The Ref Stop

A couple of hypothetical questions...

GazzaJAnimal

GazzaJAnimal

New Member
Hello chaps.

As I have an enquring mind and reading up on the Laws I came up with a couple of questions to put forward to you all. One deals with impeding and the other dangerous play.

First, a player is chasing a ball played over the top with an opponent running close behind. Realising he cannot hope to get the ball the player in front stops in his tracks. The player behind, unable to stop, runs into him. Would you penalise for impeding?

Second, a player reaches out with his foot to control a waist-high ball then finds an opponent stooping down to head the ball. Given that it may be reasonable for both players to legitimately go for the ball as they did, would you punish the player, maybe unfairly, playing the ball with his feet for dangerous play? Or would you, maybe resaonably, punish the header attempt for sheer stupidity and/or endangering himself?
 
The Ref Stop
1) No. The player has a right to the space he is currently occupying and I have no right to stop him from stopping. Impeding really refers to entering into the trajectory of an oncoming player in order to stop his progress or stopping him from going around you (think about how F1 drivers swerve from lane to lane to prevent other drivers from getting around them and passing).

2) I wouldn't punish either of them. If I did feel compelled to stop play (I would normally play on), then play would be restarted with a dropped ball and a warning to both to smarten up so as we're not wasting time dealing with head injuries and paramedics.
 
The first one is very much a have to see it to judge. If there's any contact the offence cannot be impeding but rather one of holding. From the description you've given I'd be inclined to let the game continue simply because it would be unlikely that you could sell a free kick unless it was obvious that the player stopped knowing that he would also prevent the opponent from challenging rather than because he knows that he (and his opponent) are simply not going to get to the ball.

Second scenario I'd say penalise the foot as that is what people will expect. It's far easier to justify penalising a player who has endangered someone else than a player who puts himself in danger in the same challenge.
 
But ASM, the player who had his foot raised only had it dangerously high because the player decided to try to head a ball that was at waist level (why he'd do that is anybody's guess). Are you really saying that you'd punish the more innocent of the two players because it would piss fewer people off? What about courage to make the right call?
 
I'd say a foot raised at waist level in that close a proximity to an opponent is the more dangerous course of action IMO. Thinking about the body's natural position once you start to raise your foot to that height, it is more than likely that the studs would be likely to be showing and that is inherently more dangerous than a player attempting to head the ball in that situation.

Furthermore, if any contact is made by the foot then the offence by the player raising his foot stops being one of playing in a dangerous manner and becomes a kicking offence. As a result, you must by law then penalise the player raising his foot and not the player attempting to head the ball because if contact is made the player has committed the more serious offence.
 
I understand that no contact is made in the example but was simply attempting to show the logic behind the thought process involved in my answer. For me, in 17 years as a referee, I've never penalised a player for attempting to head the ball in terms of dangerous play. To do so in the example given i believe would be a big surprise to most and I try to avoid surprises when I referee - they don't tend to aid a referee's match control.
 
Right, I never said punish him but I did say don't punish the other player who has made a completely reasonable attempt for the ball with his foot in a place where doing so is actually more reasonable than literally bending over in half (cause it's at waist level) to head the ball. I said play on, otherwise dropped ball because they were the one as dangerous as the other.
 
And I haven't criticised your call of play on, as I can see the logic behind that too. I may play on if I consider it appropriate, all I have suggested is which player of the two I would be more likely to penalise and then answered your question :)
 
Second scenario I'd say penalise the foot as that is what people will expect.
Click to expand...

That led me to believe that it was more than an "If I'd penalize anyone, I'd penalize this one."
 
Hey Gazza, I understand that these are hypothetical questions, but both scenarios are what I call a 'location call' - in that I would need to be there to see it.

GazzaJAnimal said:
First, a player is chasing a ball played over the top with an opponent running close behind. Realising he cannot hope to get the ball the player in front stops in his tracks. The player behind, unable to stop, runs into him. Would you penalise for impeding?
Click to expand...

Probably not, if it is obvious to all and sundry that neither player has a chance of getting to the ball.

If there is an outside chance that one, or both have the pace to get there, then there are a few things that would need to be taken into account. Firstly, is it a defender or attacker that stops suddenly? So, a slow defender who won't get there, preventing a pacy winger from reaching it? Then it would be a block - the telling signs would be the defender looking over his shoulder and making sure he would be in the opponents way before putting the brakes on.

Did the defender actually intend to prevent the attacker from passing? Was he he aware the player was there when he stopped? If so, then it could potentially be dangerous and punishable as such.

So much would depend on your reading of the game, and the players involved - has there been some niggle between the two of them previously? If so, then maybe I would penalise and have a word. Is it a bad-tempered game in general, are the players involved aggressive idiots or 'social' players?

Yes, the player has a right to his space on the field, but there are factors that might turn this from an accidental collision between two honest players into a potential flare-up that requires referee control and management.

A 'gut-feeling' response from me I would think.


GazzaJAnimal said:
Second, a player reaches out with his foot to control a waist-high ball then finds an opponent stooping down to head the ball. Given that it may be reasonable for both players to legitimately go for the ball as they did, would you punish the player, maybe unfairly, playing the ball with his feet for dangerous play? Or would you, maybe resaonably, punish the header attempt for sheer stupidity and/or endangering himself?
Click to expand...



The height of the head is only a small part of the equation here.

Firstly, you cannot penalise, or reward a player for putting themselves into a dangerous situation. That's up to them.

Neither should you penalise a player for simply attempting to control, or kick the ball - whether it's on the ground, at waist height or head height.

Again, a judgement or gut-feeling call is required and the things i would look at are:

Did the kicker know the other player was attempting to head it before lifting his foot? (Your OP suggests not)
If not, did he have time to pull out of the challenge?
Has the 'header' thrown himself in to it with reckless abandon?

Granted, the higher the foot, the more chance of it being 'in a dangerous manner', but not necessarily. Although I would probably lean more towards a IDFK and 'play safe'.

Of course, if contact is made, then it becomes something else entirely.
 
Thanks for all the replies chaps. It has occured to me that this could have been an excersise in opinions of consistency. What I mean is we've all heard commentators and pundits on TV spouting on about consistency, the need for it and why isn't there any from referees. While my intention with the questions was not intended as a test (as such) it did bring about the need for 'position, intent and circumstances' of each incident to be taken into consideration and the (most important) referees interpretation of said incident which pundits will never understand! I've certainly learned something from the replies thus far and hopefully will make watching football more enjoyable.
 
I love it when players/coaches/pundits go on about 'consistency' these days.

I remember, a good while back now, a decision/instruction/mandate was handed down for officials to referee to the letter of the law, in order to instill the 'consistency' that everyone else in the game was screaming for.

After less than a season of this, all those screamers were screaming again, but this time for more 'common sense' to be applied during the game, and to let it 'flow' a bit more.

From this, I believe, the 'advantage' Law was born and wording like 'if, in the referee's opinion' appeared more often in the LOTG.

Unfortunately, common sense and understanding of the game can often be the opposite of 'consistency' between refs. 'Last week's ref' is born from the fact that one ref's tolerance levels are different to another's.

Unless you get to see the incident once, and once only, from the same angle as the referee, there will always be decisions that beggar belief. I remember one a while ago, in a WC or perhaps Euro Champs, when the ref has given a penalty for a shirt pull in the last few minutes. He was villified across the football world for a really bad decision, pundits, players and papers were all over him for two days - then a still photo was found that clearly showed the attacker was being pulled back. Ref was spot-on with the call.

Fortunately he was able to laugh about it, and said something along the lines of 'Well, the 28th camera angle caught the incident"
 
I think the key words in law which will always cause the consistency issue or lack of are "In the Opinion of" until them words are removed from law we will always have different views of offences. If we were all told to referee like this and like that we would be accused of being robots and ruining the game.

Yet again the "Referee" cannot win
 
I disagree. FIFA and the FAs are doing a better job of clarifying the specific things which should guide our opinions.
 
I have to agree with you Ryan, I think things are getting better/easier, but there will always be some things dependant on tolerance level - dissent for example. Even the difference between a fair/careless/reckless tackle is so often down to the way the ref sees the incident rather than what is in Law.

Then, when you factor in the players and coaches knowledge of the LOTG you probably won't ever win!

Don't ya love it!!!!!
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
I have to agree with you Ryan, I think things are getting better/easier, but there will always be some things dependant on tolerance level - dissent for example. Even the difference between a fair/careless/reckless tackle is so often down to the way the ref sees the incident rather than what is in Law.

Then, when you factor in the players and coaches knowledge of the LOTG you probably won't ever win!

Don't ya love it!!!!!
Click to expand...


As you climb the levels, you'll find that there's much more by way of additional instructions from the FAs, even on dissent, to the point where it's more about recognition than about decision. That is also the case for fouls.
 
I don't disagree Ryan, things are becoming clear but whilst in the opinion of remains we can rule on what we as individuals feel is a foul, if its carless/reckless or excessive force and whilst that remains we will always have people say that should have been a booking or he was lucky to stay on the pitch. Granted some of that will also be down to the referees experience, position at the time of the incident, but as humans our opinions will always differ in some way.
 
I see what your saying but I think that, as FIFA and the FAs do a better job of equipping us with considerations, we will all come to relatively the same conclusion (with a few minor differences) when faced with the same incident.
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
Unless you get to see the incident once, and once only, from the same angle as the referee, there will always be decisions that beggar belief. I remember one a while ago, in a WC or perhaps Euro Champs, when the ref has given a penalty for a shirt pull in the last few minutes. He was villified across the football world for a really bad decision, pundits, players and papers were all over him for two days - then a still photo was found that clearly showed the attacker was being pulled back. Ref was spot-on with the call.

Fortunately he was able to laugh about it, and said something along the lines of 'Well, the 28th camera angle caught the incident"
Click to expand...

I believe that was Howard Webb at Euro 2008 in the final group game which involved Poland and Austria ending 1-1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top