Yes, that is the same as pointing at the ball to signify there is no foul, really not a sensible thing to be doing.
Giving players information.
- Thread starter spuddy1878
- Start date
Yes, that is the same as pointing at the ball to signify there is no foul, really not a sensible thing to be doing.
If you go to card a player and he says his name is Ivor Chestikov, what's the official advice we should be offering!
Asking for a friend!!
Asking for a friend!!
Like they do (or used to do
) in the pro gameSaw Mike Dean do it a few weeks ago which confused me a bit - he drew an imaginary ball and mouthed "ball".Like they do (or used to do
Side note: Does the suspension due to coronavirus mean that Mike Dean has probably already refereed his final PL match?
If ever I was called out for such a gesture by an observer, i'd find it a difficult pill to swallow given it's normal behaviour to emulate our seniors.
Yes they do it for the cameras, but the millions of players watching on, happen to be the players we're faced with. Therefore, pointing at the ball is
expected and understood by everyone at grass roots and we can't change that
Last edited:
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
If you go to card a player and he says his name is Ivor Chestikov, what's the official advice we should be offering!
Asking for a friend!!
Mark it down as Ivor C., give your best Ivan Drago impression of "I must break you", and continue with the game.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
OK, that's fair. I do talk on the field, but I want to make sure what I'm saying is not coaching or advice while letting the players know I'm close and am ready to call something if it transpires.
I'd only pick you up on it if you did it and then later in the game got problems after you penalised a player who had won the ball.
There's lots of things that top level referees do that shouldn't be done at lower levels, flashing cards being the obvious one. People should be very wary of copying them as what works at one level might not work at others.
In the podcast he said he was carrying on into next season, so don't think we've seen the last of him (assuming next season happens of course ...
)spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
How you can you penalise someone if they get the ball first..........................................
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Because in the LOTG, "getting the ball" is not mentioned in any way shape or form.
All the referee is required to do is consider whether or not the challenge/tackle was:
Careless
Reckless
Excessively forceful.
As @Kes says getting the ball first does not determine whether a challenge is Fair or CRUEF.
It can be a consideration but getting the ball, first, doesn't mean everything after is fair game.
Example 2 footed lunge using excessive force, from the side, all ball, no contact with player, is still a foul challenge and should still be sanctioned with a red card.
It's a very rare occurrence that a foul challenge that involved winning the ball first does not result in anything less than reckless for me.
I was with you till the last bit... your card count must be the highest in the league! Any foul should be judged on its merit, speed, intensity, safety, retribution, timing or mis-timing, game temperature, accidentality, plus lots of others I’m sure. Hard to say that most would always be a Reckless YC call! Or have I missed your point?
Last edited:
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
Here's an example that I've called quite a bit.
Defender executes a slide tackle. Front foot gets ball, but trailing leg comes in and gets the attacker on the plant leg.
Yes, the defender got the ball, but the subsequent action is a foul (and, depending on speed/force, likely at least reckless). The 2019 UEFA RAP has a play emphasizing this exact scenario. On the 1-10 scale (1 = no foul and 10 = "Holy smokes, that was really bad!"), UEFA had this play as a 6 (reckless).
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I *think* (and hope!) that was a joke . . . or an effort to stir the pot in these boring times . . .
Difficult to explain, really. The very vast majority of challenges win the ball clearlya dn are fair. The vast majority of fouls don't get anywhere near it, or involve the ball at all. Most fouls, that include the ball first, tend to be reckless in nature, at minimum, so attract the relevant sanction.
Sweeping statement that, I can't quite get my head around that summation that you jump to!! Surely Careless more than fits a very good portion too??? Why jump straight to a card?? Not saying its never a card, just not the almost go-to solution..
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed.
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Fully aware of the definition in laws of game. I am just speaking from experience, many of the fouls that I give, where a player wins the ball, tend to be reckless. So I punish them as such.
I am not generalising, that's just how it is, or appears to me, in my experiences
Often a player who gets the ball but still fouls, would have fouled regardless of whether they got the ball, usually because they make a sliding challenge that either goes through the opponent to get to the ball later or takes the whole lot at once.
That immediately brings it hovering around reckless - there is no regard at all for the safety of the opponent - and hence why it is most likely to get a card.
Also related is the tackle that gets the ball but doesn't contact the opponent because they took evasive action. Only because PIADM is an IFK offence and not called out specifically as USB does it not always merit a caution, but this is borderline, the "see-through card" (everything except the actual colour) should be applied.
This is not the same as saying getting both ball and player is a foul. Getting the ball in a way that shows due care, but that for unrelated reason ends up making contact or bringing the player down, is merely part of the physical game.
That immediately brings it hovering around reckless - there is no regard at all for the safety of the opponent - and hence why it is most likely to get a card.
Also related is the tackle that gets the ball but doesn't contact the opponent because they took evasive action. Only because PIADM is an IFK offence and not called out specifically as USB does it not always merit a caution, but this is borderline, the "see-through card" (everything except the actual colour) should be applied.
This is not the same as saying getting both ball and player is a foul. Getting the ball in a way that shows due care, but that for unrelated reason ends up making contact or bringing the player down, is merely part of the physical game.
Last edited: