The Ref Stop

Game Talking Points

Big Cat

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Few things from my game today;
1) Keeper made the best save i've EVER seen in grass roots footy
2) I allowed a player to wear a watch that alarmed when his defibrillator activated to correct an arrhythmia
3) Cautioned a lino (sub) for chucking the flag at an opponent
The last one caused hilarity between both teams
I also had the head-to-head contact thing mentioned in the Leeds post
One other thing regarding uncertain KMI's. We all know the relief when we're not 100%, but the decision we give results in no backlash. I had two of them, one pen given, one turned down, two banana skins out the way!
 
The Ref Stop
Interesting one with the watch, not something I’d heard of before. Playing devils advocat, what if a players takes the watch to the face during the match and splits his nose open? Is common sense always correct?
 
QuaverRef said:
Interesting one with the watch, not something I’d heard of before. Playing devils advocat, what if a players takes the watch to the face during the match and splits his nose open? Is common sense always correct?
Click to expand...

Would anyone stop someone playing football because he's wearing a watch for genuine medical reasons? The "what if" scenarios always cloud judgement and probability. What if somebody studs catch a player (happens every game). What if someone's head/hands/shoulders etc split someone's nose open (happens all the time). What if somebody makes contact with the posts?

The watch is way down the list of injury risks in a football match and it's a medical requirement of the player involved and he should not be prevented from playing a sport because of a nominal risk of a superficial injury.

Play on.

I do realise the post was playing devils advocate btw :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Sheffields Finest said:
Any observer pulling you up for that needs to retire his clipboard and take up another hobby!!!
Click to expand...
I think you've wildly misunderstood how observers work then. An observer absolutely should query if the referee noticed the player with a watch on. Then when the ref says yes, the observer should ask why he allowed him to play regardless. Then when the ref explains, the observer should congratulate him on a good use of common sense and then we all move on.

An observer failing to notice the watch or noticing it and failing to mention it to the referee would be a complete failure of observation. Any observer who doesn't mention that should hang up his clipboard - but that's not the same thing as marking a referee down for it.
 
Realistically, if he’s wearing a watch linked to a defibrillator, should he be playing football in the first place?
 
Well that's a weird one. i'd probably want to ask why he needs to be wearing that watch...so he gets notified, but what does that mean? Information only? Does it mean that he needs to take immediate action or he's at risk? No harm in asking for a little more information to justify exempting him from that clause in Law 4, but yeah, sounds reasonable to allow him to play. If he's going to tell me that he needs it then I'm not going to argue that point...

Sounds like an interesting day!
QuaverRef said:
Interesting one with the watch, not something I’d heard of before. Playing devils advocat, what if a players takes the watch to the face during the match and splits his nose open? Is common sense always correct?
Click to expand...
If that happened, the watch isn't the problem - without the watch it's a forearm/wrist to the face. Same outcome.
alexgr said:
Realistically, if he’s wearing a watch linked to a defibrillator, should he be playing football in the first place?
Click to expand...
Not the referee's place to make that judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
GraemeS said:
Sheffields Finest said:
Any observer pulling you up for that needs to retire his clipboard and take up another hobby!!!
Click to expand...
I think you've wildly misunderstood how observers work then. An observer absolutely should query if the referee noticed the player with a watch on. Then when the ref says yes, the observer should ask why he allowed him to play regardless. Then when the ref explains, the observer should congratulate him on a good use of common sense and then we all move on.

An observer failing to notice the watch or noticing it and failing to mention it to the referee would be a complete failure of observation. Any observer who doesn't mention that should hang up his clipboard - but that's not the same thing as marking a referee down for it.
Click to expand...
I don't see your view being in contradiction with SF's view. Pulling someone up means reprimanding them. All you say is correct, so is what SF said.

So to sum it up, the observer would be wrong if he/she doesn't ask the referee why he/she allowed the watch. The observer would also be wrong, despite having received a good reason, deduct marks from the referee because Law 4 doesn't allow the equipment.

On a related matter I get players with hearing aids once every half dozen games. This is common enough and the reason is obvious enough for no questions to be asked from the player as a referee. Also as an observer, I don't question the referee.
 
Big Cat said:
Few things from my game today;
1) Keeper made the best save i've EVER seen in grass roots footy
2) I allowed a player to wear a watch that alarmed when his defibrillator activated to correct an arrhythmia
3) Cautioned a lino (sub) for chucking the flag at an opponent
The last one caused hilarity between both teams
I also had the head-to-head contact thing mentioned in the Leeds post
One other thing regarding uncertain KMI's. We all know the relief when we're not 100%, but the decision we give results in no backlash. I had two of them, one pen given, one turned down, two banana skins out the way!
Click to expand...
Not sure how point 3 works. For me, once he starts as my assistant, he is no loner a sub and can't be cautioned. If he does that, I would just dismiss him from his CAR duties without a caution. But my view is trumped by any comp rules or guidelines from RA.
 
one said:
Not sure how point 3 works. For me, once he starts as my assistant, he is no loner a sub and can't be cautioned. If he does that, I would just dismiss him from his CAR duties without a caution. But my view is trumped by any comp rules or guidelines from RA.
Click to expand...
Once he's your assistant has he been removed from the teamsheet? No longer wearing team uniform?
Being a CAR doesn't mean he isn't a sub. It's a bit like the old captain/coach debate. If you're fulfililng 2 roles then you can be held accountable for either.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Once he's your assistant has he been removed from the teamsheet? No longer wearing team uniform?
Being a CAR doesn't mean he isn't a sub. It's a bit like the old captain/coach debate. If you're fulfililng 2 roles then you can be held accountable for either.
Click to expand...
I like the fact that you used the words "can be" and "either" instead of using the words "must be" and "both" :)

I think the common view (and my view) of player/coach management debated here was you deal with him in the capacity of his role at the time. If he is acting/speaking as coach, deal with him as coach, if he is acting/speaking as player/captain then deal with him as a player.
 
one said:
I like the fact that you used the words "can be" and "either" instead of using the words "must be" and "both" :)

I think the common view (and my view) of player/coach management debated here was you deal with him in the capacity of his role at the time. If he is acting/speaking as coach, deal with him as coach, if he is acting/speaking as player/captain then deal with him as a player.
Click to expand...
You're literally the only person I've seen advocate that view. We've discussed it on here plenty of times.
The fact that he's a coach/CAR doesn't mean he's not a sub.
You don't get to 'not' be a sub/player for a portion of the match.

You make things a lot easier for yourself if you card them for an act you'd card any other sub for.

there's some things that you'd only deal with them in that 'other' capacity - but if they do something that you can issue a yellow/red card for, then do so.

Because your argument that a sub can throw something at somebody on the field and not be booked just makes no sense, and isn't supported in law.
 
This CAR was a substituted player, but with return subs, he was also a sub eligible to come back on. The joys of CARs. @Ciley Myrus would have loved this post
 
Tino Best said:
If he threw the whole corner flag surely it should be red. Or did he just throw the fabric?
Click to expand...
He threw the whole flag! Reckless or excessive force? More like comical as the flag blew off target in the wind. I just found it funny along with everyone else, so a dismissal would have been OTT
The target was also cautioned for initiating the skirmish by having a pop at an offside decision
 
Last edited:
Correct with the defribulator watch and the flag throw caution.

Just imagine being the dumb referee being called to an inquest if a player died on the field of play and you asked him to take off his life saving medical device so another player could avoid a black eye!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top