Spitting at an opponent
- Thread starter one
- Start date
I accept that you would report what happened as you told the referee, but unless you told the referee at the time ‘I saw him spit’ I don’t understand why he would have been sent off. Obviously YHTBT, but from what’s been said, the referee has blindly sent a player off based on an AR saying ‘it looked like he spat but I don’t know’.
When refereeing, if my AR said this I wouldn’t be sending anyone off unless I was categorically told he spat. It’s all just guesswork
Bit of a rock and a hard place for One. The referee has asked him what he has seen, he's explained and he has decided to send him off for it. You can't then expect One to say in his report that he saw an actual spit as that would be lying. If that means the referees gets taken to the cleaners for effectively guessing based on what he was told then so be it.
I think it's fairly clear what's happened here? Surely the referee has either misunderstood what he's being told, or decided (correctly or not) that between what he saw and what he was told, there's enough to justify red. It's not really up to the AR to interrogate the ref and/or to justify that decision when reporting, it's his place to report the facts when asked.
Hence I started the post with the line ‘I accept that you would report what happened as you told the referee’
And then contradict it by saying "but"...
You can quite easily take individual words from a sentence to suit your own arguments, but (there’s that word again) as you’ll notice in my post you initially quoted, I agreed with One then went onto say that I didn’t agree with the referee sending him based on the facts presented to him.
And as I said, I thought that was a fairly clear conclusion from the initial post? And I also didn't understand why you still seemed to be hectoring One for that - he has no control over what the referee does with the information he was given!
one
RefChat Addict
To change it from the report to the decision.
The referee was still dealing with the aftermath of the reckless challenge about 20 meters away so he saw nothing. I deliberately kept an eye on the player due to the context of the game and in general. To give an idea of the context, he was their best player and being egged on by the opponents the whole game. It was a trial game (what you call a 'friendly') between two local rivals in a Sydney wide comp. There is history between the two teams especially amongst a few players with the said player being one of them. Another thing to consider is the time of day. It was during twilight with lights on but the light brightness not compliant with comp regulations (approved ground for trials but not for competition games).
Although it wasn't my decision, I do agree with the send off. I would have probably done the same. Refereeing is not exact science and you don't need forensic evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt (as in a court of law) to make a decisions. Its about being reasonably confidant on the circumstantial facts and you use balance of probability. Every referee does that all the time. In a close throw in for example. In many cases you are not sure which way but you go with balance of probabilities based on what you have seen. Now on a KMI like a send off, your level of confidence on the decision must be a lot higher and what is reasonable is a lot more rigid. But saying because you didn't see the actual spit you can't send the player off as a hard and fast rule is not my thing.
There was a good analogy by CM I think. If you see two players scuffling isolated. One swings a fist but you don't see contact because your view is momentarily blocked. Moments later you see the guy goes down like a sack of potatoes and his nose is flat and pouring blood. You can reasonably and confidently deduct that he was punched in the nose even though you didn't see the actual contact.
The referee was still dealing with the aftermath of the reckless challenge about 20 meters away so he saw nothing. I deliberately kept an eye on the player due to the context of the game and in general. To give an idea of the context, he was their best player and being egged on by the opponents the whole game. It was a trial game (what you call a 'friendly') between two local rivals in a Sydney wide comp. There is history between the two teams especially amongst a few players with the said player being one of them. Another thing to consider is the time of day. It was during twilight with lights on but the light brightness not compliant with comp regulations (approved ground for trials but not for competition games).
Although it wasn't my decision, I do agree with the send off. I would have probably done the same. Refereeing is not exact science and you don't need forensic evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt (as in a court of law) to make a decisions. Its about being reasonably confidant on the circumstantial facts and you use balance of probability. Every referee does that all the time. In a close throw in for example. In many cases you are not sure which way but you go with balance of probabilities based on what you have seen. Now on a KMI like a send off, your level of confidence on the decision must be a lot higher and what is reasonable is a lot more rigid. But saying because you didn't see the actual spit you can't send the player off as a hard and fast rule is not my thing.
There was a good analogy by CM I think. If you see two players scuffling isolated. One swings a fist but you don't see contact because your view is momentarily blocked. Moments later you see the guy goes down like a sack of potatoes and his nose is flat and pouring blood. You can reasonably and confidently deduct that he was punched in the nose even though you didn't see the actual contact.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think perhaps there's a salutary lesson in the recent Edin Dzeko incident. It looked for all the world that he had spat at the referee. It was widely reported that way, there were multiple YouTube clips describing it as a spitting incident and he was getting dog's abuse all over the internet for the supposed spitting.
Later, better quality footage and (more importantly) the referee's report established that in fact, he had not spat at the referee, it was just that he had moved his head in a way that made it look as if he did.
Later, better quality footage and (more importantly) the referee's report established that in fact, he had not spat at the referee, it was just that he had moved his head in a way that made it look as if he did.
one
RefChat Addict
A good point which is appreciated. I was well aware of the Dzeko incident fresh in my mind and that it was not spiting. My game was the weekend after Dzeko's. However I would stress there were clear differences in the two cases. As with most things like this it's a YHTBT.
- Dzeko forehead moved ahead of his chin and the overall movement of his head was downwards. #### chin was moving forward while his forehead backward with overall movement of his head was upwards.
- Wiping the spit from one's face is somewhat of an involuntary reaction if spat at. There was no such reaction in Dzeko game but it was immediate in my game.
- In Dzeko's incident no other player around had a reaction indicating it may have been an spit. In my game many player's reaction suggested so. Team mates taking the offender away. Some opponents immateriality appealing to the referee "he spat on him". Some rushing to the offender. You can say an opponent can be play act to make it look line spitting but orchestrating 4 of the them at the same time is improbable.
now done
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Raises the point aswell, am sure somebody, from the player, to teammates, to coach, to tea lady, will have asked either ref or ar or both, "Why was he sent off"
The answer can only have been....... he spat at someone. Or. We think he spat at someone
One of which from the op, is a lie. (Not being personal to One, just stating that, we never saw it, so, we cant say he did it)
The other, is not a sending off offence
I would throw this back onto the ref, cos, in incidents unseen by ref, but alerted to by AR, we usually ask, who was it? Where on pitch is he? What am i doing about it? And how am i restarting play?
The question that matters to me least, is, what happened. I as ref never saw it, so, i cant comment on it, so, that part is the briefest.
If that makes sense
The answer can only have been....... he spat at someone. Or. We think he spat at someone
One of which from the op, is a lie. (Not being personal to One, just stating that, we never saw it, so, we cant say he did it)
The other, is not a sending off offence
I would throw this back onto the ref, cos, in incidents unseen by ref, but alerted to by AR, we usually ask, who was it? Where on pitch is he? What am i doing about it? And how am i restarting play?
The question that matters to me least, is, what happened. I as ref never saw it, so, i cant comment on it, so, that part is the briefest.
If that makes sense
If you think me agreeing with somebody is 'hectoring' them, you must be a nightmare for calling dissent
You're absolutely right in that he has no control of the referees decision (apologies for hectoring you as well), I was just saying that I think it's wrong that the referee sent him off with the information provided.