A&H

Players touching the ref

one said:
The example was made to make sure you can see why when it comes to physical contact, "whether its on you, or the opponent is" very much important and has a big impact on how you assess the severity of it.
Click to expand...


Would i let a player strike me? No, red card.
tap me on the shoulder/arm, I would find it hard to imagine me taking action
bear in mind am of the background where am going to put my hands on the players when I feel its required. With that comes a bit of appreciation that it might not always go to plan
Yesterdays Rangers Celtic ref got due praise on here and indeed nationally for his handling of the game. His performance involved grabbing players and basically throwing them out of the way...(certainly one on Ryan Jack)
 
The Referee Store
Ciley Myrus said:
I dont think the act of violence is stipulated to judged on who the act of violence was against.
Its either an act of violence, or, its not.
Page 108 lists us in the same sentence as other players, spectators etc
it says nowhere to class the violence different depending on who it is carried out on....
VC occurs when not challenging for the ball, so it being a contact sport or not gets thrown out of the window here
Click to expand...
A one handed push away on an opponet's chest in anger is usually a yellow card for USB. The same on a referee is a red for VC. No questions asked. No one would expect anything else. And it would most likely attract several weeks if not months of suspension.
 
one said:
A one handed push away on an opponet's chest in anger is usually a yellow card for USB. The same on a referee is a red for VC. No questions asked. No one would expect anything else. And it would most likely attract several weeks if not months of suspension.
Click to expand...


Again I fail to see where the LOTG make allowance for who the act is committed on
It might be our Utopia that to do something to us is worthy of execution and am not actually saying I disagree with that
Am merely asking where other than in a mythical planet its actually printed in the LOTG book to be such
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Again I fail to see where the LOTG make allowance for who the act is committed on
It might be our Utopia that to do something to us is worthy of execution and am not actually saying I disagree with that
Am merely asking where other than in a mythical planet its actually printed in the LOTG book to be such
Click to expand...

As most things in the lotg wording is interpreted and application is adjusted according to context.

Not long ago in other threads, you debated a kick, when the defender has no chance of playing the ball, is always excessive force (any force is excessive) and VC. Not trying to open that debate again but that is how you interpreted it in that context. The law never related CRUEF to playing the ball.

Same thing goes for VC acts on players vs referees. Its a different context, different interpretation, different application.

Oh and comparing players touching referees with referees touching players is like comparing apples and oranges, actually more like comparing apples and watermelons :)

Somehow I feel that you are arguing this for the sake of it and deep down you know the tolerance for VC on referees is much lower than opponents.
 
one said:
As most things in the lotg wording is interpreted and application is adjusted according to context.

Not long ago in other threads, you debated a kick, when the defender has no chance of playing the ball, is always excessive force (any force is excessive) and VC. Not trying to open that debate again but that is how you interpreted it in that context. The law never related CRUEF to playing the ball.

Same thing goes for VC acts on players vs referees. Its a different context, different interpretation, different application.

Oh and comparing players touching referees with referees touching players is like comparing apples and oranges, actually more like comparing apples and watermelons :)

Somehow I feel that you are arguing this for the sake of it and deep down you know the tolerance for VC on referees is much lower than opponents.
Click to expand...



I have other things to do in life than argue online for fun
Players touching the ref, is different to players committing an act of brutality on a referee.
No doubts the tolerance is lower. on the other end of the scale, simply touching a referee is not, or imo should not, be a mandatory red card.
 
JH said:
If you saw this barge on Oliver, it was more a caution. If a player is in my face and comes in to barge me and rough me up, he's going. Oliver and Buffon comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing the incident in mention and thought it was just the Arsenal players momentum slowing down that took him into Oliver i.e. entirely incidental movement unless I'm mistaken! But yes, I agree
 
alexv said:
Noticed recently more and more players have started bumping into refs and pulling their arms, holding their backs, etc... really frustrating to see, as it goes unpunished (like 99% of dissent in the pro game) on TV. Saw it in the Arsenal Liverpool game after MO correctly awarded a penalty and Kolasinac (I think) barged into him (albeit softly, but still a barge) and a few other Arsenal players were holding the his arm arguing.
How are you dealing with this in lower levels?
Click to expand...
Auto red card. Any manhandling, or deliberate pushing, chest bumping, finger in the chest etc while arguing - bye bye. Hands off the ref.

The game needs to stamp down hard on manhandling at the top levels. I say this a lot, but no other sport would tolerate it. Authorities are just too spineless.

I can only presume Ciley Myrus is trolling in this one because the claim made is just that absurd. But that's pretty self evident to everybody else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top