Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Refereeing Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I've opted for no yellow on Q4. You can't assume they're deliberately trying to circumvent the law in this case, unlike when a defender plays keeps-uppy to head the ball back. iDF in their own penalty area is already a harsh enough sanction.

    Comment


      Originally posted by imp View Post
      I've opted for no yellow on Q4. You can't assume they're deliberately trying to circumvent the law in this case, unlike when a defender plays keeps-uppy to head the ball back. iDF in their own penalty area is already a harsh enough sanction.
      I'm sure I'd opt for no yellow in real life, to avoid escalating the situation into a full on shitfest (and because the free is a significant punishment) but it should be a yellow really. It's not like they can argue that their initial plan was for the defender to pass to the keeper to play it upfield before the keeper spontaneously decided to dribble into the box- clearly it was planned to bring the ball back into the box to circumvent the rule and gain the advantage of the keeper having it in hand.

      Comment


        What seand said...

        Comment


          I see where you're both coming form, but as there's no yellow stipulated for a passback picked up by the keeper, I think the 'correct' answer in the test will be the same. But, as so often in these tests, I may be proven wrong.

          And indeed, seand, if I was reffing in my usual Sunday Psycho League, I certainly wouldn't bother inflaming the barely latent wrath of the gentlemen footballers present by showing yellow in this situation.

          Comment


            Originally posted by bix80
            It would have taken a minute or so to (discreetly) sort out a coin and do it properly. Instead he embarked on a silly exercise.

            The coin toss is enshrined in the LOTG. It's not competition rules or a mere tradition. If there are no consequences for referees rewriting the law on the fly in a professional match, when will there be?
            Referees effectively re-write the law on the fly in every single match we officiate - there's so much up for interpretation. I'm wondering how you discreetly sort out a coin in the middle of the pitch - conjure one into existence from up your sleeve? Presumably he was aware of messing up the broadcast schedule and not starting on time - a minute's a long time for broadcaster. Some other questions: did any of the teams complain about the coin toss being replaced by rock-paper-scissors? Did it affect the way he officiated the match? Or the outcome of the match? I think the popular support for the referee fairly reflects the way most people feel about this. Choosing rock, paper or scissors is just as arbitrary as choosing heads or tails. For goodness sake.

            Comment


              Rock-paper-scissors should replace the coin toss in all circumstances.

              Comment


                The existence of the coin toss is all about amateur football where weather makes a difference. Teams wanting to play with the wind in the first half in the hope it dies down by the second, or making decisions based on who gets the sun in their eyes when. Professional games in stadiums don't need to bother with one at all

                Comment


                  In pro football, don't home teams winning the toss still tend to choose to kick towards the end where their vociferous fans are in the 2nd half? So Liverpool attack the Kop in the 2nd half, Villa the Holte End and so on. I doubt this truly makes a difference, but there's an old psychology behind it.

                  To change the subject, though still on referees forgetting/losing vital objects, I went to see Karvina vs Slavia in the Czech league yesterday. It was a televised game where VAR was in action. In the 14th minute, Slavia won possession around halfway and launched a quick move forward. The referee slipped/tripped over as he tried to turn to keep up, but was quickly back on his feet. A second or two later, the move ended with Slavia putting the ball into the Karvina net. The assistant raised his flag for a (possible) offside, only for the video ref to advise that a goal should be awarded. (When I saw this incident replayed later, it was clearly such a marginal call that I'm not at all convinced the assistant was wrong, but that's by the by.)

                  As the teams were making their way back to the centre-circle, a Slavia player approached the ref and put an object in his hand. I'm as certain as can be that it was his whistle. It certainly wasn't a card or his earpiece - he'd used the latter to communicate with the video ref. If it was indeed the whistle, I'm wondering if he should have done things differently, ie made sure he picked it up after falling, rather than attempting to keep up with play. And what should he have done had not the move ended with Slavia putting the ball in the net, or it otherwise going out of play? If there'd been a foul, or an injury, would he have had to shout out that play should be stopped?

                  The only thing the situation did make clear is that there's always a chance that something will happen which requires an official to act quickly and on his own best judgement, where the letter of the law may not be able to help.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by seand View Post
                    For me.......
                    Q4. For me it's clearly a backpass... "deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate", indirect free. And a yellow for unsporting behaviour.
                    Q5. Restart with a dropped ball, I'd have thought (after telling the away team not to contest it)
                    Answers:
                    Q4. - no yellow card was the 'correct' answer.
                    Q5. - according to my refereeing overlords, you were correct on this one (and myself and BI were wrong) - dropball on the line of the 6-yard box.

                    Comment


                      I still believe your refereeing overlords have Q5 wrong. Page 110 of the Laws of the Game state that "If an offence is committed outside the field of play against a player, substitute, substituted player or team official of their own team, play is restarted with an indirect free-kick on the boundary line closest to where the offence occurred". I read this as it is not relevant where the ball is. The referee has stopped play to deal with the offence, so play should restart with an IFK on the touchline nearest to where the offence took place. What do you think Imp?

                      Comment


                        But does that maybe refer to an offence committed by a player who‘s active in the game but has left the field of play to commit the offence? I checked the law when you cited it and agreed with you (thus losing me two points!). I‘ll drop therm a note when I‘m back in Germany next week (they‘re used to hearing from me).

                        I‘m also mildly aggrieved at getting another question wrong. Something along the lines of: „A team is 1-0 up and wastes time that you plan to add on. Just before full-time they go 2-1 down and then demand injury time. Do you play it?“ I answered yes, because I‘m sure we were always taught that - you add time on due without prejudice. But the given answer was ‚No‘. Was this a recent law/guideline change? I should add that during an actual game I‘d be inclined to think „Fuck it, you time-wasting bastards, no way am I adding on time.“

                        Comment


                          That statement on Page 110 does not form part of a wider discussion involving whether the ball is in play or not, so to my mind it is irrelevant where the ball/play is when the ref stops the game. I interpret it as a stand-alone point of law. As for your second question, I think their answer is bollocks (and you can quote me on that!). Law 7 is very clear: Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: (and one of the list is wasting time). There is no mention of changing this at the request of a team, the answer is clearly 'yes'. Allowance should only be made for excessive delays.

                          Comment


                            As I'd suspected, it's a drop ball when the incident involves two players off the field of play who are not actually participating in the game. With respect to the stoppage time issue, I was plain wrong - the German FA guidelines state: "Lost time has to be added on (for example, due to an interruption from stormy weather). Time lost through time-wasting is played according to considerations of which side has been seeking to gain an advantage". That's perhaps an unsatisfactory translation of the customarily tortured German administrative language, but it means: if a team's been time-wasting and then finds itself behind at 90 minutes, you don't add any time for their time-wasting. Which is, let's face it, the correct thing to do.

                            Latest blog post, on last night's game - I feared the worst from a relegation battle featuring two teams with a combined 16 red cards between them this season. But once again I have heroically survived to tell the tale.

                            Comment


                              That seems an unlikely amount of right-headedness in the FA guidance there. Is that just in Germany?

                              Comment


                                "With respect to the stoppage time issue, I was plain wrong - the German FA guidelines state: "Lost time has to be added on (for example, due to an interruption from stormy weather). Time lost through time-wasting is played according to considerations of which side has been seeking to gain an advantage". That's perhaps an unsatisfactory translation of the customarily tortured German administrative language, but it means: if a team's been time-wasting and then finds itself behind at 90 minutes, you don't add any time for their time-wasting. Which is, let's face it, the correct thing to do."

                                Whilst I am all for common sense being applied as a referee, when you are asked any question in a quiz, surely answering in accordance with the Laws will always be the correct thing to do? Guidance is just that, advice that officials can use if they think justified, it should never replace the Laws of the Game. Remember we as referees always have the automatic sanction of YCs for delaying the restart of play. If players are blatantly taking the piss, then caution them. For example, I was assessing a ref over here who cautioned a player in the 89th minute when he scored what turned out to be the winner in a close game. The player took off his shirt (and in no way incited the crowd, all 60 of them), revealing a t-shirt underneath with the name of a team-mate who had died 2 weeks earlier in a road accident. This card was his second yellow, so he was sent off. According to the Law, this is correct; yellow should be shown to any player who takes off their shirt. However, as we discussed at the end of the game, there was no need to issue the second yellow in this case, given the circumstances of the incident, the emotion being shown, and the fact the game was not being played in front of thousands and the TV cameras. No-one really cared about his taking his shirt off, only his team-mates who were still mourning the loss of a colleague. The ref should really have shown that rare commodity of common sense, had a quiet word, and kept his card in his pocket. Law 5 takes about 'the spirit of the game', and here in CONCACAF at least it is drilled into refs about 'understanding the game'; ie, don't be an officious twat if you don't need to be, and understand what the game and players want (unless they are cheating bastards).

                                Comment


                                  Final blog post of the year on what was a fairly typical game - five yellows (three for dissent) and a yellow-red, tons of moaning and fouling. It's got to the point where I think after games like these, "That wasn't too bad today."

                                  Comment


                                    Some thoughts on Andrew Marriner's refereeing tonight at United v United. 1. Early foul from Lascelles on Martial (I think) on the edge of the Newcastle penalty area not called - first the body charge, then the clear push, then the nonchalant wave of 'play on' from Marriner like it's all just part of the manly game. To me, a referee not calling a foul so blatant shouldn't be refereeing games at any level. There's not even the breath of an argument that this was mere contact.

                                    2. Then there was Lascelles's straight leg late challenge on Herrera that warranted only a yellow, though it's the sort of potentially leg-breaking challenge that has to be given a red card to try and stop players from breaking other players' legs. I think that's quite important.

                                    3. Finally, Shelvey's second-half attempt to butcher Pogba from behind - what a fucking animal. No card at all for that, despite the foul being called. Should also have been a red. Pogba in turn should have been red-carded for his admittedly quite amusing revenge attack on Shelvey, but Marriner didn't even call a foul, just waved play on.

                                    He is supposed to be the best referee in the country, but I presume that opinion comes from ex-pros up in the gantry talking about it being a man's sport. It's bollocks - these are clear-cut, serious infringements of the laws he's ignoring. And I bet the media verdict is: brilliant job, he let the game flow.

                                    Comment


                                      Watching last night's highlights, another one at the end of Chelsea v Southampton - Jonathon Moss somehow failing to see that Shane Long shoves Marcos Alonso over in the box. A couple of questions here: am I going insane and really seeing fouls where none exist? And more importantly, why do referees desist from awarding penalties for fouls in the penalty area just because the fouls are in the penalty area? I still haven't come across the Law that states: "Fouls in the penalty area really shouldn't be given all that often because, you know, that could result in a goal, or something, which somehow wouldn't be fair." (I refer the jury back to my piece in WSC a few years ago arguing for the abolition of penalties.)

                                      Comment


                                        This has probably already been covered/answered on here but I wouldn't know how to look for it without reading through every post so here goes.

                                        Attacking player is clean through on goal but being chased down by two defenders. One of these defenders accidentally stumbles and loses his footing and in so doing knocks his teammate off balance who in turn brings down the attacker, having had no intention of fouling him. What does the referee do?
                                        Last edited by Sporting; 03-01-2019, 19:39.

                                        Comment


                                          That's a really good question (I'm somehow picturing that it once happened with Steve Bruce and Gary Pallister, or maybe Chris Smalling and Phil Jones) and I hope it doesn't happen to me in my next match because I'm not sure what I'd do. It's a direct free-kick for the foul, and in theory a red card for the defender who unwittingly committed the foul. But it's one of those situations when the referee should maybe apply common sense and only show a yellow, taking the time to explain to the angry forward and his team-mates that, in the spirit of the game, you're not going to apply the letter of the law. Might depend too on the game - if the attacking team's 5-0 up in a friendly, you've no problem. If they're 1-0 down in a relegation battle, then you might find yourself deciding to stick to the law. After all, it's not the forward's fault that his opponents are a pair of clumsy fucks.

                                          Comment


                                            A foul is a foul regardless of intent, right.

                                            Comment


                                              I think so. But lack of intent maybe saves you from getting a card?

                                              Comment


                                                Well that would be nice if we could always determine intent. I don't think the laws actually state whether intent makes a difference. It would be odd if they did.

                                                Comment


                                                  Is this happening in County FAs nationwide? Cambs FA are going to put under-18 referees in purple rather than black as a reminder to fans.
                                                  http://www.cambridgeshirefa.com/news...ee-development

                                                  Comment


                                                    It's been happening in the Cheltenham Youth League. I think it does make a difference.

                                                    As I run the line for my boy's team, I make a point of telling the ref he's had a good game and thanking him as well afterwards. I get stressed running the line, so I'm full of admiration for these lads.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X