Overprotecting the goalkeeper

[GraemeS]

Agreed. For the flick of a defender you're giving the decision straight away. It's not a hard sell.

If you wait for the reaction of the players a couple of times then that brings its own problems, although there's certainly times you can do this.

It's not necessary to signal every decision - which I've used a few times as an excuse to wait for the player reaction!

Ball goes out and you're not sure who it's come off? Wait and see who goes to get the ball or where the other players set up. And if someone then objects, just give the signal that goes along with the majority and say "Oh sorry, I thought it was obvious: Blue throw".

 

[one]

It's not necessary to signal every decision - which I've used a few times as an excuse to wait for the player reaction!

Ball goes out and you're not sure who it's come off? Wait and see who goes to get the ball or where the other players set up. And if someone then objects, just give the signal that goes along with the majority and say "Oh sorry, I thought it was obvious: Blue throw".

That all sounds good. But this discussion is not about a decision you have doubts about. It's about giving a decision you know is incorrect but it is what everyone expects.

 

[GraemeS]

That all sounds good. But this discussion is not about a decision you have doubts about. It's about giving a decision you know is incorrect but it is what everyone expects.

In which case I refer you to my previous post in the thread:

The point is that if you think you've seen a touch and 22 players + 40,000 supporters think there is no touch....who's to say you're right?

It's a standard part of neutral AR briefing to ask for the AR to flag for penalties only if the referee is staring at them for a decision and there is an appeal. Because if the ref doesn't think he's seen a penalty, and no players think there should be a penalty, the last thing you should be doing is sticking your flag up and trying to insist on a foul that no one else wants. Because in that scenario, you're probably just wrong.

Do you know it's incorrect? And I mean really know?

 

[one]

Yes as much as I trust my eyes. And if my eyes are lying to me then I just have to wear the consequences.

Otherwise I'd have to base every decision based on player reaction because I never really know.

 

[GraemeS]

Yes as much as I trust my eyes. And if my eyes are lying to me then I just have to wear the consequences.

Otherwise I'd have to base every decision based on player reaction because I never really know.

So despite accepting the possibility that you're actually wrong in this incident even if you think you know the answer, you're still saying you think the smart approach is to be the one person going with the answer that a) you can't be 100% sure on and b) everyone else in the area thinks is wrong? Rather than just accepting that there are incidents where your eyes play tricks on you and going with the more-likely-to-be-right answer that everyone else expects?

 

[socal lurker]

Seems to me we aren't so much discussing black and white here as much as where light gray becomes dark gray. . . .

 

[Ben448844]

So despite accepting the possibility that you're actually wrong in this incident even if you think you know the answer, you're still saying you think the smart approach is to be the one person going with the answer that a) you can't be 100% sure on and b) everyone else in the area thinks is wrong? Rather than just accepting that there are incidents where your eyes play tricks on you and going with the more-likely-to-be-right answer that everyone else expects?

I think we've established that the flick of the player has been seen. If not let's assume so.

 

[one]

So despite accepting the possibility that you're actually wrong in this incident even if you think you know the answer, you're still saying you think the smart approach is to be the one person going with the answer that a) you can't be 100% sure on and b) everyone else in the area thinks is wrong? Rather than just accepting that there are incidents where your eyes play tricks on you and going with the more-likely-to-be-right answer that everyone else expects?

You are twisting words here. I say Pope is a catholic. You say do you really know?

Let's not make this just about winning a debate but about what should be the correct thing to do.

See th second paragraph in my previous post.

 

[GraemeS]

I think we've established that the flick of the player has been seen. If not let's assume so.

I'm clearly not getting the argument then, because it seems pretty simple.

If the flick has been seen by you as the referee and others, then obviously give the appropriate decision.
If the flick has been "seen" by the referee, but no one else, then accept that your eyes are playing tricks on you and go with the majority.

The only confusion exists because posters are insisting that it is possible for there to be an incident where they see a flick, are "correct" in seeing that, but no one else in the entire ground has seen it. I simply don't believe that referee is correct - and in that situation, a wise referee accepts they are wrong and gets on with the game. But a poor referee doubles down on the mistake, digs their heels in and sets their match control on fire for the sake of a nothing decision that no one wanted.

 

[one]

A cop arrested a guy for robbery. He asked why am I being arrested. We have a witness who has seen you stealing said the cop. That's rubbish he said. I can give you thousands of people who haven't seen me stealing.

Jokes aside do you really think it's not possible for a touch to occur, and only and only one one person seeing it (other than the one who touched it)?

 

[Ben448844]

I'm clearly not getting the argument then, because it seems pretty simple.

If the flick has been seen by you as the referee and others, then obviously give the appropriate decision.
If the flick has been "seen" by the referee, but no one else, then accept that your eyes are playing tricks on you and go with the majority.

The only confusion exists because posters are insisting that it is possible for there to be an incident where they see a flick, are "correct" in seeing that, but no one else in the entire ground has seen it. I simply don't believe that referee is correct - and in that situation, a wise referee accepts they are wrong and gets on with the game. But a poor referee doubles down on the mistake, digs their heels in and sets their match control on fire for the sake of a nothing decision that no one wanted.

I dont think you lose match control. Like I said you let the defender know you've seen it and then direct any complaints his way. I think it aides match control. We disagree and that's cool, il give it a go in my Sunday League game on Sunday if the opportunity arises and report back. If this Ash cloud doesn't keep me in Tenerife that is!

 

[JamesL]

A cop arrested a guy for robbery. He asked why am I being arrested. We have a witness who has seen you stealing said the cop. That's rubbish he said. I can give you thousands of people who haven't seen me stealing.

Jokes aside do you really think it's not possible for a touch to occur, and only and only one one person seeing it (other than the one who touched it)?

I think just simple physics plays a part here which is where the robbery analogy falls down, as of course there are billions to people that didn't witness the robbery or then nick because they simply were not present.
It's entirely possible that what you thought was a nick on the way through was just a slight movement of the ball that could have been caused by a knuckleball, spin on the ball, or even an air pocket. So we can accept our eyes have played a trick in certain circumstances.

 

[RustyRef]

Jokes aside do you really think it's not possible for a touch to occur, and only and only one one person seeing it (other than the one who touched it)?

In a game with 22 players, as many as 18 subs and 10 coaches / managers on the sideline, then yes I think it is pretty much impossible that only one person sees it.

 

[one]

In a game with 22 players, as many as 18 subs and 10 coaches / managers on the sideline, then yes I think it is pretty much impossible that only one person sees it.

And how do we establish that all other 50 haven't seen it? There is no discussion or questionnaire to find out. In reality there would be a fair few (close to half) who react a certain way because it is in their interest. A few who are oblivious to the call and don't protest or disagree with whatever call made even if they see a touch. There would be a few others who think the same as you, I saw it but if no one else did then I must be wrong.

look I get what you are saying and when I have doubt I do the same. But when I know I have clearly seen it, it's my call. In fact there have been many times that that I have had a small amount of doubt so I went with player reactions, even the ones near the incident go for say goal kick so I call it that way only to see the defender say "I touched that ref". We have all had this. Surly that says something about going with player reactions when you have seen and know what the decision should be.

 

[GraemeS]

And how do we establish that all other 50 haven't seen it? There is no discussion or questionnaire to find out. In reality there would be a fair few (close to half) who react a certain way because it is in their interest. A few who are oblivious to the call and don't protest or disagree with whatever call made even if they see a touch. There would be a few others who think the same as you, I saw it but if no one else did then I must be wrong.

look I get what you are saying and when I have doubt I do the same. But when I know I have clearly seen it, it's my call. In fact there have been many times that that I have had a small amount of doubt so I went with player reactions, even the ones near the incident go for say goal kick so I call it that way only to see the defender say "I touched that ref". We have all had this. Surly that says something about going with player reactions when you have seen and know what the decision should be.

You're constantly shifting the goalposts in this thread. Yes, if players from both sides put up a reasonable appeal then of course you just have to go with what you think is most right. But up until this post, that's not what we've been talking about.

 

[Kent Ref]

The biggest quality a ref can have in being honest and fair.

A lot of the content of this thread is patronising and rude.

Why does the tone on here always sound condescending from 2 or 3 people? People trying anything or any angle to make them sound right.

As a ref give what you see and stick to your guns.