The Ref Stop

Got the ball

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Lately I've had this comment in my games more than ever before.
I see it on social media more too...

Why do players/fans think getting the ball means its a good tackle?

Its not about getting the ball or not. It's how you did it!

Watched many challenges of a game last night where ankles and shins were completely taken out and not even free kicks given and people saying "he got the ball first though".

Rant over.
 
The Ref Stop
It was worse before the 1997 changes to law.
The law prior to that indicated it was an offence if when tackling or challenging contact was made with the opponent before the ball.
The assumption persisted that getting the ball and then the opponent must therefore be OK.
Myths survive a long time!
 
Unfortunately there are a hell of a lot of referees out there who perpetuate this myth by not penalising any challenges when the ball is won first.
 
Every week I hear I got the ball first ref. Yes put you are not in control ( lunged or jump in) Endangered the other players safety.

I have stop staying he got the ball and now shout.

" No foul" / "good challenge" / "play on" / "Keep going lads"

I'm not sure players at grassroots will ever understand while MOTD presenters keep saying "not sure what the ref saw today but he clearly got the ball first".
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
I mention that as an improvement area for referees, and the usual response is "They do it in the Prem"
I don't respond😇
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure that they don't do this any more. I can recall having seen it in the past but I can't remember an example of it happening in a Premier League game for several years now.

Happy to be proven wrong if someone has a recent example, of course.
 
Matthew said:
Not challenging at all as I know I use the ball gesture too, but what alternative would you suggest? Shouting “fair/clean challenge” or similar?
Click to expand...

I shout "good tackle, nothing there player, normal contact", that sort of thing. Show you've seen it and they're usually quite happy imo. Tell them they have/haven't taken the player in a careless/reckless manner or using excessive force, if there's a foul, no matter if they got the ball or not.

I find using clear, confident voice and signals and correct terminology goes a long way to putting players at ease.
 
wazztie16 said:
I shout "good tackle, nothing there player, normal contact", that sort of thing. Show you've seen it and they're usually quite happy imo. Tell them they have/haven't taken the player in a careless/reckless manner or using excessive force, if there's a foul, no matter if they got the ball or not.

I find using clear, confident voice and signals and correct terminology goes a long way to putting players at ease.
Click to expand...
Yep. Same here.

Players(s) - "Ref!!!?"

Me - "No, wasn't careless/fair challenge/good tackle" :cool:
 
Matthew said:
Not challenging at all as I know I use the ball gesture too, but what alternative would you suggest? Shouting “fair/clean challenge” or similar?
Click to expand...
The problem is, there are some incidences where getting the ball first or not actually is the difference between a fair or unfair challenge. Particularly with low-force trips - these are generally considered fair if you are making a successful tackle and happen to trip the opponent in the follow-through, but are obviously unfair if you don't contact the ball and just trip the opponent.

So while I appreciate it is often misused and does reinforce the myth that anything goes after the ball is kicked, I'd be very unimpressed with any observer who tried to tell me I should never use that gesture. The point is, use "got the ball first" where it actually is a relevant reason for a no-foul decision, but where that's not a key factor in the decision, don't fall back on it just because it feels like an easy explanation.
 
GraemeS said:
The problem is, there are some incidences where getting the ball first or not actually is the difference between a fair or unfair challenge. Particularly with low-force trips - these are generally considered fair if you are making a successful tackle and happen to trip the opponent in the follow-through, but are obviously unfair if you don't contact the ball and just trip the opponent.

So while I appreciate it is often misused and does reinforce the myth that anything goes after the ball is kicked, I'd be very unimpressed with any observer who tried to tell me I should never use that gesture. The point is, use "got the ball first" where it actually is a relevant reason for a no-foul decision, but where that's not a key factor in the decision, don't fall back on it just because it feels like an easy explanation.
Click to expand...
So you're very unimpressed with me😉😧The problem with the "ball" gesture is that it reinforces the myth, and 5 minutes later when you caution for a reckless challenge involving the ball and the opponent, the "got the ball" argument will be used and often with a reference back to the earlier challenge.
We aficiandos of the LOTG understand the subtleties, no-one else does (and why would they?) .
As others have said, easier to call "Nothing there", "Fair challenge", or "No" - safe refereeing.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
So you're very unimpressed with me😉😧The problem with the "ball" gesture is that it reinforces the myth, and 5 minutes later when you caution for a reckless challenge involving the ball and the opponent, the "got the ball" argument will be used and often with a reference back to the earlier challenge.
We aficiandos of the LOTG understand the subtleties, no-one else does (and why would they?) .
As others have said, easier to call "Nothing there", "Fair challenge", or "No" - safe refereeing.
Click to expand...
I don't personally find that particularly hard to explain. You can always just say "no", but where my style is generally to be more communicative (where possible of course), suddenly refusing to explain one decision would be weird and stand out as uncertain IMO.

If the reason I don't give a foul is because the ball was caught before the trip occurred, then I'm likely to say so. And if 5 minutes later, another player thunders through the ball with reckless force, I'll explain that as well. I don't see that as a confusing distinction to explain - the force was greater and everyone on the pitch can see that.

There's "safe" refereeing and then there's over-cautious refereeing, or refereeing based on the outdated assumption that you're there to act as a keeper of 22 uncontrollable animals. The vast majority of players are smart and willing to listen to a reasonable explanation - if that's the case, I'll treat them with respect and reasonable assumption of intelligence, and if it's not, nothing is lost by starting from a point of respect even if you do have to move on from there.
 
IMHO, it's not just about a call later in the same game. It's about the call next week. In my mind, the gesture is problematic not just because it causes later confusion, but because it is oversimplifying the analysis. It wasn't a non-foul just because the player got the ball first; it was a non-foul because it wasn't CREF, even though it might have been if the defender hadn't got the ball first. So I think "clean tackle" or "no foul" are better announcements--and any explanation can include that part of the reason it wasn't careless was he got the ball cleanly first, and that it was done without excessive contact.
 
Avoiding becoming "LWR" is about making the correct LOTG decision and explaining it correctly.

Saying this is the exception where we should be trying to obfuscate the correct reason for a decision because at some point in the future, some player might misrepresent that decision to a different official is putting too much of a burden of responsibility in the wrong place.

If a player says "well 2 weeks ago I did exactly that challenge and the ref didn't blow for it" then I'll treat it with a pinch of salt and use the same response I would if he told me another ref had let him play without shinpads, or wearing a ring or any other number of things relating to previous officials - I wasn't there, I wasn't anything to do with that decision, today we're doing X.

As a side note, I don't think "clean tackle" really explains anything. Of course the ref thinks it's a clean tackle, that's why he didn't blow his whistle - the question the player is actually asking is "why haven't you blown for a foul there?". Clean tackle, no foul or any variation on those doesn't answer that question at all and is just a waste of breath in terms of explanation.
 
GraemeS said:
Avoiding becoming "LWR" is about making the correct LOTG decision and explaining it correctly.

Saying this is the exception where we should be trying to obfuscate the correct reason for a decision because at some point in the future, some player might misrepresent that decision to a different official is putting too much of a burden of responsibility in the wrong place.

If a player says "well 2 weeks ago I did exactly that challenge and the ref didn't blow for it" then I'll treat it with a pinch of salt and use the same response I would if he told me another ref had let him play without shinpads, or wearing a ring or any other number of things relating to previous officials - I wasn't there, I wasn't anything to do with that decision, today we're doing X.

As a side note, I don't think "clean tackle" really explains anything. Of course the ref thinks it's a clean tackle, that's why he didn't blow his whistle - the question the player is actually asking is "why haven't you blown for a foul there?". Clean tackle, no foul or any variation on those doesn't answer that question at all and is just a waste of breath in terms of explanation.
Click to expand...
"Clean tackle" says "I saw the tackle, there was no offence, let's move on" in player language
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top