Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So it's still a guess.....
Junior/Youth Possible DOGSO-H
- Thread starter Matthew
- Start date
- Status
So it's still a guess.....
RegalRef
Politically Incorrect
Last edited:
Charlie Jones
Work Until You Don't Have To Introduce Yourself
I 'guess' you're wrong padders 
Don't give what you've not seen. Simples.
I understand that uncertainty is hardly ideal when you're making such an important decision, but surely we have to use some educated guesswork to overcome complete inertia. We use this part of our brains when deciding throw-ins, corner kicks and goal kicks, so why should it be anathema on fouls? I'm not saying take a random shot in the dark, but sometimes waving play on is the easiest option and not the right one. If you have the evidence before you and need a few seconds to assemble it in your head, take the time.
Not giving a penalty is "giving a decision", just as much as giving a penalty is.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Because you don't guess on match changing decisions, especially those that willl result in a mandatory dismissal.
Just give what you see, it's really not that difficult. If you didn't see it, don't give it.....I realise that this may make you unpopular and cause you to have to be honest and admit that you didn't see it.....but better that than guessing at a critical decision....where if you realise you got wrong (player reaction etc ) you're then forced to compound your error by lying about it when it comes to the misconduct report....
All in all not very palatable and not a good day at the office.
That's fair enough, and of course I'm not disagreeing with you on the central idea that you cannot give what you haven't seen. But there is a nuance to this 'not seeing' business.
1) Are we talking about off the ball incidents (in which case, the contribution of NARs is a factor) or play that is directly in the referee's view?
2) Are we saying we haven't seen enough of an incident or that we're not sure what we've seen? The first is a practical concern (how well are we positioned?), the second an intellectual concern (how well have we internalised the laws etc.?). In my experience, the least popular and least competent referees are those who succumb to the 'no decision'. And by the way, this isn't the same as not being decisive (for me this means lacking confidence and conviction in your decisions), but a matter of decision avoidance (trying to iron out problems that need to be addressed). In my brief interaction with those involved in grassroots football/refereeing, this tendency among newly qualified referees is often deemed the most worrying where the developmental curve is concerned. If they can overcome this, however, the world is their oyster.
Either way, and as GraemeS suggests, even if we decide not to give anything, we still have to rationalise, to ourselves and if necessary by way of explanation to others, what has occurred.
Sorry for complicating what some will see as a straightforward idea, but I think some clarification had been necessary.
Last edited:
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
The rationale is easy....you haven't seen an offence therefore you don't give it.
It applies whether you are talking on or off the ball incidents unless you have NARs in which case another qualified official has seen a transgression and reports the facts to you. What action you take is entirely up to you.
To suggest that not giving a decision is lazy/easy is very disingenuous because it's often the harder decision to make because you will have to admit not seeing something.
Give what you see......it's that simple.
It applies whether you are talking on or off the ball incidents unless you have NARs in which case another qualified official has seen a transgression and reports the facts to you. What action you take is entirely up to you.
To suggest that not giving a decision is lazy/easy is very disingenuous because it's often the harder decision to make because you will have to admit not seeing something.
Give what you see......it's that simple.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Have to agree with Padfoot on this one.
Any of you lucky enough to have been to one of Howard Webb's RA guest speaker turns will know that is one of his mantras - you can't give it, if you haven't seen it.
He backs this up with a story from a Europa League match, where he was convinced he had missed a handball that led to a goal, only for his AR to tell him at half time , that there was no handball at all!
Any of you lucky enough to have been to one of Howard Webb's RA guest speaker turns will know that is one of his mantras - you can't give it, if you haven't seen it.
He backs this up with a story from a Europa League match, where he was convinced he had missed a handball that led to a goal, only for his AR to tell him at half time , that there was no handball at all!
You don't give decisions, you make decisions. That's why it's called Decision Making in the refereeing competencies
"Making" a decision is an internal process, what goes on in your head. There then has to be some sort of process regarding how you communicate that "made decision" to anyone non-telepathic who happens to be nearby, hence the commonly used parlance of "giving" a foul one way or the other via blowing the whistle and pointing, or gesturing/shouting to indicate no foul.
Pedantry aside, any thoughts on the actual content of my post?
Last edited:
- Status