Of all the pundits out there (and let's face it, I defend quite a few of them because some of them are worth listening to), it's debatable whether any of them can churn out as much BS as Rio FerdinandRio does not understand how the second yellow is a promising attack
Pretty sure if he was playing, he would be content to let his left back stand there and watch as the winger ran forward...
That’s painful viewing and unfortunately it’s what’s fans and grassroots players take in and churn out as their own opinion. It’s fantastic refereeing but apparently it’s always on the referee to ‘apply common sense’ rather than the players
I think your point is summed up well here. Awful.
i know Walton gets some stick (often justifiably so) but fair play to him on this one.
Of all the pundits out there (and let's face it, I defend quite a few of them because some of them are worth listening to), it's debatable whether any of them can churn out as much BS as Rio Ferdinand
Gotta say, overall, I'm surprised by the backlash from pundits against MO on this occasion. I'd sternly disagree with any of them criticising the Ref
Impeding the thrower is a very clear act of USB and the second yellow for SPA is remarkably obvious. It's entirely deserved for petulance and it's undeniably clear that two yellow card offences occurred, regardless of whether it's during one phase of play
The only debate is about the nuances of the book and what the exact offence was at the point of the throw-in. On the subject of which, I think we as Referees pay too much attention to exact wording in the book, when the wording itself if often unclear and contradictory, especially when something unusual happens in a game. In this case, if I was observing, I'd find any words whatsoever in the book to support the Ref in his actions
It certainly isn't reckless, if that's what you mean, but I think it is easy USB. It isn't a push in the course of play, it's an aggressive push just to be aggressive at an opponent. Would I be horrified if a R decided to talk to the player instead of cautioning for that? No. But I think it is easily an earned caution for USB--it's really the unsporting nature of what he did more than being close that is why we would caution.The push for me is careless. If it wasn't at a throw in it wouldn't get a 2nd look.
Semi agree.I think smart refereeing is to stop the game as soon as there is the push on the thrower. It's such a weird thing to happen that there's bound to be some fallout - especially in grassroots it's the kind of thing that gets benches involved or invites afters.
When the attacker gets the ball it's 2 on 4 and he's in his own half. After a trifling foul it's an OK advantage but - with the benefit of hindsight - it's not a great advantage yellow.
There is a lot to learn here for grassroots referees. Martinelli does not expect that he will receive a caution for the first "challenge". Oliver has no way to communicate that to the player - or any of the players. Some will say he doesn't have to - but we know at grassroots that if you are going to give an advantage on a yellow card you have to prepared that you will have to fight for match control. It's best if you can tell the player that a yellow is coming at the next stoppage. And if you keep reminding the player and others while the ball stays in play (took 5 mins last time for me).
So, OK, love MO, respect his decision. But... smart refereeing is to avoid this.
An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including movingIt certainly isn't reckless, if that's what you mean, but I think it is easy USB. It isn't a push in the course of play, it's an aggressive push just to be aggressive at an opponent. Would I be horrified if a R decided to talk to the player instead of cautioning for that? No. But I think it is easily an earned caution for USB--it's really the unsporting nature of what he did more than being close that is why we would caution.
I often wonder if you are even a referee the way you post about your "colleagues."Has the referee followed the rules? Yes.
Going to throw a curve ball here..
I have never seen any referees so eager to send players off for double yellows when the players has hacked someone down, got up and sworn continuously in the face of a referee for 30 seconds and performed all types of dissent. Or even hacked a player down, then pushed and shoved, raised arms to the face etc... Why so eager yesterday?
This is what annoys me. Either do it consistently as a team of referees within the Premier League or don't do it at all.
Now expect a few more this weekend/next weekend as it is fresh.
You have answered the frustration of many referees and fans across the country withn your reply.I often wonder if you are even a referee the way you post about your "colleagues."
This is a very rare occurrence where two mandatory cautions occur in close proximity.
It won't happen again this season.
Dissent, argy bargys, handbags, are manageable events and often the referee's tolerance is the discretion, which, as we all know at the top levels is far far higher than we would accept in our games.
These 2 are not manageable events. They are clear as day, bang on, cautions. I do t see a referee who looks eager, I see a referee who knows he is going to have a job explaining this CORRECT decision. 1) he has to clearly communicate it to tens of thousands, no sorry, millions of people. 2) he then has to deal with the other 30 or so Arsenal contingent who will be wanting to understand it.
Inwardly he might have been laughing at how stupid the player has been and how he just got challenging situations I'm application of law. I'm happy with both versions.
The issue here is the player NOT the referee
But the refs claim they don't hear the dissent as the crowd is so loud, so its possible the player didn't hear him. As per my point above how at our level all and sundry know.One thing to bear in mind is Michael Oliver will have almost certainly said out loud that he will be coming back for the first caution, partly to warn the player and partly so he remembers who it was. Obviously it is easier to remember which EPL player it was than it is at grass roots, but almost all referees do that as they progress and it becomes common nature. Not only does that mean Martinelli should have known what was coming so was a complete clown for making the challenge, it effectively means Oliver had zero chance not to caution the first offence as the Wolves players will have heard him. The second caution was mandatory, so he really had no choice but to issue both and send off.
My actual point has been lost.You have answered the frustration of many referees and fans across the country withn your reply.
Referees in the prem seem to almost use different variations of rules/bench marks to what is written in the rule book.
My opening sentence = yes he has done the right thing. I am in no way debating the decision as it is correct.
My frustration = 2/3 games a weekend this SHOULD happen because of what I mentioned, but it never does because of these 'premier league rules' that you mention.
You have answered the frustration of many referees and fans across the country withn your reply.
Referees in the prem seem to almost use different variations of rules/bench marks to what is written in the rule book.
My opening sentence = yes he has done the right thing. I am in no way debating the decision as it is correct.
My frustration = 2/3 games a weekend this SHOULD happen because of what I mentioned, but it never does because of these 'premier league rules' that you mention.