A&H

What football expects

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
Padfoot said:
They are specifically referring to infractions that might be prevent a game from taking place like corner flags or markings.

Not intended to be used as an excuse by referees who can’t be arsed to do things properly,
Click to expand...
The word especially does not preclude applying the same principle to decisions not otherwise specified, although I'm not asserting that we should use the 'spirit of the game' to justify dereliction of duty!
 
Last edited:
Padfoot said:
They are specifically referring to infractions that might be prevent a game from taking place like corner flags or markings.

Not intended to be used as an excuse by referees who can’t be arsed to do things properly,
Click to expand...
But if he was doing his job properly then we wouldn’t need the common sense application section. They aren’t going to list everything, the list would be too exhaustive, I’m all for a safe game taking part to the LOTG but flexiblity is always required to a degree.
 
The problem is that once you start to disregard or misapply Laws based on perceived triviality it becomes easier to justify doing the same for a wider range of situations.....which is what leads to referees attempting to ‘manage’ situations inappropriately, it leads to erroneous player expectations and ultimately leads to weak refereeing.

In the OP, the last two bullet point examples are not trivial offences.....yet they have been included because they are now perceived as such due to weak or incompetent referees not correctly penalising them.
 
I was at the Blades v Norwich this last season. They scored midway through the first half after it was one way traffic. From that point the keeper Gunn was wasting time to such a degree drop outs were in excess of 20 seconds, they wasted time for 60!plus minutes it was embarrassing to watch. Ref did nothing till the last 2 minutes and handed 2 cards out. In the return game we scored last 20 minutes and hung on wasting time. They spawned a new song all season ‘playing Football the Norwich way’
 
Padfoot said:
The problem is that once you start to disregard or misapply Laws based on perceived triviality it becomes easier to justify doing the same for a wider range of situations.....which is what leads to referees attempting to ‘manage’ situations inappropriately, it leads to erroneous player expectations and ultimately leads to weak refereeing.

In the OP, the last two bullet point examples are not trivial offences.....yet they have been included because they are now perceived as such due to weak or incompetent referees not correctly penalising them.
Click to expand...
I do agree, but you also need to consider how easy it is to identify some of these "trivial" offences. Identifying the exact location of a throw; seeing that the ball is not in the six yard box are less easy seen at a distance. Failing to identify encroachment at a penalty from a few yards must be a cardinal sin!
It seems to me that many of our high level referees are blind or more accurately have selective vision.....probably related to the mythical 'club marks' and/or assessor requirements for game management........
 
OK in the clip it Looks like 7 subs/ players replaced have entered the field of play without the referees permission. Who would dish out 7 yellow cards in this instance ?
 
What football expects...? Examples...

(I have a problem with this I must confess... You lot have basically converted me to an avid follower of the LotG and now it feels like one is being asked to abandon it!)

... Allowing incorrect throw ins
(and the latest is...)
...Allowing "technical" handling offences
(ducks for cover... I got a reply from the iFAB about a certain handling offence but I have queried it as it seems to base the decision on "what football expects" rather the the LotG! I have asked for clarification ;) )
 
Great patrol path too by the Lino! Good job it didn’t matter, the subs were certainly behind him!
 
What football expects? Expects referees to manage players rather than players to actually be responsible for their own actions - that is, to show a ludicrously high level of tolerance to dissent and abuse.
You also have the 'let the last attack finish' aspect of 'expectations', which even extends to the last restart, despite the LOTG clearly not requiring that
Oh, and we don't really care about shinpads providing a reasonable degree of protection ;-)

santa sangria said:
What football expects...? Examples...

(I have a problem with this I must confess... You lot have basically converted me to an avid follower of the LotG and now it feels like one is being asked to abandon it!)

... Allowing incorrect throw ins
(and the latest is...)
...Allowing "technical" handling offences
(ducks for cover... I got a reply from the iFAB about a certain handling offence but I have queried it as it seems to base the decision on "what football expects" rather the the LotG! I have asked for clarification ;) )
Click to expand...
I'd be interesting in hearing about the clarification because I'm pretty sure I know what reply you're referring to :)
 
santa sangria said:
I got a reply from the iFAB about a certain handling offence but I have queried it as it seems to base the decision on "what football expects" rather the the LotG! I have asked for clarification
Click to expand...
So reading between the lines, that sounds like you got a reply from them on the Courtois handling incident saying it was not an offence but you didn't like the answer and you're not accepting it?
 
Peter Grove said:
So reading between the lines, that sounds like you got a reply from them on the Courtois handling incident saying it was not an offence but you didn't like the answer and you're not accepting it?
Click to expand...
Not quite, I got an answer saying a whistle is not what football expects but the answer didn't make sense. Here you go:

---
Thank you for your e mail.
The change in the wording of the Law is designed to bring it into line with 'common practice' and to ensure that referees do not penalise the goalkeeper who makes an initial attempt to control the ball but parries the ball or fails to hold it cleanly.
In the example you give, football does not expect a free kick and the GK is not attempting to circumvent the Law so the referee was correct not to stop play.
I hoe this helps (sic)
---
There are three points of confusing for me: 1) I understand the line about the change in wording - but I don't see how that applies to Courtois as he did not parry the ball or fail to hold it cleanly.
2) Then the line including "football expects" does not make any sense to me. When we read "football expects" it is justification for not penalising an offence, or choosing to ignore an offence. 3) The "circumventing the law" part I also don't understand. This seems like a different idea again. Circumvent the law we use in association with the back pass rule.

Overall, the answer seems self contradictory. 1) Something else is an offence. 2) No one wants a whistle here in the Cup Final. 3) Eh?
I hope you can understand why I am confused still!

(Speaking of disclosure, ;) Peter you also seem to say it is an offence here: https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/2018-2019-laws-of-the-game.11257/page-3#post-115612 )
 
santa sangria said:
Not quite, I got an answer saying a whistle is not what football expects but the answer didn't make sense. Here you go:

---
Thank you for your e mail.
The change in the wording of the Law is designed to bring it into line with 'common practice' and to ensure that referees do not penalise the goalkeeper who makes an initial attempt to control the ball but parries the ball or fails to hold it cleanly.
In the example you give, football does not expect a free kick and the GK is not attempting to circumvent the Law so the referee was correct not to stop play.
I hoe this helps (sic)
---
There are three points of confusing for me: 1) I understand the line about the change in wording - but I don't see how that applies to Courtois as he did not parry the ball or fail to hold it cleanly.
2) Then the line including "football expects" does not make any sense to me. When we read "football expects" it is justification for not penalising an offence, or choosing to ignore an offence. 3) The "circumventing the law" part I also don't understand. This seems like a different idea again. Circumvent the law we use in association with the back pass rule.

Overall, the answer seems self contradictory. 1) Something else is an offence. 2) No one wants a whistle here in the Cup Final. 3) Eh?
I hope you can understand why I am confused still!

(Speaking of disclosure, ;) Peter you also seem to say it is an offence here: https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/2018-2019-laws-of-the-game.11257/page-3#post-115612 )
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends what definition you give to parry...
"To ward off (a weapon or attack) with a countermove" is what the internet throws up.
Well, if the ball is going for a corner, this is part of an an attack, or attacking move so ... to ward off the attack Courtois used his hand in a countermove to prevent the corner...

I think the what football expects bit is not about ignoring the law but about the reasoning for the change in wording to make the specific offence we are talking about a legal play.

Fwiw, I think its right to allow this move, it would never cross my mind to penalise an offence like this as I think the law is purely there to stop keeper picking up the ball and releasing it multiple times..

I would expect any player to attempt to prevent a corner and I would expect my keeper to use his hand/s within the PA to do so.
 
Its ridiculous to (try to) apply the laws to the letter - there would be a free kick every 5 seconds.

'Kicking', 'Holding', 'Tripping', 'Charging' are all illegal - they don't have to be deliberate or have any effect on oppo to be a free kick - AS PER THE LAW - but of course physical contact happens all the time and we allow it.

Its called common sense - not weak refereeing. Who's going to give a free kick in the penalty area after a few minutes after the GK has held the ball for 7 seconds? Who's going to give throw in the other way after its taken 1 yard from where the ball left fop? The list is endless.

How did they originate - surely its become the norm and sensible to allow infractions of the law that have no material effect on the game and/or the oppo?
 
PinnerPaul said:
Its ridiculous to (try to) apply the laws to the letter - there would be a free kick every 5 seconds.

'Kicking', 'Holding', 'Tripping', 'Charging' are all illegal - they don't have to be deliberate or have any effect on oppo to be a free kick - AS PER THE LAW - but of course physical contact happens all the time and we allow it.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing the fact that all those (bar holding) would have to be at least careless to be a free kick - AS PER THE LAW :) - most physical contact we allow are sporting contact and not deemed careless.
 
'Sporting' holding, tripping, kicking and charging?????? - Hmmmmm:rolleyes:, would love to see those - surely 90% of that contact IS careless?

I'm especailly not having the holding you see at corners and free kicks filed under 'sporting contact' a definition which isn't in the LAWS btw!;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top