Penalty?

[The Don]

Thanks very much for all your contributions. I have had a brief look at the Laws of the Game and found it fascinating that the word 'whistle' is nowhere to be seen. All it refers to is 'a signal'.
Then I went to Law 9 Ball In And Out Of Play where it states that, among other criteria, it is in play except, "when play is stopped by the Referee".
I am intrigued by some of the comments that the game is stopped in the Referee's mind rather than what is actually happening in reality.
I hope players don't take it into their mind to pick the ball up if they think they are fouled, in anticipation or assumption that the Referee has made his mind up in their favour.
All of my comments are referring back to the incident I first reported and you guys have been exceptional in your responses.
Just one more point, has the Referee any sanctions against the defender for causing the game to be stopped in anticipation of a decision given?

 

[one]

Just one more point, has the Referee any sanctions against the defender for causing the game to be stopped in anticipation of a decision given?

This really depends on if the referee was going to stop play. If yes then the defender's actions are inconsequential . But if the referee wasn't going to stop play (for example it wasn't a foul or offside...) then the reason the defender did what he did should not be a consideration. For example if he picked the ball up with his hands, it's a free kick for handball. If that handball stopped a promising attack, it's a yellow and if it DOGSO it's a red card.

 

[The Don]

This really depends on if the referee was going to stop play.

So the player was a mind reader. I am still not convinced about what was in the Referee's mind, which cannot be proved, and Referee's can change their minds depending on circumstances and no-one would know. As one contributor alluded to: would it be preferential to give the decision which caused the least trouble?

 

[one]

So the player was a mind reader. I am still not convinced about what was in the Referee's mind, which cannot be proved, and Referee's can change their minds depending on circumstances and no-one would know. As one contributor alluded to: would it be preferential to give the decision which caused the least trouble?

I think the difference between us is that I am looking at this from referees view point and you are from player's.

From players view point, don't do anything that can be considered an offence unless you know (in opposed to think) play is stopped. Some people call it, "play to the whistle"

As a referee I don't care why the player did what he did (in this context). I call the foul as I see it.

The OP is a bit of an exception because the defender's offence occured due to my AR misleading the defender AND had the defender not offended, it would have been an attacker's offence.

 

[The Don]

It was such an unusual incident that those of us watching gasped in amazement. Usually players put their hands up and shout, "Offside Ref" or "Look at the Lino, Ref" but keep on running.

 

[Anubis]

It was such an unusual incident that those of us watching gasped in amazement. Usually players put their hands up and shout, "Offside Ref" or "Look at the Lino, Ref" but keep on running.

Was offside the correct decision, as in, was Blue 9 ( insert actusl player) in an offside position and deserving of being penalised?

 

[JamesL]

As one contributor alluded to: would it be preferential to give the decision which caused the least trouble?

First off. It's great that you, as a spectator, are trying to understand the law.
As referees we get a lot of grief for correct decisions due to a lack of understanding of law or outdated laws that folks haven't kept up with changes.

In answer to your question the short answer is No, not necessarily.

The long answer is as referees our aim is to successfully apply the laws within the framework of laws 1-17 but also we have one mind on what the game expects and the spirit of the game and also what is best for match control. So, sometimes, when the time is right we do what folks are expecting and will cause the least grief to us, to our colleagues, to both teams. If a penalty was awarded here then this becomes, probably the only, talking point of the game. That might be correct, but actually does a referee or assistant want to be complicit in such a big KMD (key match decision) the answer is no we do not. So if we have a get out we might take it if there is a legitimate other sellable option.

In the OP even if the handball occurred before the flag indicated offside, if the offside offence happened first it's offside. This is covered in law 11.

 

[wazztie16]

Thanks very much for all your contributions. I have had a brief look at the Laws of the Game and found it fascinating that the word 'whistle' is nowhere to be seen. All it refers to is 'a signal'.
Then I went to Law 9 Ball In And Out Of Play where it states that, among other criteria, it is in play except, "when play is stopped by the Referee".
I am intrigued by some of the comments that the game is stopped in the Referee's mind rather than what is actually happening in reality.
I hope players don't take it into their mind to pick the ball up if they think they are fouled, in anticipation or assumption that the Referee has made his mind up in their favour.
All of my comments are referring back to the incident I first reported and you guys have been exceptional in your responses.
Just one more point, has the Referee any sanctions against the defender for causing the game to be stopped in anticipation of a decision given?

In fairness, you see on TV in games, players grabbing the ball as they're bundled over BEFORE the whistle is blown so it already happens, albeit at the highest levels.

 

[socal lurker]

In fairness, you see on TV in games, players grabbing the ball as they're bundled over BEFORE the whistle is blown so it already happens, albeit at the highest levels.

And you see the R calling them for handling when the R does not call the foul.

 

[wazztie16]

And you see the R calling them for handling when the R does not call the foul.

I can't recall ever seeing that myself, maybe I'm not watching enough football and too busy babysitting adult men!

 

[PinnerPaul]

I would prefer a correct decision within the Laws of the Game irrespective of the 'fallout'.

Without being rude, if you became a fully fledged referee you would change that view.

In fact, if it were possible, IF you saw a game 100% refereed 'within the laws of the game" you, the players and everyone else would walk out after , oh I don't know - 10 minutes I'd give it.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I can't recall ever seeing that myself, maybe I'm not watching enough football and too busy babysitting adult men!

Latter stages of QPR v Hull last Saturday, Hull player penalised for exactly that!

 

[JamesL]

Without being rude, if you became a fully fledged referee you would change that view.

In fact, if it were possible, IF you saw a game 100% refereed 'within the laws of the game" you, the players and everyone else would walk out after , oh I don't know - 10 minutes I'd give it.

And we know that this isn't accepted at top levels when the decision is correct and then confirmed correct by VAR

 

[The Don]

Without being rude, if you became a fully fledged referee you would change that view.

In fact, if it were possible, IF you saw a game 100% refereed 'within the laws of the game" you, the players and everyone else would walk out after , oh I don't know - 10 minutes I'd give it.

I'm not sure I fully understand this comment. Are you really saying that you and your colleagues don't referee '100% within the laws of the game"?
You are not being rude but I don't think I would take up refereeing under those conditions.

 

[Anubis]

Latter stages of QPR v Hull last Saturday, Hull player penalised for exactly that!

I do it on occasion, in non dangerous situations, to prove a point if needed, that I decide when its a foul, not them.

 

[RustyRef]

I'm not sure I fully understand this comment. Are you really saying that you and your colleagues don't referee '100% within the laws of the game"?
You are not being rude but I don't think I would take up refereeing under those conditions.

Can I ask, are you a referee?

 

[JamesL]

Can I ask, are you a referee?

He's not. Says so in OP.

I'm not sure I fully understand this comment. Are you really saying that you and your colleagues don't referee '100% within the laws of the game"?
You are not being rude but I don't think I would take up refereeing under those conditions.

You know this happens now already. When have you seen a keeper penalised for controlling the ball for more than six seconds? How often do you see a substitute leave field of play at the nearest boundary? White socks and tape have made their way back. I am sure there are lots more examples of where the law is bent or outright ignored.

 

[The Don]

Can I ask, are you a referee?

No, but I am interested in Laws, rules and regulations and the interpretation of them where they are not specifically provided for in the constitution. As a neutral spectator, I often hear fellow spectators berate the referee when I know that the match official is correct but there are certain incidents where a referee gives one decision and others (managers, players, other referee's), have a differing interpretation. Mine was a typical example. I have another interesting one which I shall leave for another day.

Edit: I have often seen a referee give a free-kick for "not calling a name" when a player asks his own player to "leave it" (referring to the pass). I can't find this 'offence' in the Laws of the Game.

 

[Russell Jones]

No, but I am interested in Laws, rules and regulations and the interpretation of them where they are not specifically provided for in the constitution. As a neutral spectator, I often hear fellow spectators berate the referee when I know that the match official is correct but there are certain incidents where a referee gives one decision and others (managers, players, other referee's), have a differing interpretation. Mine was a typical example. I have another interesting one which I shall leave for another day.

Edit: I have often seen a referee give a free-kick for "not calling a name" when a player asks his own player to "leave it" (referring to the pass). I can't find this 'offence' in the Laws of the Game.

"Not calling a name" or "Leave It" remains one of the biggest urban myths relating to offences. Players can in fact (in this context) say what they like so long as it does not verbally distract an opponent". If the referee decides that this offence has in fact occurred then the sanction is an IFK and a caution. However, 99 times out of 100, players shouting "Mine" or "Leave It" have committed no offence, as no opponent is genuinely distracted.

The two times I have in reality penalised for this offence have both been when a defender attempted to put off an attacker by shouting out random stuff just prior to a shot at goal.

 

[Anubis]

No, but I am interested in Laws, rules and regulations and the interpretation of them where they are not specifically provided for in the constitution. As a neutral spectator, I often hear fellow spectators berate the referee when I know that the match official is correct but there are certain incidents where a referee gives one decision and others (managers, players, other referee's), have a differing interpretation. Mine was a typical example. I have another interesting one which I shall leave for another day.

Edit: I have often seen a referee give a free-kick for "not calling a name" when a player asks his own player to "leave it" (referring to the pass). I can't find this 'offence' in the Laws of the Game.

Bear in mind, same as a highway code is avail to drivers, does every driver stick rigid to it..