The Ref Stop

Fleetwood v Arsenal

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Ref Stop
ARF said:
In this incident I think there is contact before the ball leaves the FoP, although that does raise the question - if a player recklessly dives in for a tackle, but only makes contact after the ball is out of play, does the offence happen at the point the player recklessly commits themself, or is it only when the contact is made? What about a reckless challenge where no contact is made - at what point does the offence actually occur?
Click to expand...

I think the tackle was reckless. There was intent to leave a bit on him (Dowman), and the Fleetwood player did.
 
ARF said:
In this incident I think there is contact before the ball leaves the FoP, although that does raise the question - if a player recklessly dives in for a tackle, but only makes contact after the ball is out of play, does the offence happen at the point the player recklessly commits themself, or is it only when the contact is made? What about a reckless challenge where no contact is made - at what point does the offence actually occur?
Click to expand...
A good question, which you or @JamesL will perhaps check with IFAB?
Interesting on the Fleetwood example: did the challenge only become reckless after the player played the ball, when he chose to also make contact with the opponent, or was it always reckless?
At that stage, it would appear that the ball was out of play.
 
In some ways this is an issue that only comes up in the modern world of VAR (or maybe just excessive instant replay). When the Laws were written, it was all ITTOTR as to the moment the foul occurred, and not much room for debate parsing. Now, when it’s a TV game, they can freeze frame on the exact fraction of a second the whole ball crossed the line. At midfield, not going to be much of an issue. But we could easily see this in the PA, with the VAR review focussed on the exact moment the foul occurred. (And I think that moment is going to be the moment of contact—just as we decide in or out of the PA based on where the contact occurred.)

I miss when ITOOTR was a real thing . . .
 
I feel like I have asked before but can't find it. So maybe we debated it before. Certainly not the first recollection of this conversation in my mind.
 
Im getting more annoyed with those on socials saying refs should protect Dowman because he is 16.

Referees look at a maximum of 22 players on the field. Regardless of age.

If Arsenal think he is old enough to play open age football then expect meatier challenges than those of similar age.
 
SelbyRef said:
Is anyone punishing the initial tackle on Dowman? Obviously take social media comments with a pinch of salt but plenty (and not just AFC fans) are suggesting that was a red card tackle with the implication it has (ended up as) a scissor type motion on Dowman’s back leg.

Personally I don’t see it - strong challenge yes, but I didn’t think it warranted anything further.

Dowman Incident
Click to expand...

Unlike the Botman challenge on Jackson, the contact is low, cleanly gets the ball and it feels a bit more unfortunate that Dowman's leg got trapped like that. With Botman's, his contact was more on top of the ball, in less control and it probably only down to less force that Jackson did not break his ankle at least. Both challenges do has that "scissor" type action but one feels alot more dangerous than the other.

I am surprised the appeal was not successful though, it really just feels more petulant than violent.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Im getting more annoyed with those on socials saying refs should protect Dowman because he is 16.

Referees look at a maximum of 22 players on the field. Regardless of age.

If Arsenal think he is old enough to play open age football then expect meatier challenges than those of similar age.
Click to expand...
Exactly this, because the logical extension is to say a 16 year old committing violent conduct against another 16 year old shouldn’t be shown a red because of his or her age.

Not to mention that in Dowmans case he is a professional footballer. And while he won’t be on senior pro wages, he’s likely earning as much if not more than many of us already. This comes with certain expectations as there would be in any workplace.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Im getting more annoyed with those on socials saying refs should protect Dowman because he is 16.

Referees look at a maximum of 22 players on the field. Regardless of age.

If Arsenal think he is old enough to play open age football then expect meatier challenges than those of similar age.
Click to expand...
U18s playing in men's football presents safeguarding concerns. We absolutely have to be aware of that.
That doesn't mean that the player gets any special protection from footballing actions or within the game being played out. But we should know who on the field is a child so that we can look out for them from a safeguarding perspective. This is everyone's responsibility including ours as referees.
As referees we need to be aware of who is u18, not least in England, because there are now rules that apply specifically to u18 players (substitution procedure) but also if, as an example, an act of violent conduct is committed against an under 18 player this must, in my view, be accompanied by an extraordinary report as it is a safeguarding matter.
 
JamesL said:
U18s playing in men's football presents safeguarding concerns. We absolutely have to be aware of that.
That doesn't mean that the player gets any special protection from footballing actions or within the game being played out. But we should know who on the field is a child so that we can look out for them from a safeguarding perspective. This is everyone's responsibility including ours as referees.
As referees we need to be aware of who is u18, not least in England, because there are now rules that apply specifically to u18 players (substitution procedure) but also if, as an example, an act of violent conduct is committed against an under 18 player this must, in my view, be accompanied by an extraordinary report as it is a safeguarding matter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely that. Clearly the same laws have to apply to a 16 year old as anyone else playing in the game, but there are still potential safeguarding issues.

Arteta was on very shaky ground with how he spoke to Dowman after the was sent off, in the eyes of the law he is a child and you cannot be shouting and screaming at a child, certainly not in public. And to make it worse he has doubled down on it today saying "we are not in Disneyland" and said it was how people spoke to him when he was 16. That was 28 years ago and things have changed significantly since then,
 
RustyRef said:
Absolutely that. Clearly the same laws have to apply to a 16 year old as anyone else playing in the game, but there are still potential safeguarding issues.

Arteta was on very shaky ground with how he spoke to Dowman after the was sent off, in the eyes of the law he is a child and you cannot be shouting and screaming at a child, certainly not in public. And to make it worse he has doubled down on it today saying "we are not in Disneyland" and said it was how people spoke to him when he was 16. That was 28 years ago and things have changed significantly since then,
Click to expand...

Come on Rusty, he said a few words with a stern look, if we really going down that route then I'm guessing teachers are not aloud to shout at students these days?

The reaction to it has been pathetic really, if Arteta was screaming in his ear and shoving him then totally different story but it's nothing more than a few words with a stern look and most lip readers seem to suggest all he said was to get into the changing room, hardly effing and jeffing at him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top