to the other team or the ball is played off the field, does the team that was fouled get a free kick from the spot of the foul (per the rules)? Or is the foul ignored?
.

no, if the foul is not called immediately, it cannot be called retro-actively, "play on" is what is the commonly called by the ref in those instances. There are no time outs, and the only time the clock is stopped is when there is an injured player down that requires non-players on the field (medics/trainers).

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by md4958

no, if the foul is not called immediately, it cannot be called retro-actively

Not true. Refs can call it after the play and I've seen them do that.

[Pass]

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Not true. Refs can call it after the play and I've seen them do that.

Matter of fact, there was a foul and yellow issue well after the incident -- while a certain drama queen was on the ground crying -- in today's game.

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by md4958

no, if the foul is not called immediately, it cannot be called retro-actively, "play on" is what is the commonly called by the ref in those instances. There are no time outs, and the only time the clock is stopped is when there is an injured player down that requires non-players on the field (medics/trainers).

Originally Posted by TheRiddick

Not true. Refs can call it after the play and I've seen them do that.

Sorry, Moe. Greg is correct. A referee will wait to see if an advantage is maintained. If within a few seconds, the potential advantage is lost, the referee can and will whistle the foul. If, however, the referee feels the advantage was realized and then the ball turned over, the foul is not called. Lots of latitude in judgment given to the referee.

Also, consider this scenario. A player is fouled and the foul is worthy of a yellow card. However, a clear advantage is given and the whistle is not blown for the foul. Attack continues, and eventually possession is lost and play continues. A full minute or two later, the ball goes into touch or over the end line. The referee can then appropriately issue the yellow.

And the clock is never stopped - even for an injury requiring medics/trainers. The referee will add (stoppage) time for any additional time he deems appropriate - including substitutions and dealing with misconduct.

[md4958]

Originally Posted by pnoon

Sorry, Moe. Greg is correct. A referee will wait to see if an advantage is maintained. If within a few seconds, the potential advantage is lost, the referee can and will whistle the foul. If, however, the referee feels the advantage was realized and then the ball turned over, the foul is not called. Lots of latitude in judgment given to the referee.

Thanks for the education Peter, I had never seen this before.

Originally Posted by pnoon

Also, consider this scenario. A player is fouled and the foul is worthy of a yellow card. However, a clear advantage is given and the whistle is not blown for the foul. Attack continues, and eventually possession is lost and play continues. A full minute or two later, the ball goes into touch or over the end line. The referee can then appropriately issue the yellow.
.

So at that point, is it a free kick? And where?

Originally Posted by pnoon

And the clock is never stopped - even for an injury requiring medics/trainers. The referee will add (stoppage) time for any additional time he deems appropriate - including substitutions and dealing with misconduct.

When they show the ref's handling their watches I figured they were stopping the timers. Is it left to the refs discretion weather to add time for subs (ie if they are trying to burn the clock in the final minutes) or is a cut and dry policy?

[yourchoice]

Thanks for the education Moe, Greg and Peter. I'm glad I asked the question.

I guess, based on all of this, my opinion is the ref could have decided the advantage was maintained, which I have no problem with, but could/should have issued a yellow on Robben's chance. I should stipulate this is based on my understanding of the rules (which obviously is limited).