A&H

On the Whistle

The Referee Store
Padfoot said:
It's very simple. You, the referee, have instructed the players that the kick is not to be taken until you blow the whistle.......a player decides he is going to ignore that instruction and take the kick anyway.....caution for C1 (lack of respect for the game) or C2 dissent....you choose. Got nothing to do with who gains or loses in terms of the 2 teams. The loser, if you allow it to go unpunished, will be your credibility, authority and ultimately, your match control.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained why this is mandatory? If you're in a bad mood and really want to give a caution, you can use either of those options to justify it (or C4 delay of restart for that matter), but nothing in those laws states taking a FK early is a mandatory caution.
 
GraemeS said:
You still haven't explained why this is mandatory? If you're in a bad mood and really want to give a caution, you can use either of those options to justify it (or C4 delay of restart for that matter), but nothing in those laws states taking a FK early is a mandatory caution.
Click to expand...

Can you not read?

C1 - lack of respect for the game - a player clearly choosing to ignore what is a perfectly reasonable instruction from the match official and potentially causing a reaction from their opponents by trying to cheat.
C2 - Dissent - deliberately ignoring the match officials instructions.

Both represent a risk to your match control if you let it go as once players see they can do it without getting cautioned, you run the risk of it happening multiple times.....then when you do decide you've had enough and caution someone for it, they will throw the other instances where you didn't caution straight back in your face. You will appear to lack consistency.
So, I'm not saying it's mandatory under the LOTG, in terms of an infringement on FK's, but I would suggest that for your own match control (and possibly to avoid being LWR) that this should pretty much be an automatic caution in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Circumstances that, for the moment, escape me.

Not a fan of C4, by forcing the retake they are giving more time to the defence to get organised etc etc. I suppose if they were 1-0 up and it's in the final few minutes you could make an argument for it being designed to waste some more time.
 
Example circumstance: Player takes kick off before the whistle. YC?
Probably not unless exceptional circumstances...
 
I think folk are missing the difference between a set piece, a restart of play, and a situation where you have made it clear to all and sundry that play will not restart until you give a whistle.
Someone taking centre before a whistle, unless they did it 99 times in a row, I think we would all then whistle and say, hold on, wait for my whistle please
Someone taking a free kick when you have said to wait for whistle, or held up the whistle and said, wait for whistle, or whatever demonstration you make that play will not restart without your whistle, imo, can be managed, if you deem it a caution, fine, I would support that, if you decide that you can then blow whistle, use an open palm or apologetic gesture and say "hey, come on, I said wait for whistle please I don't think am asking too much, please don't do that again till am ready", I would accept that too, depending on the tempo of game and so on. If anyone is saying in the 90th min of a end to end game where you have had great rapport with players, no cautions, allowed some hard but fair tackles and so on, that they would take this as YC, then I don't think that's in context of that game, however if its a niggly affair with 6/7 yellows and players doing your box in and its the wee yappy winger who does it and you were already waiting for his next act of misbehaviour, then, yes, good match control to yc. That's what makes you a good referee, ,not just knowing the LOTG or knowing what a FK looks like, its about managing the situation as a whole.
 
Padfoot said:
Can you not read?

C1 - lack of respect for the game - a player clearly choosing to ignore what is a perfectly reasonable instruction from the match official and potentially causing a reaction from their opponents by trying to cheat.
C2 - Dissent - deliberately ignoring the match officials instructions.

Both represent a risk to your match control if you let it go as once players see they can do it without getting cautioned, you run the risk of it happening multiple times.....then when you do decide you've had enough and caution someone for it, they will throw the other instances where you didn't caution straight back in your face. You will appear to lack consistency.
So, I'm not saying it's mandatory under the LOTG, in terms of an infringement on FK's, but I would suggest that for your own match control (and possibly to avoid being LWR) that this should pretty much be an automatic caution in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Circumstances that, for the moment, escape me.

Not a fan of C4, by forcing the retake they are giving more time to the defence to get organised etc etc. I suppose if they were 1-0 up and it's in the final few minutes you could make an argument for it being designed to waste some more time.
Click to expand...
So just to clarify exactly what you've written here - it's not mandatory, it's up to the referee on the day if he thinks it's necessary to maintain his match control? As I said 20 posts ago.
 
It certainly WAS a mandatory caution a few seasons ago, am not going to check through every book for the last few years but to best of my knowledge its no longer mandatory. (disclaimer, someone might find somewhere that says it is)
 
Ciley Myrus said:
It certainly WAS a mandatory caution a few seasons ago, am not going to check through every book for the last few years but to best of my knowledge its no longer mandatory. (disclaimer, someone might find somewhere that says it is)
Click to expand...
I had a similar inkling... I just had a look in the futsal laws (most recent from 2014-15 AFAIK) as I thought it might be in there but as far as I can read it's not.
 
GraemeS said:
So just to clarify exactly what you've written here - it's not mandatory, it's up to the referee on the day if he thinks it's necessary to maintain his match control? As I said 20 posts ago.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that it should be treated as a mandatory caution in order to minimise potential risk to your match control.......and if observing and a referee failed to caution for this, I would certainly ask for their thought process, but they would be advised along the lines that I have repeatedly posted. And quite possibly marked down for it.

If they wished to appeal it, so be it, but I am fairly comfortable with my approach as I have not yet had any assessment/observation appealed against.
 
Padfoot said:
Can you not read?

C1 - lack of respect for the game - a player clearly choosing to ignore what is a perfectly reasonable instruction from the match official and potentially causing a reaction from their opponents by trying to cheat.
C2 - Dissent - deliberately ignoring the match officials instructions.

Both represent a risk to your match control if you let it go as once players see they can do it without getting cautioned, you run the risk of it happening multiple times.....then when you do decide you've had enough and caution someone for it, they will throw the other instances where you didn't caution straight back in your face. You will appear to lack consistency.
So, I'm not saying it's mandatory under the LOTG, in terms of an infringement on FK's, but I would suggest that for your own match control (and possibly to avoid being LWR) that this should pretty much be an automatic caution in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Circumstances that, for the moment, escape me.

Not a fan of C4, by forcing the retake they are giving more time to the defence to get organised etc etc. I suppose if they were 1-0 up and it's in the final few minutes you could make an argument for it being designed to waste some more time.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would players keep taking FKs before the whistle when you have already demonstrated that it will be a re-take whether they get booked or not?

If you believe that the kick is being taken to delay the re-start then you can caution for that but, beyond that, as you have said yourself, unless you believe that the player is deliberately ignoring you or clearly choosing to ignore you (rather than not hearing properly or having a mad moment) then there is no need to caution.
 
Goldfish said:
Hi
Let me throw this into the mix. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that a signal is required for a free kick to be taken unlike a PK. It is in the Advice and Interpretation but not the Laws.
Also whose benefit is the whistle for? So for me the player has not heeded the instruction, he has taken the kick at goal, made a rickets of it so I am not giving him a second go after a sighter or allowing a change of plan on the kick. Anyway who is going to complain! The kicker, his team? "You took the kick, you got on with it". If he was being a smart A€&@ taking advantage of no whistle why give him another go. Different matter if the defending team is disadvantaged by the referee being in the way, unsighted, a pass, player being cautioned, spoken to out of position and opponents waiting on the whistle.
It is not one size fits all or black and white that it has to be a retake every single time.
Click to expand...
Hi @Goldfish
I can see where you are coming from but I wouldn't recommend it for one simple reason. Let''s say you allow play to continue and the same thing happens five minutes later but this time the ball goes in. You are going to have to order a retake and then deal with players who ask for 'consistency' (their version of consistency anyway). Its just not worth the trouble.
 
McTavish said:
Why on earth would players keep taking FKs before the whistle when you have already demonstrated that it will be a re-take whether they get booked or not?

If you believe that the kick is being taken to delay the re-start then you can caution for that but, beyond that, as you have said yourself, unless you believe that the player is deliberately ignoring you or clearly choosing to ignore you (rather than not hearing properly or having a mad moment) then there is no need to caution.
Click to expand...

Another one choosing to bury their head in the sand and allow players to walk all over them!
 
How about this as an option? Play on, no retake, and the next time the ball goes out of play or you stop play for another reason, then you caution the kicker for USB. If there's nothing in law that says it is a retake, but we are arguing it could be USB, why not treat it like other cautions where you wouldn't stop play for the caution necessarily.
 
Padfoot said:
Another one choosing to bury their head in the sand and allow players to walk all over them!
Click to expand...
I would argue that's another one not making up "mandatory" cautions and choosing to manage their matches as they see fit. But if you want to be unnecessarily inflammatory, go ahead....
 
GraemeS said:
I would argue that's another one not making up "mandatory" cautions and choosing to manage their matches as they see fit. But if you want to be unnecessarily inflammatory, go ahead....
Click to expand...

No one has made up a mandatory caution....you have chosen to interpret some precautionary advice as "making up a mandatory caution".....your bad, not mine.
 
Padfoot said:
Another one choosing to bury their head in the sand and allow players to walk all over them!
Click to expand...
No, just someone who doesn't see players as the enemy.

If I don't think that someone has dissented or shown lack of respect for the game I won't caution them. Why would I?

And why do you choose to insult me rather than answer the points that I made?
 
It's perfectly fine to admit that you thought it was a mandatory caution and now realise it isn't. We all make mistakes.
 
Bored now.

Have explained why referee's should view this as an almost certain caution, using words like "suggest", so that even the most terminally stupid can understand (but apparently not simple enough for some) that whilst it isn't a mandatory caution in the LOTG, in terms of "safe" refereeing they will be well served in cautioning in all but the most exceptional of circumstances.
And no, "exceptional circumstances" does not mean because the players claims not to have heard you....,..since when did players suddenly become the paragons of virtue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top