It always amuses me how some officials complain about the challenges which they receive from club officials and players but then go looking for trouble during a match. Quite often common sense prevails when you act as "football" expects you to act, no one would complain if you awarded a IDFK in this scenario and explained your decision based on the laws, if you award a goal, all hell will break loose, if you use this logic when faced with these unusual circumstances most of the time you wont go far wrong.
GoalKick
- Thread starter Ref1
- Start date
- Status
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Sorry, but I'm not letting you away with that. David Elleray most decidedly does not say that you can't play advantage. In fact he specifically says that advantage is applicable to second touch offences.
Yes, he says that you shouldn't give the goal but he says that despite the fact that you can play advantage on a second touch, not because advantage is inapplicable, which is what you kept insisting. You were quite adamant and kept repeating that it is not possible to play advantage on a second touch while his answer clearly says it is, so you don't get to claim his answer as a vindication of your previous position.
Amen.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Sorry but this is not a personal forum, where I really care what you think or clearly you what I do. Clear and simple I bizarrely answered the OP scenario correctly, at the start of the thread, its not a case of letting "me" away with anything, and no matter what way you try to twist it, I was always giving an IDFK for this scenario and, am 100% correct to do so. Its not about point scoring about who said what when, its surely about education, learning and experience. Apologises again for actually knowing the answer was IDFK, and in future, wee reminder, I don't need you to let me away with anything, but I will certainly sleep a bit better tonight knowing that you felt the need to tell me that.
So much easier on here if folk just refrained from making things personal and simply offered advice or their take on the question in hand.
Ref1
New Member
Can I just say that I joined this site in order to get valuable guidance and expertise. After reading how this thread has rapidly deteriorated I can say that I am disappointed and to be honest shocked. As someone who is just starting out in Refereeing I know my language and approach to the game will be professional and hopefully enjoyable.
I completely agree, and if personal attacks or insults continue it will be closed down.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
You didn't answer correctly. You said:
...and the subsequent quotes from LotG and IFAB highlighted that this isn't correct. I think your responses here are confusing.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Being an education site, the reasoning behind a decision is important as well as the correct decision itself. Any assessor learns that quickly. It's not only important that we all understand that it's an IFK, but that we correctly understand the reason why. Incorrect reasoning can lead to an incorrect decision in another similar, situation (eg what if the ball came back, keeper double touched but an on-rushing attacker then won the ball). So, it is important.
But yeah, sometimes we can all (myself included) need reminding to keep it civil.
But yeah, sometimes we can all (myself included) need reminding to keep it civil.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I have to say I'm at a bit of a loss here. Perhaps I've lost my ability to parse the meaning of phrases but I totally fail to see how my post would constitute an attack on you as a person. Perhaps you could explain what exact words or phrases in my post you feel were calculated to impugn your integrity (as opposed to criticising the accuracy of and logic behind your statements, which it did indeed do).
Yes, the site is about education, learning and experience but that is not an excuse for ignoring erroneous or misleading statements such as the one you made implying that David Elleray's response somehow backed up your position on playing the advantage when it actually did the exact opposite. In fact if anything, challenging erroneous statements can be seen as part of an educational process.
Incidentally you are now compounding your error in terms of implying David Elleray proves you right since you are still saying it should be an IFK when his response says it is a corner kick. So despite him saying you are wrong on both counts - firstly on whether advantage is applicable on second touch offences (he says it is) and secondly on the decision in this scenario (which he says is a corner not an IFK) you are still somehow trying to claim you were "100% correct" when you are not.
Once again, none of this is a personal attack on you - it is just a criticism of your stated positions in regard to points of law.
one
RefChat Addict
One of the biggest issues I have observed from being involved in public online forums
- Inability of a forumite to see that they have erred OR
- Lack of humility to admit it once they realise they have erred
- This is compounded by intolerance of some other forumites to the above.
one
RefChat Addict
My mistake :;
Thank you Peter Grove. I thought I was losing my mind when most seemed to be of the understanding that DE was awarding an IDFK in the OP scenario. At least now I have confirmation that my understanding of a corner kick being the correct decision, was the right one!
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Unless of course he misunderstood the question. Because there's absolutely no way it could possibly be a corner kick.
Using similar logic to the classic "ball leaves the area, is blown back in and enters the goal, therefore corner", but with the advantage law applied to effectively ignore the second touch.
Personally, I think an IDFK somewhere in the PA would be more advantageous than a corner kick, so I'd go with that. although it does seem harsh to penalise a keeper for such a freak incident.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
But you wouldn't apply advantage. an IFK in front of goal is better than a corner.
I agree that advantage can occur (eg if a striker ran and tapped the ball in just before it crossed the line, that's a goal). A corner just makes no sense.
I agree that advantage can occur (eg if a striker ran and tapped the ball in just before it crossed the line, that's a goal). A corner just makes no sense.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Point taken. But that brings me back to my opening question. If a corner is not an advantage why not award the greater advantage of a goal? If I'm honest there are some very good points raised on both sides of the fence of this thread. Each to their own I say.Be good if some prior posters on this thread are aware that is the case.......
- Status