In that case do you want me to come and speak to you and your colleagues in the islands....no fee but you'd have to pay expenses..........can't be fairer than that......
Distracting an opponent
- Thread starter cdsman
- Start date
Its just a big Rocky @Mintyref, 'Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place and it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't how hard you hit; it's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward. How much you can take, and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done. Now, if you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hit, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you are because of him, or her, or anybody. Cowards do that and that ain't you. You're better than that'........ You'll certainly be distracting opponents if you dress up locally!!!
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I think doing nothing because you can't identify the offending player would be an easier sell then awarding an indirect freekick and cautioning a random player.
The chances are that most of the defenders will know who the culprit was, and probably some of the attackers to. What is that going to do to your match control when both teams see you guess at a decision and caution a player who didn't do anything? (Providing you don't get lucky and accidentally pick the player who shouted)
If the players ask why he was getting a caution do you tell them you're guessing, or do you lie and tell them you're confident it was him?
The chances are that most of the defenders will know who the culprit was, and probably some of the attackers to. What is that going to do to your match control when both teams see you guess at a decision and caution a player who didn't do anything? (Providing you don't get lucky and accidentally pick the player who shouted)
If the players ask why he was getting a caution do you tell them you're guessing, or do you lie and tell them you're confident it was him?
one
RefChat Addict
When a defender is about the clear the ball, an attacker from behind yells "keeper's, leave it", the defender leaves it and attacker scores, how do you sell not doing anything? I really think not doing anything is a much harder sell. Anyway, selling the decision wouldn't be my priority here. Disallowing an illegal goal will be.
And if the player asks why? "For distracting an opponent". "But it wasn't me". "I think it was you". You are not lying because you didn't completely pick a random player. You pick the one you think it was.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Call me old fashioned but I don't caution players because I think they did something.
I caution plays because I know they did something, I know he deliberately handled the ball, I know she used excessive force, I know he was playing in a dangerous manner.
Integrity is about doing the right thing, not the easy thing and I won't sacrifice mine for the sake of match control.
Had a talk by a SG1 official recently and I was quite surprised with his outlook and it changed my stance on 'always do it by the book'. Sometimes you really have got to deviate and sacrifice strictly sticking to the book for match control. Prime example was goal scored from playing the ball back to the keeper from an injury - find anything at all wrong with it, make something up completely for match control, you hadn't blown your whistle etc. It's not right in law, but it saves a big headache when that brawl starts because you wanted to allow the goal because you 'technically' couldn't do anything.
one
RefChat Addict
No one is questioning your integrity here (and hope you are not questioning mine). I have mentioned this before, here it's about choosing the lesser of the two evils.
Let me ask you this question. In my scenario, would you be allowing the goal knowing it was illegal? For good measure let's say it was a last minute winning goal in a cup final with a 5K winners prize.
I wouldn't say "enough reason". It makes it sound made up. It is a perfectly good and correct reason. The question is around cautioning someone knowing it could be mistaken identity which is different to disallowing the goal for distracting an opponent.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
If I don't know who shouted then I'm not going to be cautioning anyone, if I'm not going to be cautioning anyone then I'm not going to be stopping the game, or disallowing the goal.
I completely understand the reason behind wanting to disallow the goal, but I am not going to blindly caution someone unless I am confident that they are the person who committed the offence.
I completely understand the reason behind wanting to disallow the goal, but I am not going to blindly caution someone unless I am confident that they are the person who committed the offence.
one
RefChat Addict
I disagree with it but respect your choice. However I hope you can see the point about it not being about integrity. Because your choice also has a major issue of knowingly allowing an illegal goal and a team win a game (and 5K) undeservedly.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
To me, the biggest critical factor is knowing that it was an attacker and bad enough to warrant the caution. If I know that, I probably know (or at least have a good idea who the miscreant is), but even if I don't know who it was, I know that the team committed misconduct and the goal should not stand. I lean towards the philosophy of cautioning the most likely offender (but being willing to change if the team fesses up to the right offender).
But if you can't stomach there is another option that can be squeezed out of Law 12. I don't have to know the offender before I blow the whistle--I know an offense has occurred, so I should stop play. The precise language of Law 12 is "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player. " I stopped play to caution a player--whether or not I can find the player to give the caution to. (Admittedly a bit cute, but arguably defensible.) And if you struggle with that, the fall back is that play was stopped for the caution, and since you can't give a caution, the restart is a DB--not a good result, but better than an unambiguously undeserved goal.
Law 5 clearly teaches that
I don't see any way to say that it is within the spirit of the game for the referee to know that an attacker committed a cautionable act of unsporting behavior but to allow the goal (game winning or not) to stand because he fails to identify the culprit.
But if you can't stomach there is another option that can be squeezed out of Law 12. I don't have to know the offender before I blow the whistle--I know an offense has occurred, so I should stop play. The precise language of Law 12 is "commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player. " I stopped play to caution a player--whether or not I can find the player to give the caution to. (Admittedly a bit cute, but arguably defensible.) And if you struggle with that, the fall back is that play was stopped for the caution, and since you can't give a caution, the restart is a DB--not a good result, but better than an unambiguously undeserved goal.
Law 5 clearly teaches that
I don't see any way to say that it is within the spirit of the game for the referee to know that an attacker committed a cautionable act of unsporting behavior but to allow the goal (game winning or not) to stand because he fails to identify the culprit.
I have had an incident when a player put an opponent off like this this and didn’t know which one. I won’t caution a player without reason (despite what the teams round here think!) but I will not allow a cheat to benefit so gave the free kick and told the two likely candidates “I’m not sure which one of you it was. If I were sure I’d caution you. Whoever it was, don’t do it again!” That pacified the other team so there were no recriminations. Allowing a goal like this would be a serious risk to match control. Not cautioning is not ideal but it’s better than the alternative. The other team knew who it was and if I hadn’t dealt with it they would have.
one
RefChat Addict
A viable alternative but TBH, I'd much rather a IFK restart without caution to your choice of DB. Similarly its squeezing water from a stone. As the book says, IFK when you stop play to caution a player, and you stopped play "to caution a player", The fact that you couldn't identify the player and unable to caution shouldn't change the restart.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Technically illegal. But so is cautioning the wrong player.
And also...... Allowing a goal after the attack has committed an offence. The method of scoring is quite clear on that.
So I guess we're left to choose between 3 bad options. I'm jumping ship and claiming that between 3 options of breaking the law, you want to choose one that has the least impact.. So, choose one that disallows the goal.
Caution random player or not is all were left with.
Although.... Once you disallow the goal somebody is going to argue. Maybe the first player to argue from the vicinity of the shout should be the lucky contestant?
But this isn't committing an offence which is punishable by a free kick. This is committing an offence which (if you blow for it) is a mandatory caution, for which the restart happens to be an IDFK... Subtly different I feel.
one
RefChat Addict
That was an anomaly that was fixed 17/18. Verbal offences are punishable by an IFK now.
