The Ref Stop

Spirit of the Game - Myth

P

PinnerPaul

RefChat Addict
Just having a clear out of my ref bag and found "Additional Advice for Match Officials" booklet dated 2001.

There on the back page was a final summary paragraph, encouraging referees to officiate within "the spirit of the game":p

Nothing new is there!
 
The Ref Stop
If we're talking about "Spirit of the Game" myths, I'm sick of people suggesting that it's in the laws in order to allow referees to to ignore or make up laws when they want to.

It's very clear in the new LOTG and the associated documentation what the "Spirit of the Game" clause is supposed to do - to allow referees to carry on matches if trivial problems exist. Safety is still the primary concern, and 90% of the laws (including the entirety of law 11) should still be applied as written. Obviously. If a referee fails to show a red card when he should, that's not "Spirit of the Game", that's him failing to do his job - same as it was last season.

Spirit of the game lets the referee make a judgement call if the corner flags, lines or players kit aren't totally right. That's all.
 
For me, the spirit of the game is also about considering what a law was put in place for and not blindly following the exact wording. The 6 second rule is a good example here.
 
one said:
For me, the spirit of the game is also about considering what a law was put in place for and not blindly following the exact wording. The 6 second rule is a good example here.
Click to expand...

But it isn't our job to second guess the lawmakers........Clearly where they feel the need for an interpretation they give it.....anything else should be as per the letter of the law.

Otherwise there is no point in having them and referees can just make things up as they go......oh wait.....thats what some do now and call it "Spirit of the game" to excuse their shortcomings.....
 
Padfoot said:
But it isn't our job to second guess the lawmakers........Clearly where they feel the need for an interpretation they give it.....anything else should be as per the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
So how many freekicks do you give in an average game for goalkeepers maintaining control of the ball for more than six seconds? A fair few I'd guess :rolleyes:. And as for the multiple retakes of penalties for encroachment .. must be a sight to see :)
 
Yeah, the 6 seconds thing isn't just allowing trifling infringements to get by - referees just blatantly ignore it. Like dissent an OFFINABUS. Excuse it however you like.

Still, given some of the posts we've seen on here in the past, I think 'ITSOTG' seems to be somewhat redundant :P
 
Padfoot said:
But it isn't our job to second guess the lawmakers........Clearly where they feel the need for an interpretation they give it.....anything else should be as per the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
So @Padfoot will you be following the interpretation given by the lawmakers in Q&A on DFK on "offence against match officials"?
 
one said:
So @Padfoot will you be following the interpretation given by the lawmakers in Q&A on DFK on "offence against match officials"?
Click to expand...

Depends how much the player is pissing me off.......;)








As an Assessor and a mentor, I have little choice but to follow the moronic interpretation designed to appease the paymasters of the professional, which in reality simply sell their grassroots counterparts down the river......but hey, since when did anyone care about grassroots football or referees?
That said, if a promotion candidate gave a DFK/PK for dissent and when asked about it, told me that they considered it an offence against a match official....they won't be gettting marked down for it.
 
Padfoot said:
That said, if a promotion candidate gave a DFK/PK for dissent and when asked about it, told me that they considered it an offence against a match official....they won't be getting marked down for it.
Click to expand...
I think you pretty much made the point I was trying to make. I too as an assessor would not mark down a referee who did not blindly follow the wording of a law and his explanations made scene.
 
one said:
I think you pretty much made the point I was trying to make. I too as an assessor would not mark down a referee who did not blindly follow the wording of a law and his explanations made scene.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand.....normally, regardless of the referee's expalanation, if their actions are outwith the LOTG there would be a mention of it in the assessment, whether or not it lost them marks would very much depend on how trivial the offence was, what level they were going for, and what affect their decision had on their match control.......generally something very very trivial that didn't affect their match control wouldn't see them losing marks.
However in this instance, because the idea from IFAB that dissent/offinabus is not an offence that is committed against a match official is so absolutely nonsensical, and clearly designed to pander to the professional game, I would not penalise a candidate for disregarding such a ludicrous, and obviously incorrect, interpretation.
 
Padfoot said:
You misunderstand.....normally, regardless of the referee's expalanation, if their actions are outwith the LOTG there would be a mention of it in the assessment, whether or not it lost them marks would very much depend on how trivial the offence was, what level they were going for, and what affect their decision had on their match control.......generally something very very trivial that didn't affect their match control wouldn't see them losing marks.
However in this instance, because the idea from IFAB that dissent/offinabus is not an offence that is committed against a match official is so absolutely nonsensical, and clearly designed to pander to the professional game, I would not penalise a candidate for disregarding such a ludicrous, and obviously incorrect, interpretation.
Click to expand...
Le me see if I understand this one correctly then. Is it fair to say, inferring from your last two posts, that the decision of giving a PK for dissent is very trivial and has no effect on match control even though its against the interpretation of the lawmakers (you would not deduct marks for it).

EDIT: Or are you just saying you choose which interpretation of the law maker you follow according to the 'spirit of the game'? :)
 
If I was still assessing I also wouldn't mark down a referee for doing what is explicitly stated within the LOTG. I'd ask if they were aware of the contradicting advice to later come out and if they were and ignored it then that's a markdown. Otherwise as an assessor you couldn't mark them down for it.

The problem with 'spirit of the game' is when the laws themselves seem to have been written with such madness that they themselves ignore the spirit of the game.

U/12 dying minutes of a semi final, keeper already on a caution comes off his line to save a PK. The game neither wants nor needs that player to be sent off, but it requires that to occur.
 
Just for the record an "Offence against substitutes, team officials, match officials etc. is now a direct FK" does not include dissent. Dissent is still an IDFK.
 
Padfoot said:
Ah well.....guess that'll be my cross to bear!



Thanks for again pointing how ludicrous that sounds. Dare I ask what a player is 'dissenting' against if it's not a match official?
Click to expand...

I don't think it sounds ludicrous in the slightest. A player is not 'dissenting' against a match official he is 'dissenting' against a decision all be it made by the match official.
 
Cheshire Ref said:
I don't think it sounds ludicrous in the slightest. A player is not 'dissenting' against a match official he is 'dissenting' against a decision all be it made by the match official.
Click to expand...

The more you try to defend it, the more ludicrous it sounds......but hey, you buy into the propaganda if you want and propagate the devaluation of match officials if you want.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top