This is what I mean, those two incidents are not the same! And yet people argue it shows inconsistency, like saying stairs that don't move are inconsistent from escalatorsI 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.
Teaching and refereeing are not the same, much like two incidents in football are never the sameI 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 think (or hope) you knew this was intended to mean that no 2 incidents are exactly like for like in circumstance and we take in to account many many factors before deciding on how to act."No incident can be compared to another incident."
Why even have a forum then?
Exactly that. Whilst I accept that Mitoma should probably have been cautioned, his actions didn't really delay an Arsenal restart as there was no Arsenal player there to take a quick throw. Whereas there can be no argument at all that Rice's actions didn't delay the restart, Veltman kicked where the ball should have been, it is comparing apples with oranges. I've been trying to explain to mates all week that kicking the ball away isn't necessarily an offence, delaying the restart is, but that shouldn't need to be explained on a refereeing forumI think (or hope) you knew this was intended to mean that no 2 incidents are exactly like for like in circumstance and we take in to account many many factors before deciding on how to act.
The point of having a forum is to discuss how law is applied. If law was to be applied in a black and white manor then there would equally be no point having a forum.
As I've said before in the thread, PGMOL officials have clearly been told that not ALL kicking the ball away is DTR and therefore a yellow card. It needs to meet certain criteria .. Clear, Deliberate, Impactful. As an alternative example, in the multi ball system, if a player kicks one ball away but his opponent immediately picks up a nearby ball off a cone and takes the throw in then no impact --> no caution. As such, a strong case can be made that Michael Oliver implemented exactly what he and the other officials have been asked to do. Obviously, interpretation of what meets these three criteria will likely vary (slightly) from referee to referee - they are human beings at the end of the day! But critical to understand the nuances of the situation rather than dumbing down to all kicking the ball away should be clamped down on.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.
I think (or hope) you knew this was intended to mean that no 2 incidents are exactly like for like in circumstance and we take in to account many many factors before deciding on how to act.
The point of having a forum is to discuss how law is applied. If law was to be applied in a black and white manor then there would equally be no point having a forum.
The fan speak makes me feel like a fan has infiltrated the refereeing safehouse.
Well I'm just back from a weekend away and I can certainly see things that have toes well and truly poking over the line, as well as deleted posts that have stepped completely over it. I refer you to my second paragraph in post #108.I assume posts have been deleted cos I've seen nothing even close to the line?
So that we can discuss why when one incident is dealt with one way, a similar incident with a different context doesn't have to be dealt with the same way."No incident can be compared to another incident."
Why even have a forum then?
That is what is being reported, however, he was on the goal line which I'm pretty certain isn't allowed. Substitutes have to remain along the touchline when warming up (competition rules).Is it true that the young Arsenal sub Lewis-Skelly was cautioned for relaying the instruction to the GK to feign injury for a time-out?
So he wouldn't have been sanctioned if he'd shouted from the touchline? If the feigning is wrong, why does only the middle man in the deal get sanctioned?That is what is being reported, however, he was on the goal line which I'm pretty certain isn't allowed. Substitutes have to remain along the touchline when warming up (competition rules).
So he wouldn't have been sanctioned if he'd shouted from the touchline? If the feigning is wrong, why does only the middle man in the deal get sanctioned?
I've found it and the competition rules state:
"Not more than five substitute Players of each Club shall warm up at the same time
on the perimeter of a pitch upon which a League Match is being played."
That’s quite a lot, so if 5 are warming up from each side let’s say by a corner flag and a mass confrontation of players ensues close by, that’s a lot of players to potentially get involved. In the Southern League I understand they have just reduced to 3 per side and perhaps because of an incident.I've found it and the competition rules state:
"Not more than five substitute Players of each Club shall warm up at the same time
on the perimeter of a pitch upon which a League Match is being played."