Wigan v Cardiff

[es1]

I don't dispute that there is such a thing as a subjective dissent call - I do dispute that All dissent calls are subjective.

And fine, forget dissent. 6 seconds in a GK's hands is a requirement that is set out in law, and there is nothing subjective about how long 6 seconds are. So why don't we routinely see referees suspended for ignoring this law?

it feels like you're either playing devils advocate or simply trying to find any reason to back/justify the refs actions?

i'd love to see refs apply the 6 second law. it would make the viewing experience much better, but 100% of refs at all levels are guilty of ignoring this!

 

[GraemeS]

Given certainly the EPL ( someone else will need clarify on championship) has legal grass length, which of course is separate to the factual lotg, its just farcical to play ( this game) with illegal goal dimensions

OK - so what's the process in place for when an official realises 15 minutes before kick off the grass is too short? My guess would be "play the game, fine the club after". So why isn't that the case here too?

 

[es1]

OK - so what's the process in place for when an official realises 15 minutes before kick off the grass is too short? My guess would be "play the game, fine the club after". So why isn't that the case here too?

long grass is still a level/equal playing field for both teams at both ends

 

[GraemeS]

it feels like you're either playing devils advocate or simply trying to find any reason to back/justify the refs actions?

i'd love to see refs apply the 6 second law. it would make the viewing experience much better, but 100% of refs at all levels are guilty of ignoring this!

My objection is to the idea that getting the game played under these conditions is a heinous, despicable decision to make that deserves suspension and a permanent black mark on his record. There are so many decisions very similar to this made as a referee where the correct action is "carry on, report after" - I don't really follow why this is apparently so obviously not one of those. And what training he has been given and ignored that tells him this isn't one of the many laws we can just ignore.

long grass is still a level/equal playing field for both teams at both ends

Fine - one half is correct length, the other half is too short.

 

[es1]

Fine - one half is correct length, the other half is too short.

this would be a similar issue to the goalposts. not to take this too far but if this was the case then i'd expect a heavy fine for the club as I would assume it was a tactical decision...

 

[GraemeS]

But that's not answering the question.

Fine the club, of course, that's a given. But as the ref, do you play the game?

 

[es1]

But that's not answering the question.

Fine the club, of course, that's a given. But as the ref, do you play the game?

while i said this is a similar issue, I don't think grass length is as important as goal dimensions so i'd advocate playing the game

i'd also assume there would be grass cutting equipment available at the ground to cut the grass as might be necessary

 

[Anubis]

while i said this is a similar issue, I don't think grass length is as important as goal dimensions so i'd advocate playing the game

i'd also assume there would be grass cutting equipment available at the ground to cut the grass as might be necessary

I cant ( dont want to see) the posts you are replying to but sure as night follows day, had I typed " simply play the game", this gent would reply ' disgrace to play the game"

half of me thinks he is a bot carefully placed to simply post polar opposites to maintain debate.

 

[GraemeS]

while i said this is a similar issue, I don't think grass length is as important as goal dimensions so i'd advocate playing the game

i'd also assume there would be grass cutting equipment available at the ground to cut the grass as might be necessary

Specifically why I said grass that's too short rather than too long!

But this is what I mean about guidance when deciding which laws are iron-clad and which can be flexed. If there's a document he's got access to or training he's been given that he's then ignored then by all means, roast him.

But I doubt that's the case. He's been put in a pressured situation, told to make a decision and been given no previous guidance from above. He's then probably thought back to games he's played previously at lower levels with missing corner flags, uneven surfaces, wobbly lines and thought that both teams get a go at each end and he's better off playing than calling the game off and sending thousands of fans home, or keeping them hanging around the grounds bars for 2 additional hours before KO.

And now we have a thread full of referees going "Ha, idiot, obviously that's the wrong call, ban him!". I just don't see the reason why this should obviously be unacceptable where so many other problems are either accepted, or still result in fines but aren't game-stopping.

 

[GraemeS]

I cant ( dont want to see) the posts you are replying to but sure as night follows day, had I typed " simply play the game", this gent would reply ' disgrace to play the game"

half of me thinks he is a bot carefully placed to simply post polar opposites to maintain debate.

Anubis's paranoia aside, you'll find I'm pretty consistent on this issue. Go back to the thread discussing the ref who was suspended for rock paper scissors and I'm fairly sure I took the same stance.

Referees are trained to get the game played where possible, there's a whole paragraph at the start of the book about ignoring LOTG requirements in the name of the spirit of the game. Yet authorities are often ban-happy when referees fail to psychically understand which adjustments are fine and which aren't. And I don't think that's fair or reasonable.

 

[es1]

Specifically why I said grass that's too short rather than too long!

But this is what I mean about guidance when deciding which laws are iron-clad and which can be flexed. If there's a document he's got access to or training he's been given that he's then ignored then by all means, roast him.

But I doubt that's the case. He's been put in a pressured situation, told to make a decision and been given no previous guidance from above. He's then probably thought back to games he's played previously at lower levels with missing corner flags, uneven surfaces, wobbly lines and thought that both teams get a go at each end and he's better off playing than calling the game off and sending thousands of fans home, or keeping them hanging around the grounds bars for 2 additional hours before KO.

And now we have a thread full of referees going "Ha, idiot, obviously that's the wrong call, ban him!". I just don't see the reason why this should obviously be unacceptable where so many other problems are either accepted, or still result in fines but aren't game-stopping.

ha, read the question...always was an issue of mine...

i think you're probably right, I doubt there's any sort of official guidance here, I guess it's just not an anticipated issue, the goals are manufactured to be a specific size under industry regulations, why would they ever be too big or small?

pitch dimensions and goal dimensions should be 100% protected I think and it is essential that the pitch and goals are 100% accurate otherwise playing the game could be inherently unfair, as seen in this game with a shot going in off one bar that wouldn't have been a goal at the other end. in that instance the game almost becomes a farce

in many ways you're dammned if you do and dammned if you don't here and you'll get pelters either way

I don't think you can/should play the game and whoever is to blame is unsure (whether FA or ref or a combination of both)

 

[PinnerPaul]

If the referee didn't clear this with HQ he is going to be in hot water I suspect. The issue, as has been suggested, is that GLT recalibrations would have taken at least two hours. Not withstanding the question of how this issue wasn't spotted in the pre-match checks, there's no way the police would allow a two hour delay, so you are talking three solutions. Postpone, play with everyone knowing the issue, or fix the issue and play without GLT. I'd be leaning towards the latter, postponement is really bad given everyone is in the ground or on the way, and if you play as is you can pretty much guarantee a shot will either go in off the bar or hit the bar and stay out. Although sod's law also dictates if you turn off GLT there will be a tight goal line decision.

Bear in mind we are talking 2 inches here, are we seriously saying we expect the referee to measure the height of the goal to that tolerance?

That means either a ladder and tape measure or a laser - is that really taking place before every professional match?

I'm not convinced by the GLT argument either - surely that is monitoring the horizontal plane, not the vertical one?

 

[PinnerPaul]

You are talking there about grass roots, not a professional league, widely regarded as the best 2nd tier in the world. A huge amount of money would have been bet on this game, it isn't the Dog & Duck against the Frog & Parrot. One goalpost being a different size to the other is a huge problem at this level.

As a QPR fan who goes regularly, I remain unconvinced about this 'best league' tag that is bandied about the Championship - it just isn't - mainly due to the fact its a 46 game season.

 

[JamesL]

And now we have a thread full of referees going "Ha, idiot, obviously that's the wrong call, ban him!". I just don't see the reason why this should obviously be unacceptable where so many other problems are either accepted, or still result in fines but aren't game-stopping.

I don't think anyone is calling for him to be suspended. Based on what we know referees get a break for, this seems like one of those things is all that has been pointed out. The phrase exactly is he is likely to be in hot water. That's not asking for a ban.
I reckon, had no one checked or pointed it out, no one would have realised. But having been made aware and then subsequently confirming that the goalposts were indeed not the correct size I can't see a world where this game could have or should have started, and I will emphasize, at this level.
It raises issues around betting, league integrity if it comes down to it. And ultimately, at this level, professional and competitively and the prize money, and the amount staked on gambling etc. It just stands to reason that the fundamental basics of the pitch in which it is played are all in order.

Referees are trained to get the game played where possible, there's a whole paragraph at the start of the book about ignoring LOTG requirements in the name of the spirit of the game.

The spirit of the game paragraph at the start of the book is about where the law doesn't cover a scenario then the referee applies spirit of the game. The law here could not be clearer. The goal must be a certain width and height. It's not like the dimensions of the pitch that are variable. It is must be and a defined size.

I think the bit you are referring to is in the back of the book on page 171.

Yes it does talk about framework of laws and spirit of game but I think the standouts for me are:
"Referees are expected to use
common sense and to apply the ‘spirit of the game’ when applying the Laws of
the Game"
I think the common sense here is not to play, if we had a poll and based on the responses in thread most people would not play the game.

"This is especially true for the lower levels of football where it may not always
be possible for the Law to be strictly applied"
At this level, as a spectator, or referee, I am expecting law 2 to be as close to perfectly adhered to as possible.

"there is a minor inaccuracy with the markings on the field of play such as
the corner area, centre circle etc."
Not an exhaustive list provided but this one is important in my decision making. I know the goal is not a pitch marking but my focus here is on the word minor. A goal, probably the most important part of a football pitch, not being the same size as the other for me is not minor.
If both goals were 2 inches too high, I would budge on that, and say play, but where they are different, for me that seriously calls into question the integrity of the result. A goal at one end should be a goal at the other and 2 inches is enough to affect if a goal is scored or not which makes it not minor for me.

 

[Anubis]

I don't think anyone is calling for him to be suspended. Based on what we know referees get a break for, this seems like one of those things is all that has been pointed out. The phrase exactly is he is likely to be in hot water. That's not asking for a ban.
I reckon, had no one checked or pointed it out, no one would have realised. But having been made aware and then subsequently confirming that the goalposts were indeed not the correct size I can't see a world where this game could have or should have started, and I will emphasize, at this level.
It raises issues around betting, league integrity if it comes down to it. And ultimately, at this level, professional and competitively and the prize money, and the amount staked on gambling etc. It just stands to reason that the fundamental basics of the pitch in which it is played are all in order.



The spirit of the game paragraph at the start of the book is about where the law doesn't cover a scenario then the referee applies spirit of the game. The law here could not be clearer. The goal must be a certain width and height. It's not like the dimensions of the pitch that are variable. It is must be and a defined size.

I think the bit you are referring to is in the back of the book on page 171.

Yes it does talk about framework of laws and spirit of game but I think the standouts for me are:
"Referees are expected to use
common sense and to apply the ‘spirit of the game’ when applying the Laws of
the Game"
I think the common sense here is not to play, if we had a poll and based on the responses in thread most people would not play the game.

"This is especially true for the lower levels of football where it may not always
be possible for the Law to be strictly applied"
At this level, as a spectator, or referee, I am expecting law 2 to be as close to perfectly adhered to as possible.

"there is a minor inaccuracy with the markings on the field of play such as
the corner area, centre circle etc."
Not an exhaustive list provided but this one is important in my decision making. I know the goal is not a pitch marking but my focus here is on the word minor. A goal, probably the most important part of a football pitch, not being the same size as the other for me is not minor.
If both goals were 2 inches too high, I would budge on that, and say play, but where they are different, for me that seriously calls into question the integrity of the result. A goal at one end should be a goal at the other and 2 inches is enough to affect if a goal is scored or not which makes it not minor for me.

Brilliantly put

 

[GraemeS]

My mistake if assuming references to "hot water" and "a bit of bother" meant suspensions, where actually, you just meant there would be zero consequences.

I've referenced the "rock paper scissors" ref a few times in this thread and have since gone back and checked that thread - there are multiple references there to an apparently standard 3-week punishment for any referee that brings the game into disrepute by disregarding the laws of the game. If he's charged, I have no doubt it will be under that offence and he will get the standard 3 week suspension. So with that knowledge, do you still think this is so grievously and obviously wrong that he needs to find himself in that kind of hot water?

It's very old-school to just default to punishment, but I know for one I've learnt from this lesson. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of turning up to a game with a tape measure!

 

[JamesL]

My mistake if assuming references to "hot water" and "a bit of bother" meant suspensions, where actually, you just meant there would be zero consequences.

I've referenced the "rock paper scissors" ref a few times in this thread and have since gone back and checked that thread - there are multiple references there to an apparently standard 3-week punishment for any referee that brings the game into disrepute by disregarding the laws of the game. If he's charged, I have no doubt it will be under that offence and he will get the standard 3 week suspension. So with that knowledge, do you still think this is so grievously and obviously wrong that he needs to find himself in that kind of hot water?

It's very old-school to just default to punishment, but I know for one I've learnt from this lesson. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of turning up to a game with a tape measure!

No one is asking for it though. Where has anyone said he should be suspended?
We're just saying he's likely to be in trouble..not that we want him to be. Quite a difference.

Do I think he should be? That isn't for me to say as I am not privy to anything other than what happened and not how it happened, which for me determines how serious an offence or if indeed it is an offence at all.

 

[Mr Dean]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that although both halves of the match are 45 minutes long, actual playing time of two halves of football is never the same. One team would have had longer to attack the bigger goal. One common theme in all sports (except maybe formula 1) is fairness and the appearance of fairness.

 

[RustyRef]

Spirit of the game changes, or rather disappears, the higher the level you go. You might play a parks game with no corner flags or goal nets, but obviously there is no way that would be happening in the pro game.

Years ago I got in a bit of hot water after a supply league cup game at a venue where the floodlights have to go off at 10pm, no exceptions allowed. There had been a delay to kick off, and once it went to extra time it was very clear that if no one scored and it went to penalties there was no way we'd be finishing before 10pm. So I agreed with both teams that we would shorten extra time, everyone was happy, and as it happened a goal was scored anyway. The league had a lot of sympathy with what I'd done, but they pointed out to me very clearly that if the losing team complained the game would have to be replayed as the rules at that level do not allow for alterations to time lengths. If I'd done the same below step 7 no one would have paid it any attention.

And that was at step 5 so 7 levels below the game in question. You can't have the goals the wrong height at a professional game where the prize money is massive and there is a lot of betting on the game. Take a scenario where someone has better on a 0-0 draw and then finds out the goal that was scored wouldn't have been scored if the crossbar had been the correct height. He then initiates legal action against the EFL, the home club, the referee, Paddy Power, anyone else he can think of, they would face issues defending themselves as they all knew one crossbar was higher than the other before the game started. I would never blame a referee for not spotting it as none of us go out with a tape measure, but once you are alerted to it you become part of the problem.

 

[RustyRef]

Bear in mind we are talking 2 inches here, are we seriously saying we expect the referee to measure the height of the goal to that tolerance?

That means either a ladder and tape measure or a laser - is that really taking place before every professional match?

I'm not convinced by the GLT argument either - surely that is monitoring the horizontal plane, not the vertical one?

No one is saying the match officials should or do check the goal height every game, but if they are alerted to an issue the situation changes. You don't even need a tape measure, get someone who is reasonably tall to stand with their arm stretched up at each goal, if their fingers are noticeably a different distance from the crossbar at each post you know you have a problem.

The recalibration isn't because of the height of the bar, rather that you'd have to take the posts out of the sockets to remove the blockage, and GLT has to be recalibrated every time the posts have been removed.