RefSix

You Are The Ref 311

McTavish

Well-Known Member
#1
Over the years the scenarios in the You are the Ref cartoon have become more bizarre and Keith Hackett's judgements more shaky. This Sunday's piece in The Observer newspaper is, however, something that might well happen but, in my view, the response is bonkers.

The scenario: Defending team make a substitution just before a corner. Ref blows whistle before defender is in position and goal is scored. Cue uproar from defenders - what to do?

KH's answer: Although there is nothing wrong in law the goal should be disallowed as the ref has made a mistake!

I can see that the ref might not be popular with the defence and that it generally accepted that subs are allowed to get into position but , as KH acknowledges, in law the ref has done nothing wrong and so on what grounds can he possibly disallow the goal?
 

DanCohen17

Simply The Best
#2
That proves exactly why I ignore almost the entirety of what that utter moron says.
Nothing wrong in law means just that. Goal stands, ref gets told off by his superiors for being an idiot but doesn't lose marks officially.
 

DaveMac

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
#3
I had something like this at the weekend. Throw in by the half way line, defending team make a sub. Player going off runs off, player coming on takes ages. He steps on, I whistle to restart with the throw just as the player coming on then stops as his manager is talking to him. Attacking team break and just put their shot wide. The manager then complains I have to let players get in position when coming on and if it had been a goal it would have been my fault!

That said this is the same manager who tried to send on a sub when the keeper was holding the ball after making a save. The tool.
 

haywain

the voice of reason
Level 7 Referee
#4
If player taking 'ages', remember your option of telling him / coach that they'll have to wait for the next 'break in play' and then getting on with the game

Useful in games where substitution involves kit swap, too.
 

DanCohen17

Simply The Best
#7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Hackett

is this the moron that you guys are referring to

on one thread, Hull is berating a new member for criticising an anonymous referee whilst, on this, a referee who has achieved so much gets offinabus.....and from a moderator at that

merry christmas, everybody! :)
Give over Haywain. Hackett is the most out of touch person currently allowed to speak about the subjects. His horrendous opinions, often incorrect as-per LOTG (such as above), are believed by Joe Public and further enhance the anger towards every Sunday league referee for upholding the LOTG. This is the biggest case of 'last-week's ref' there is!
A man supposedly with all the knowledge spouting utter nonsense for a quick buck.

Also, in 5 years time, please re-read this post, but edit Hackett to Halsey - cos he's already started!
 

matty639

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
#8
Ah the pot stirring Haywain at his best. How you can say the two are similar only you will know, but then you like to make stuff what it isn't to suit your agenda I guess.

One case is a first poster coming on and openly critising a parks level ref whilst opening with the fact that he himself is a good ref.

The second is a guy who has refereed at the highest level and is paid to offer opinions in a newspaper on imaginary scenarios saying something that is blatantly wrong, to some he has done this on previous occasions so they ignore his column.

Exactly the same.
 

haywain

the voice of reason
Level 7 Referee
#9
Ah the pot stirring Haywain at his best. How you can say the two are similar only you will know, but then you like to make stuff what it isn't to suit your agenda I guess.

One case is a first poster coming on and openly critising a parks level ref whilst opening with the fact that he himself is a good ref.

The second is a guy who has refereed at the highest level and is paid to offer opinions in a newspaper on imaginary scenarios saying something that is blatantly wrong, to some he has done this on previous occasions so they ignore his column.

Exactly the same.
Pot-stirrer? To be fair, I happen to be a good one, Matty

p.s. Did I say that the two were similar or was it just a simple case of juxtaposition?
 
Top