Mark Clattenburg - Arsenal vs Hull

[bloovee]

Sorry thought this forum was about refereeing...didn't realise I needed a degree in English language to make my decisions on a Saturday afternoon, can just see myself explain the difference between 'deliberate' and 'intentional' to some of the players!

On the actual topic of the three incidents -

Goal - hand in natural position, no time to react, no movement towards the ball - CORRECT DECISION
Clucas - DOGSO using his hand, deliberate movement towards the ball, stops the ball entering the net (no one can say if keeper was saving it or not) - CORRECT DECISION
Gibbs Foul - Markovic has controlled the ball prior to contact from Gibbs (WTF has last man got to do with anything?), 30-35 yards out, heading towards goal, one on one with keeper...bye bye Gibbs it wasn't a trip or a push it was an assault..no intention of going for a ball clearly only interested in stopping the player, ball no where close WRONG DECISION

Now lads - when there's a goalmouth scramble, try and keep your hands in a natural position - but well away from your body so that if the ball is cleared there's a good chance it will accidentally hit your hand and go in the net. The ref will say it's not deliberate, let alone intentional, and job done.

"WTF has last man got to do with anything?" You mean it's irrelevant or just not specified in the laws? Of course it's relevant.

"no one can say if keeper was saving it or not" - all the more reason if you've allowed a dodgy goal and refused a DOGSO to find it in your heart to look for an excuse not to compound your bad day by taking the view that the GK wouldn't have saved it - if the defender had time to move his arm I'm sure the GK could.

 

[SM]

The handball goal - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

No win situation.

 

[A Freethinker]

Now lads - when there's a goalmouth scramble, try and keep your hands in a natural position - but well away from your body so that if the ball is cleared there's a good chance it will accidentally hit your hand and go in the net. The ref will say it's not deliberate, let alone intentional, and job done.

"WTF has last man got to do with anything?" You mean it's irrelevant or just not specified in the laws? Of course it's relevant.

"no one can say if keeper was saving it or not" - all the more reason if you've allowed a dodgy goal and refused a DOGSO to find it in your heart to look for an excuse not to compound your bad day by taking the view that the GK wouldn't have saved it - if the defender had time to move his arm I'm sure the GK could.

Ok lads run with your arms by your side like Irish dancers......so you don't intentional/deliberately/accidentally hit the ball with it as it ricochets of the keeper two feet away from you, without any movement of your hand towards the ball, with no time to react, during a pin ball session in the box? Let's all Riverdance.

I have never ever and NEVER will send a player off for being the 'last man' and making a challenge...I will dismiss him if it is SFP, VC or DOGSO etc so what exactly relevance has 'last man' got?

Oh wait last man may be relevant especially when a defender throws his arm at the ball to save a shot which the keeper may or may not have saved...DOGSO end off story eh....nope the defender denies the ball entering the net by throwing his arm at it!

 

[GraemeS]

"Last man" is a factor in helping you decide DOGSO and may be a useful shorthand when justifying the decision to players.

It shouldn't be the only criteria obviously, but a foul that is committed by the last man has a far higher chance of meeting the other criteria than an incident where there are other defenders in positions that make him not the last man. It's relevant, it's just not the only thing to consider.

 

[A Freethinker]

@GraemeS have you ever booked a player for being last man? sent them off for being last man? Is being the last man an offence in itself? Have you cautioned someone for infringing one of the LOTG? have you sent of a player for DOGSO? VC? SFP? etc in this case as with many many others players run in going last man when they aren't....the keeper is still in play and would be the last man...therefore Gibbs isn't last man...did he DOGSO it can be argued yes and no...I couldn't careless if he is the last man did he commit an offence..yes was it a caution or a red card? in this case and I believe wrongly it was yellow.

Do I consider that an international player breaking through at speed with no one around him is capable of scoring a goal with an advancing keeper off his line...absolutely. Especially the way he was playing in that game...did it make an difference that Gibbs is the second last defender other than he is playing him onside and assaulting him no. He committed a foul IMHO DOGSO

Relevance of being the last man......None.... would I use this as explanatory excuse no why cos the next foul which isn't a DOGSO but sees someone claiming last man then has to be a red card too...why because he was the last man etc etc etc
When writing my reports for disciplinary committee I never write he was dismissed for DOGSO as he was the last man....I write he deliberately ran at and jumped into the player with no intention of playing the ball knocking him over and DOGSO, I immediately dismissed him.

Relevance of committing an offence contained within the LOTG with a foul awarded and a red or yellow card being issued - Absolute

 

[GraemeS]

@GraemeS have you ever booked a player for being last man? sent them off for being last man? Is being the last man an offence in itself? Have you cautioned someone for infringing one of the LOTG? have you sent of a player for DOGSO? VC? SFP? etc in this case as with many many others players run in going last man when they aren't....the keeper is still in play and would be the last man...therefore Gibbs isn't last man...did he DOGSO it can be argued yes and no...I couldn't careless if he is the last man did he commit an offence..yes was it a caution or a red card? in this case and I believe wrongly it was yellow.

Do I consider that an international player breaking through at speed with no one around him is capable of scoring a goal with an advancing keeper off his line...absolutely. Especially the way he was playing in that game...did it make an difference that Gibbs is the second last defender other than he is playing him onside and assaulting him no. He committed a foul IMHO DOGSO

Relevance of being the last man......None.... would I use this as explanatory excuse no why cos the next foul which isn't a DOGSO but sees someone claiming last man then has to be a red card too...why because he was the last man etc etc etc
When writing my reports for disciplinary committee I never write he was dismissed for DOGSO as he was the last man....I write he deliberately ran at and jumped into the player with no intention of playing the ball knocking him over and DOGSO, I immediately dismissed him.

Relevance of committing an offence contained within the LOTG with a foul awarded and a red or yellow card being issued - Absolute

You've entirely failed to read my post, so I don't know why I should even bother replying properly. Try reading the following carefully and slowly: "Last man" is a tool for helping judge DOGSO.

If a player commits a foul in the "last man" position (obviously not including GK, don't suddenly feign that you don't know this expression doesn't include the GK) then I start to seriously consider if DOGSO applies and what other criteria are in play. It's a mental shortcut for getting to that point. As I said in my first post.

 

[A Freethinker]

No I didn't fail to read your post I read it and was quite clear in making my point that being last man 'to me' isn't a factor to be considered..surely the foul is the only consideration was it red yellow or play on was it DOGSO VC SFP SPITTING etc etc don't care if its the last man or not. If I sent players off for being the last man when it was only a free kick etc I would be strung up despite the cries from the other team...@GraemeS I don't care what man he is the foul he commits is my only consideration.

I ain't feigning not knowing the expression I am dismissing it because firstly, it is factually incorrect and secondly I don't care how many men are behind, in front of or on top of someone when they commit a foul! There are many factors I take account of 'last man' isn't one of them.

Answer my questions... have you ever booked a player for being last man? sent them off for being last man? Is being the last man an offence in itself? Have you cautioned someone for infringing one of the LOTG? have you sent of a player for DOGSO? VC? SFP?

 

[GraemeS]

No I didn't fail to read your post I read it and was quite clear in making my point that being last man 'to me' isn't a factor to be considered..surely the foul is the only consideration was it red yellow or play on was it DOGSO VC SFP SPITTING etc etc don't care if its the last man or not. If I sent players off for being the last man when it was only a free kick etc I would be strung up despite the cries from the other team...@GraemeS I don't care what man he is the foul he commits is my only consideration.

I ain't feigning not knowing the expression I am dismissing it because firstly, it is factually incorrect and secondly I don't care how many men are behind, in front of or on top of someone when they commit a foul! There are many factors I take account of 'last man' isn't one of them.

Answer my questions... have you ever booked a player for being last man? sent them off for being last man? Is being the last man an offence in itself? Have you cautioned someone for infringing one of the LOTG? have you sent of a player for DOGSO? VC? SFP?

And once again, here, you've entirely ignored my post. Of course I've not sent someone off just for being last man - and you won't find a single post on here from me saying that I have. (also, my signature clearly states my sending offs this season, so y'know...the information's there)

What I do, what most referees do and what I'm sure even you do is consider the player's position relative to his teammates as part of the mental process of deciding if it meets the requirements for DOGSO. A convenient shorthand for that is "is he the last man?" If no, then it makes DOGSO much less likely (but not impossible) and if yes, you then move on to considering the movement of the attacker, how under control the ball is etc etc etc.

I'm not and have never said that being last man alone justifies a red card. I have repeatedly said that it's a useful shorthand for beginning to decide that in the moment. If you choose not to use that shorthand, fine - but that doesn't make it wrong as a partial decision-making tool.

 

[A Freethinker]

@GraemeS....you consider what you want to and I will make decisions how I want..let's agree to disagree!

 

[Paul March]

I would be happy for the handball law to be changed to allow us to penalise a non deliberate handling of the ball that results in a clear advantage.

Last night I spent some considerable time convincing players of an advancing age that handling the ball in itself not an offence, deliberate movement, proximity yadaydayada.

A really simple adjustment would align the law book with what players expect.

 

[Padfoot]

I would be happy for the handball law to be changed to allow us to penalise a non deliberate handling of the ball that results in a clear advantage.

Last night I spent some considerable time convincing players of an advancing age that handling the ball in itself not an offence, deliberate movement, proximity yadaydayada.

A really simple adjustment would align the law book with what players expect.

But why should we change a law that is perfectly understandable to anyone with a single iota of brain power....just to appease a false perception perpetuated by the vacuous "experts" seen and heard on TV and radio?

There needs to be better education of players into the LOTG, and this should start with youth players.......

 

[Paul March]

Because you wouldn't get situations like we have had this weekend. One goal allowed and one disallowed for broadly the same thing.

Or we could just pretend nothing is wrong and that we are the masters of football. That seems to be working for the FA doesn't it?

 

[Mintyref]

Because you wouldn't get situations like we have had this weekend. One goal allowed and one disallowed for broadly the same thing.

Or we could just pretend nothing is wrong and that we are the masters of football. That seems to be working for the FA doesn't it?

How about we all apply the laws as written and not allow our elite colleagues to use their interpretation because it suits the premiership?

Just asking like......

 

[Paul March]

I agree, it would be lovely.

 

[PinnerPaul]

But why should we change a law that is perfectly understandable to anyone with a single iota of brain power....just to appease a false perception perpetuated by the vacuous "experts" seen and heard on TV and radio?

There needs to be better education of players into the LOTG, and this should start with youth players.......

Because scoring or preventing a goal with hand/arm isn't "fair", whether deliberate or not, and Paul's suggestion (that I agree with) has the added advantage of being clearer to all.

Its isn't all about them & us - aren't we supposed to work "with" the players rather than against them?

 

[xPositor]

Because scoring or preventing a goal with hand/arm isn't "fair", whether deliberate or not, and Paul's suggestion (that I agree with) has the added advantage of being clearer to all.

Its isn't all about them & us - aren't we supposed to work "with" the players rather than against them?

In that case, should we have two handball offences - intentional handball, which incurs a DFK and an appropriate colour card, and accidental handball, which incurs an IDFK and no card. I'm thinking of a scenario where in a melee in the box, a defender can be turning with their arm starting to come away from their body, back to the ball, and the ball gets fired at them - hits the arm, and prevents the ball from going in the coal. Not fair on the attacking team, perhaps, but it would be disproportionate to dismiss for DOGSO-H and award a penalty (in my mind). An IDFK on the other hand would square things up. Where there's blame...

 

[PinnerPaul]

In that case, should we have two handball offences - intentional handball, which incurs a DFK and an appropriate colour card, and accidental handball, which incurs an IDFK and no card. I'm thinking of a scenario where in a melee in the box, a defender can be turning with their arm starting to come away from their body, back to the ball, and the ball gets fired at them - hits the arm, and prevents the ball from going in the coal. Not fair on the attacking team, perhaps, but it would be disproportionate to dismiss for DOGSO-H and award a penalty (in my mind). An IDFK on the other hand would square things up. Where there's blame...

Yes that would work I think

 

[A Freethinker]

Yes that would work I think

Playing devils advocate here what happens when defenders catch on to the fact that they can jump about in the box arms all over the show and more than likely will only get an indirect freekick awarded against them? Plus a lot of players jump with their backs to a player to block a shot if their arms are out then it's a free pass so to speak!

 

[GraemeS]

IDFK for scoring a goal with an accidental arm contact in the immediate buildup, DFK for deliberate HB as it is currently and nothing for an incidental accidental hand contact in the middle of the pitch or when defending in their own PA (again, as it currently is)?

 

[A Freethinker]

What about accidental handball inside the area by a defender?