Search results

I've always wondered what the point of Referees' Associations is when they fail to represent referees to any authorities in a meaningful way.

It is similar in that it was a holding offence which was neither SPA nor reckless, but which the majority of stakeholders (players, coaches, and spectators) believed should be a caution.

If you don't want to caution for it, then you don't have to. But if you do want to caution for it (for reasons I've given above) then the caution should be given for UB-Lack of Respect. Both decisions, to my mind, are supportable and neither is incorrect.

But why do you think it's BS?

And, just to be clear, I can't possibly be "making it up as I go along" and also fabricating the justification after the fact. I don't appreciate being accused of two things simultaneously which cannot logically both be occurring at the same time. I also don't appreciate being accused of doing...

The holding offense was slightly different, and it was a first yellow card; but it was a holding offense which was neither SPA nor reckless, but which was flagrant and which everyone wanted and still wants to see cautioned, so I gave a caution and reported it as UB- Lack of respect for the game.

I have thought about it on the field and given it. I have video proof of me giving it, if you need to see it.

It quite literally isn't. It is one of the offenses listed as UB.

If you want to give a caution for the incident, and you may well, then this is a perfect justification in the Laws.

I often think there should be a way for referees to "challenge" individual club marks, based on the observer's report. If successful, that mark must be treated as an outlier and removed from the aggregate score.

You could easily say that Konate "shows a lack of respect for the game" by committing what is an obvious, egregious, and unnecessary foul which could not, in any sense, be considered a footballing action. This has the added benefit of allowing the referee to give the caution that everyone and...

If you hadn't flagged it to the CFA and there was trouble, do you think the teams would back you up? More likely, they would say "well, the ref said it was alright so we went ahead with it. It's his fault, really."

Issue the sanction to the senior coach if nobody will identify themselves or the guilty party. This has been the law for two years; football should expect this by now.

What the observer wants is what the FA wants; what the FA wants is what the authority wants; what the authority wants is what I will give the authority, since I am not the authority.

They are normal here too; but the competition rules should indicate how to deal with an offense during the substitution.

A caution for entering the field of play without permission, a second caution for SPA, a sending off and a DFK.

Sure they are. But substitutions "on the fly" are not provided for in the Laws. And, as I attempted to say earlier and as James and Graeme have clarified for me, there's a very good chance that the framers of the competition rules, herein personified as "some random league Chairman" didn't make...

It is, at most, a second of side stepping. Before the corner is struck, you're going to be "bouncing" on your toes ready to move and you'll know from the run up and the player movement before the kick that it's going far post.

I agree entirely. Even some way up the ladder from grassroots, it is hard to justify an advantage 40 yards away from goal and on the wing. Unless there is a clear stretch of 40 yards, and a numerical advantage in the middle for the attacking team (or some great behemoth who wins every header)...

My argument here is that he wasn't getting anywhere near it even before he saw it coming.