Search results

Wait 2-3 seconds to see what happens and then make my choice.

The "giving me a headache" is gold. I'll have to use that some time :P

The answer that I kept getting at that stage in my career was "as far as you need to see the play."

Did you see the tackle? It was neither reckless nor using excessive force. It was a careless tackle with a back leg catching Shaw. It was a foul, but there was no sanction required (and, thankfully, none given on the day).

First of all, I feel really bad for Luke Shaw. He's a quality young player and this injury will take him out for at least this season and could have serious impacts on the rest of his career (assuming it isn't career-ending). To answer your question, we punish the player's action, not the...

Well, I was experiencing that awful burn out you sometimes get. Gladly, I'm feeling much more about it now--and just in time for our season.

I toss that conundrum in the 'not my problem' category.

You're a referee: a master at putting square pegs through round holes!

Don't overthink it ;)

Footed? I don't think so! It may have been two-legged but the legs were both bent and he was making some attempt, at least, to pull out of the challenge. It was reckless, though.

Most associations have a list of priorities for their appointments. Use that as your rubric.

How could it be racist?

I'm not a fan of the no cards rule, but if you accept an appointment on the basis that you won't show cards, then don't. If you can't accept those appointments anymore, then don't.

Hey guys, It's been a while so I figured I'd say hello again.

Yeah, he's been ****e both at pretty much every level he's been at; not sure why they're pushing him so hard...

Since the game is not for you, I'd suggest you adapt your tolerance level to something closer to what the players are prepared to put up with. That said, if both teams are playing equally physically, and you're happy with the level of physicality (it doesn't cross the line into carelessness, so...

No you don't start from the beginning. A second caution is the next step on the stepped approach. If he hasn't learned by the first, then get rid of him because he's a bad egg.

It always seems like the second one is soft, doesn't it? I don't think it actually is soft, but that the expectation is that it must be so much "harder" so to speak because of the result. However, that's a fallacy: it simply needs to be a cautionable offense because the player has already been...

Not to mention, Micky, the play would have required a whistle to restart had you cautioned him before the player could chip the ball.

If you talk too much, you might as well not talk at all. Pick and choose when to use your words just as you pick and choose when to use your whistle and your cards. The players aren't there to get your input on every single play.