Joel Veltman throws sportsmanship out window...

[Padfoot]

No i dont think hes saying that at all. The problem as i see it is you tarring everyone with the same brush, calling everyone weak or cowards, just because they dont agree with you

Then you have grossly misinterpreted, misrepresented or misunderstood what was being said.

The crux of the matter is that there are referees who will make decisions based on their perception of how making (or not making) a decision will affect how they are marked by a club, whether consciously or sub-consciously, and the sort of remarks thrown about in this thread about referees needing to interpret USB in a particular way in order to maintain a positive perception of their performance is veering sharply into that territory.

Are all of those referees weak/cowardly? Probably not, probably some have been conditioned to think that way because of the way club marks are used to determine worthy, or not worthy, referees. Perhaps they have been on the end of some unjustified poor club marks that have spoilt their season......who knows?
Are some of those referees happy to hide behind "club marks" as an excuse not to make big or difficult decisions? Absolutely they are.....does that make them weak/cowardly? Absolutely it does.

Having said that I understand why some referee's might make a decision to protect their positive perceptions, doesn't change the fact that, in some circumstances, that is weak refereeing.
Do I disagree with what I perceive as weak refereeing? Absolutely I do.
Do I consider anyone who disagree's with me to be a weak referee? Absolutely I do not.
Do I consider that sometimes those disagreements occur because of weak refereeing? Absolutely I do.

Not sure I can make it much clearer?
Obviously those who disagree will, once again, choose to misinterpret what has been written and make up their own meanings to suit their perspective, but hey ho, that's life.

 

[GraemeS]

Then you have grossly misinterpreted, misrepresented or misunderstood what was being said.

The crux of the matter is that there are referees who will make decisions based on their perception of how making (or not making) a decision will affect how they are marked by a club, whether consciously or sub-consciously, and the sort of remarks thrown about in this thread about referees needing to interpret USB in a particular way in order to maintain a positive perception of their performance is veering sharply into that territory.

Are all of those referees weak/cowardly? Probably not, probably some have been conditioned to think that way because of the way club marks are used to determine worthy, or not worthy, referees. Perhaps they have been on the end of some unjustified poor club marks that have spoilt their season......who knows?
Are some of those referees happy to hide behind "club marks" as an excuse not to make big or difficult decisions? Absolutely they are.....does that make them weak/cowardly? Absolutely it does.

Having said that I understand why some referee's might make a decision to protect their positive perceptions, doesn't change the fact that, in some circumstances, that is weak refereeing.
Do I disagree with what I perceive as weak refereeing? Absolutely I do.
Do I consider anyone who disagree's with me to be a weak referee? Absolutely I do not.
Do I consider that sometimes those disagreements occur because of weak refereeing? Absolutely I do.

Not sure I can make it much clearer?
Obviously those who disagree will, once again, choose to misinterpret what has been written and make up their own meanings to suit their perspective, but hey ho, that's life.

That's quite frankly rubbish.

You have - on this thread and on may other occasions in the past - accused other members of this forum of making a decision because they think it will give them better club marks. This isn't abstract, this isn't a vague concept that "some" referees do - this is a direct accusation you have pointed towards other forum users. And I do believe that more often than not, you've done so when discussing a genuine difference of opinion.

In this thread in particular, you've specifically accused others of refereeing for club marks because they believe the incident under discussion is unsporting behaviour and you don't believe that. As I've made clear, I consider that a wildly offensive assumption even before we begin to discuss situations where it may be true to an extent. And I certainly don't think it's an appropriate thing to bring into this conversation.

Again, stop trying to hide it in some vague concept or euphemism. You've directly insulted nearly everyone else that's posted on this thread by implying the reason they would consider a caution in this situation is for club marks. Because they have a different opinion to you on this matter, you've insulted their integrity and/or quality as a referee - and now you're refusing to apologise for it. The least you can do is admit to that.

 

[Padfoot]

That's quite frankly rubbish.

You have - on this thread and on may other occasions in the past - accused other members of this forum of making a decision because they think it will give them better club marks. This isn't abstract, this isn't a vague concept that "some" referees do - this is a direct accusation you have pointed towards other forum users. And I do believe that more often than not, you've done so when discussing a genuine difference of opinion.

In this thread in particular, you've specifically accused others of refereeing for club marks because they believe the incident under discussion is unsporting behaviour and you don't believe that. As I've made clear, I consider that a wildly offensive assumption even before we begin to discuss situations where it may be true to an extent. And I certainly don't think it's an appropriate thing to bring into this conversation.

Again, stop trying to hide it in some vague concept or euphemism. You've directly insulted nearly everyone else that's posted on this thread by implying the reason they would consider a caution in this situation is for club marks. Because they have a different opinion to you on this matter, you've insulted their integrity and/or quality as a referee - and now you're refusing to apologise for it. The least you can do is admit to that.

I think you are taking this WAY too personally.......

The use of the word "you" on an internet forum rarely relates directly to the person being responded to......it's a much more general concept.....and I think that you have confused that usage to mean that I have been directly referring to individuals on here when the truth is that a much wider and general reference was used.

Also, as previously explained (and expected that it would be misinterpreted by those who wish to disagree), this sort of incident may be used by those who seek to protect club marks......and some of the justifications given on this thread for cautioning may be indicative of that motivation......and I have said that I understand that motivation......but asked that a degree of honesty prevailed about the motivations...at the very least some self honesty.

I'm pretty much done with explaining myself now.....clearly you are going to interpret whatever I post in whatever way suits the point you are trying to make....so pretty pointless me carrying on, because we'll just go round in circles.

 

[AlexF]

I've been reading this for a while, and I have a problem with both sides of the argument as presented.

Is this a VERY subjective situation? Yes.
Would I (personally) ever think of cautioning here based on the situation as I've seen it? No.
Would I (as an assessor/observer) have an issue if a referee cautioned here? Not if they could defend the caution under the Laws and point to how it aided match control.

For me, the only place in USB that this really falls into is the bringing the game into disrepute clause, but at the same time, feinting/etc is allowed during the taking of a FK or PK (just not when the PK run-up is complete). Is pointing to something/someone/etc and then moving in another direction feinting? Sure it is.

Is there voice/vocal distraction used in the situation? I don't know. I can't hear any on the video I've seen. If there is, then we're starting to look at the possibility of a caution for verbal distraction, and that I could support as an assessor/observer.

Yes, a caution here could aid match control... it could also hinder it, depending on what else is going on.

Short answer: I do not believe that there is any fully right and correct answer to this situation/scenario.

 

[RustyRef]

Well I am out of the National System now, so my club marks count for absolutely nothing, and frankly I don't give two hoots about them. I can't get promoted, I can't get demoted, why would I care about marks?

Yet I would absolutely penalise this as he has acted in a way that shows a lack of respect for the game, and it certainly wasn't in the spirit of the game. Although I would have done the same when level 3 regardless of any potential risk to club marks, and I would argue you would lose more club marks for allowing the deception than penalising it. If it leads to a goal the team that concedes it are going to clobber you, whereas if you stop play as soon as it happens chances are your mark from both team won't even be affected, and if anything will actually go up from at least one of the teams.

I also very much doubt that a top level Dutch referee gives a hoot about his club marks either. So there are so many holes in Padfoot's assertion it is unreal ...

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Surprised nobody else has commented on my simple solution - why not just stop play for the injury? It's fair, doesn't reward the act of deception but doesn't take a disciplinary approach.

@GraemeS - you should know by now that @Padfoot trying to change what he said is as close as you're going to get to him admitting he was wrong.

So pointing is now an "act of deception"?

You're trolling.
You know very well that he pointed to draw attention to the injured player with the intention of that stopping the defender - which is rather more insidious than what it would be in any other situation.

 

[A Freethinker]

@Ross I think this has been done to a death... we have referees disagreeing and assessors disagreeing the topic has been eclipsed by a debate about club marks and personalities rather than the op and whether it constitutes an infringement. Much as I enjoyed the initial debate I think it is one we will never agree on both refs/assessors. The referee on the night took no action as he seen no infringement and I would be happy with that as he didn't get disciplined for lack of action or application of the LOTG. Others would say he was wrong but as the LOTG says 'in the opinion of the referee'