The Ref Stop

Udinese - AC Milan

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
GraemeS said:
"Mate". You've written something in a refereeing forum that isn't supported by the LOTG and that you've entirely made up. I'm not dicsussing VC or not (in fact, I've made a point of not sharing my opinion on if I think a red is right or not) - I'm discussing your fabricated definition of "kick". You should count yourself lucky that it's only me that objected to it, because by all rights you should have 5 or 6 people piling on to correct you on this factual error that you have made.

I'd politely suggest you stop making up laws and posting them as fact, as the reputation of this site relies on us not misleading any new referees who stumble onto this.
Click to expand...



Am truly blessed that only you have made me see the error of my ways, now I can really get on with my day, safe in the knowledge that your perfection is shining down upon us all
 
The Ref Stop
GraemeS said:
"Mate". You've written something in a refereeing forum that isn't supported by the LOTG and that you've entirely made up. I'm not dicsussing VC or not (in fact, I've made a point of not sharing my opinion on if I think a red is right or not) - I'm discussing your fabricated definition of "kick". You should count yourself lucky that it's only me that objected to it, because by all rights you should have 5 or 6 people piling on to correct you on this factual error that you have made.

I'd politely suggest you stop making up laws and posting them as fact, as the reputation of this site relies on us not misleading any new referees who stumble onto this.
Click to expand...



in the clip, thats a kick, not a trip
there is nothing more needing to be said
 
When not challenging for the ball (as per the OP dismissal), kicking an opponent is an act of brutality. This behavior needs to be consistently dealt with as VC
I was just surprised to see a red card in the OP, because I think the vast majority wrongly get off with a caution
 
Big Cat said:
When not challenging for the ball (as per the OP dismissal), kicking an opponent is an act of brutality. This behavior needs to be consistently dealt with as VC
I was just surprised to see a red card in the OP, because I think the vast majority wrongly get off with a caution
Click to expand...


100% agree. "we" expect a red because referees are not strong enough to carry out their duties, and I include myself in that too, as we think, hey, its not that bad a kick, nobody is hurt, yellow will do
Wrongly.
It then becomes rare to see the correct action being taken and we consider that referee to have been the exception as opposed to what should be the norm
it is only through the feeding down of weak officiating that a yellow card becomes the norm here and each and every referee is guilty of it

in the clip, IF the opponent went down screaming and had to be carried off, our mindset would be, oh, thats brutal, red card......
lets leave aside the lack of injury factually incurred, the actions of the opponent are the same regardless
 
Ciley Myrus said:
100% agree. "we" expect a red because referees are not strong enough to carry out their duties, and I include myself in that too, as we think, hey, its not that bad a kick, nobody is hurt, yellow will do
Wrongly.
It then becomes rare to see the correct action being taken and we consider that referee to have been the exception as opposed to what should be the norm
it is only through the feeding down of weak officiating that a yellow card becomes the norm here and each and every referee is guilty of it

in the clip, IF the opponent went down screaming and had to be carried off, our mindset would be, oh, thats brutal, red card......
lets leave aside the lack of injury factually incurred, the actions of the opponent are the same regardless
Click to expand...
@Padfoot will rip me apart for this, but it makes it difficult for us at the bottom to do the right thing, when everyone is watching something else on tv
 
@Ciley Myrus Your clip has far more force and is more of a kick than the OP IMHO. It's much easier to class as VC because there is clearly excessive force, strong contact off the ground... it's an obvious kick... red is easy.

In the OP, the contact is far less IMHO, not excessive.
 
santa sangria said:
@Ciley Myrus Your clip has far more force and is more of a kick than the OP IMHO. It's much easier to class as VC because there is clearly excessive force, strong contact off the ground... it's an obvious kick... red is easy.

In the OP, the contact is far less IMHO, not excessive.
Click to expand...
Trouble is tho Santa, if the ball is not in play (or not nearby), a player would be dismissed for the same offence. It's made worse by the ball being in play, because SPA is added to the crime
There can be no excusing this sort of foul play, because it's aggressive cheating imo. I haven't had a similar incident in my games yet, but i want to be able to dismiss a player for such behavior,,,,,'As Seen On TV'
 
Big Cat said:
Trouble is tho Santa, if the ball is not in play (or not nearby), a player would be dismissed for the same offence. It's made worse by the ball being in play, because SPA is added to the crime
There can be no excusing this sort of foul play, because it's aggressive cheating imo. I haven't had a similar incident in my games yet, but i want to be able to dismiss a player for such behavior,,,,,'As Seen On TV'
Click to expand...
I don't understand where that philosophy comes from? Imagine the ball is out of play, work out the punishment for an action, add the ball in, work out the punishment for that action, add the two punishments together and then apply that? That's not how judgement of red/yellow cards has ever worked!

I actually agree with your individual assessments of the two scenarios - ball out of play then dismiss, ball in play then SPA. But you can have one or the other, you can't add them together!
 
GraemeS said:
I don't understand where that philosophy comes from? Imagine the ball is out of play, work out the punishment for an action, add the ball in, work out the punishment for that action, add the two punishments together and then apply that? That's not how judgement of red/yellow cards has ever worked!

I actually agree with your individual assessments of the two scenarios - ball out of play then dismiss, ball in play then SPA. But you can have one or the other, you can't add them together!
Click to expand...
I recall you argued against the Joe Ralls dismissal. That red was upheld by the FA and the dismissal in the OP survived VAR (according to @RustyRef), so it appears top refs are working to a new brief
My interpretation of the philosophy, is that IFAB want to keep the book reasonably concise. The absence of an exact reference to this offence in law, does not preclude us from joining the dots with common sense in determining the 'closest match'. These recent charges of Violent Conduct would match interpretation, which is great; because I don't want players kicking each other on my pitch (whilst cheating at the same time)
 
Big Cat said:
I recall you argued against the Joe Ralls dismissal. That red was upheld by the FA and the dismissal in the OP survived VAR (according to @RustyRef), so it appears top refs are working to a new brief
My interpretation of the philosophy, is that IFAB want to keep the book reasonably concise. The absence of an exact reference to this offence in law, does not preclude us from joining the dots with common sense in determining the 'closest match'. These recent charges of Violent Conduct would match interpretation, which is great; because I don't want players kicking each other on my pitch (whilst cheating at the same time)
Click to expand...
But there is an exact reference in the book for this offence:
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack
Click to expand...
AKA SPA. We all know that's the intent of the trip and I'm not having for a second that this incident in particular is actually violent or dangerous. Those arguing VC for this offence are ignoring the direct, clear and obvious answer in favour of trying to twist another law into shape to justify an outcome they want to see.

So for me, to do anything other than the obvious yellow card, there needs to be a clear reason written down in black & white to justify the harsher punishment. I don't think we should be expected to magically infer a secret directive shown only to SG1 refs, and I don't think it's our place to put across our own personal views of what we do or don't want to see on a football pitch. I think we should be expected to apply the laws as written.
 
JH said:
I can see both sides of the arguments above. I just strongly disagree with "any force off the ball is excessive force", because that's just absolute rubbish.
Click to expand...
Agreed to some extent
The offence in the OP was nowhere near as bad as the Ralls dismissal, but some dissenters (regarding the latter) weren't deterred by the appeal failure.
If this trend with SG1's gathers pace, I'll be quick to follow suit at grass roots
 
Big Cat said:
Agreed to some extent
The offence in the OP was nowhere near as bad as the Ralls dismissal, but some dissenters (regarding the latter) weren't deterred by the appeal failure.
If this trend with SG1's gathers pace, I'll be quick to follow suit at grass roots
Click to expand...
In an ideal world you wouldn't have to worry about SG1 because we'd all apply the laws the same.
 
JH said:
In an ideal world you wouldn't have to worry about SG1 because we'd all apply the laws the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, something I absolutely agree with. The inconsistent manner in which the laws are applied at the top, leaves us squabbling in our attempts to understand the laws as an exact science. Although your OP is a tame example of the offence under the microscope, I do think that a dismissal should result if the force used equates to a red card elsewhere in the game. So, blatant kicking for example, but not tripping or charging etc
 
JH said:
http://mscom1.matchat.online/player/html/c1GILhD9OZ?popup=yes&autoplay=1

The fun starts at 5 mins.

Don't know about anyone else but I hate this new delayed flag to accommodate VAR, as if assistant refereeing wasn't misunderstood enough.
Click to expand...
For the life of me I can't figure out what the AR is doing. Why did the AR only flag after the goal was scored? I'm presuming that's the case based on the actions of the players and the fact that the commentator would have mentioned it earlier, other than the referee ignoring a flag.

Also, I don't like the backwards run he did. I wonder if that's the reason he stuffed this up? Jogging backwards when he should have been sidestepping, means he has to waste time turning putting him behind play at a critical moment.
I reckon that's EXACTLY why the AR got this one wrong.
 
alexgr said:
VAR protocol - close decision but near to goal so keep flag down so it can be reviewed if scored.
Click to expand...
Which is against the LOTG. And why raise the flag? It's getting reviewed anyway.
And the alleged offside was so far back in play that the AR raising the flag is just farcical
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top