Got the ball

[Kes]

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.

Again you respond with something that is irrelevant in the context of this thread Ben.

This thread is about the player myth prevailing that "It can't be a foul cos I got the ball Ref!" It's now also about referees using hand signals to explain why a particular challenge (when appealed for by the player(s)) is not a foul ie. "It's not a foul because I'm making this got-the-ball sign".

Getting the ball is not mentioned in law, end of. By suggesting that it's the deciding factor for you not penalising a challenge (which is what you're doing with that hand signal) then you're employing a gesture that it incompatible with the LoTG.

That last bit I've emboldened in your post is because that's exactly what some are saying - and what I've seen referees do myself.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Exhibit A

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636135395032219650

Honest question, does this qualify for excessive force?

Would like to see the build up if possible… might try and find a longer clip somewhere, but first impressions are at least a yellow, probably a red. Is it true that not even a foul was given?

 

[GraemeS]

Nobody has suggested that.

We absolutely have had that suggested:

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.

 

[Egg man]

Would like to see the build up if possible… might try and find a longer clip somewhere, but first impressions are at least a yellow, probably a red. Is it true that not even a foul was given?

I'm giving a foul in this situations. He may of got the ball but he taken the player.

The next question for me is speed distance traveled and where the foot is on impact. Just by the video I can not tell all that. My gut feeling foul and caution.

 

[RustyRef]

We absolutely have had that suggested:

I was being a bit flippant to make a point, of course there are some signals that don't appear in the laws. My point stands though, pointing at the ball used to be routinely done by referees, myself included, as generally speaking winning the ball meant it wouldn't be a foul. That hasn't been the case for many years though, and many red cards come after winning the ball first (think Casemiro last week). For that reason it is very bad practice to point at the ball, you rarely see it happen at senior levels, and I've been at an FA seminars both as a referee and an observer where they have said it shouldn't happen.

 

[Ben448844]

Again you respond with something that is irrelevant in the context of this thread Ben.

This thread is about the player myth prevailing that "It can't be a foul cos I got the ball Ref!" It's now also about referees using hand signals to explain why a particular challenge (when appealed for by the player(s)) is not a foul ie. "It's not a foul because I'm making this got-the-ball sign".

Getting the ball is not mentioned in law, end of. By suggesting that it's the deciding factor for you not penalising a challenge (which is what you're doing with that hand signal) then you're employing a gesture that it incompatible with the LoTG.

That last bit I've emboldened in your post is because that's exactly what some are saying - and what I've seen referees do myself.

The context of any debate changes as the debate continues. You've even highlighted this in your second paragraph.

I've highlighted a common occurrence which is when a defender makes no attempt to go off his feet or make any contact with the attacker at all. They've literally flicked a toe out to divert the ball away from the attacker. Whether the ball was won is the deciding factor in this common circumstance.

There will be a minority that use the gesture when they shouldn't and a minority of fans that misunderstand it. Its not relevant or a consideration to the way I referee.

Little flick of the toe and the ball changes direction slightly and the attacker goes down and everyone is screaming for a pen......I'm using the signal and shouting "clean tackle". Everyone knows whats gone on everywhere in the ground. Any type of force at all and I'm avoiding the signal.

 

[Kes]

The context of any debate changes as the debate continues. You've even highlighted this in your second paragraph.

I've highlighted a common occurrence which is when a defender makes no attempt to go off his feet or make any contact with the attacker at all. They've literally flicked a toe out to divert the ball away from the attacker. Whether the ball was won is the deciding factor in this common circumstance.

There will be a minority that use the gesture when they shouldn't and a minority of fans that misunderstand it. Its not relevant or a consideration to the way I referee.

Little flick of the toe and the ball changes direction slightly and the attacker goes down and everyone is screaming for a pen......I'm using the signal and shouting "clean tackle". Everyone knows whats gone on everywhere in the ground. Any type of force at all and I'm avoiding the signal.

Going around the houses now I think ....

Neither of the instances you've given above are relevant to the OP's original post regarding players protesting at being penalised for a challenge after "getting the ball".

I'm gonna leave it there.
On top
and correct.

 

[Peter Grove]

I've highlighted a common occurrence which is when a defender makes no attempt to go off his feet or make any contact with the attacker at all. They've literally flicked a toe out to divert the ball away from the attacker. Whether the ball was won is the deciding factor in this common circumstance.

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with that. The deciding factor is not whether the ball was won, it is whether the challenge was careless, reckless or used excessive force.

As far as I'm concerned (and as far as what the law says) getting the ball is totally immaterial to the referee's judgement in that regard.

So in the example you give, if a player stays on their feet, flicks a toe out and makes no contact with the opponent, the deciding factor is that this was not a careless, reckless or excessively forceful challenge. Again, whether the ball was won or not is wholly irrelevant.

Otherwise, are you saying that if, in these circumstances the player does not get the ball, it is a foul? Clearly it's not - and the reason it's not, is because of the nature of the challenge, not because of whether the ball was won.

 

[GraemeS]

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with that. The deciding factor is not whether the ball was won, it is whether the challenge was careless, reckless or used excessive force.

As far as I'm concerned (and as far as what the law says) getting the ball is totally immaterial to the referee's judgement in that regard.

So in the example you give, if a player stays on their feet, flicks a toe out and makes no contact with the opponent, the deciding factor is that this was not a careless, reckless or excessively forceful challenge. Again, whether the ball was won or not is wholly irrelevant.

Otherwise, are you saying that if, in these circumstances the player does not get the ball, it is a foul? Clearly it's not - and the reason it's not, is because of the nature of the challenge, not because of whether the ball was won.

What makes the challenge careless or not? LOTG: "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution".

Taking aside the fact that when you read that sentence it arguably has no real life meaning at all, the overall point is that the law doesn't granularly define what is and isn't a careless trip. It makes a blanket statement about the general principals of what it means to be careless and then lets match officials fill in the gaps for individual offences.

So is it not reasonable to say that "getting the ball" can be considered an indicator that care has been taken and missing the ball and tripping the opponent indicates otherwise? Where the law includes "in a manner considered by the referee to be CRUEF", there's enough room for any interpretation to be technically correct, and I'd suggest this interpretation fits in more neatly with what football expects than the argument used against this.

"Getting the ball" isn't the reason for no foul on its own. "Getting the ball" is often an indicator that care has been taken, which is therefore the reason for no foul (assuming no other CRUEF criteria is met).

 

[socal lurker]

As far as I'm concerned (and as far as what the law says) getting the ball is totally immaterial to the referee's judgement in that regard.

I don't quite agree with this. While I think getting the ball is overrated as a deciding factor, I don't agree that it is "totally immaterial" to the determination of whether a play was careless or reckless. I think some of the issue is that not getting the ball is an indicator (or clue) that a tackle was at least reckless more than getting the ball is an indicator that the tackle was not at least careless. (And that view is supported by what we see with VAR, where on certain plays we see the VAR and R looking closely at whether the tackler got the ball.) But I do agree, as I've said before, that focusing on whether the defender got the ball by pointing at it or saying "got the ball," aren't a good practice because of the fact that getting the ball is merely one of the clues used by an R to determine C/R, not a deciding factor.

 

[Ben448844]

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree with that. The deciding factor is not whether the ball was won, it is whether the challenge was careless, reckless or used excessive force.

As far as I'm concerned (and as far as what the law says) getting the ball is totally immaterial to the referee's judgement in that regard.

So in the example you give, if a player stays on their feet, flicks a toe out and makes no contact with the opponent, the deciding factor is that this was not a careless, reckless or excessively forceful challenge. Again, whether the ball was won or not is wholly irrelevant.

Otherwise, are you saying that if, in these circumstances the player does not get the ball, it is a foul? Clearly it's not - and the reason it's not, is because of the nature of the challenge, not because of whether the ball was won.

If the player doesn't make contact with the ball but does with the attacker then there's every chance a penalty is awarded. If the ball has been won and no contact has been made then there is no chance a penalty is awarded. When these challenges go to VAR a large focus is whether the ball is won or not.

We cannot disregard the ball when deciphering whether a tackle is careless or not. If they aren't attempting to win the ball then what is a challenge in most circumstances? A fair challenge is winning the ball without doing so carelessly. That may not be LOTG definition but it's the reality.

This is semantics. Wording is important but its not definitive. Just because the ball isn't mentioned in the LOTG in this context it does not mean that it isn't very important.

Whilst we're taking about communication, the LOTG don't mention verbal communications in this respect but I don't think any of us would recommend not giving clear verbal communication on challenges that happen during the game. Should we not say "fair challenge" etc because players may believe that means every type of challenge is fair?

I'm afraid I'm yet to be convinced that the signal isn't useful in certain circumstances so it will remain one of hundreds I'll use during a game