CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Ok, here it is
1) The IFK. Absolutely correct
2) The caution. Would only be potentially justifiable if it's persistent infringement. Nothing else. And even that is highly questionable.
3) The quick restart. When a caution is issued, play MUST be restarted by a whistle. If there was no whistle, the QFK would have been fine
4) What the flap is the referee doing grabbing the ball out of the keeper's arms and setting the ball for the QFK???
That last point is highly underestimated in just how bad it is. Not whistling is already a grievous error in law that has decided the match. But step 4 crosses the line into the appearance of questionable impartiality. The referee has basically done everything except kick it into the goal himself. I'm not accusing the referee myself, but being fair is only half of the equation; he must be seen to be fair and he couldn't have failed harder on that than if he joined in their team song after the match.
Grabbing the ball out of the keeper's arms is just inviting problems - if the keeper had refused and the referee got himself into a grabbing contest, the keeper would have had to be sent off and probably face a lengthy suspension. Setting the ball for the FK himself is just completely wrong. the referee should never do anything to physically facilitate the QFK himself.
If the keeper had released the ball and it had fallen into the correct position, then while technically the referee could have quickly blown the whistle, I'd argue that would be against the spirit of the law anyhoo.
1) The IFK. Absolutely correct
2) The caution. Would only be potentially justifiable if it's persistent infringement. Nothing else. And even that is highly questionable.
3) The quick restart. When a caution is issued, play MUST be restarted by a whistle. If there was no whistle, the QFK would have been fine
4) What the flap is the referee doing grabbing the ball out of the keeper's arms and setting the ball for the QFK???
That last point is highly underestimated in just how bad it is. Not whistling is already a grievous error in law that has decided the match. But step 4 crosses the line into the appearance of questionable impartiality. The referee has basically done everything except kick it into the goal himself. I'm not accusing the referee myself, but being fair is only half of the equation; he must be seen to be fair and he couldn't have failed harder on that than if he joined in their team song after the match.
Grabbing the ball out of the keeper's arms is just inviting problems - if the keeper had refused and the referee got himself into a grabbing contest, the keeper would have had to be sent off and probably face a lengthy suspension. Setting the ball for the FK himself is just completely wrong. the referee should never do anything to physically facilitate the QFK himself.
If the keeper had released the ball and it had fallen into the correct position, then while technically the referee could have quickly blown the whistle, I'd argue that would be against the spirit of the law anyhoo.
Last edited: