Man City v Arsenal
- Thread starter Kes
- Start date
. Was supposed to throw shade on IFAB not realising it was no longer used in FUTSAL.
What on earth is going on for him to say that! The process is there to assist his players so by saying that the Referee is not likely to do that & will just have to caution the offender rather than just a talking to with the Captain in attendance as part of a stepped approach. And I thought he understood the game! Of course, it could have been said in the heat of the moment.
I do like how on here with some players intention is known and with others it's not possibly allowed to be taken into account.Happy to disagree. For me, he kicked it away from the spot where Arsenal players were incorrectly attempting to take the Free Kick. Certainly a dangerous and unnecessary thing to do but far more in keeping with the referee's obvious desire than Trossard (who IMO could just as easily have been cautioned for the original foul or for dissent by action when he booted the ball away, clearly in anger and to no one in particular!
Also on this occasion, the free kick location is key for it not being a caution, but for Rice, it didn't matter. I would get a still as he kicked it totally in the wrong direction and with too much pace for it to go towards the FK location, but there obviously isn't any need as there will be another excuse for a city player not to get booked.
Just putting it out there.... Consistency
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Not so - law stll states 6 seconds.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Definitely red tinted angst going on here! The fundamental point here is that (in advance of what Doku foolishly did) the referee was making clear to ALL players that he wasn't happy with where Arsenal were looking to take the free kick. Whatever Doku's true intention (and I share your scepticism in this regard), he effectively got mitigation for his actions because the referee actually wanted the ball moved from where it was sitting. As I've said on another post, despite huge efforts, you'll never get complete consistency but this situation has a marked difference from the others so it's no surprise it was viewed differently
The problem I have with this argument is that the word 'Consistency' is used as if it's a black or white thing. Anyone who has ever refereed will know that 'it's exactly the same as the last one' is one of the most common starting points for a nonsense argument from players, managers and fans
There is a line on what is delaying the restart and what isn't and it's impossible to define 100% objectively. What is delaying ? How long before it becomes an actionable delay - no restart is instant, so there is always some delay.
For me, on the Doku one the ball is in the wrong place and he kicks it in the general direction of where Oliver wants it. My guess, and none of us can see inside a player's head, is that his lack of accuracy in his aim is deliberate, but in my opinion it's not egregious enough to cross the threshold.
On the Trossard one, the impact on the restart is significant and I can't see any reasonable interpretation of his actions as being not a deliberate act of delaying - timing, body language or where he kicks the ball. As I said to a player who tried the 'I didn't hear the whistle ref' one on me recently, 'and I'm the tooth fairy'.
Other interpretations of both cases are valid and I can in particular understand a view that the Doku one is also over the line, even if I don't personally agree.
What I think is wrong is to label this as a consistency issue.
Not really. Either you clamp down on it all or you don't. The fact Oliver points to where he wants it and Doku kicks it elsewhere is even more of a reason it should be a caution. There have been plenty of other incidents from other games which have gone unpunished which could be deemed as much worse time wasting.
Also, my point raises here is the Doku non-caution for his intentional delay (if I'm allowed to use that word as others have).
Consistency is key. It's like other thread I commented about the Martinez challenge. Because I mentioned consistency that makes it a fan post? I can probably guarantee before the international break someone gets sent off for a tackle that isn't deemed as dangerous as Martinez's and it'll leave us all scratching our heads.
Consistency is fan coded because it's such a bizarre thing to assign to refereeing and anyone who has reffed as part of a team would know this.
Every referee is different, tolerances are slightly different and we adapt for the game in front of us to manage it. I do not referee a WNL game and a mens sunday game the same, when I do it goes badly!
I understand that, but with the Rice sending off the other week, a Brighton player smashed the ball away earlier in the game and nothing. That's the inconsistency fans / players / coaches get annoyed with.
I am a teacher. We are told how to consistently use the behaviour policy because it's fair and students (and parents) respond well to consistency.
Refereeing has the same level of authority and players expect consistency.
I could open a can of worms and say comments on here that talk about intent are fan comments, because that is subjective and guesswork compared to following a set of rules.
My point is... Refs shouldn't be choosing which style of kicking the ball away is deemed a caution when it's done to delay the restart. If they've been told to clamp down on it, clamp down on it. At school, once one teacher doesn't implement the behaviour policy appropriately, it gets messy.
Folks, as we have said time and time again - this is not the forum for moaning about refereeing decisions. There are plenty of fan forums on which to do that.
This thread is currently on a knife edge. We've already had to delete posts.
Make the debate sensible and from a referee perspective (and please stop referencing the rice send off, it's appearing in multiple threads and we've done that one to death!).
Consistency in football does not exist. No two situations are exactly the same. We all know this from refereeing our own games. Whilst we strive for equity and balance in our decision making sometimes there are environmental factors that we have to consider along with what actually happened. Comparing Doku and Trossard situation is apples and oranges. They're not even remotely similar.
This thread is currently on a knife edge. We've already had to delete posts.
Make the debate sensible and from a referee perspective (and please stop referencing the rice send off, it's appearing in multiple threads and we've done that one to death!).
Consistency in football does not exist. No two situations are exactly the same. We all know this from refereeing our own games. Whilst we strive for equity and balance in our decision making sometimes there are environmental factors that we have to consider along with what actually happened. Comparing Doku and Trossard situation is apples and oranges. They're not even remotely similar.
one
RefChat Addict
For anyone who doesn't get this, let me paint a picture.
Team blue is leading green by one goal. 86th minute blue striker traps the ball from a pass close to goal. I call offside, he kicks the ball away 5 yards as a green defender is approaching for ball. Protest from green. I am caution blue for DTR.
89th minute same game same situation at the other end. As blue defender is about to take the ball green striker kicks the ball away 10 yards. Blue defender slowly walks to get the ball and all green teammates yelling at their striker for being an idiot. I am not cautioning. Very inconsistent but in the former incident both the player and the game need a card, for the latter neither the player nor the game need a card.
My reference to fan speak is not about disagreeing with a referee but how the argument is put forward.
Well, obviously because his captain was then out of position for a FK taken quickly from the wrong place.
If you haven't cautioned the offender to have a word instead with the captain, and the captain doesn't oblige, to then caution the offender would be a bad look. In any case, whatever Mr Oliver said when calling the captains together didn't seem to make much difference to anything.
What happened to this trial?
Only the captain can approach the referee | IFAB
www.theifab.com
It's not being trialled in the PL. Worked well in the Euros. So it is just a trial, imagine results will be shared at AGM and proposals to consider implementation to LOTG or not.
True. I meant just the general principle rather than the protocol here.