Got the ball

[RustyRef]

Avoiding becoming "LWR" is about making the correct LOTG decision and explaining it correctly.

Saying this is the exception where we should be trying to obfuscate the correct reason for a decision because at some point in the future, some player might misrepresent that decision to a different official is putting too much of a burden of responsibility in the wrong place.

If a player says "well 2 weeks ago I did exactly that challenge and the ref didn't blow for it" then I'll treat it with a pinch of salt and use the same response I would if he told me another ref had let him play without shinpads, or wearing a ring or any other number of things relating to previous officials - I wasn't there, I wasn't anything to do with that decision, today we're doing X.

As a side note, I don't think "clean tackle" really explains anything. Of course the ref thinks it's a clean tackle, that's why he didn't blow his whistle - the question the player is actually asking is "why haven't you blown for a foul there?". Clean tackle, no foul or any variation on those doesn't answer that question at all and is just a waste of breath in terms of explanation.

You can explain it but not everyone will hear you, whereas everyone will see you pointing at the ball and not giving a free kick. It is poor and outdated practice, dating back to when winning the ball pretty much meant you could do anything after, and most observers are going to pick you up on it these days.

Remember as well it isn't just the players you are explaining to, you also have spectators. You don't need to be a senior referee to officiate at levels with paying spectators, a Level 5 can be in the middle for step 6 games, and in pointing at the ball you are perpetuating the myth that winning the ball means it cannot be a foul.

 

[Tealeaf]

And equally a large number of referees (historically myself included) who perpetuate it by using a 'ball' gesture to denote why a particular challenge was fair

I too historically but dropped it after the advice from an assessor as they were then, for similar reasons to what others have elucidated in here. He called it “gimmicky” and it struck a real nerve with me!

Sadly he’s no longer with us but did become a very good friend when I got over the indignation!

 

[Ben448844]

The problem is, there are some incidences where getting the ball first or not actually is the difference between a fair or unfair challenge. Particularly with low-force trips - these are generally considered fair if you are making a successful tackle and happen to trip the opponent in the follow-through, but are obviously unfair if you don't contact the ball and just trip the opponent.

So while I appreciate it is often misused and does reinforce the myth that anything goes after the ball is kicked, I'd be very unimpressed with any observer who tried to tell me I should never use that gesture. The point is, use "got the ball first" where it actually is a relevant reason for a no-foul decision, but where that's not a key factor in the decision, don't fall back on it just because it feels like an easy explanation.

100% on board with this. If a player has left their feet and slid in with any force whatsoever then I'm never using the gesture. But if there's a challenge in the box for example where a player is on his feet and his tried to flick a toe out to knick the ball and he does so then its a very clear & communicative signal to everyone in the ground.

Now if someone is stupid enough to think that it means that whenever anyone wins the ball it cannot be a free kick then so be it, not my concern. But despite the fact that everyone screams that they won the ball when they've done a reckless or dangerous tackle and end up being carded, I have never played with a single player who actually believes that winning the ball means you can 2 foot someone for example. Its just the line we've all used to try and avoid the correct punishment. I'm sure there's a few hat manually believe this but is a minority in the extreme.

 

[GraemeS]

You can explain it but not everyone will hear you, whereas everyone will see you pointing at the ball and not giving a free kick. It is poor and outdated practice, dating back to when winning the ball pretty much meant you could do anything after, and most observers are going to pick you up on it these days.

Remember as well it isn't just the players you are explaining to, you also have spectators. You don't need to be a senior referee to officiate at levels with paying spectators, a Level 5 can be in the middle for step 6 games, and in pointing at the ball you are perpetuating the myth that winning the ball means it cannot be a foul.

Again, that's an unreasonable burden to put on individual lower-level officials. It's not my responsibility to correct poor law knowledge of the entire football playing and watching collective - in the same way I've seen officials told not to go on a crusade to fix dissent alone, as it just causes more issues and confusion.

My responsibility is the game in front of me - and if the reason for not giving a penalty is because the ball was won (as has been the case probably hundreds of times in my officiating career), I'm not going to complicate things by inventing a different reason or suddenly being uncharacteristically vague and uncertain, which risks hammering my match control.

Also, as another side note, I don't like pointing for the exact same reason - it's vague and unclear. Ball gesture or verbally explaining it is better IMO.

 

[RustyRef]

Again, that's an unreasonable burden to put on individual lower-level officials. It's not my responsibility to correct poor law knowledge of the entire football playing and watching collective - in the same way I've seen officials told not to go on a crusade to fix dissent alone, as it just causes more issues and confusion.

My responsibility is the game in front of me - and if the reason for not giving a penalty is because the ball was won (as has been the case probably hundreds of times in my officiating career), I'm not going to complicate things by inventing a different reason or suddenly being uncharacteristically vague and uncertain, which risks hammering my match control.

Also, as another side note, I don't like pointing for the exact same reason - it's vague and unclear. Ball gesture or verbally explaining it is better IMO.

Apart from you are being told by multiple observers that you are wrong, it is outdated practice and shouldn't be used. At least you can't say you weren't warned if you get pinged for it in an observation.

 

[GraemeS]

I didn't realise we were expected to just defer to titles on this forum. Better close down the "As Seen on TV" section then - if I'm not allowed to discuss with observers, what right do any of us have to question SG1?

What will I get "pinged" for? Accurately and concisely explaining the actual reason for a decision? That's a tick on AOL and a tick on communication from my perspective. Which will in turn probably benefit the mythical match control mark. So if you really want to focus on observers and observations, which compentcy am I damaging with the explanation?

 

[Big Cat]

Forget CRUEF
In reality, winning the ball is the first consideration when it comes to foul recognition. You might all think you have blessed powers of knowing what CRUEF stands for, but winning the ball is the first thing we look for, as do the players
I'm not against pointing at the ball in the right circumstances

 

[Kes]

100% on board with this. If a player has left their feet and slid in with any force whatsoever then I'm never using the gesture. But if there's a challenge in the box for example where a player is on his feet and his tried to flick a toe out to knick the ball and he does so then its a very clear & communicative signal to everyone in the ground.

Now if someone is stupid enough to think that it means that whenever anyone wins the ball it cannot be a free kick then so be it, not my concern. But despite the fact that everyone screams that they won the ball when they've done a reckless or dangerous tackle and end up being carded, I have never played with a single player who actually believes that winning the ball means you can 2 foot someone for example. Its just the line we've all used to try and avoid the correct punishment. I'm sure there's a few hat manually believe this but is a minority in the extreme.

Irrelevant.
That consideration is inside your head as the referee and of course plays it's part in your decision but effectively telling the players that the reason it's not a FK is because the ball has been "got" is not compatible with the LOTG and is just wrong.
Dress it up and excuse it all you like ...

 

[RustyRef]

I didn't realise we were expected to just defer to titles on this forum. Better close down the "As Seen on TV" section then - if I'm not allowed to discuss with observers, what right do any of us have to question SG1?

What will I get "pinged" for? Accurately and concisely explaining the actual reason for a decision? That's a tick on AOL and a tick on communication from my perspective. Which will in turn probably benefit the mythical match control mark. So if you really want to focus on observers and observations, which compentcy am I damaging with the explanation?

I didn't say you have to defer to titles, but you are being given advice by multiple qualified people and are throwing it back at them. Your prerogative of course, but in this case we are 100% right and you are 100% wrong. In case you aren't sure, have a look at law 5: there are lots of diagrams of referees making signals, unless I am missing it I can't see any diagram of a referee pointing at a ball to indicate there was a fair challenge.

 

[santa sangria]

IMHO ball gesture can be very useful - especially in multilingual matches - but only with the “right situation” i.e. if it wasn’t obvious a player played the ball.

With the wrong situation, the ball gesture can be awful i.e. if it was not obvious if a player made careless contact.

I am in a multilingual environment and have to use hand gestures - in particular to communicate NON-decisions. Played the ball, used the shoulder, trifling, coming together, natural position… I cannot successfully communicate these concepts verbally alone in many match situations as we might have 4-5-6 languages on the field

 

[Kes]

in particular to communicate NON-decisions. Played the ball, I cannot successfully communicate these concepts verbally alone in many match situations as we might have 4-5-6 languages on the field

Multilingual environment or not, you're not communicating anything that is compatible with law by doing or saying that.
All I'm seeing on this thread is several referees trying to justify reasons for engaging in bad practice.
EG. There's nothing in the LOTG that says a referee shouldn't use swear words when he communicates with the players but you wouldn't do that would you?

 

[Ben448844]

Multilingual environment or not, you're not communicating anything that is compatible with law by doing or saying that.
All I'm seeing on this thread is several referees trying to justify reasons for engaging in bad practice.
EG. There's nothing in the LOTG that says a referee shouldn't use swear words when he communicates with the players but you wouldn't do that would you?

I do yes. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I applaud myself if I get through 2 sentences without swearing in any walk of life!

 

[Ben448844]

I didn't say you have to defer to titles, but you are being given advice by multiple qualified people and are throwing it back at them. Your prerogative of course, but in this case we are 100% right and you are 100% wrong. In case you aren't sure, have a look at law 5: there are lots of diagrams of referees making signals, unless I am missing it I can't see any diagram of a referee pointing at a ball to indicate there was a fair challenge.

Are we suggesting that we can only make signals that are in the law of the game? Communicating with our hands is just human tendency. If we were to watch ourselves back we would be amazed about the communication we do with our hands

 

[Ben448844]

Multilingual environment or not, you're not communicating anything that is compatible with law by doing or saying that.
All I'm seeing on this thread is several referees trying to justify reasons for engaging in bad practice.
EG. There's nothing in the LOTG that says a referee shouldn't use swear words when he communicates with the players but you wouldn't do that would you?

It isn't incompatible with law. A tackle in the penalty area where the defender is stood up and flicks his toe at the ball is the perfect scenario for using the 'point' signal. The only consideration there is whether the defender has touched the ball or not and therefore its a good communication tool. Nobody is suggesting pointing at the ball when there's been any force in the tackle.

 

[GraemeS]

I didn't say you have to defer to titles, but you are being given advice by multiple qualified people and are throwing it back at them. Your prerogative of course, but in this case we are 100% right and you are 100% wrong. In case you aren't sure, have a look at law 5: there are lots of diagrams of referees making signals, unless I am missing it I can't see any diagram of a referee pointing at a ball to indicate there was a fair challenge.

"Throwing it back at them" is an odd choice of expression. I'm being given advice yes, but that doesn't mean I'm obliged to just accept it when it seems to me to be based off incorrect assumptions. And where I've identified what seems to be an incorrect basis, I've queried it politely and without being given satisfactory answers.

I've asked how to explain decisions where contact on the ball is the deciding factor and have just been given synonyms for "no foul", which isn't useful IMO.
You tell me I'll get pinged in observations so I've asked what competency I would loose marks on - no answer.
I've been given an argument about other games and I've explained why I think describing the decision accurately and honestly is a better approach than trying to obfuscate the reasoning.

And you're now trying to imply only the law 5 signals are acceptable, which is obvious nonsense. No cutting the grass? No side-to-side to signal offside? No pointing to the spot of the foul? I've been explicitly told by observers to use gestures to get players to neutral ground before a caution. I've had a different observer "ping" me because my pointing to set up a PI caution wasn't clear enough! And I don't believe there's even a reference to the "peep peep peeeeep" in the LOTG - we all use non-approved signals regularly, the only difference here is this is one you don't like.

 

[santa sangria]

Multilingual environment or not, you're not communicating anything that is compatible with law by doing or saying that.
All I'm seeing on this thread is several referees trying to justify reasons for engaging in bad practice.
EG. There's nothing in the LOTG that says a referee shouldn't use swear words when he communicates with the players but you wouldn't do that would you?

I think we can disagree on this.

I was really anti hand signals a few years ago. I wasn’t conscious of what I was doing and I was caught on camera signalling 3 things at once - really poor, messy.

It changed for me when Collina pointed out (18 WC?) that hand signals can benefit communication between players and referees.

I’ve been much more flexible since. Not all ”familiar” hand gestures by players need to be sanctioned, and there are useful signals from officials not in LofG.

 

[GraemeS]

I think we can disagree on this.

I was really anti hand signals a few years ago. I wasn’t conscious of what I was doing and I was caught on camera signalling 3 things at once - really poor, messy.

It changed for me when Collina pointed out (18 WC?) that hand signals can benefit communication between players and referees.

I’ve been much more flexible since. Not all ”familiar” hand gestures by players need to be sanctioned, and there are useful signals from officials not in LofG.

Exactly. I got "pinged" by an observer for what he described as Teapot signals, pointing at the location of the foul with one hand and the direction with the other.

Even then, the advice wasn't to cut out the location point completely - rather, decide which bit of information is most important to communicate and do that. Usually this will be the direction of the foul, or occasionally when an attempted advantage doesn't come to anything or you're penalising the first in a sequence of contacts it might be the location.

Very very rarely you might need both signals, in which case they look better done sequentially. A good bit of observer advice that was well reasoned and came with clearly explained better practice - so I was happy to try and implement it!

 

[Kes]

I think we can disagree on this.

I was really anti hand signals a few years ago. I wasn’t conscious of what I was doing and I was caught on camera signalling 3 things at once - really poor, messy.

It changed for me when Collina pointed out (18 WC?) that hand signals can benefit communication between players and referees.

I’ve been much more flexible since. Not all ”familiar” hand gestures by players need to be sanctioned, and there are useful signals from officials not in LofG.

Mate, I've said nothing about hand signals not being useful. Far from it. You're digressing, much like Ben has above.

 

[Kes]

I do yes. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I applaud myself if I get through 2 sentences without swearing in any walk of life!

Each to their own. I'm careful never to use profanities when communicating with the players. Common sense tells me that:

a. It's not professional.
b. Can be used by the players as another stick to try and beat me with.

I doubt any observer would recommend it either ...

 

[Kes]

Are we suggesting that we can only make signals that are in the law of the game? Communicating with our hands is just human tendency. If we were to watch ourselves back we would be amazed about the communication we do with our hands

Nobody has suggested that.