The Ref Stop

Penalty goalkeeper 'protest'

They did make a big update when they brought in new codes for team official misconduct.
Also when they changed C2 to with and without sin-bin.

So they have made updates just decided not to bother updating the C1 codes.
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
After over a decade on this forum it all makes sense now.

So very often when we talked about PIADM many English referees thought it was a mandatory caution. It is dangerous to have a USB code called Dangerous Play. Reckless play mades much more sense.

Similar to "handball". Many English referees think every handball is a caution. We have handball as a code but we don't have SPA!

That list is outdated and creates more problems than it solves.
Click to expand...
I've been moaning about this for 10 years. It was immediately obvious in my early days after qualifying... this list is completely inconsistent with the book

Even the observers over here seem oblivious to this fact. I have to bite my tongue in debriefs when we have to agree on which codes to use for sanctions.
The book is opaque enough without adding extra layers of confusion on top. I don't even know what value the codes are to the English FA. They can't be of any value given that they're nonsense anyway
And yet, we get on about pundits not knowing the rules... Our own rule codes are b0ll0cks FGS!

Can't you move to these shores, get a job with the FA and sort it all out. Then represent the FA at IFAB, then kick FIFA off the board, tear up the book and start again?
 
  • Love
Reactions: one
Big Cat said:
I've been moaning about this for 10 years. It was immediately obvious in my early days after qualifying... this list is completely inconsistent with the book

Even the observers over here seem oblivious to this fact. I have to bite my tongue in debriefs when we have to agree on which codes to use for sanctions.
The book is opaque enough without adding extra layers of confusion on top. I don't even know what value the codes are to the English FA. They can't be of any value given that they're nonsense anyway
And yet, we get on about pundits not knowing the rules... Our own rule codes are b0ll0cks FGS!

Can't you move to these shores, get a job with the FA and sort it all out. Then represent the FA at IFAB, then kick FIFA off the board, tear up the book and start again?
Click to expand...
And then, on the seventh day . . .? 😁
 
Big Cat said:
I've been moaning about this for 10 years. It was immediately obvious in my early days after qualifying... this list is completely inconsistent with the book

Even the observers over here seem oblivious to this fact. I have to bite my tongue in debriefs when we have to agree on which codes to use for sanctions.
The book is opaque enough without adding extra layers of confusion on top. I don't even know what value the codes are to the English FA. They can't be of any value given that they're nonsense anyway
And yet, we get on about pundits not knowing the rules... Our own rule codes are b0ll0cks FGS!

Can't you move to these shores, get a job with the FA and sort it all out. Then represent the FA at IFAB, then kick FIFA off the board, tear up the book and start again?
Click to expand...
Observers shouldn’t need to know about codes. All they should be interested in is why a player has been cautioned/sent off so that the record on the Observers report form matches/more or less matches. I’ve lost count on the number of Referees who say ‘foul tackle’, whereas no such offence in the LotG, but if that’s what they say & I don’t need to quantify - do you mean reckless, or do you consider it SPA, then that’s what I record & is shown as an example within the Observers Handbook. What we don’t want is that the Referee has foul tackle & the Observer has Delaying the Re-start of the Game!
 
DavidObs said:
I’ve lost count on the number of Referees who say ‘foul tackle’
Click to expand...
Yes, likewise with observers (although, I realize debriefs are not the arena to squabble about AA/FT/HB/DP/DI/SP and TR.... FGS, strictly speaking, only RP and GC are caution offences if we exclude UB... you couldn't make it up, it's that amateurish!)
We shouldn't even be talking about this. You'd have hoped someone at the FA would have noticed this nonsense and put it right.
I once mentioned it at one of our L3/L4 dev evenings but it was quite apparent that nobody in the room could see anything wrong with the codes.
I quickly read the room and promptly gave up

I know that refereeing is quite literally impossible, but I'm also fairly sure overall standards could be improved upon. This codes thing is quite a serious issue if we want referees (and players/pundits alike) to raise standards and promote a better basis for understanding
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top