The man in the middle - Referee Admiration/Angst/Appointments thread

He got the non-call on the handball completely wrong. Should have been a penalty and a yellow card to the Greek player.

Also thought he should have had the coach marched instead of giving him 3 minutes to sort the penalties out.  If you're sent you're sent.

I heard Craig Foster (yes, I know) comment that FIFA had directed referees to go easy on the cautions to reduce the risk that top players would miss games (although it seems Ben Williams didn't get the memo).

I can't help wondering if:

a) the reluctance of the Brazil vs Colombia referee to caution players 'encouraged' the challenge that hurt Neymar, which ironically forced him out of the tournament

b) a harder line will be taken in the remaining games after the Neymar incident – I personally hope so as I'm tired of the persistent tactical fouling used by teams (i.e. Brazil) to disrupt opponents' offensive forays.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/10243464/Japanese-ref-in-running-for-World-Cup-final

Oh ffs, just how stupid are FIFA? Good grief. This defies all that is good with the game. Makes me wonder how many bookies are involved. Surely no ref is that incompetent, as these two have shown, deliberately. Has to be a joke.

Ben Williams called up to the Club World Cup, along with two Australian AR's. Interesting decision from FIFA, to say the least.

Really good article about O'Leary and that call at the Brazil World Cup. Good to see he will be at the Asian Cup next year.

http://refereeingworld.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/fifa...

I don't buy into conspiracy theories about referees and the like - occasionally human beings get things wrong when they are making hundreds of potentially game-changing decisions over a 2 hour period. Having said that, this is a terrible explanation:

"The Nigerian goalkeeper is a character ... with a sunny disposition. At the end of our game he had the ball, I went and got the ball off him. He said congratulations, put his arm around me and I put my arm around him. While we were doing that, the fourth official said something in my ear and that made me laugh." 

It is right up there with the dodgy "married politician caught with rent boy" excuses - "....so I had to remove my trousers. While removing said pants, I stepped backwards onto where the vaseline had been spilt, which lead me to slip backwards and fall onto his erect penis. And that was the point where the police barged into the room"

From the Distance Derby thread (grrr):

Would be great to get Chris Kerr or other refs to comment on the studs up = red card debate.  

I haven't reffed for the whole of last season and a bit of the previous so am getting a bit rusty.  However the only inference around these sorts of tackles resulting in a red from the LOTG that I can find is Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct (page 12):

"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

• serious foul play"

And serious foul play is explained later in the interpretation section (page 126):

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

Is there any other interpretation that is more applicable to the Zadkovich tackle?

The clumsy/malicious excuse is irrelevant I think, but one which is commonly cited.

When looking at tackles, the laws were re-written some 16 years ago and removed the word intent. No longer did you look at a tackle from the perspective of the tackler (not malicious, accidental, no intent etc) but looked at it from the 'receipient' (did the tackle endanger the safety of the opponent, lack of regard for player safety, lack of attention or consideration) It meant that even if it was an accident and you smashed a player in the face, you can still be sent off for it because the players safety was endangered.

Use your own instincts and gut reaction. They are on the right track :o)

Thanks Chris.

It's very interesting how long "old rules" still linger in people's minds.

This video from after the game between Iran vs Iraq for AFC QF on Ben Williams.

http://video.news.com.au/v/284291/Referee-Ben-Williams-embarrassing-decision

Some big allegations against Ben Williams there.

I don't think he's the best referee in the A-League but I've not seen anything like what Aloisi says about Williams holding a grudge.

'Not the best referee in the A League.'  I think you are being too kind.

Bossa saying he wasn't trying to get him sent off. Bollocks. Goes down, and stays down, hold his face. 100% a yellow. 

ah ha! i found the (re)f'ing thread!

what do people think of this idea? 10min sin bin for dissent? im not sure how well it will work, because refs are usually poor at pulling players up for dissent. But i think it is a good initiative. And players harassing the ref is one of the worst things about football. I cannot stand it. I think other codes like AFL (talking back to the ref gets you a 10m penalty) and to a lesser extent Rugby have got it right. Respect the call and get on with it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39790484?ns_mc...

I'd spend most of the time off the pitch

I'm actually for it, I know as a referee sometimes its hard to give that card for decent even if I should because it can be game affecting with a player ending up getting sent off. If I had this option, I think you will find referees are more willing to use it and the players will learn really quickly if they end up sitting on the sideline for 10 minutes itching to get back on.

I do believe the sin binning should only be used for decent and the rules around decent be quite clear. I also think if brought in, the players then don't get a fine from Capital Football for it as well so as not to be double punished.

interesting point about affecting the game Yakcall. With this idea, if someone was sin binned for dissent, they would still be receiving a yellow card. meaning that they would be one bag tackle away from being sent off. 

and also, but not giving the card, do you think that allows for greater dissent to be shown to refs in the long run?

I agree about its good that clubs don't get the fine for it. 

What are the current rules around dissent? are they clear enough for refs? My understanding from a sunday players perspective was that you can pretty much say what you want as long it is swearing directly at them 

yeah wouldn't it make referees more hesitant than they already are to punish dissent? Currently the punishment is just a yellow card and even then referees don't like to give them out - and that doesn't even affect the game (unless it's a second). I imagine they'd be even more hesitant if the punishment were 10mins on the sideline - which does affect the game. 

Referees should be punishing dissent. I'm horrified to hear that referees aren't doing so. From a personal perspective, I hammered dissent when I was refereeing. No problem with chat and players asking questions, but there's a line in terms of how those questions are asked, and it's up to referees to let the players know where that line is and what happens when they cross it. How it affects a game shouldn't be a consideration for a referee.

I haven't worded myself well here but I mean I would feel more comfortable giving a card for dissent and the player getting 10 mins than I would if the player was on a yellow already and looking at a red for it. You can't tell me a referee hasn't put up with dissent rather than give that second yellow and send the player off. Having a player get instant repercussion for the dissent (10 mins in the bin) compared to a 1st yellow for dissent and no real repercussion (unless they end up with that red) would have a bigger impact on cutting it out also.

If a referee is putting up with dissent rather than dealing with it, then he shouldn't be there as far as I'm concerned.

Guess I should stop refereeing then.

Edit to say: If I refereed to the letter of the law, I would be handing out many more cards. But to be honest I do try and manage players first instead of giving cards, if I do get bad dissent or really loud/public dissent then I'm going to card the player.

thanks for sharing Yak. 

Yea and i think there needs to be greater pressure from league organisers and clubs on their players to create atmosphere were there isn't dissent towards refs. It going to be hard to change the culture of players if the code of conduct or rules are only being enforced by the men and women in the middle. 

Dissent, literally, is showing that you disagree with a decision. I'm not suggesting that every player who does that gets carded, not at all. I'm talking about when that disagreement is expressed continuously and/or forcibly then it should be dealt with. Allowing decisions to be continually challenged opens up several cans of worms, jumping on it early (and not necessarily by throwing cards around) can prevent that happening. My point was that referees should not be "putting up" with dissent and that they should certainly not be hiding from issuing cards for it when required because of the effect it might have on the game.

From my clubs perspective it is a several pronged approach. 

Players are responsible for payment of their own fines for cards where they are received for offences such as Dissent, violent misconduct etc. Coaches talk to the team as a whole and any "repeat offenders" individually and in need the Club Chairman will become involved.

We try and approach it on the basis that a silly card for dissent can have either consequences later in the game (maybe a slightly late challenge )that sees a player receive a second card and is marched or later on through accumulated yellows and a suspension.

Certainly we do not claim to be angels but from memory I do't think we had anyone suspended last year for accumulated yellows and maybe only one from two yellows in a game.

It is however in my view, up to referees and Cap Footy to set out , what is acceptable and to try and enforce this in a consistent manner.  Like parenting, it is inconsistencies that cause a fair few issues imo.

Today our team was awarded a goal. Then after the other team gathered round the ref and argued (we had retreated to own half for the restart) he changed his mind and gave them a free kick! Our striker and their keeper had collided in the scoring of the goal. Result a nil all draw. sheesh.

I'm not debating what's happened in this particular incident, just stating that ref is within his grounds to change a decision.

Thanks for clearing that up Patrick.

That's true, but typically on the basis of having seen a signal from the AR etc, not on what the basis of anyone elses input. Can't give what you don't see.

In my game on Saturday the other team's referee awarded them a penalty which was an awful decision. After a bit of handbags (Our defender kicked the ball at the striker writhing on the ground and they took exception to it), thyeir striker missed the penalty deliberately.

Is that dissent and punishable by a yellow?

There is an interesting video collection of these here:

As long as the penalty itself is taken according to the laws, i can't see how a deliberate miss is an issue.

//EDIT - i suppose it could get interesting in terms of 'match fixing'.

Wait, their penalty taker thought it wasn't a penalty so as a show that he agreed with your team, he missed the penalty on purpose? And then your questions by him doing this, is it dissent?

If that is what you are asking then "technically" you could say it was dissent by action, as he didn't agree with referees decision so to show that he missed on purpose, but I can't even imagine a referee ever giving a yellow for it.

what did your captain say??????

would be my question

I reffed a Cap 10 game on Saturday evening and I was fudgeing sensational.  An easy job. Can't see why you wankers in black moan about how tough it is. ?????

That's exactly what happened Yakcall. It was the equivalent of kicking the ball back to the other team when you put it out for an injury, I guess. I think their captain had a word to the penalty taker - I doubt he just did it himself. I was too busy being involved in the handbags to be sure though.

Pretty much what I thought, the ref would have to be being a Twit to pull a card for it.

Okay question for the refs- double jeopardy with advantage.

This seems to happen a lot in the A-league. Advantage is played and wasted and then play is dragged back for a free kick. 

Just watched a premier league game. The ref waves play on, Bournemouth ( I think) muck around in the area and lose it. There is no free kick. At the next stoppage in play (a free kick to the opposition) the ref comes back and awards a free kick to the other team, but cards the original challenge.

Is the double jeopardy thing wrong? 

If you play advantage and it doesn't work out for the attacking team you can't go back to the free kick so you are suppose to be sure there is actual advantage. After play stops, you can card the person for the foul but I was taught if it's worth a card then it is normally worth stopping play at the time too