A&H

Cahill on Rose - Spurs vs Chelsea

Padfoot said:
Dress it up however you like....you still failed in your basic duty of applying the LOTG.

Wonder if both teams would have still felt the same if that player had then gone on to score the winning goal......or broke someone's leg with another poor challenge?

Don't understand why people bother picking up the whistle if they are not prepared to do the job properly......
Click to expand...

I do the job properly.

He wouldn't of broke anyone's leg. He actually messed up and gifted the other team the winner.

We're never going to agree.
 
The Referee Store
Jacko said:
I do the job properly.

He wouldn't of broke anyone's leg. He actually messed up and gifted the other team the winner.

We're never going to agree.
Click to expand...

No we are not....because you can't face the simple fact that failing to issue a mandatory caution is not doing the job properly.
 
Padfoot said:
It just means that both and you and the assessor were incorrect in law...
Click to expand...

Reckless is in the opinion of the referee. The fact that other referees view recklessness differently to you does not mean that they're failing to fully apply law.

We have a lot of discretion with many cautions, and how we choose to use that discretion can be the difference between a great game and a horrible game.

How often do we talk about an "orange" card? How often do we talk about a tackle that would have been a YC if a player wasn't already booked? How often do we talk about tackles where a player couldn't complain if he had been booked? The line between careless and reckless is both grey and wide and what suits one game would be awful for another. The line between reckless and dangerous is narrower, but is still far from clear.

Sending someone off is a massive, game-altering sanction. Sure, we HAVE to apply law, but we need to use dismissals carefully, not willynilly, and if we can avoid or prevent them then we have a duty to "the game" (imo) to do so.
 
RefSheff said:
Reckless is in the opinion of the referee. The fact that other referees view recklessness differently to you does not mean that they're failing to fully apply law.

We have a lot of discretion with many cautions, and how we choose to use that discretion can be the difference between a great game and a horrible game.

How often do we talk about an "orange" card? How often do we talk about a tackle that would have been a YC if a player wasn't already booked? How often do we talk about tackles where a player couldn't complain if he had been booked? The line between careless and reckless is both grey and wide and what suits one game would be awful for another. The line between reckless and dangerous is narrower, but is still far from clear.

Sending someone off is a massive, game-altering sanction. Sure, we HAVE to apply law, but we need to use dismissals carefully, not willynilly, and if we can avoid or prevent them then we have a duty to "the game" (imo) to do so.
Click to expand...

But that isn't the case here......jacko quite freely admits the challenge was reckless and therefore a mandatory caution under the LOTG.

We are not talking about a challenge where one ref views it as reckless and another as careless....we are talking about an undisputed reckless challenge where the referee fails to apply the LOTG correctly i.e. Issue the required caution.

There is no discretion.....none. It is beyond doubt what the sanction for reckless play is.....clearly defined within the LOTG.....
 
Okay. I think that everyone has had a chance to air their opinions on that - can we return to the original topic please.
 
Jacko said:
How? I'm not a mind reader but maybe his opinion was that the tackle was careless.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Yes...because that's what we all thought wasn't it.....oh dear what a careless tackle....

If that is the case then he is even more derelict in his duty in not being able to spot a reckless challenge correctly......

I do despair for the terminally stupid that infest our beloved game.....
 
re the earlier disagreements, perhaps the lotg should use a word that's easier to understand than 'mandatory' which has far too many syllables......just a thought ;)
 
haywain said:
re the earlier disagreements, perhaps the lotg should use a word that's easier to understand than 'mandatory' which has far too many syllables......just a thought ;)
Click to expand...

It does.....it says 'must be cautioned'.......but even that appears to difficult for some to grasp!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top