The Ref Stop

DO you stop for Shoelaces?

Do you let players tie their shoelace?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 51.2%

  • No

    Votes: 16 37.2%

  • Dependant on their position I.e defending centre back

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Total voters
    43
Common sense, i will weigh up the situation at the time and then see, stop, more than likely not but never say never.
delay a restart, possibly

depends what level, how game is, what I have done previously, will just evaluate at the time.
 
The Ref Stop
There is actually a Law 4 clause/directive about this.

1550145045749.png

It makes sense except the poor wording means it is literally impossible to adhere to it at times. What if the footwear or shinguard is lost immediately before the ball goes out of play? How can it be replaced in one or two seconds? Yep, the goal stands but doesn't a goal mean the ball has gone out of play and the player has not replaced the shinguard in required time?

What it should have said is "no later than the next restart"
 
one said:
There is actually a Law 4 clause/directive about this.

View attachment 3080

It makes sense except the poor wording means it is literally impossible to adhere to it at times. What if the footwear or shinguard is lost immediately before the ball goes out of play? How can it be replaced in one or two seconds? Yep, the goal stands but doesn't a goal mean the ball has gone out of play and the player has not replaced the shinguard in required time?

What it should have said is "no later than the next restart"
Click to expand...

The problem I faced was that a guy holding a shin pad repeatedly passed the ball back snd forth. ”As soon as possible” is unfortunate here... basically we have to make this one up!
 
one said:
There is actually a Law 4 clause/directive about this.

View attachment 3080

It makes sense except the poor wording means it is literally impossible to adhere to it at times. What if the footwear or shinguard is lost immediately before the ball goes out of play? How can it be replaced in one or two seconds? Yep, the goal stands but doesn't a goal mean the ball has gone out of play and the player has not replaced the shinguard in required time?

What it should have said is "no later than the next restart"
Click to expand...
It means that if the player has not replaced it by the time the ball next goes out of play, that is when he must replace it....I.e. before the restart!
 
one said:
There is actually a Law 4 clause/directive about this.

View attachment 3080

It makes sense except the poor wording means it is literally impossible to adhere to it at times. What if the footwear or shinguard is lost immediately before the ball goes out of play? How can it be replaced in one or two seconds? Yep, the goal stands but doesn't a goal mean the ball has gone out of play and the player has not replaced the shinguard in required time?

What it should have said is "no later than the next restart"
Click to expand...

Like too many parts of the Laws, this was poorly edited. But unlike some of the drafting, there is no question what this one means, if it is linguistically wrong. (I thought the greatest disappointment in the recent great rewrite was the failure to clean up some of the poor drafting.)

santa sangria said:
The problem I faced was that a guy holding a shin pad repeatedly passed the ball back snd forth. ”As soon as possible” is unfortunate here... basically we have to make this one up!
Click to expand...

Sometimes you just have to referee. We use judgment on when we need to decide something is unsafe and stop play.

CapnBloodbeard said:
Honestly, he could run and score a goal and it's fine - as long as he's not involved in any challenge for the ball (and 'involved in a challenge' in this context would basically mean the moment an opponent gets within 5 yards, I'd ping the player with the missing shinpad for PIADM - you want to prevent the challenge here)
Click to expand...

I don't think it technically meets the definition of PIADM--though there is again sloppy drafting here:
1550164608830.png
Nothing in the player holding his shin guard is going to prevent the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury to someone. Nonetheless, I'm not going to argue with a ref who goes there in the spirit of the game. The alternative, of course, is a DB.
 
There was a discussion on here where an observer argued that a player kicking the ball without a boot on was playing in a dangerous manner against himself as he could injure his foot...
 
bester said:
There was a discussion on here where an observer argued that a player kicking the ball without a boot on was playing in a dangerous manner against himself as he could injure his foot...
Click to expand...
I'd imagine some observers (L7-L6-L5) draw on their own experiences to 'pad out' the competency expectations :yawn:
I'd imagine this embellishment wouldn't wash once on the ladder
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
socal lurker said:
Like too many parts of the Laws, this was poorly edited. But unlike some of the drafting, there is no question what this one means, if it is linguistically wrong. (I thought the greatest disappointment in the recent great rewrite was the failure to clean up some of the poor drafting.)



Sometimes you just have to referee. We use judgment on when we need to decide something is unsafe and stop play.



I don't think it technically meets the definition of PIADM--though there is again sloppy drafting here:
View attachment 3082
Nothing in the player holding his shin guard is going to prevent the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury to someone. Nonetheless, I'm not going to argue with a ref who goes there in the spirit of the game. The alternative, of course, is a DB.
Click to expand...
I hear what you're saying - but if an opponent does hold back because the player doesn't have a shinpad it easily meets the criteria. But really you want to stop play before it reaches that point - because the alternative is that the opponent DOES go into a challenge and the player is injured from a fair challenge.

I've never liked that definition of PIADM - I think the text and intent of the law are at odds with another. It basically means that if a defender tries to head the ball and an opponent tries to kick the ball at head height and misses the defender's head by inches, then as long as the defender hasn't clearly pulled back from the challenge there's no offence. Which is just absurd.
 
I dunno. Fouls are about affecting opponents. The reason PIADM is a foul is that the dangerous act interferes with an opponent's ability to play the ball.

As I understand it, US high school soccer rules water this down and punish merely the dangerous act. And I think in the real world most of us are not really picky about the affect on the opponent in youth game--where the player's might not be smart enough to recognize the danger to themselves (which takes me back to my comment that I'm not going to think poorly of a ref who calls PIADM even if the opponent isn't backing out). The younger/less skilled the player are, the more justifiable I think it is to ignore the technical requirement. I would not expect it to be ignored in a professional game. (And I wish the rewrote that language which is hopelessly awkward.)
 
Mintyref said:
It means that if the player has not replaced it by the time the ball next goes out of play, that is when he must replace it....I.e. before the restart!
Click to expand...
So you are saying "and no later than when the ball next goes out of play" means "before the restart". Oh, ok. Not before full time? :P
 
bester said:
There was a discussion on here where an observer argued that a player kicking the ball without a boot on was playing in a dangerous manner against himself as he could injure his foot...
Click to expand...


Was that the one where I typed a player could play in slippers and someone emailed David Ellery and he confirmed that they could?
 
Niasse joined English Premier League club Everton on 1 February 2016 for a transfer fee of approximately £13.5 million, signing a four-and-a-half year contract. He made his debut for the club against AFC Bournemouth on 20 February 2016, entering as an 80th-minute substitute for striker Romelu Lukaku.

After 152 minutes of football in his first season at the club, Niasse was not given a squad number for the following 2016–17 season. He was informed by then-Everton manager Ronald Koeman he would need to search for a new club during the summer 2016 transfer window, saying, "f Niasse likes to play football he needs to leave Everton."

However, following the close of the transfer deadline for loaning and signing players in England, he was listed as part of the 25-man Everton squad for the 2016–17 season submitted on 1 September 2016 and eventually issued squad number 24.

In October 2016, Niasse was demoted to the under-23 squad and had his personal locker revoked..

I'd of thought at £13.5 million he'd of been able to do his own shoe laces up!!
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I've never liked that definition of PIADM - I think the text and intent of the law are at odds with another. It basically means that if a defender tries to head the ball and an opponent tries to kick the ball at head height and misses the defender's head by inches, then as long as the defender hasn't clearly pulled back from the challenge there's no offence.
Click to expand...
Not any more. You could argue that was true (although I still think that it was possibly against the spirit of the law) when the law said:
Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
Click to expand...

However the slight wording change to:
Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.
Click to expand...
means that it no longer has to necessarily cause the opponent to pull out of a challenge, to meet the criteria for PIADM.
 
I’ve seen this happen, it’s generally comical rather than let’s injure someone! Bit OTT,
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
Not any more. You could argue that was true (although I still think that it was possibly against the spirit of the law) when the law said:


However the slight wording change to:

means that it no longer has to necessarily cause the opponent to pull out of a challenge, to meet the criteria for PIADM.
Click to expand...
Forgot about that change - but you're completely correct. A wording change that brings it in line with expectations and how it's actually considered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top