A&H

Firminho v Palace

richard ramjane

richard ramjane

RefChat Addict
sorry i havent got a clip of it but scenario is as follows
Firminho is put through on goal and clips it over the keeper, but celebrates by taking his shirt off before the ball enters the goal....
goal stands and he gets a caution, but.... ive seen some on social media saying that technically the goal could have been disallowed
 
The Referee Store
I watched this on the box and the ball was just about in the goal before he wheeled away to celebrate :)

Found video -

As he wheeled away though I was saying to my son "and that is the dumbest caution you ever will see..."

Interestingly, I would suggest it is impossible to celebrate a goal until a goal has been scored :D and as far as I can see in the LOTG it is not an offence to remove your shirt unless you are celebrating a goal.

I would not like to be the referee who disallows a goal for this. On a parks pitch, prepare for some serious abuse
 
Last edited:
bah i need to find a clip of it later then ... cant get video links at work ! but yes was to go 4-2 so why he's celebrated like that is beyond me
 
SM said:
I watched this on the box and the ball was just about in the goal before he wheeled away to celebrate :)

Found video -

As he wheeled away though I was saying to my son "and that is the dumbest caution you ever will see..."

Interestingly, I would suggest it is impossible to celebrate a goal until a goal has been scored :D and as far as I can see in the LOTG it is not an offence to remove your shirt unless you are celebrating a goal.

I would not like to be the referee who disallows a goal for this. On a parks pitch, prepare for some serious abuse
Click to expand...

haha yes thats true... i'll catch the clip later, cheers
 
This is a tricky one.
Now, the LOTG say nothing about removing a shirt - but comp rules may. If comp rules state removing the shirt while on the pitch in a YC, then the goal must be disallowed here.
As for here.....it's tricky. Can you celebrate a goal before a goal? If so, the goal has to be disallowed. If not, does he still get cautioned? He didn't remove the shirt _to_ celebrate a goal; it was already off (though we can use USB to apply the intent of the law here anyway, so not a big issue).

I think that arguing the goal should have been disallowed is quite valid.

Put it another way - what if the player did this, but the ball hit a divot then missed the goal? Are we booking him or not?

I think that's key - if you're booking him there, then the goal here is disallowed.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Put it another way - what if the player did this, but the ball hit a divot then missed the goal? Are we booking him or not?

I think that's key - if you're booking him there, then the goal here is disallowed.
Click to expand...
And why would you caution the player for removing the shirt without celebrating a goal?

Would you caution for removing the shirt as the player is stepping off the field as a substitute? Why?
 
AlexF said:
I expected someone to show that... and I'm going to ask... WHY is that card shown?
Click to expand...
I've seen that clip before and I always assumed the card was shown for time wasting by walking off the pitch very slowly (which the shirt removal may have been part of), rather than specifically for the act of taking off his shirt?
 
This really is a non story. The caution is for removing your shirt in celebration of a goal, at which point play is stopped naturally. So you cannot be cautioned before the ball has crossed the line under this offence as you cannot be celebrating a goal. I don't think you would caution a player for removing his shirt during the game while the ball was in play, and you'd only stop play if he got involved in play with no shirt on, and that hasn't happened here either.

So no grounds whatsoever for disallowing the goal.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
This is a tricky one.
Now, the LOTG say nothing about removing a shirt - but comp rules may. If comp rules state removing the shirt while on the pitch in a YC, then the goal must be disallowed here.
Click to expand...
This seems a little inconsistent to me - do the LOTG allow competition rules to specify additional cautionable offences other than those listed in the LOTG?

There are cautionable offences that I believe are deliberately vague in order to allow the referee to apply his judgement/experience to a situation. And competitions obviously give out directives regarding how they think the LOTG should be interpreted (ie. the Premiership looking for referees to apply the laws properly when it comes to holding in the PA this season). But surely these are very distinct from competitions making rules up that force referees to get the cards out where they otherwise wouldn't?
 
GraemeS said:
I've seen that clip before and I always assumed the card was shown for time wasting by walking off the pitch very slowly (which the shirt removal may have been part of), rather than specifically for the act of taking off his shirt?
Click to expand...
I'd agree with you on this -- there's a good deal of time-wasting going on in this situation... so I don't believe that the caution is being given for a shirt removal.
 
GraemeS said:
This seems a little inconsistent to me - do the LOTG allow competition rules to specify additional cautionable offences other than those listed in the LOTG?
Click to expand...
No they don't. The parts of the Laws that can be modified are listed in the Laws document itself and while competition rules can cover things not mentioned in the Laws of the Game (such as shirt-numbers etc) they shouldn't modify the Laws themselves except in the areas specified.

Having said that, I have come across competitions that, although they claim to be following the Laws of the Game with (permitted) modifications, include provisions that they technically aren't allowed to make, according to the very Laws they say they are following. For instance one time I was coaching a team in a tournament in Denmark which had as a rule of competition that any handling offence by the keeper outside the area was an automatic red card. It was also played on a 'small-sided' field with a small penalty area and no goal area.

Sure enough, in our second game our keeper, unused to these pitch markings as we'd never played on such pitches before, lost her bearings and picked the ball up outside the area (with no opponent nearby). Afterwards I thought briefly about protesting the dismissal based on the fact that this was an illegal modification of the FIFA laws but I reckoned that would probably be a fruitless endeavour so in the end, I didn't bother.
 
GraemeS said:
This seems a little inconsistent to me - do the LOTG allow competition rules to specify additional cautionable offences other than those listed in the LOTG?

There are cautionable offences that I believe are deliberately vague in order to allow the referee to apply his judgement/experience to a situation. And competitions obviously give out directives regarding how they think the LOTG should be interpreted (ie. the Premiership looking for referees to apply the laws properly when it comes to holding in the PA this season). But surely these are very distinct from competitions making rules up that force referees to get the cards out where they otherwise wouldn't?
Click to expand...

It isn't an additional cautionable offence as such, but a directive to consider something to fall under an existing caution code.
for instance, wearing jewellery on the field in my region is a mandatory caution.

This, like removing a shirt on the field, falls within the scope of what a referee could do in a certain situation.
 
AlexF said:
I'd agree with you on this -- there's a good deal of time-wasting going on in this situation... so I don't believe that the caution is being given for a shirt removal.
Click to expand...

haha may have been circumventing the laws then ! 'ref i didnt take my shirt off to celebrate the goal, it was already off'
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
It isn't an additional cautionable offence as such, but a directive to consider something to fall under an existing caution code.
for instance, wearing jewellery on the field in my region is a mandatory caution.

This, like removing a shirt on the field, falls within the scope of what a referee could do in a certain situation.
Click to expand...
I know this is slightly sidetracking, but that strikes me as a deeply problematic example... Are you as a referee still expected to carry out a pre-match safety check of the players equipment? And if so, any cautions given for this during the match would be at least in part because you failed to do your pre-match checks properly? That seems like a recipe for trouble, surely?
 
Not at all. Yes, we conduct equipment checks - but it's not roll call. A player may simply be absent at the time, or they may put the jewellery on after. Or it may be concealed at the time. Spotting jewellery on the field doesn't indicate the referee hasn't done their job (and the same argument would be made for instructing a player to leave the field anyway).
Heck, I once booked a smart chap for not having shinpads - now either he wasn't there at the inspection or he took them off after!
Pretty sure that fell under the mandatory caution bit too, although I didn't really care - I would have booked him anyway!
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Not at all. Yes, we conduct equipment checks - but it's not roll call. A player may simply be absent at the time, or they may put the jewellery on after. Or it may be concealed at the time. Spotting jewellery on the field doesn't indicate the referee hasn't done their job (and the same argument would be made for instructing a player to leave the field anyway).
Heck, I once booked a smart chap for not having shinpads - now either he wasn't there at the inspection or he took them off after!
Pretty sure that fell under the mandatory caution bit too, although I didn't really care - I would have booked him anyway!
Click to expand...

So under what law do you give a caution for wearing jewellery, not wearing shin pads, etc?

I get it if you have asked them to correct it and they don't, but if you miss it on the original checks I'm struggling to see this to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top