The Ref Stop

Crewe goal

RefereeX said:
I don't disagree, and do agree with the line in bold, but then where do you draw the line? If you're disallowing it or stopping play, presumably you have to caution the player for unsporting behaviour, so then would you do it as soon as you seen him hide by the goalpost? Because I feel that wouldn't be received well at all.
Click to expand...
Not at that time. Without the benefit of hindsight you don't know what he is going to do. There is still a chance that he may not challenge. The problem is the challenging for the ball. The best time to blow is as soon as it is clear he is challenging / going for the ball. Obviously none of us gets to practice this to have the awareness of the situation and it all happens very fast. It is much easier said than done.

And yes absolulty, it is USB in my mind, this is in the same lines as feining to take PK for me.
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Are those saying lack of player reaction is a determining factor going to disallow a goal if the defending team complains ferociously?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: one
Big Cat said:
I do think the practice of refereeing out of fear and the need to 'sell' everything is self-perpetuating the problems associated with the culture of the game.
Click to expand...
Agree. But fear of what? (I have my own answer) Whatever the answer is, it is bravery that makes one overcome it.
 
one said:
Not at that time. Without the benefit of hindsight you don't know what he is going to do. There is still a chance that he may not challenge. The problem is the challenging for the ball. The best time to blow is as soon as it is clear he is challenging / going for the ball. Obviously none of us gets to practice this to have the awareness of the situation and it all happens very fast. It is much easier said than done.

And yes absolulty, it is USB in my mind, this is in the same lines as feining to take PK for me.
Click to expand...
But feinting at the ball on a PK is expressly an offense in the LOTG. I don’t think that comparison helps.

(I also don’t think it’s remotely comparable. The feint at the ball is unfair at a PK (and not any other time) because of the restrictions on the GK movement until the ball is kicked. At any other time, feinting is part of the game. A player a half step behind the GL is no harder for the GK to see than one with a foot on the line. This play would have turned out exactly the same if the attackers toe was on the line, in which he would have been on the field and there would be nothing to discuss. )
 
socal lurker said:
But feinting at the ball on a PK is expressly an offense in the LOTG. I don’t think that comparison helps.
Click to expand...
The point of the comparison, the practice/trend started a few years before it found its way into the lotg. Was it unsporting before it went into the lotg?
This one would not happen often enough to find its way into the lotg.

If you don't like the PK example then the corner kick example where 'clearly moves' was added to the laws because of it. Or more recently goalkeeper 'unfairly' distracting a kicker at a PK added to the laws (though I dont quite agree with this one).

Realy not sure what words to put it in but I expect cleverness in football to come from skills, strategy or tactics, not being sneaky.
 
one said:
Realy not sure what words to put it in but I expect cleverness in football to come from skills, strategy or tactics, not being sneaky.
Click to expand...
'Hiding' on the pitch but behind the GK would be equally "sneaky and unsporting". But we wouldn't even be having this discussion if that's what the attacker had done. The reason we are discussing it, is because he was off the FOP. But the reality is,he left the FOP in a legitimate manner and there's no defined time limit for a player to come back on once they've left in this manner.

Whilst I can see both moral sides of this argument, the reality is that disallowing this goal could easily be seen as incorrect in law ... whereas allowing it is clearly within the laws of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
Cautioning for re-entering the FoP without permission would be incorrect in law here. The only possible action you could take here would be to deem it unsporting behaviour. I don't think it rises to the level of USB, but can appreciate that some other referees might think it does. However, if such a strict interpretation of what constitutes USB was consistently applied to everything else that happens during a match, then we'd have about two dozen cautions a game.
 
Russell Jones said:
'Hiding' on the pitch but behind the GK would be equally "sneaky and unsporting". But we wouldn't even be having this discussion if that's what the attacker had done. The reason we are discussing it, is because he was off the FOP. But the reality is,he left the FOP in a legitimate manner and there's no defined time limit for a player to come back on once they've left in this manner.

Whilst I can see both moral sides of this argument, the reality is that disallowing this goal could easily be seen as incorrect in law ... whereas allowing it is clearly within the laws of the game.
Click to expand...
I agree that if he stayed on the field there is nothing we 'should' do even though I still think it is unsporting.

And I am glad you used 'could be seen as' incorrect in law. Because it clearly isn't as any referee will be well within the law to caution for USB if they deem it to be (even if he had stayed on the field). The reason a referee uses for USB does not have to be in the laws (I know you know that). The same argument could have been used ten years ago if someone disallowed a PK goal from a Paradinha kick, it can be seen incorrect in law but allowing it is correct in law.

I have no problem with the timing of coming back to the field. The problem is the intent and the how.
 
one said:
I agree that if he stayed on the field there is nothing we 'should' do even though I still think it is unsporting.

And I am glad you used 'could be seen as' incorrect in law. Because it clearly isn't as any referee will be well within the law to caution for USB if they deem it to be (even if he had stayed on the field). The reason a referee uses for USB does not have to be in the laws (I know you know that). The same argument could have been used ten years ago if someone disallowed a PK goal from a Paradinha kick, it can be seen incorrect in law but allowing it is correct in law.

I have no problem with the timing of coming back to the field. The problem is the intent and the how.
Click to expand...
And it would be different how if his toes were on the line?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top