A&H

Lemina Red Card

Pmalinski83 said:
I would strongly disagree with cautioning the first. What that would achieve is banning any appeals against decisions.
Click to expand...
And what in law says that players have a right to appeal against decisions? In fact law says completely the opposite ...

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected

Obviously there will always be some appealing, even though it is pointless as how often do referees change their decisions, but saying "are you sure ref" is a lot different to racing towards him and / or crowding him.
 
The Referee Store
RustyRef said:
And what in law says that players have a right to appeal against decisions? In fact law says completely the opposite ...

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected

Obviously there will always be some appealing, even though it is pointless as how often do referees change their decisions, but saying "are you sure ref" is a lot different to racing towards him and / or crowding him.
Click to expand...
It's nice of IFAB to write a law without any sanctions for contravening said law.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
There's no justification in law for treating a player differently just because they're the xth player on the scene showing dissent. Might be better than ignoring the issue but otherwise just seems like the latest way for PGMOL to avoid dealing with dissent properly.
Click to expand...
I don't know that's necessarily what's happening here. As others have said, it may be more a case of the other two already being close and not protesting too vehemently whereas Lemina has charged in from some distance away and was being much more "dissentful" (if there's such a word).

Ben448844 said:
Yes, learn to make sure only 2 players run at the ref.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think the others ran at him, they were already nearby.

Perhaps a different way to look at this is that the idea may be that if one or two players who are already close by want to have a quiet word, you could potentially tolerate that but as soon as others start running in from a distance, remonstrating angrily, you might want to take some kind of action to stop others joining in and turning it into a mob scene.

One way to achieve this perhaps, is to quickly card the first one who runs from a distance (whether they're the first, second or third) so others don't follow them.
 
I wonder if there’s argument to actually back up the idea of captains can approach the referee? They all seem to think that’s factual anyway so if you put that in law, you have free reign to caution others for running to you, but also use dissent cautions where the captain goes from asking a question to just moaning.
 
QuaverRef said:
I wonder if there’s argument to actually back up the idea of captains can approach the referee? They all seem to think that’s factual anyway so if you put that in law, you have free reign to caution others for running to you, but also use dissent cautions where the captain goes from asking a question to just moaning.
Click to expand...
In my experience the captains are often the worst, most vocal and most aggressive. Like many, I always say that I'll talk to them - but only talk and not discuss - and that if I think they can help in a situation I may call them in. In reality, I wouldn't want to give the impression that they have a right to come and argue everything with me. The number of times anyone is coming over to genuinely find out why something has been given is minimal anyway - most of the time it's just an opportunity to argue/moan!
 
QuaverRef said:
I wonder if there’s argument to actually back up the idea of captains can approach the referee? They all seem to think that’s factual anyway so if you put that in law, you have free reign to caution others for running to you, but also use dissent cautions where the captain goes from asking a question to just moaning.
Click to expand...
From LOTG: "The team captain has no special status or privileges, but has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of their team". It also basically echoes this in the Notes section.

So it would seem that "no special privileges" is pretty clear and the law definitely would support a strict no-talking to the ref approach, including the captain. It's not a law issue, it's the culture and expectations that have developed around that, and it can't be on individual refs to change that.
 
GraemeS said:
From LOTG: "The team captain has no special status or privileges, but has a degree of responsibility for the behaviour of their team". It also basically echoes this in the Notes section.

So it would seem that "no special privileges" is pretty clear and the law definitely would support a strict no-talking to the ref approach, including the captain. It's not a law issue, it's the culture and expectations that have developed around that, and it can't be on individual refs to change that.
Click to expand...
That’s why I’m saying you put that into law. As it is doesn’t work mainly because it’s not enforced from the top level and they’ve now come up with some ludicrous 3 person guideline which is implement seemingly in the premier league only. If they actually put in the LOTG ‘only the captain is to approach the referee’ then you’ve got 20 other players banged to rights as soon as they come running at you, and if the captain wants to be an arse, then throw a dissent booking their way as well
 
If dissent isn't being punished now, why do you think it magically would be if that was put into Law that way? The problem is not what is written in Law but with what refs are willing to punish--which is driven by what the powers that be want them to punish.
 
socal lurker said:
If dissent isn't being punished now, why do you think it magically would be if that was put into Law that way? The problem is not what is written in Law but with what refs are willing to punish--which is driven by what the powers that be want them to punish.
Click to expand...
Substitute "powers that be" with "the clubs" and I'm with you.
 
zarathustra said:
I don’t think anyone claimed otherwise
Click to expand...

Er...

zarathustra said:
But this isn’t a rule of the competition, it’s just a change of guidance for referees that has come from The FA/PGMOL.

I seriously doubt they did this without informing clubs, but I wonder whether clubs passed this onto their players, or if they did, whether the players were listening.

Only time will tell whether they keep it up, hopefully they will.
Click to expand...
 
zarathustra said:
I never claimed it was anything, try reading it again
Click to expand...
I've even had VAR on it but "it’s just a change of guidance for referees that has come from The FA/PGMOL" sounds like a claim that there was such guidance.

Am I missing something entirely?
 
bloovee said:
I've even had VAR on it but "it’s just a change of guidance for referees that has come from The FA/PGMOL" sounds like a claim that there was such guidance.

Am I missing something entirely?
Click to expand...
You are intentionally trying to read something into it that isn’t there.

It was another user who said that it was guidance from PGMOL, not me, I was just responding to a post about this alleged guidance constituting a change to “competition rules”
 
zarathustra said:
You are intentionally trying to read something into it that isn’t there.

It was another user who said that it was guidance from PGMOL, not me, I was just responding to a post about this alleged guidance constituting a change to “competition rules”
Click to expand...
I'd not have responded but for the "intentionally trying to". So you never thought there was any guidance? Then I did misread it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top