Ref standards

[Kes]

I hope I'm not one of those. I was ever so pleased with myself when I raised that I didn't see a law justification for an IDFK if the keeper deliberately parried the ball to wait to pick it up and everyone else commented that they agreed and it raised healthy debate rather than @JamesL turning up instantly to tell me to look under secition 18.2.3

You're the worst of em Sir!!

I'd have you on ignore but then I realised it'd be a waste of time having to un-ignore you in order to read what you'd said so's I could ignore it.

 

[RefereeX]

Ultimately, L3 officials and so called observers/tutors should not be getting law wrong

Valuable input. I don't disagree. But law gets more and more complicated every year at the moment. I fully believe my law knowledge is top 25% among level 3s and yet there are still things that occasionally crop up that I'm unaware of. That's why I like to frequent this forum, as it helps me develop / learn law sometimes in a way that reading the LOTG over and over doesn't. Different people learn in different ways. I'm not sure what other peoples reasons for frequenting the forum are.

 

[Kes]

We have people who claim to be observers/tutors, yet they commonly get law wrong on here. That should not be happening

The LOTG are often open to individual interpretation. That's what makes football subjective and is amongst the reasons forums like this exist.

If that's a dig at myself then that's fine - I'm pretty thick-skinned but I'm unaware of any examples of members on here commonly getting law wrong. Even if they did (on here) they'd always be corrected by other members and in the grand scheme of things, it's whether or not they get law wrong whilst actually observing that counts. You'll (presumably) know yourself that referees are able to appeal reports where an observer is incorrect in law so the net effect is actually zero.

So, I'd like to see some quoted posts where a "so called observer" has got law wrong on here ...

 

[RefereeX]

The LOTG are often open to individual interpretation. That's what makes football subjective and is amongst the reasons forums like this exist.

If that's a dig at myself then that's fine - I'm pretty thick-skinned but I'm unaware of any examples of members on here commonly getting law wrong. Even if they did (on here) they'd always be corrected by other members and in the grand scheme of things, it's whether or not they get law wrong whilst actually observing that counts. You'll (presumably) know yourself that referees are able to appeal reports where an observer is incorrect in law so the net effect is actually zero.

So, I'd like to see some quoted posts where a "so called observer" has got law wrong on here ...

Kes, my biggest concern is what your thought that this might be a dig at you says about your observation skills

 

[Kes]

Kes, my biggest concern is what your thought that this might be a dig at you says about your observation skills

Ask around mate. Then google the word "revered".

 

[bester]

We have people who claim to be observers/tutors, yet they commonly get law wrong on here. That should not be happening

They're human too.

With the old 17 penalty scenarios, an FA tutor who was a level 3 at the time got 3 out of 17 at a life seminar test.

He must've learnt from that and he's now an FA core coach and one of the most high profile course tutors in the country.

 

[Runner Ref]

I

The LOTG are often open to individual interpretation. That's what makes football subjective and is amongst the reasons forums like this exist.

If that's a dig at myself then that's fine - I'm pretty thick-skinned but I'm unaware of any examples of members on here commonly getting law wrong. Even if they did (on here) they'd always be corrected by other members and in the grand scheme of things, it's whether or not they get law wrong whilst actually observing that counts. You'll (presumably) know yourself that referees are able to appeal reports where an observer is incorrect in law so the net effect is actually zero.

So, I'd like to see some quoted posts where a "so called observer" has got law wrong on here ...

if you can’t see them, maybe you aren’t too good with law yourself

 

[Kes]

I

if you can’t see them, maybe you aren’t too good with law yourself

So none then.

Thanks.

 

[Runner Ref]

So none then.

Thanks.

Not my job to teach you. Your job to research

 

[RustyRef]

This is completely and utterly true.

I have to carefully construct every single post of mine on here because I know that if anything I write isn't absolutely spot on, there's at least three Level 3's (and one Aussie) all ready to gang up on me and send me skulking back to the LOTG book!! The stress is incredible. I've thought about deleting my account but then I'd be all alone. I'd still have the hedgehog that comes to my garden I suppose ...

Disclaimer: The above doesn't include @RustyRef by the way. He's ever so nice.

Can't be me, I'm neither level 3 nor Aussie

 

[Runner Ref]

Can't be me, I'm neither level 3 nor Aussie

Just like @Kes

Only difference is, you got to L3 once upon a time