Saying that disallowing a goal is 'punishment enough' is total rubbish. The taking of the free kick is what is being punished and has to be done accordingly, whatever happens with the ball as a result of taking it is irrelevant to the punishment. If he had missed would you then have given the booking?
Newcastle - City
- Thread starter JH
- Start date
Saying that disallowing a goal is 'punishment enough' is total rubbish. The taking of the free kick is what is being punished and has to be done accordingly, whatever happens with the ball as a result of taking it is irrelevant to the punishment. If he had missed would you then have given the booking?
PT was excellent
If I make my way over near the touchline and the FK has not already been taken quickly, then the opportunity to do so has surely past. If I then show the player the whistle and clearly indicate to wait, I'm not going to be happy if the player completely ignores my instruction. I don't want the ball going to the back post with me completely out of position. Disallowing the goal is not in question, but there must be an emphasis on communicating decisions with the TV and stadium audience that we don't worry about in parks football. The YC was therefore apt
I doubt very much that PT will be marked down in anyway for his handling of this incident
If I make my way over near the touchline and the FK has not already been taken quickly, then the opportunity to do so has surely past. If I then show the player the whistle and clearly indicate to wait, I'm not going to be happy if the player completely ignores my instruction. I don't want the ball going to the back post with me completely out of position. Disallowing the goal is not in question, but there must be an emphasis on communicating decisions with the TV and stadium audience that we don't worry about in parks football. The YC was therefore apt
I doubt very much that PT will be marked down in anyway for his handling of this incident
Allowing a quick FK if the offended-against team wants it is what should happen. Even if you have a reason not to allow a quick FK, you disadvantage the team that's been offended against. If you then disallow a goal because they didn't wait for your signal, you disadvantage them again. If you book the player for disobeying your instruction you disadvantage them again.
The crazy thing is that if City had been allowed a quick FK, it would probably not have been whipped in like that, just played sideways to a nearby player.
The crazy thing is that if City had been allowed a quick FK, it would probably not have been whipped in like that, just played sideways to a nearby player.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I love a good quick free kick, but the players have to take it quickly.
In this instance how long was the delay between the foul being given and the ref getting there?
If City wanted to take it quick, why did they wait until the referee had gotten there and told them it was on the whistle?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
There's some card happy refs on here! Dissent by action? No, it's more likely the player is thinking so hard about his role that he's just not paying much attention to you.
The team is already perceiving that they've lost out by having their attack taken away. So, in a way they're being punished already.
What does a caution actually get you here?
As with others, I think there needs to be some context to the decision. I don't like making the 'mandatory YC' argument. Sure, I agree that you can - that doesn't mean you should.
This, like a PK, is one of those unfair sections in the law - if the player takes the kick and it goes out for a GK, we should be able to make the kick stand.
The team is already perceiving that they've lost out by having their attack taken away. So, in a way they're being punished already.
What does a caution actually get you here?
As with others, I think there needs to be some context to the decision. I don't like making the 'mandatory YC' argument. Sure, I agree that you can - that doesn't mean you should.
This, like a PK, is one of those unfair sections in the law - if the player takes the kick and it goes out for a GK, we should be able to make the kick stand.
I think you're missing the point of what defines a 'quick free kick'
The YC was a communication tool we probably wouldn't use in the absence of a tv cameras
I absolutely agree that a quick FK should have been allowed initially, but if the ref has decided against it and then instructed the player that it's on the whistle then it's on the whistle. The ref hasn't disadvantaged City by disallowing the goal because the advantage was never there in the first place.
We could go on all day about whether it's a booking or not but my point is if the ref says it's on the whistle then it's on the whistle. Nothing else
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Disagree, only the ref gets to say who wants what to happen. The minute you allow teams to dictate whats happening, you are no longer in charge.
Think about it, afterall, EVERY free kick happens on refs say so...vast majority of them, without signal, but, only when ref is ready..
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
He (the ref) can be seen saying 'I told you to wait' to De Bruyne.
Julio Geordio signs for £21M
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11623650/almiron-not-thinking-about-record-fee
He's not as funny as I expected!
https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11623650/almiron-not-thinking-about-record-fee
He's not as funny as I expected!
That's not in the laws. It's not the referee's job to delay the restart of play. The assumption is surely on not having to get involved; before the revision the law said "if a player decides to take a quick free kick...". As Mr Poll once put it "As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like".
(Full quote at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/features/newsid_3409000/3409567.stm )
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Nothing happens unless the referee is ready. Or at least, any game where the referee is controlling it
How are you going to do subs, go back to issue a sanction, a warning, an injury and so on, if soon as you award a fk the team can simply get on with it if they wish? Does not make sense.
As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like".....subject to the blatantly obvious condition that the referee is good for them to go....
one
RefChat Addict
You two are not necessarily talking different things. The referee has to be ready for a restart. It is implied. However a referee has no right not to be ready if there is no legitimate reason for it. Without a legitimate reason it's either misuse of power or just poor refereeing.
It’s not even a quick free kick though. After the challenge is made, Sterling on the ground and the ball is in a Newcastle players hand. At that point, the referee will go to the point of the free kick. The referee then has a bundle of players in the box so HAS to be in the correct position to see that. De Bruyne is told on the whistle so he should wait because the ref has to get his part right as well, it’s not complicated.
Imagine if Aguero didn’t score and there was a foul in the box, but the referee was still jogging into position (because he had to do his job) and missed it? He would be blamed, not De Bruyne
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Its possible different issues are being discussed yes
Bottom line from me remains though that the referee is, or should be, in control, not the players. From first whistle, to last, whether with signal, no signal, nothing should happen without ref being ready, you are not in control otherwise.
You’ve also missed a key quote in that to suit your argument.
‘The flip side is if they want it slow, they can't then take it while I count out the ten yards for the wall.
They must wait for my whistle’
If De Bruyne was told to wait for the whistle, the referee may have asked him if he wants to take it quickly which he potentially didn’t want, a question which is apparently asked by referees in the link you’ve provided.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
A better way of me explaining my point is, you give a foul, already in your own head you should know if you are willing and ready to let them get on with it
The fact you dont signal, whistle, indicate, whatever, is you being ready and satisfied that they can go.
Thats being in control, and good refereeing
Awarding a free kick and before you know it, there is a goal, offside,foul or whatever and you have no idea whats going on, who hit it, etc, because mentally you were not prepared and the players took control, is poor referreeing
The fact you dont signal, whistle, indicate, whatever, is you being ready and satisfied that they can go.
Thats being in control, and good refereeing
Awarding a free kick and before you know it, there is a goal, offside,foul or whatever and you have no idea whats going on, who hit it, etc, because mentally you were not prepared and the players took control, is poor referreeing
Sorry. I'd moved on from that particular incident. (My only beef with that was no YC for the foul and no real need for a YC for Dr Bruyne, when obvious mandatory YCs may often not be given).
It's the principle at issue. I start with the assumption that if I award a FK it can be taken immediately and I expect opponents not to "stand over" the ball. Only if for some reason is a quick FK not possible would I make it "ceremonial" and it's certainly not my job to give the defence time to get organised.
Last edited:
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Well taking that (part of) the quote literally is clearly nonsense. Referee could be in wrong position, there could be a player needing treatment, you might want to sort out disciplinary issues - to say that as long as the attacking team can fulfil those two criteria, we're good to go is ridiculous.