The Refereeing Thread

[Janik]

No, that is fine. Six players may be off together, but there is only one lot of timing to deal with for the bunch of them.

[ad hoc]

I think the problem comes when there is only the ref there like in imp's situations. He's got to watch the match and be aware that he needs to keep checking his watch to let people back on. Obviously sin binning works fine where there is more than one official - happens in ice hockey all the time (does anyone know what happens in sports that have sinbinnings when you get down to the level when there is only one official at the game?)

[Janik]

Well, yes, sort of. I do. Hockey has two Umps but the distribution of labour is different to Football as their is never an assistant on the touchlines. So the Umps don't go into the centre of the pitch, but instead patrol an L shape around one touchline and one byline. The general set up is each has their area of the pitch where only they will whistle, mostly one circle but also their touchline, with the central midfield being more ambiguous.
The Ump on the side of the pitch where the sin bin is deals with timing the suspensions whilst also continuing to do the normal officiating of the game. And... it's mostly fine. Really. It's not super difficult, even with the change to Hockey's first level card (a green) now being a two minute sin-bin rather than a warning, and with yellow cards not always being the same length (increments of 5 minutes depending on the severity of the offence, up to an unofficial maximum of 20).

[imp]

A youth league I used to ref in on Friday nights in the US had a two-ref system, and it worked pretty well. You'd basically run one half like a linesman, but on the field, patrolling opposite touchlines.

A shorter blog for a mainly quiet weekend in the Frankfurt youth leagues:

[Nocturnal Submission]

Just saw this on the Chelsea website.You just know that Mike Dean will have seen the story and taken note:

Victorien Angban helped Ligue 2 champions Metz finish their season with a home win over second-placed Brest, beating them 1-0 in a match played out in good spirits, with both teams already having secured promotion. The game also drew media attention as referee Yohann Rouinsard brought the curtain down on his 25-year career in unique style, halting play a minute from the end to hand his whistle and cards over to the two captains, before receiving a standing ovation from the players and spraying the word ‘merci’ on the pitch in foam.

[imp]

If I'd had some foam on Sunday I'd have done the same, but spraying the words 'Fuck off, you arseholes.'

[seand]

If I'd had some foam on Sunday I'd have done the same, but spraying the words 'Fuck off, you arseholes.'

"So, to the stats. Number of players and coaches combined who shook my hand and thanked me over the weekend: 3. "

Fucking hell, even if they think you're shite a small nod towards civility shouldn't be too much to ask. From a purely cyncial point of view being somewhat polite might even stand to them next time you have the misfortune to meet them.

[imp]

Exactly.

[imp]

Law changes with explanations/clarifications for next season, valid from June 1st. On the whole, I'm happy with most of these - the new drop-ball law; the new law on goal-kicks/free kicks in the penalty area being immediately in play; and awarding team officials yellow and red cards (double and triple hoorah) all make sense. The 'clarification' on handball, though, is just making an already difficult interpretation an even bigger fucking mess.

[seand]

Law changes with explanations/clarifications for next season, valid from June 1st. On the whole, I'm happy with most of these - the new drop-ball law; the new law on goal-kicks/free kicks in the penalty area being immediately in play; and awarding team officials yellow and red cards (double and triple hoorah) all make sense. The 'clarification' on handball, though, is just making an already difficult interpretation an even bigger fucking mess.

The handball thing isn't helping a lot is it? This paragraph is an absolute gem (the highlighting is mine)

It is usually !!!!! an offence if a player:
•touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
•the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
•the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm - WTF?)

Usually an offence? Thanks for that clarification! I'm not sure how a hand/arm can make a body "unnaturally" bigger. In my experience the vast majority of hands/arms are entirely natural extensions of torsos. Handball above shoulder level seems entirely sensible, until you read the subclause which seems to suggest it's ok to handle the ball above shoulder if you've just played the ball

In fairness the Explantion section which follows is very sensible and readable, but does not lay down rules

Explanation
Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when ‘nondeliberate’ handball is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles: •football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
•football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity
• it is natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling.
• having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a ‘natural’ position and a player is ‘taking a risk’ by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding
• if the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hand/arm it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball.

[seand]

Oh and I love the fact that sarcastic applause is now specified as a bookable offence (applauds sarcastically)

[Janik]

the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm - WTF?)

That is trying to deal with the situation where the player has their arm up in the air for balance as the ball comes towards them at a low level, but when kicking/blocking the ball it deflects upwards and hits their arm. That shouldn't be a foul, but without the caveat would get swept up into being one.

[seand]

That is trying to deal with the situation where the player has their arm up in the air for balance as the ball comes towards them at a low level, but when kicking/blocking the ball it deflects upwards and hits their arm. That shouldn't be a foul, but without the caveat would get swept up into being one.

Cheers, I understand that, but that would make much more sense for a hand below shoulder level, i.e. a miscontrolled pass that pops up onto a hand a waist level.... this clarification seems to suggest that it's ok to handle if and only if it's above shoulder height

[Janik]

But that is already covered by exclusion - it is usually an offence when the ball hits the hand above shoulder level, so by implication it isn't usually so if it hits below and the player hasn't made themselves 'unnaturally bigger'. The caveat only need apply to the accidental scenario of ball-to-hand in above the shoulder scenarios.

[ad hoc]

The problem here is VAR (as it so often is). Because we now have some system which is supposed to be more objective and to reduce errors, there is this need to somehow codify handball in all these ridiculous ways. Obviously the better way to put all this would be "It is handball if in the ref's opinion the player has deliberately used his hand/arm to gain an advantage". that covers everything, but you can't VAR "in the ref's opinion", so we end up with all this shite. Scratch VAR, trust refs.

[ursus arctos]

The VAR is a ref

[ad hoc]

Fair point.

The ref on the pitch then.

[ursus arctos]

We disagree on the fundamental issue, but one thing that the early implementation of VAR has definitely demonstrated is that there are cases in which the ref on the pitch will want to change his decision based on images that present something that he simply didn't see "live".

Abolishing VAR would deprive those refs on the pitch of crucial information that is immediately available to viewers of illegal streams in Lagos and Jakarta, not to mention television pundits who live for opportunities to complain about officiating.

[Janik]

Though even that doesn't always help - if the ref had seen the camera angle (with slow motion) that came out eventually on Llorente's winner in the Champions League QF, the one where the double deflection was unarguable, he would probably have disallowed it whether this season's rules technically outlawed it or not. By the rule changes for next season, such a goal shouldn't stand for sure.

A similar one way back in the day (1998 World Cup). Norway beat Brazil in a final group game thanks to a penalty roundly condemned as won by a dive by Tore Andre Flo after he crumpled under seemingly no contact at all. That result eliminated Morocco (Brazil were through regardless) and generated anti-African conspiracy claims. A couple of days later a different camera angle was found which showed the incident in a different light - Flo's shirt had been yanked very hard, literally pulling him to the ground, but that happened on the blind-side of him and the Brazilian defender from the host broadcasters cameras. There is little doubt that, if the refs had been using VAR at the time and had the same footage as was shown in TV replays during and immediately after the game, Norway would have had their (justified) penalty taken away from them and seen their forward yellow carded instead because what had actually happened just wasn't visible from the main feeds.
Here is an interview with the ref involved about how he was castigated for his call, with the important reverse angle footage at 4m22s. It's actually rather amazing (and instructive) of how undetectable a pretty blatant foul is from quite a few other angles! Which also shows the issue with VAR - there can't be cameras everywhere and at times they will simply be in the wrong place to make an accurate judgement of what actually happened. Although they will have more angles than a ref, who obviously only possesses one.

[ursus arctos]

I distinctly remember that incident.

And it helps illustrate one of the key questions for me.

Should we reject VAR simply because it isn't perfect? Even if it demonstrably increases the number of correct calls?

[ad hoc]

For me it spoils the game. It's not about perfection or otherwise. It won't ever be perfect, just as not having it won't ever be perfect either. It will probably be somewhat more accurate in the long run, but the pay off isn;t worth the damage it does to the flow of the game, of the highs and lows of emotion and all the rest of it.

[Janik]

The problem here is VAR (as it so often is).

I somewhat disagree with this. I think the 'problem' is more that it enables referees to catch defenders in acts of cheating that previously the refs wouldn't have been certain enough of to give penalties. cf. imp's comments that he will only give a penalty if 100% sure. When you have a TV replay in slo-mo to look at multiple times, then the certainty about what you are seeing rises massively. It comes solely down to the officials interpretation of the action, not the speed of their eyes and brain to process a load of motion and pick out the crucial details. The problem is, rather, therefore that the rules on handball are open to so much interpretation that 'errors' (or more like differences of opinion) will still occur even when the factual elements are settled.

VAR may help clear up the biggest area of cheating that Football suffers from (OK, only at the top level). No, not forwards diving; it's defenders committing 'minor' fouls to put forwards off their shots/headers. If it does that, the sport will be much better for it.

[ursus arctos]

I understand ad hoc's point of view but just don't agree with it.

I think that I'd likely be more inclined to that opinion if I had been standing on terraces since I was six, though I don't feel that way about video review in baseball, which I've been watching live since I was three. That said, the "flow" argument is considerably weaker in baseball.

VAR is one of the few aspects of calcio moderno that I think has improved the game.

And Janik's point is very well taken.

[seand]

I'm with ad hoc on this, though I know it's regarded a luddite things-were-better-in-the-good-old-days view. The soul of football, the joy of football is at stake. There's no greater moment in any sport than sticking the ball in the back of the net. Do you want the default to be that you stick the ball in the back of the net then stroll back to the bench for a drink while the ref trots off to see if there's any reason to disallow it, cos let's face it no ref is going to decline the opportunity to review any and every goal with even a 1% chance of being disallowed. For me it's the difference between having an orgasm and being told "you had an orgasm".

[imp]

More like having an orgasm and then being told you were firing blanks.

I started out as an advocate because it takes the pressure off referees (in theory), but am leaning more towards the ad hoc/seand old school of abolition. First, the reviewed penalty handball calls in the Bundesliga this season have mostly been ridiculous (like the Man United one against PSG). What I really hate, though, is the drawing of the offside lines to prove that someone was a half fucking inch offside. That's not just depriving the fans of the emotional moment when they celebrated, it's counter to the whole spirit of the game and the point of the offside law - which, in case we've forgotten, is to stop players hanging around the goalmouth waiting for the ball, not to punish good play then ruled out by a supposed infringement only visible to a fucking computer.