And as I said, it could easily have also gone wrong the other way. The bottom line is the referee needs to know what each caution was for, @santa sangria doesn't seem to have a problem with the approach the observer took so I'm struggling to see why you are offended on his behalf.
Careful how you answer observer questions
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
What am I assuming? I am asking the referee for the details.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
You’re saying you only ask if it isn’t obvious. It may be obvious to you what you think you saw, but doesn’t mean it’s what the referee saw.
So by not asking, you’re assuming.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
If a player is dismissed for something o viol to everyone in the ground, e.g. Violent Conduct, the referee and I will be discussing it in detail as it is a Match Changing Situation.
At that point, the referee will be asked to go through their view of the situation, which we as Observers use as the final check. The outcome is then confirmed as both of us agreeing or having differing views, which is then recorded on the written report.
I appreciate that your latest windmill to tilt at is the Observers' ways of working, and you won't accept anything @RustyRef or me say on the subject, but others reading this may find it helpful.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
No, you just aren’t used to people disagreeing with you. Unfortunately this forum is becoming more and more of an old boys club, with the same people backing each other up (and the higher powers) over and over. But as we saw on incidents like the MLS incident, you don’t all know as much as you think.
It isn’t for you as an observer to assume what a referee has done. It is for you to ask them and them to tell you. Look at the incident that has been discussed in another chat between Atalanta & Bruges. During the incident in which the Atalanta player is sent off, it was all started by a Brugge player. He could have been cautioned for delaying the restart or AA. As an observer, you should be asking why. Not assuming why. Which is basically what happened in the OP. The OP is a perfect example of how your method can become messy and cost the referee marks.
But you’re too busy agreeing with one of your chums as you usually do to see that.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I
With any other disciplinary action, I invite the match official to confirm the details.
If you read my narrative you will see that I separated out the really obvious.
With any other disciplinary action, I invite the match official to confirm the details.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
So by separating the really obvious, you are assuming what has happened…….
With respect, if you don't like it no one is forcing you to stay here and continue posting.
one
RefChat Addict
Asking leading questions is simply wrong in any setting. It can lead* to assumption of falsehood. The OP even later established it was reckless but the observer still assumed spa. But most referees don't even think about it and just agree because they think observer knows better and they are there to help them.
(* that's why it's called a leading question)
Take the legal system in most (developed) countries for example, the court system doesn't allow leading questions for witnesses. Or evidence gathered using it don''t have much weight. And there is good reason for it.
Its an old trick deliberately used by sensationalist journalists to get their subject to say somthing or agree with something, regardless of it its fact or not.
(* that's why it's called a leading question)
Take the legal system in most (developed) countries for example, the court system doesn't allow leading questions for witnesses. Or evidence gathered using it don''t have much weight. And there is good reason for it.
Its an old trick deliberately used by sensationalist journalists to get their subject to say somthing or agree with something, regardless of it its fact or not.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
At no point did I say I don’t like it.
Sounds like another assumption, and another wrong assumption. Now imagine that happening during a de-brief and you messing a referees marks up due to your own recklessness……
I can't be bothered engaging with you to be fair, when you go on this "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mentality it i a waste of time. A point that has been made to us by other members I should add.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
And I can imagine who those other members are, as they like practically every post you put, and vice versa.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s only ever you as a mod/admin that has issues with people. None of the others ever do. But you don’t seem to have grasped that yet.
I’m more than happy to admit when I’m wrong. But in this thread, you seem to be completely blind as to how your way of doing it is wrong. The proof is quite literally in the OP. As an observer you are not there to assume, you are there to observe.
I think you’re still touchy that The FA, PGMOL and Howard basically said you and the usual suspects were wrong in your assessment of the MLS incident.
bester
RefChat Addict
On misleading leading questions reminds me of an old observation report.
Season after law changed to no yellow card for SPA if it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded.
Had an incident where the observer enquired whether it was DOGSO.
Explained why it wasn't covering defenders etc.
Told him it was SPA but due to the law change as it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded I didn't show the second yellow card.
Report comes back, 1150 PM on the Friday following the game.
First mention of it being a reckless challenge.
Appropriate disciplinary sanctions.
"The consequence of the penalty kick award and (unissued) caution in the 78th minute for the home number 5, given this was his second serious offence, should have resulted in his
dismissal from the field of play.
Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence.
"As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the attempt to gain the ball by the home number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for the recklessness of the challenge."
Application of law goes from a probable 8 to a 6.5.
Season after law changed to no yellow card for SPA if it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded.
Had an incident where the observer enquired whether it was DOGSO.
Explained why it wasn't covering defenders etc.
Told him it was SPA but due to the law change as it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded I didn't show the second yellow card.
Report comes back, 1150 PM on the Friday following the game.
First mention of it being a reckless challenge.
Appropriate disciplinary sanctions.
"The consequence of the penalty kick award and (unissued) caution in the 78th minute for the home number 5, given this was his second serious offence, should have resulted in his
dismissal from the field of play.
Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence.
"As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the attempt to gain the ball by the home number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for the recklessness of the challenge."
Application of law goes from a probable 8 to a 6.5.
At no point have I said that "my way" of doing is right and others are wrong, I have simply said that, in my experience, that is how it has happened in all of my refereeing and observing career. Something that others have agreed with.
I don't even know what MLS stands for, so to say I am touchy about it would be so far from the mark you would be aiming for a different target.
Did you appeal it, especially if you had assistants that heard the debrief? An observer can't penalise you for being incorrect in law if he's agreed with, or not challenged, your explanation in the debrief.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
If you don’t know what MLS stands for, then I’m the Queen of Sheeba
Major League Soccer?
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Don’t think Major League Soccer had their ban overturned by the FA, or had HW say the decision to send them off was wrong