A&H

AR Observation - Harsh?

Ciley Myrus said:
the back and forth signal is actually mentioned in the LOTG.........
Click to expand...
Not in the context of an "over and back" signal for offside, though. The only mention of it is as follows:
When an offence occurs which requires a signal from the AR, the AR must:
• raise the flag with the same hand that will also be used for the remainder of the signal – this gives the referee a clear indication as to who will be awarded the free kick
• make eye contact with the referee
• give the flag a slight wave back and forth (avoiding any excessive or aggressive movement)
Click to expand...
 
The Referee Store
Peter Grove said:
Not in the context of an "over and back" signal for offside, though. The only mention of it is as follows:
Click to expand...


I am mistaken, but, I did see it somewhere, not clearly in the LOTG but I will find it, regardless, its not (here) encouraged
Flag up, offside
Flag down, not offside

if folk just did as directed the officiating world would be a better place.
 
lincs22 said:
At @MattTheRef - what level was the match?

If Supply League, then there is no appeal process I am aware of.

As others have said, walking the dog was the fashion 12-15 years ago probably when the observer was refereeing, so he likes it. The more important point is to be clear that you have decide that there is no offside.
,
Click to expand...
fifth step of the National League System, or the ninth tier of the overall English football league system.
 
RustyRef said:
I think it is harsh to make the walking the dog bit major rather than minor development. In doing so he has meant that you can't get above 7 in offside, whereas if that was minor advice it would be 8 taking the mark up to 75. Especially as he said that all of your offsides were correct and you didn't miss any. Also I think it is in the wrong section, walking the dog isn't a signal for an offside offence so it could be argued it shouldn't be in there. Rather it could go to "Clear signals in accordance with the laws …" in section 3 and that would only bring the mark down by 1 to 74.

I'm also surprised the observer hasn't been pulled up on his reports as there are no positive impact statements on any of the strengths. Don't really think it is worth appealing though, and there's a chance the mark could come down as a strength without a PI statement technically would be removed and that would drop you to 70.
Click to expand...
I've not been asked to make a PI statement on anything other than the referee's report. The whole report could be declared invalid due to the sparsity of timed examples. Also wrong colour scheme used (blue, orange green - there is no red).
 
There seems to be a tad of writing something for somethings sake. Justifying ones existence to moan... I wonder how many of the assessors were top drawer operators back in their day??
 
Sheffields Finest said:
There seems to be a tad of writing something for somethings sake. Justifying ones existence to moan... I wonder how many of the assessors were top drawer operators back in their day??
Click to expand...
The problem is that many observers find that they can find fault better than they can find areas of strength. They also write generic comments and make generalised statements.

Hence the introduction of the positive impact statement. Personally I have never had a problem telling a referee they did the job right. I also usually can find a timed example of them doing it.

As for the level that many observers operated at, I can only tell you my own experience. I was a parks referee who was an AR on a Step 7 Supply League. I can read a game as well as most people, spot the nuances of changes in tempo and trace them back to earlier incidents. I also know law very well and have half a dozen reference tools at my fingertips (all on my phone).

I would like to record all games on my ipad, so I could review incidents like they do at higher levels, but there are permission issues and also getting a decent viewing angle at some of the grounds I attend would be nigh on impossible.

Some observers I know haven't changed their methods or tools in 10 years, but they seem to meet the required standard, so if it ain't broke, why fix it.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
the back and forth signal is actually mentioned in the LOTG.........

I personally don't think its needed but clearly some folk do!!
Click to expand...
JamesL said:
Surprised to hear that some observers are still promoting the walk the dog signal. It has been a while since that has stopped being taught and discouraged.
Click to expand...

AR used it on 2nd Southampton goal yesterday - so hard to believe its being discouraged if used by PGMOL official?
 
Taliking of sginals not in LOTG - Cutting the grass? Pointing at the ball to say 'played the ball'? - See these all the time at top levels

Mike Dean especially uses signals to explain decisions - shirt tug/push for example
 
PinnerPaul said:
Taliking of sginals not in LOTG - Cutting the grass? Pointing at the ball to say 'played the ball'? - See these all the time at top levels

Mike Dean especially uses signals to explain decisions - shirt tug/push for example
Click to expand...



And when you are Mike Dean, you also can do whatever the hell you wish !!!!!!!
 
PinnerPaul said:
Taliking of sginals not in LOTG - Cutting the grass? Pointing at the ball to say 'played the ball'? - See these all the time at top levels

Mike Dean especially uses signals to explain decisions - shirt tug/push for example
Click to expand...
Those are R signals, intended to communicate publicly the R's decision. That is different from AR signals, which are supposed to be just for the ref. Though I personally think that as ARs have become more than "linesman" over the years, it is less inappropriate for them to make signals that are illuminating to other viewers and would love to see some change in how we think about AR signals.
 
Non standard / non LOTG signals for R or AR have been the subject of a few threads here, cutting the grass , upside down screen wiper, palm down motion (calm down)... They all form part of communications / body language that is encouraged. For me they are fine if they satisfy some criteria (these are the ones i can think of of the top of my head)

- There is a purpose benefit behind it
- It does not negatively impact a team or match control
- It is commonly understood for the audience it is used for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top