A&H

Joel Veltman throws sportsmanship out window...

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are two things here that need to be considered:

1. Despite Padfoot's statements above, the law DOES allow for a caution to be given for this if the referee considers it unsporting enough. That's literally what unspecified USB is there for, so any referee that did stop play for this cannot be factually "wrong". And if the referee does decide it's worth a caution, he can stop play and restart with a IFK, which has the nice added benefit of stopping the player from scoring with a trick like this and causing uproar....which brings us on to point 2:

2. There's a strong match control argument for doing anything in your power to avoid letting a goal be scored via this kind of deception. Stopping play for the injury would be one way of doing this (which I think you could get away with given the player with the ball has indicated to the injured player), considering this a cautionable offence and stopping it for that is another. And a caution for the offending player might also lower the likelihood of him getting booted up in the air the next time the ball comes to him. Win-win, and totally within the law.
 
The Referee Store
There are two things here that need to be considered:

1. Despite Padfoot's statements above, the law DOES allow for a caution to be given for this if the referee considers it unsporting enough. That's literally what unspecified USB is there for, so any referee that did stop play for this cannot be factually "wrong". And if the referee does decide it's worth a caution, he can stop play and restart with a IFK, which has the nice added benefit of stopping the player from scoring with a trick like this and causing uproar....which brings us on to point 2:

2. There's a strong match control argument for doing anything in your power to avoid letting a goal be scored via this kind of deception. Stopping play for the injury would be one way of doing this (which I think you could get away with given the player with the ball has indicated to the injured player), considering this a cautionable offence and stopping it for that is another. And a caution for the offending player might also lower the likelihood of him getting booted up in the air the next time the ball comes to him. Win-win, and totally within the law.

1. The player has done nothing wrong.....he points at his injured team mate......not an offence. So, yes a referee can be factually wrong....because his interpretation of "unsporting" can be wrong......The attacker may have paused because he was expecting the referee to blow for the FK, then realised that the referee was actually playing advantage and so continued his attack......how many times has that happened to you? A player stops expecting you to blow, only for you to play the advantage? So, no trick involved, just a lack of awareness from both the attacker and the defender........?

2. There is no deception. So no risk to your match control, unless the defender being an idiot and not playing to the whistle is somehow your fault? Stop trying to invent offences to give you excuses to fabricate a caution to try and protect your club marks.
 
1. The player has done nothing wrong.....he points at his injured team mate......not an offence. So, yes a referee can be factually wrong....because his interpretation of "unsporting" can be wrong......The attacker may have paused because he was expecting the referee to blow for the FK, then realised that the referee was actually playing advantage and so continued his attack......how many times has that happened to you? A player stops expecting you to blow, only for you to play the advantage? So, no trick involved, just a lack of awareness from both the attacker and the defender........?

2. There is no deception. So no risk to your match control, unless the defender being an idiot and not playing to the whistle is somehow your fault? Stop trying to invent offences to give you excuses to fabricate a caution to try and protect your club marks.
Paddy i think almost everyone around the globe besides yourself and a misguided few are trying to find excuse for this shameful act of unsporting behaviour! The player himself acknowledged it in his post match interviews that he tried to trick the defender and while he might laugh at this, his OWN teammates were less than than accepting of his behaviour.

But yes yes surely by all means we are all wrong and misguided and you know best!!

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:
 
Paddy i think almost everyone around the globe besides yourself and a misguided few are trying to find excuse for this shameful act of unsporting behaviour!

Let's be clear, just because we don't agree with your assessment or interpretation of LOTG doesn't mean we are misguided, the referee on the night received NO criticism for allowing play to continue, no new FIFA directive has issued to say no player can point at another player on the pitch as it is USB and on Saturday I will once again tell ALL the players on the pitch to play to the whistle, whether they choose to ignore my instruction because someone points at a plane flying past or a ladybird is their stupidity not my fault!

Did Veltman break any laws pointing at an injured player? No
Did the defender turn and look? Yes
Did Veltman take advantage of this stupity? Yes and still not an offence
Whilst it may be considered USB it is no less USB than a player kicking the ball out for his team and the other team not playing the ball back and we wouldn't caution for that, so why here?

Now we can draw this to a swift conclusion, we aren't agreeing, so on Saturday best of luck if this happens and you book a player for it!
 
1. The player has done nothing wrong.....he points at his injured team mate......not an offence. So, yes a referee can be factually wrong....because his interpretation of "unsporting" can be wrong......The attacker may have paused because he was expecting the referee to blow for the FK, then realised that the referee was actually playing advantage and so continued his attack......how many times has that happened to you? A player stops expecting you to blow, only for you to play the advantage? So, no trick involved, just a lack of awareness from both the attacker and the defender........?

2. There is no deception. So no risk to your match control, unless the defender being an idiot and not playing to the whistle is somehow your fault? Stop trying to invent offences to give you excuses to fabricate a caution to try and protect your club marks.
Kindly do one if you're going to insist that everything you disagree with is because of club marks. That's so intensely disrespectful I'm surprised anyone ever bothers to try and reason with you when you're such a **** to them.
 
I do sincerely apologise, wrong choice of wording. I never meant to offend you, paddy or anyone else who disagreed with my view. and for that I'm truly sorry, and yes I completely agree, let's agree to disagree and move on.
 
I do sincerely apologise, wrong choice of wording. I never meant to offend you, paddy or anyone else who disagreed with my view. and for that I'm truly sorry, and yes I completely agree, let's agree to disagree and move on.
No offence taken.
 
@GraemeS harsh there, @Padfoot is entitled to his opinion the same as we all are!
And I'm more than happy to debate our opinions on how to correctly interpret the law.

But I don't think he's entitled to imply that I'm cowardly and that I'm obsessed with club marks and therefore I referee to a lower standard. I find that highly disrespectful, way out of line and I'm calling him on it.
 
Last edited:
I do sincerely apologise, wrong choice of wording. I never meant to offend you, paddy or anyone else who disagreed with my view. and for that I'm truly sorry, and yes I completely agree, let's agree to disagree and move on.
Apologies if it's been misinterpreted, I've got no problem with a single thing you've posted in this thread.
 
Kindly do one if you're going to insist that everything you disagree with is because of club marks. That's so intensely disrespectful I'm surprised anyone ever bothers to try and reason with you when you're such a **** to them.

Wrong.

I am referring to this specific scenario......not everything I disagree with.

Unfortunately there are many referees who will make decisions based on protecting those marks because the promotion system, to an extent, encourages that sort of thinking. That's not an opinion....that's a stone cold fact.

I've even said that I can understand why someone might make such a decision.....but that we should be honest about the reasons for making it rather than trying to dress it up as something else. In this case, it's not really an offence, but as a part of perception management a referee could call it an offence in order to protect their credibility, match control, and yes, ultimately their club marks.
Again, as I said earlier, you could stop play for the injury......but I would suggest you don't signal for the advantage if you going to do that.....once the advantage has been signalled, stopping it for the injury will look messy.

My point is this.....if you are going to "find" an offence in order to appease what otherwise could be a heated situation, or to satisfy the perceptions of one side or the other, be honest about what you are doing and why, and don't throw a caution into the mix that really isn't a cautionable offence.
The whole "usb" angle is very disingenous.....teams that contest drop balls after play has been stopped for an injury, instead of allowing their opponents to kick it back to their GK, that could be "unsporting"....would we caution for it? As was mentioned earlier, do we caution players who don't return the ball after it's kicked out for an injury....surely that's "unsporting"?
 
Looking from a neutral point of view and having read other threads in relation to club marks (we don't have them over here) they appear to be quite divisive. However, calling someone out because he offers an opinion which differs from yours means we could all argue about who is right or wrong and call others out.

My view from what I have read is that people seeking promotion or to move up the ladder will generally take more notice of them and therefore allow this to influence an orange card decision or a match determining one, trying to be everyone's mate. Whereas others who have been round the circuit for longer and aren't worried about them will apply the LOTG more strictly. THANKFULLY, we don't have them here so it isn't an issue.

Having read over the thread I see where @Padfoot says about protecting club marks however that is quite a bit back and you have commented after it without the level of offence that you now appear to have taken. Maybe take a deep breathe and just accept there will never be an agreement on this topic.
 
I'm going to also attempt to play 'peacemaker' here and see how successful I am :).

@Padfoot , I agree with you that in some situations, some / too many referees will be over influenced by knowing that the decisions they make might impact their club marks. I've personally seen and heard first hand evidence of this and I agree that parts of the current promotion system are set up in a way that encourages this behaviour.

You've highlighted a number of potentially 'unsporting' behaviours and asked whether we would caution for them. As @GraemeS has pointed out, these situations are always judged in the opinion of the referee on the day and therefore (unlike many other aspects of Law) there is no absolute right or wrong.Tolerance levels for what is unsporting will obviously vary. However, for clarity, if I was doing a drop ball where one player had clearly volunteered to kick it back to the keeper and then chose to go back on this, I'd have no issue stopping play and cautioning for USB. Personally I see the OP scenario as 'cheating' in a similar vein (and would penalise it in ANY situation totally irrespective of club marks) but if you're adamant that this is just 'part of the game' then I'm genuinely surprised but happy to agree to disagree :)
 
Padfoot, the only person who is factually wrong here is you. Factually wrong by attempting to argue this is an objective, not subjective decision and others are factually wrong!
This is an interpretation. Spirit of the game. Not objective facts.
And most people would think that an act of deception to take advantage of the unwritten sporting rules of respect of injured players is absolutely disgraceful.
USB is certainly justifiable - even you would caution for things that aren't explicitly written as cautions in the law, so you're already defeated your own primary argument there.
Though perhaps a more creative - and less controversial - solution would simply be to stop play for the injury. Still stops the attacker getting away with his cheating, and doesn't have the 'heavy handed' approach, and draws less attention to the referee.


My point is this.....if you are going to "find" an offence in order to appease what otherwise could be a heated situation, or to satisfy the perceptions of one side or the other, be honest about what you are doing and why, and don't throw a caution into the mix that really isn't a cautionable offence.
The whole "usb" angle is very disingenous.....teams that contest drop balls after play has been stopped for an injury, instead of allowing their opponents to kick it back to their GK, that could be "unsporting"....would we caution for it? As was mentioned earlier, do we caution players who don't return the ball after it's kicked out for an injury....surely that's "unsporting"?
Find an offence? What he's doing here IS grossly against the spirit of the game - and the LOTG are written vaguely enough for the referee to use his understanding of the spirit of the game to apply the laws to situations not explicitly covered.
I think the only 'disingenuous' act here is your attempt to tar a USB interpretation with the same brush as determining whether a ball is out of play.
Your other examples are also very different missing one rather obvious key fact - the act of deception.
And I know that even you see that difference, yet you say others are being disengenuous......
And I honestly don't believe that you think there is no deception whatsoever occurring here.
 
I'm going to also attempt to play 'peacemaker' here and see how successful I am :).

@Padfoot , I agree with you that in some situations, some / too many referees will be over influenced by knowing that the decisions they make might impact their club marks. I've personally seen and heard first hand evidence of this and I agree that parts of the current promotion system are set up in a way that encourages this behaviour.
As an attempt to play along with the peacemaking efforts, I'll reply to you instead!

I don't know how other areas work, but around here and at my level, promotion is judged on 3 assessments. If you get those 3 assessments in and do a decent job in them, club marks literally aren't a factor. Refereeing for club marks is stupid in this context, as I'm pretty sure appointment secretaries appreciate and will give better games to the stronger referees and there's no effect on your promotion apart from introducing a chance of you getting reported for not doing your job properly.

Despite his denial, Padfoot does frequently use "club marks" to put down opposing opinions on this forum. And in my mind, from referee to referee, that's the same as calling them cowardly and/or a weak referee, and is in the same spirit as a player calling us a cheat on the FOP. No one on this forum would stand for that on a Saturday and I don't understand why it's allowed on here just because it's hidden in a transparent euphemism.

You've highlighted a number of potentially 'unsporting' behaviours and asked whether we would caution for them. As @GraemeS has pointed out, these situations are always judged in the opinion of the referee on the day and therefore (unlike many other aspects of Law) there is no absolute right or wrong.Tolerance levels for what is unsporting will obviously vary. However, for clarity, if I was doing a drop ball where one player had clearly volunteered to kick it back to the keeper and then chose to go back on this, I'd have no issue stopping play and cautioning for USB. Personally I see the OP scenario as 'cheating' in a similar vein (and would penalise it in ANY situation totally irrespective of club marks) but if you're adamant that this is just 'part of the game' then I'm genuinely surprised but happy to agree to disagree :)
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The law allows us to caution for this in my opinion, and I think there's a strong match control argument for doing so. End of.
 
As an attempt to play along with the peacemaking efforts, I'll reply to you instead!

I don't know how other areas work, but around here and at my level, promotion is judged on 3 assessments. If you get those 3 assessments in and do a decent job in them, club marks literally aren't a factor. Refereeing for club marks is stupid in this context, as I'm pretty sure appointment secretaries appreciate and will give better games to the stronger referees and there's no effect on your promotion apart from introducing a chance of you getting reported for not doing your job properly.

Despite his denial, Padfoot does frequently use "club marks" to put down opposing opinions on this forum. And in my mind, from referee to referee, that's the same as calling them cowardly and/or a weak referee, and is in the same spirit as a player calling us a cheat on the FOP. No one on this forum would stand for that on a Saturday and I don't understand why it's allowed on here just because it's hidden in a transparent euphemism.


This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. The law allows us to caution for this in my opinion, and I think there's a strong match control argument for doing so. End of.

Are you saying that there aren't cowardly/weak referee's who shirk their responsibilities to the LOTG?
 
Padfoot, the only person who is factually wrong here is you. Factually wrong by attempting to argue this is an objective, not subjective decision and others are factually wrong!
This is an interpretation. Spirit of the game. Not objective facts.
And most people would think that an act of deception to take advantage of the unwritten sporting rules of respect of injured players is absolutely disgraceful.
USB is certainly justifiable - even you would caution for things that aren't explicitly written as cautions in the law, so you're already defeated your own primary argument there.
Though perhaps a more creative - and less controversial - solution would simply be to stop play for the injury. Still stops the attacker getting away with his cheating, and doesn't have the 'heavy handed' approach, and draws less attention to the referee.



Find an offence? What he's doing here IS grossly against the spirit of the game - and the LOTG are written vaguely enough for the referee to use his understanding of the spirit of the game to apply the laws to situations not explicitly covered.
I think the only 'disingenuous' act here is your attempt to tar a USB interpretation with the same brush as determining whether a ball is out of play.
Your other examples are also very different missing one rather obvious key fact - the act of deception.
And I know that even you see that difference, yet you say others are being disengenuous......
And I honestly don't believe that you think there is no deception whatsoever occurring here.

So pointing is now an "act of deception"?
 
Are you saying that there aren't cowardly/weak referee's who shirk their responsibilities to the LOTG?
I'm saying that using that as a generic way of dismissing an opinion you don't like is deeply offensive to those of us that do take pride in their refereeing.

Assuming that we are cowardly or weak because we have a different opinion to you is at best a lazy assumption and at worst, a directed and harsh insult. If you advocate red cards for the use of the word "Cheat" against a referee, you have to be aware of how offensive it is to accuse a referee of bias or deliberate misapplication of the LOTG.

Feigning innocence is not an excuse, especially with your posting history when it comes to discussions around OFFINABUS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top