Bloody Players

[Padfoot]

Thanks all for the feedback. The open question now given the overwhelming consensus is whether our friend and colleague @Padfoot can admit there is another valid point of view other than his own.

Because there isn't. There is a point of view that ignores the LOTG and makes up some fantasy interpretation which eases peoples feelings about deliberately misapplying the LOTG.

But hey....that seems to be the fashion on here....picking and choosing which aspects of the LOTG are worth applying and which to ignore. Which begs the question why are you refereeing?
Clearly not interested in doing the job properly, making up interpretations to make your job easier rather than being prepared to make the difficult decisions and apply the LOTG fairly, consistently and without favour.

No wonder the state of refereeing is in such a decline.

 

[Padfoot]

So do you caution a player who goes off the pitch to get the ball back? Or take a throw-in, or a corner, or get the medical kit for an injured player, etc, etc, etc. You haven't given permission, unless you are very busy, but they have left the field of play.

If a player is bleeding he has to leave the field of play. If he wants to do this under his own steam I will give him my implied permission, just the same as I would do for any of the other things I have listed above. The key thing is he isn't coming back on until the blood has been cleared and I've check this is the case.

Please quote the section of Law 12 that deals with "implied permission"? Can't seem to find it?

 

[WelshRef01]

Nope. No option to use discretion. Mandatory caution.

Another classic example of the "spirit of the game" nonsense being used to justify weak refereeing.

Weak refereeing would be cautioning him. Spirit of the game is in the laws - a player has to leave the FOP if bleeding, he's saving you an extra job.

This in my eyes is a classic example of a way to lose match control! As said an above post, you don't caution players for leaving the FOP to get the ball etc.

 

[RustyRef]

Please quote the section of Law 12 that deals with "implied permission"? Can't seem to find it?

Please quote the bit that says a referee needs to give permission for a player to go and fetch the ball after it has been hoofed off or get a medical kit for an injured player when there is no physio, coach or manager. No, I can't find that either.

 

[Padfoot]

Weak refereeing would be cautioning him. Spirit of the game is in the laws - a player has to leave the FOP if bleeding, he's saving you an extra job.

This in my eyes is a classic example of a way to lose match control! As said an above post, you don't caution players for leaving the FOP to get the ball etc.

Utter rubbish. But completely consistent with your previous postings.

 

[Padfoot]

Please quote the bit that says a referee needs to give permission for a player to go and fetch the ball after it has been hoofed off or get a medical kit for an injured player when there is no physio, coach or manager. No, I can't find that either.

Answering a question with a question is an incredibly poor attempt at distraction from the matter at hand.

Answer the question.

 

[RustyRef]

Utter rubbish. But completely consistent with your previous postings.

OK, getting a bit bored now. Yet again just about everyone else thinks you are wrong but you respond with things like "Utter rubbish", blaming people for the decline of refereeing, and so on.

Either play nicely or posts will start to be unapproved. This is supposed to be, amongst other things, a forum for referees to learn and improve themselves, no to be continually told they are wrong even though 90% of the posters think they are correct.

 

[Padfoot]

OK, getting a bit bored now. Yet again just about everyone else thinks you are wrong but you respond with things like "Utter rubbish", blaming people for the decline of refereeing, and so on.

Either play nicely or posts will start to be unapproved. This is supposed to be, amongst other things, a forum for referees to learn and improve themselves, no to be continually told they are wrong even though 90% of the posters think they are correct.

An incredibly small cross section of referees on a very fan boy happy internet forum are happy to ignore the LOTG and fail to apply them correctly.....and it suddenly makes it right?

Still waiting for the answer to the question.......

 

[TopCat]

Because there isn't. There is a point of view that ignores the LOTG and makes up some fantasy interpretation which eases peoples feelings about deliberately misapplying the LOTG.

But hey....that seems to be the fashion on here....picking and choosing which aspects of the LOTG are worth applying and which to ignore. Which begs the question why are you refereeing?
Clearly not interested in doing the job properly, making up interpretations to make your job easier rather than being prepared to make the difficult decisions and apply the LOTG fairly, consistently and without favour.

No wonder the state of refereeing is in such a decline.

What makes you believe that refereeing is in such a state of decline may I ask out of interest? I personally would say it's at a higher level of quality then it ever has been certainly in England then it ever has been although admittedly the quantity is an issue at the moment

 

[forest96]

Weak refereeing would be cautioning him. Spirit of the game is in the laws - a player has to leave the FOP if bleeding, he's saving you an extra job.

This in my eyes is a classic example of a way to lose match control! As said an above post, you don't caution players for leaving the FOP to get the ball etc.

Exactly this. The big buzz at the moment (particularly from the FA) is 'what does football expect?'

'Football' expects that a player who is bleeding should be allowed to leave the pitch to get himself sorted out without seeking the express permission of the referee, without getting a caution and a fine. I cannot imagine a single player, team official or spectator at any game objecting to that.

As WelshRef points out, walking over and showing a yellow to a player with a nosebleed who's stepped off the pitch to get mopped up makes the referee look at best, pedantic, and at worst, heartless. Dealing with a bleeding player with common sense and empathy wins respect, dealing with him like a jobsworth doesn't help anyone.

I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of observers would back a referee dealing with this incident without resorting to a caution.

 

[Padfoot]

Exactly this. The big buzz at the moment (particularly from the FA) is 'what does football expect?'

'Football' expects that a player who is bleeding should be allowed to leave the pitch to get himself sorted out without seeking the express permission of the referee, without getting a caution and a fine. I cannot imagine a single player, team official or spectator at any game objecting to that.

As WelshRef points out, walking over and showing a yellow to a player with a nosebleed who's stepped off the pitch to get mopped up makes the referee look at best, pedantic, and at worst, heartless. Dealing with a bleeding player with common sense and empathy wins respect, dealing with him like a jobsworth doesn't help anyone.

I'd like to think that the vast, vast majority of observers would back a referee dealing with this incident without resorting to a caution.

Again, more fantasy claptrap. "Football expects...."....please direct me to the section in the LOTG where it tells us what football expects under Law 12?

Football expects competent referees applying the LOTG fairly and consistently......not referees who do what they want, then make up fantastical interpretations to be able to look themselves in the mirror afterwards.

No different to the referee who show the yellow, or red, card to the player being carted off on a stretcher, or otherwise carried off the field of play.......are you suggesting we don't do that either? I mean god forbid, that by enforcing the LOTG (you know, the thing we are being paid to do) we should look heartless.

Anyway......lets swerve away from the utter failure to issue a mandatory caution and ask how the injury happened and why the referee wasn't aware of it until the player left the pitch?

 

[forest96]

Again, more fantasy claptrap. "Football expects...."....please direct me to the section in the LOTG where it tells us what football expects under Law 12?

It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. Don't be a prat.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that is the message that is being delivered from the FA at the moment - Dan Meeson and his colleagues eulogize about 'what does football expect' at CORE meetings and the like, and quite rightly so in my opinion. Yes, we are there to uphold the holy bible (sorry, LOTG) and at times, it requires us to be a b*****d and make unpopular decisions. But we are also there to facilitate the players' enjoyment of the game, and their well-being comes under that. This incident is one of those times I (and many others) believe you should uphold Law 18, common sense, and not shove a card in the face of a player who has stepped off the field because of a bleeding nose or similar, just because he didn't hunt you down to request your express permission. He must, however, request your permission to come back on the field, as you don't want him stepping back onto the field straight into active play.

As to the mechanism of the injury and why the referee wasn't aware earlier, there are several possibilities, but it's not totally relevant to the point of this thread, which seems to be "caution or not?". And I am firmly in the "not" camp.

 

[zarathustra]

Surely you need to use a bit of common sense in situations like this.

Would you expect a referee to caution a player who is having an asthma attack for leaving the field of play to get their inhaler?

What if they’ve suddenly taken a turn and need to make a quick escape to the toilets or to be sick?

If a player has a genuine medical need to leave the field of play without asking my permission then I would be inclined to not issue a caution. Although they wouldn’t be coming back on until I was happy, and no substitutions would happen until the ball is out of play.

I appreciate that the higher you go expectations etc change, but at grass roots I don’t see how a caution in these circumstances would be beneficial.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Anyone agree with Padfoot on this???? ........

 

[Padfoot]

It doesn't, and you know it doesn't. Don't be a prat.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that is the message that is being delivered from the FA at the moment - Dan Meeson and his colleagues eulogize about 'what does football expect' at CORE meetings and the like, and quite rightly so in my opinion. Yes, we are there to uphold the holy bible (sorry, LOTG) and at times, it requires us to be a b*****d and make unpopular decisions. But we are also there to facilitate the players' enjoyment of the game, and their well-being comes under that. This incident is one of those times I (and many others) believe you should uphold Law 18, common sense, and not shove a card in the face of a player who has stepped off the field because of a bleeding nose or similar, just because he didn't hunt you down to request your express permission. He must, however, request your permission to come back on the field, as you don't want him stepping back onto the field straight into active play.

As to the mechanism of the injury and why the referee wasn't aware earlier, there are several possibilities, but it's not totally relevant to the point of this thread, which seems to be "caution or not?". And I am firmly in the "not" camp.

What page is Law 18 on?

And he doesn't have to 'hunt' you down....a quick shout from him, or the benches, drawing your attention to the situation would be sufficient. The onus is on the player not the referee...its not rocket science.

As for CORE, please don't make me laugh. CORE was dreamed up by a marketing team as a way of demonstrating that some of the Premier League money is making its way back down the chain. Full of idealistic catchphrases, like 'what does football expect...', very short on substance peddled by career climbers who have a vested in staying on the gravy train.

Refereeing is a very simple pursuit only made complicated by those who seek to avoid the unpleasant parts while still believing they are doing the job they have gone there to do.
Referee what is in front of you, in line with the LOTG, consistently and without favour.

 

[forest96]

What page is Law 18 on?

That's the whole point, it's not in the LOTG. But based on every word you've ever posted on here, I think I'd be wasting my time trying to explain 'common sense' and 'empathy for the game' to you.

Your comments regarding the CORE programme are extremely misguided and do a disservice to the hours of commitment and dedication put in by the referees involved in it, and the people that coach them.

 

[AlexF]

One of my friends had a match recently (with NARs plus a 4O)... among the players were a handful of U16 girls, one of whom had the unlucky situation of having her first monthly cycle hit her... mid-half.

She was near the touchline by the technical areas and asked the 4O if she could leave, explaining the situation. The 4O insisted to her that she would need to ask the referee (a ~35yo male) for permission before she (the 4O) would allow the player to leave the FOP.

How well do you think that conversation with the 4O went post-match with the assessor?

I mean, seriously... what was she thinking in that situation? Was she thinking what Padfoot seems to think? Certainly wasn't displaying much common sense or what David Elleray talks about, "what the game of football would want"...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Anyone agree with Padfoot on this???? ........

Who? ;-)

I mean, seriously... what was she thinking in that situation? Was she thinking what Padfoot seems to think? Certainly wasn't displaying much common sense or what David Elleray talks about, "what the game of football would want"...

We should all know by now that Padfoot getting to bully somebody ranks above the laws or what the game wants.

 

[one]

Quick questions on the topic "permission"

Ball is in play at one end. The goal keeper at the other end leaves the field of play by about a meter just inside his goal post, without your permission, grabs a water bottle, then comes back to the field of player again without your permission, has a quick drink and throws the water bottle back outside. So the questions: How many cautions do you give him after stopping play and where and what is the restart?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Was that question aimed at one user in particular?