Wellington Phoenix Men

Video Refereeing

98 replies · 1,041 views
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike wrote:


A lot of that can be controlled by whether or not they 'appeal' for a free kick. If a player trips over/goes down and doesn't make a fuss, no problem. If they launch and roll and whinge and moan then ban.


That's a good point, cutting down number of players moaning every other minute of each game would be well worth it.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
You don't have to fall down to get a foul.

If someone kicks you on the ankle, it's a foul, regardless of whether you stayed up or went down.


...even better. They don't even have to make contact! Attempting to kick an opponent is a free-kcik offence, whether there is contact or not.

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
That one always pisses me off - someone has a big welly at me and I leap the contact but lose control of the ball, but no free kick.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Big difference is that they are probably attempting to kick the ball, rather than attempting to kick you.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Not that intent is relevant to the ref in that situation when deciding to give a foul.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Not that intent is relevant to the ref in that situation when deciding to give a foul.
 
What?
 
Of course it is in that case.
 
"Attempting to kick, trip" etc. the key word is "attempting" and that is a very subjective thing requiring the referee to look at whether the player was, in fact, making an attempt to kick the man or the ball.
 

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yup, I agree with Smithy. Kicking and/or tripping are fairly evident whthere intentional or not they are free kicks, but in the case of "attempting to kick" or "attempting to trip" an opponent, as the Laws are written, a referee obviously has to make a call on intent. Jag2010-03-23 11:26:17

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
My apologies, I misunderstood. What I meant was if you accidentally kick someone, it's still a foul. Or accidentally nearly kick someone because your challenge was wild, it's still a foul.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ is right and Smithy isn't.

SiNZ does not to apologized for the original quote of:

SiNZ wrote:
Not that intent is relevant to the ref in that situation when deciding to give a foul.


May be need a bit clarity but nevertheless it is still correct.

It can still be under "dangerous play" even if the intent was for the ball because it is reckless disregard for the other player and can open for yellow cards. So a big welly causing the other player to lose control to protect oneself, whether for the ball or not, is still a foul. "Attempting" is not an issue, it's "dangerous play." Nothing to do with intent. And so players shouldn't take it personal.

Which is why A-league refs are hopeless. They are inconsistent and don't understand "Attempting" or "Dangerous play" and even allow contact but won't blow the whistle until some very serious injury occurs or until it comes bluntly obvious that nothing good comes from it. The better this gets sorted out, the better quality the games will be.AllWhitebelievr2010-03-23 13:22:03
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
There is nothing in the Laws of the Game about "dangerous play". The phrase isn't mentioned so I don't quite know where you've got that from. Direct free kicks are awarded when players commit any of the following offences in a manner which is careless, reckless or uses excessive force:
 
kicks, or attempts to kick, an opponent
trips, or attempts to trip, an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges at an opponent
strikes, or attempts to strike, an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent
 
So, if a player goes in for a tackle and misses both man and ball, it is up to the referee to decide whether it was a genuine attempt to play the ball or an attempt to kick/trip the opponent.  So, as the Laws are currently written, intent does come into the equation. If he connects with one or the other, it's not an issue, it's either a free kick or it isn't. 
 
The only time that the word "dangerous" appears is when a player "plays in a dangerous manner" which is punishable by an INDIRECT free kick. Usually used for "high feet'.
Jag2010-03-23 14:01:20

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
So AWB is right...same sh*t different wording...

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
So AWB is right...same sh*t different wording...
 
No, AWB is not right, he is inventing rules that don't exist.  As per his habit of making sh1t up generally.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
"Dangerous play" is an old archaic term has been changed to "plays in a dangerous manner" for expanded clarification some years ago.

High feet is usually the culprit cited, but it does cover everything else that is not covered in the direct free kicks offense. As you know, for high feet, the player's intent is for the ball but potentially harmful to the others surrounding the ball. The same for balls that are on the ground, if the players does something in a dangerous manner that would potentially harm the other players surrounding the ball it is called dangerous.

Another indirect free kick that can be used is under "impedes the progress of an opponent" this also can be considered as well when someone does the big Welly.

The archaic term for this was "obstruction" but for recent laws of the game, it need clarification and is being expanded on. This can include many things such as purposely placing a body to block a run while not going for the ball to shoulder charging into a players chest to big Welly that forces an opponent to drive to protect himself with no contact to gain a non-competitive advantage for the ball. A non-competitive shoulder to shoulder charging, when the player obviously shoulder charge while not going for the ball, can be ruled as "impedes the progress of an opponent." There lots of things that can be covered.

Anyway a careless/reckless or excessive force was used for a tackle is a free direct kick and that is regardless of intent because of the manner in which it is done. If the ref has doubt then it would still be under "plays in a dangerous manner." So a ref should still rule in the matter. It is the manner not the intent.
Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Smithy wrote:
Tegal wrote:
So AWB is right...same sh*t different wording...
 
No, AWB is not right, he is inventing rules that don't exist.  As per his habit of making sh1t up generally.
 
^ This.
 
 
AWB, if you live in Wellington, you should have introduced yourself to me at a Referees' meeting one night while I was refereeing down there. Would've been interesting to open up your somewhat individual take on the Laws of The Game to your peers. I'm surprised I don't know you, being as well versed in the Laws of the Game, and the finer nuances of refereeing, as you are.
 
Jag2010-03-23 14:54:12

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
"Dangerous play" is an old archaic term has been changed to "plays in a dangerous manner" for expanded clarification some years ago.

High feet is usually the culprit cited, but it does cover everything else that is not covered in the direct free kicks offense. As you know, for high feet, the player's intent is for the ball but potentially harmful to the others surrounding the ball. The same for balls that are on the ground, if the players does something in a dangerous manner that would potentially harm the other players surrounding the ball it is called dangerous.

Another indirect free kick that can be used is under "impedes the progress of an opponent" this also can be considered as well when someone does the big Welly.

The archaic term for this was "obstruction" but for recent laws of the game, it need clarification and is being expanded on. This can include many things such as purposely placing a body to block a run while not going for the ball to shoulder charging into a players chest to big Welly that forces an opponent to drive to protect himself with no contact to gain a non-competitive advantage for the ball. A non-competitive shoulder to shoulder charging, when the player obviously shoulder charge while not going for the ball, can be ruled as "impedes the progress of an opponent." There lots of things that can be covered.

Anyway a careless/reckless or excessive force was used for a tackle is a free direct kick and that is regardless of intent because of the manner in which it is done. If the ref has doubt then it would still be under "plays in a dangerous manner." So a ref should still rule in the matter. It is the manner not the intent.
 
This is 98% bullsh*t.
 
Same old AWB.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Jag wrote:
Smithy wrote:
Tegal wrote:
So AWB is right...same sh*t different wording...
 
No, AWB is not right, he is inventing rules that don't exist.  As per his habit of making sh1t up generally.
 
^ This.
 
 
AWB, if you live in Wellington, you should have introduced yourself to me at a Referees' meeting one night while I was refereeing down there. Would've been interesting to open up your somewhat individual take on the Laws of The Game to your peers. Or don't tell me you aren't a referee!
 
 
 
AWB is Jamie Cross in disguise.
 
Fact.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Nah, Jamie doesn't know that many words. Fact.

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
AllWhitebelievr wrote:
"Dangerous play" is an old archaic term has been changed to "plays in a dangerous manner" for expanded clarification some years ago.

High feet is usually the culprit cited, but it does cover everything else that is not covered in the direct free kicks offense. As you know, for high feet, the player's intent is for the ball but potentially harmful to the others surrounding the ball. The same for balls that are on the ground, if the players does something in a dangerous manner that would potentially harm the other players surrounding the ball it is called dangerous.

Another indirect free kick that can be used is under "impedes the progress of an opponent" this also can be considered as well when someone does the big Welly.

The archaic term for this was "obstruction" but for recent laws of the game, it need clarification and is being expanded on. This can include many things such as purposely placing a body to block a run while not going for the ball to shoulder charging into a players chest to big Welly that forces an opponent to drive to protect himself with no contact to gain a non-competitive advantage for the ball. A non-competitive shoulder to shoulder charging, when the player obviously shoulder charge while not going for the ball, can be ruled as "impedes the progress of an opponent." There lots of things that can be covered.

Anyway a careless/reckless or excessive force was used for a tackle is a free direct kick and that is regardless of intent because of the manner in which it is done. If the ref has doubt then it would still be under "plays in a dangerous manner." So a ref should still rule in the matter. It is the manner not the intent.
Doesnt the term "excessive force" automatically imply intent?
 
If you do what you do without intent,then there can be no excessive force,as you would only use the force neccesary to do what you want (Bah,that made more sense in my head...If someone knows what im getting at feel free to use better words to clarify)
 
Having re-read what you're saying (not skimming on my phone),you do seem to be waffling rather than looking at actual rules.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 16 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Excessive force does imply intent.

Reckless force does imply danger.

Careless force does imply stupidity.

You only need one of the above mannerism to draw a foul, not all three.

BTW If there is any waffle, it is only to show examples of the stuff that happens on the pitch that can be called up.
Permalink Permalink