Stockport v Wigan

[NoFoulsAllowed]

An alternative would be to change the end that they are operating from too.

I've heard an observer will kill you for this regardless of reason.

Eg. almost unplayable mudbath on an ARs line. Ref puts ARs to RBs. Observer negatively reported on it. Ref appealed and the observers remarks were upheld by the FA.

Now this was a second hand story told to me by a referee that was asking me to stand in ankle high mud during a rain storm. So could be entirely untrue but I believed it.

 

[socal lurker]

If true, it is totally ludicrous.

 

[RustyRef]

I've heard an observer will kill you for this regardless of reason.

Eg. almost unplayable mudbath on an ARs line. Ref puts ARs to RBs. Observer negatively reported on it. Ref appealed and the observers remarks were upheld by the FA.

Now this was a second hand story told to me by a referee that was asking me to stand in ankle high mud during a rain storm. So could be entirely untrue but I believed it.

You will always get some observers that apply logic like this, thankfully much less now than in the past. I'd like to think that these days the observer would be giving the match officials some credit for using common sense.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I've heard an observer will kill you for this regardless of reason.

Eg. almost unplayable mudbath on an ARs line. Ref puts ARs to RBs. Observer negatively reported on it. Ref appealed and the observers remarks were upheld by the FA.

Now this was a second hand story told to me by a referee that was asking me to stand in ankle high mud during a rain storm. So could be entirely untrue but I believed it.

As there is no requirement at most levels to "run left backs" I suspect that the story was missing some important details, e. g. did the referee's positioning suffer as a result of the change.
The Observer should have asked the referee about the change, and then discussed any issues re positioning by the referee, cooperation with AR's, etc.