Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I'm fairly sure he's saying the exact opposite - at least, that's what the words he has written, mean.
Sliding Tackles
- Thread starter Ref253
- Start date
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Yep.
I even mentioned it in the narrative I wrote in a report on a promotion candidate going from 6- 5 only last season. Heard him say it more than once.
Responding/justifying your decision to players appeals for a foul by mentioning or even pointing at the ball is simply incorrect in law.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Correct Peter.
I think my parenthetical must be unclear. What I was trying to say is that, like me, @Kes was saying that getting the ball was not a license for contact. We agree wholeheartedly on that. The sole point of my post was that while that part of the equation is indubitably true, it doesn't flow from that conclusion that getting the ball is irrelevant, as the failure to get the ball can certainly be relevant in assessing whether contact is a foul.
Sorry but just no, getting the ball is irrelevant........
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Sorry, but just yes, it is relevant--not determinative, but relevant. Contact with the opponent without contact on the ball is more likely to be careless than minor contact with contact with the ball. Just as contact with the opponent before contact with the ball is more likely to be a foul than contact with the opponent after contact with the ball.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Why is it relevant?
Getting the ball is not one of the things that we, as referees, need to consider when deciding whether something is a foul.
All we should be concerned with is whether a challenge is careless, reckless, or uses excessive force.
I said relevant, I didn't overstate it. Not much point perpetuating our discussion as we won't agree and neither of us will gain anything from it
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Precisely. And an inability to get the ball is clue to being careless. It’s not the only clue. It’s not the most important but it’s not irrelevant to that determination. But as Bigcat said, not likely anyone’s views on this are going to change—and I kinda suspect that we’d pretty much get to the same place on real world plays, just down a different pathway.
To say that winning the ball has no bearing on the decision made would be wrong, but to say that winning the ball is the sole criteria which makes a tackle acceptable is likewise wrong. The ball being won is important because the type of contact that would be allowed before the ball is played is different to that which is allowed following. For example, if a defender simply has a leg stuck out and the attacker trips over it but the defender never plays the ball you are right to give a free kick to the attacker; if, however, the defender slides in, takes the ball and the attacker falls over the defender who is in the course of his sliding tackle, you will not blow for a foul. In this sense, the defender playing the ball is important to the decision. That being said, if the tackle itself is performed carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force then even playing the ball is not sufficient grounds to play on. In this way, the playing of the ball is one of many considerations as to whether or not a foul has been committed. It is neither a deciding factor nor something to be completely ignored.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Few people will (or have) disputed the above mate.
The issue was whether or not a referee should point at the ball or verbally justify any decision on a challenge to the players by mentioning the fact that "the ball was won". Since it's not a justification in law, it shouldn't be done. Simple as that really.
Except in the example I gave, wherein that is the justification. Yes, the attacker went down, but he went down by tripping over the defender who won the ball in the tackle. No foul, play on. I don't disagree with you in practice, of course, that saying that he won the ball is a big trap that will cause you problems later; I just don't agree with many of the comments in the thread who say that getting the ball is strictly not a consideration. It is a consideration because it changes the context of the contact which we are judging.