about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Oi Oi Edgecumbe
We so badly need Rufer back. We are a pretty decent team when he is there, controlling the middle of the park. Kosta has barely had a decent pass all the time Rufer has been out. None of our midfielders comes close to his defensive positioning and ability. I can't really see how a good attacking midfielder will make much difference without the midfield solidity behind him. Not that I am running down Retre or Sheridan. They were both pretty good today.
The captain has been missed massively. He is one of the best if not tbe best DM in the league, and the team's spirtual leader. He can't come back soon enough. Hopefully is still a chance of finals football when he does return, to have him a bit fired up.
That's all that we can hope for now. Keep fighting in each game, no dropping heads, and no blow out scorelines with this upcoming tough run.
To the team's credit apart from a 4-1 loss at WSW just prior Christmas, they have been at least a chance of nicking a result every game. Even if the football has often been ugly like the 2-0 loss at Melb City (1-0 til 83 mins). The GD is only -2. Glory is -28!
Rufer's return and the new 10, being a gun, would be major mood uplifters.
Watched only 2nd half, my passion to switch on is as the same level as the Nix willing to play decent football. We are still blinded by over archiving last season. Welnix would be crazy to give Italiano a new contract, the football is dreadful even when we has the full team, the second Auckland defeat broke the team .
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Nelfoos
martinb
Bang a couple in Phoenix! Stop wasting our time.
As for being offensive I wasn’t the one calling our player a diver.
Most people consider accusing the refereeing team of racial bias as more offensive than calling a football player a diver, for anyone playing along at home.
I mean Buffy called them corrupt. That offensive? Also statistically probable with the flood of gambling syndicates there’s more influence in the local game than has come out. You seem less bothered by that. Particularly as the new latitude in calling a foul given the reasons for denying the pens and that the onfield referee rejected the VAR recommendation twice, would seem to create more risk of this.
The Anglo nations grew up with stereotypes that Asians and Latin Americans were divers.
It’s fair to ask seeing 3 of the pens were not given to Japanese players if the refs were asking if the player ‘deserved it’, rather than was that a foul.
Calling someone a diver, just like saying black students make great athletes, can be racist if it’s in the context of a previously harmful stereotype. Or the other charming one that went around in rugby (and cricket for that matter) that island players were good cattle, but couldn’t play the decision making positions. White generals etc. That’s for you, not for anyone playing along at home.
And sure we’ve talked about players like Daniel and Davila adjusting to the refs, but that doesn’t mean it’s not on the refs to call a foul a foul. Just because you’ll prosper if you work the ref like Brattan or Isais, doesn’t change the laws of the game.
There’s no way of proving it unless the ref says it was a factor. But it’s there in the Anglo football culture.
Another past issue has been Aussie officials reffing Aussie v non-Aussie teams, like the cricket in the 80s. The Snedden catch etc. The hot spot marks on the back of the bat that ‘could have come from anywhere.’ Maybe that’s a factor. Same issue of proof.
And as Coochie said it seemed like Alex King made a make up call or a horrible decision in Moreno’s favour at Go Media.
There’s been at least 5 questionable decisions in the last two rounds, including seemingly redefining what a foul is with a large latitude for the onfield ref and several of those have seen the onfield ref disagree with the VAR.
Anyway, someone mentioned it in the week that Aussies go into bat for their team. That’s across their society generally imo. They advertise ‘buy Aussie’ kinda aggressively, if someone had a go at you, they’ll back you if you’re their guy. It’s certainly a factor at Go Media, Coopers and AAMI imo. It gets me to see Nix fans not backing our players more than anything.
Anyway, sorry for getting a bit aggro in the last couple of match threads. I’ll read what they’re all saying and try and understand this brave new world of which fouls are which. Burn all the old Shoot annuals etc.
J league starting again and my team here really and truly are a team that seem to have settled for finishing down the table. 4-5 seasons of toying with relegation. No yo-yoing here, but a great match day experience anyway. Very chill! But they did win some silverware my first year here, so still doing better than the Nix.
Bloody glad Hughes got his goal though. Came close the other week. Thoroughly deserved.
FFS. So many things wrong with tonight! Ref awful, VAR basically cheating. Pen - ref comes onto the fireld after watching the video, "there was contact, no foul", that's just not how the law works, contact which brought the player down, or impeded his progress = foul! Then VAR decides no handball Also annoyed by our tactics AGAIN!! Lack of clear go forward for most of the game, not until it's almost too late do we run at the worst defence in the league.
Feel your pain me im frustrated as hell i have attended a number of training sessions and they are never as slow moving the ball in training as they are on game day. I just dont friggen get it. Also alot of them are huffing and puffing as if they are gassed early in the game. WTF
FFS. So many things wrong with tonight! Ref awful, VAR basically cheating. Pen - ref comes onto the fireld after watching the video, "there was contact, no foul", that's just not how the law works, contact which brought the player down, or impeded his progress = foul! Then VAR decides no handball Also annoyed by our tactics AGAIN!! Lack of clear go forward for most of the game, not until it's almost too late do we run at the worst defence in the league.
Feel your pain me im frustrated as hell i have attended a number of training sessions and they are never as slow moving the ball in training as they are on game day. I just dont friggen get it. Also alot of them are huffing and puffing as if they are gassed early in the game. WTF
Classic symptoms of stage fright.
That’s what I was thinking yesterday, maybe chief and the team are trying to downplay the severity of the situation to reduce the pressure on the youngsters? But the reality is, they’re not living with the pressure. There were so many undercooked passes across the entire nix pitch yesterday, it was genuinely shocking. Players were getting in the right positions (prior to subs), but the ball wasn’t getting there. Was it sutts who failed miserably with two very straight forward passes up the line?blamed LKH for not coming, the ball wasn’t getting to him in the first place 🤷♂️
That run is a horror run, and Christ do we need Rufer back and this visa player to be absolute 🔥 even if it’s just for the entertainment perspective.
I’ll finish on a positive though, I thought Piper played very well and I was disappointed to be hooked. Wasn’t as effective in the second but I was happy with his first half performance. Keep it up lad.
I agree, we need fresh ideas and a more positive style of football. Chiefy has been running on previous coaches success but now is running out of ideas of his own. Sure we miss Rufer in midfield but the sad boring tactics remain the same. We need a Striker with presence and therefore more emphasis on attack On another note, Nagasawa may SOUND like a good footballer but there the comparison ends. Wooden spoon is well within our grasp.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Boomstick
I agree, we need fresh ideas and a more positive style of football. Chiefy has been running on previous coaches success but now is running out of ideas of his own. Sure we miss Rufer in midfield but the sad boring tactics remain the same. We need a Striker with presence and therefore more emphasis on attack On another note, Nagasawa may SOUND like a good footballer but there the comparison ends. Wooden spoon is well within our grasp.
Understandably there's a lot of hope on our injured players to return (Rufer, Payne, Colakovski, Rojas) But let's just say we had all these guys on the pitch earlier in the season and the results even then were underwhelming to say the least.
I'd say once we've got our new import, Rufer and Payne back but we keep playing negative football and struggling to get results, then yes, the coaching role has to be questioned.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
I wish we could afford Des. But who knows, maybe he will have got a decent payout from being sacked and be a bit disenchanted with how cut throat management is at that level. Maybe he'd love to come back to NZ and be able to play a big part in our development as a footballing nation again. Could pick up the reins of the All Whites from Baze if he doesn't do well at the World Cup. It is fun to dream.
Our results weren't actually too bad earlier in the season but we never actually played that well. That's what is concerning me more. Chiefy acknowledged preseason that the style of play last year was quite pragmatic and defensive and talked a good game about us having more possession and control this year, said he now had the squad to do it and everything. But there's zero evidence he is capable of delivering that.
Having said that though, and bearing in mind just how bad the injury situation has been this season, I think Chiefy might have just about earned one last crack of the whip next season with what he did last season, but I think it should just be a 1 year extension and the club should make it clear that the team needs to perform or he will be gone at the end of it.
Edit: zero evidence is maybe a bit harsh, there have been moments, the game Rojas starting being prominent among them, but they have been few and far between
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: [...]
tackles or challenges
[...] If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: [...]
impedes an opponent with contact
Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.
It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?
Again, not asking if the call was correct but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).
Was sitting right at the front today and man Marco looked good in his skinny jeans when he walked past. When I’m sick and injured I wear tracksuit trousers.
Payne showed what we miss from senior players. His first cross from the right caused panic and a chance.
Candy looked good when he came on, he created 2 good chances by running at their defender. Although he seems a carbon copy of walker so I’m not sure how they both get in the team.
Piper excellent game. Obviously been told to take a chance and run at people, and it paid off a couple of times.
As mentioned here, we miss rufer’s passing ability. No one else can seem to pick out kosta with a through pass.
Rua conchie I’m sorry but he looks out of his depth. He’s kind of on the small side, got caught a few times.
Also not sure what Luke KH’s best position is? Was amusing to see him beaten to a header though.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
InsulinMachine
Boomstick
I agree, we need fresh ideas and a more positive style of football. Chiefy has been running on previous coaches success but now is running out of ideas of his own. Sure we miss Rufer in midfield but the sad boring tactics remain the same. We need a Striker with presence and therefore more emphasis on attack On another note, Nagasawa may SOUND like a good footballer but there the comparison ends. Wooden spoon is well within our grasp.
Understandably there's a lot of hope on our injured players to return (Rufer, Payne, Colakovski, Rojas) But let's just say we had all these guys on the pitch earlier in the season and the results even then were underwhelming to say the least.
I'd say once we've got our new import, Rufer and Payne back but we keep playing negative football and struggling to get results, then yes, the coaching role has to be questioned.
Game against MAC on 16th Dec, a telling fixture in the Nix's season. Is the last game either Rojas (started the match) or Cola (off the pine for Marco) featured for the Nix. Neither have played since. Rojas setting up Barba for Nix's only goal in a 1-2 loss.
Prior to the MAC home loss the Nix were sort of tracking ago. 3 wins from 3 in Aussie, a draw against WU to open the season, and those annoying 2 derby losses.
Note 2 of the 3 wins (Perth & VUC) in Aussie were with a back 3/5, and basically a continuation of last season's 'rope a dope' tactics. Chiefy did go with a back 4 in an impressive 3-0 win at Gosford.
Rojas's cameo against the VUC (Unite Round in Sydney) with lovely assist to Barba for the sucker punch 1-0 win, hinted at some real promise for the season.
But it's all turned a bit custard post that loss at the ROF in Dec to MAC. Rojas & Cola basically gone for the season, Rufer & Payne later out for stretches, Oluwayemi dropped, and more mins for the kids than forecast. Chiefy confused on how to play, eventually shelving plans for a more possession based setup even at home, and some very uninspiring super conservative football.
The Nix's form in Aussie is actually far better than their form in NZ (incl Mt Smart match)
Aussie - 4W & 2L NZ - 1W, 4D, 4L does include 2 losses to leaders Auckland
Perhaps suggesting that Nix's tactics from last season, are still maybe in their 2nd nature muscle memory DNA. With rapid Barba the main threat if he gets the right service, like earning the pen for winner against MAC at Campbelltown 20th Jan. Though MAC were yes very wasteful in that game (first half).
I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: [...]
tackles or challenges
[...] If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: [...]
impedes an opponent with contact
Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.
It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?
Again, not asking if the call was correct but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).
Ref here. In general, with any fouls, we are asked to consider the level of contact. Don't just read the law on fouls and misconduct. Start with Law 5:
Decisions of the Referee: Decisions will be made to the best of the referee’s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the referee, who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.
No one would want to watch a game of football where ever minor contact is blown as a foul; so we are asked to consider the level of contact (and at higher levels of the game, there is an expectation of more physicality).
For me, its a foul; Penaltly. VAR got the ref over because they thought the same, and wanted to give the Ref a chance to reconsider.
I agree, we need fresh ideas and a more positive style of football. Chiefy has been running on previous coaches success but now is running out of ideas of his own. Sure we miss Rufer in midfield but the sad boring tactics remain the same. We need a Striker with presence and therefore more emphasis on attack On another note, Nagasawa may SOUND like a good footballer but there the comparison ends. Wooden spoon is well within our grasp.
Understandably there's a lot of hope on our injured players to return (Rufer, Payne, Colakovski, Rojas) But let's just say we had all these guys on the pitch earlier in the season and the results even then were underwhelming to say the least.
I'd say once we've got our new import, Rufer and Payne back but we keep playing negative football and struggling to get results, then yes, the coaching role has to be questioned.
Thats not really true though is it doubt there were very many games at all where they were all involved at the same time. Yes individually or a couple at a time but buggar all where they were all available at the same time for the whole game. To suggest that is just so wrong.
I've never reffed or coached, and last time I was on the pitch as a player Rob Muldoon was PM, but with that disclaimer I'm trying to understand Morgan's reasoning for that no-pen call. Not whether he was right, but the thought process he'd need to follow to justify it.
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: [...]
tackles or challenges
[...] If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.
Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: [...]
impedes an opponent with contact
Morgan acknowledged there was contact, so he must've concluded the Roar player didn't impede Ishige. I guess he's relying on the definition further down under Indirect Free Kicks?
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
So then he's back to the more subjective question of was the challenge careless, reckless or using excessive force. Obviously it's not excessive force or it would've been an instant red, so he has to determine if the challenge was careless or reckless.
It doesn't look like there was any "lack of attention or consideration" involved, so the ref is left asking himself if there was "disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" - I guess his reasoning would have to be that there wasn't disregard, therefore no offence was commited, therefore the "If an offence involves contact it is penalised" bit doesn't apply?
Again, not asking if the call was correct but about how the rules would be applied - thanks for any insights from anyone who understands this stuff better than I do (which is a low bar!).
You missed the relevant part of Law 13
"impedes an opponent with contact". Which the defender clearly did!
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
The next is does what Chief has said or what the ref has said fit within a legitimate interpretation?
Is there a section or perhaps a recent instruction from the referees boss that allows the ref interpretation, even though it appears there is contact and it impedes the player? At least myself, Fenix, Kris etc Jones and a few others think those two points are established in any case.
Sorry I can’t fish out all of Chief’s comments. One thing I remember he said was that Ishige didn’t have possession of the ball. If the player has anticipated the contact is that a genuine factor?
And one that has annoyed me in other cases that doesn’t apply here, does it matter if there’s a genuine attempt to play the ball or if it is a lot of kicking heels, shirt pulling, grabbing shoulders etc?
Sure it can be soft, but it can be off putting, particularly trying to balance to get a shot off and there’s no attempt to legitimately play the game there. I can see both sides of that. You don’t want lots of minor infractions constantly, but play football, grr. That is more Hughes and Jack wotsit later on.
I agree, we need fresh ideas and a more positive style of football. Chiefy has been running on previous coaches success but now is running out of ideas of his own. Sure we miss Rufer in midfield but the sad boring tactics remain the same. We need a Striker with presence and therefore more emphasis on attack On another note, Nagasawa may SOUND like a good footballer but there the comparison ends. Wooden spoon is well within our grasp.
Understandably there's a lot of hope on our injured players to return (Rufer, Payne, Colakovski, Rojas) But let's just say we had all these guys on the pitch earlier in the season and the results even then were underwhelming to say the least.
I'd say once we've got our new import, Rufer and Payne back but we keep playing negative football and struggling to get results, then yes, the coaching role has to be questioned.
Thats not really true though is it doubt there were very many games at all where they were all involved at the same time. Yes individually or a couple at a time but buggar all where they were all available at the same time for the whole game. To suggest that is just so wrong.
And if we're really honest - Colacovski hasnt exactly wowed with his performances has he, Rojas joined us lacking game time and match fitness, yes he was starting to look ok as he got back into fitness, but it was 1 game and then he got injured - out for the season.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
martinb
The next is does what Chief has said or what the ref has said fit within a legitimate interpretation?
Is there a section or perhaps a recent instruction from the referees boss that allows the ref interpretation, even though it appears there is contact and it impedes the player? At least myself, Fenix, Kris etc Jones and a few others think those two points are established in any case.
Sorry I can’t fish out all of Chief’s comments. One thing I remember he said was that Ishige didn’t have possession of the ball. If the player has anticipated the contact is that a genuine factor?
And one that has annoyed me in other cases that doesn’t apply here, does it matter if there’s a genuine attempt to play the ball or if it is a lot of kicking heels, shirt pulling, grabbing shoulders etc?
Sure it can be soft, but it can be off putting, particularly trying to balance to get a shot off and there’s no attempt to legitimately play the game there. I can see both sides of that. You don’t want lots of minor infractions constantly, but play football, grr. That is more Hughes and Jack wotsit later on.
Possession of the ball has nothing to do with whether a foul has occurred or not. If Chiefy said that, hes totally wrong.
Id also like to know what "instructions" come down from referees bosses, because to me there is one set of rules to be applied. I suspect these "instructions" sometimes are interpreted to override and ignore certain rules.
There are rules in the book that are often not applied - such as keeper holding the ball too long, players delaying a restart by touching the ball when a foul is called (player must be booked) and throw ins and goal kicks being delayed by waiting for other players to get into position.
There has been clear insyructions from the league bosses to let the play flow more, not that this has anything to do with the non-calls that we should have got. It creates a more physical game, which I dont mind. But the non-pen call was just daft - with or with out possession, the raised leg impedes the attacker getting to the ball, which he could then have scored with. Pen all fudgeing day
I realise the irony of me, a fat old bloke sitting on the couch, good for stuff all, and of no expert knowledge, but is LKH doing enough to keep a spot on the team? He has been around a while but in general seems not much good on attack and even worse on defence. He has had good minutes but development seems incrementally slow
No sure I agree with the Conchie comment out of his depth earlier. I think he's done OK, his switch late in yesterday's game set up one of our best chances and no one else on the pitch is capable of that sort of pass.
Also, Barbs has a really weak left foot for a striker.
Finally looked back at the highlights. I think the goal is squarely on Retre. What on earth does he think he is doing? It isn't like he didn't know Hore was there, he had a glance at him as he was moving into the space between the lines. The ball carrier had two players on him. There was no spare defender in the defensive line. No sense of urgency or sense of defensive danger from Retre. He's been like this all season, like everyone else from our midfield other than Rufer. Nobody ever tracks runs from midfield.
Also, the comments Hughes made in his post match presser about Rojas coming back are interesting. Speaks as though it is almost a given that he will be back for a few games. This in conjunction with Rojas saying he hoped to be back before season's end, after Chiefy said he was out for the season. Chiefy has been a very unreliable person this season, you never know if he means what he says, he's said a few things about players being out and then they start the game that weekend etc. Also said preseason that everyone in his squad would be valued and loved and used this season before shutting out Ball, OVH & al-Taay like he did.
There has been clear insyructions from the league bosses to let the play flow more, not that this has anything to do with the non-calls that we should have got. It creates a more physical game, which I dont mind. But the non-pen call was just daft - with or with out possession, the raised leg impedes the attacker getting to the ball, which he could then have scored with. Pen all fudgeing day
If those instructions are true,then the way to "make the game flow" is to penalise keepers and defenders who hold it up , contrary to the rules. The rules say someone who delays a restart " is booked". Not "may be" booked,but is always booked. Not applying the rules is slowing the game down.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Chief said in recent interview that he hoped Rojas would be available at the back end of the season. But he also said a few weeks back that he was gone for the season. Sometimes I think it is just mind games. Anyway, great he may possibly be back , but it will likely be too dam late.
Edit, and he also said he wants to keep everyone he signs so yeah, we shall see. imanixsupporter
Finally looked back at the highlights. I think the goal is squarely on Retre. What on earth does he think he is doing? It isn't like he didn't know Hore was there, he had a glance at him as he was moving into the space between the lines. The ball carrier had two players on him. There was no spare defender in the defensive line. No sense of urgency or sense of defensive danger from Retre. He's been like this all season, like everyone else from our midfield other than Rufer. Nobody ever tracks runs from midfield.
Also, the comments Hughes made in his post match presser about Rojas coming back are interesting. Speaks as though it is almost a given that he will be back for a few games. This in conjunction with Rojas saying he hoped to be back before season's end, after Chiefy said he was out for the season. Chiefy has been a very unreliable person this season, you never know if he means what he says, he's said a few things about players being out and then they start the game that weekend etc. Also said preseason that everyone in his squad would be valued and loved and used this season before shutting out Ball, OVH & al-Taay like he did.
Sorry we’ve got passed the pen. Last question refs- double jeopardy.
We had this earlier. If a ref doesn’t call the pen immediately but the ball falls to a teammate who gets a shot off, does that affect a ref’s calculations at all?
I think this also was something Chief mentioned. Have to double check.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
I was at a Top Level Club game in Ch-Ch and ref assessor from Mainland Football was next to me leaning on the fence marking the guy reffing the game, I yelled out at the ref after a defender pulled an attackers arm in the box making him stumble and unable to take a shot. It looked like a pen to me. He made some comment about it's a tough job etc, but I got talking to him and he said he didn't think it was a pen as a referee has to uphold a higher standard in the box. I said I'd never heard that before and that surely a foul is a foul no matter where it is, but he told me that wasn't the case. There are some refs on here - is that really the situation?
"You can never get a bloody tradesman at Easter, it's a wonder Jesus got crucified" - Karl Pilkington
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Yes, there's a higher standard for contact in the area. Hence why you don't see a penalty at every single corner for grabbing that is punished on the rest of the field.
Yes, there's a higher standard for contact in the area. Hence why you don't see a penalty at every single corner for grabbing that is punished on the rest of the field.
As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the laws that say there is a higher standard/bar to be met in the pen box. But I can see why it is applied. For mine, if its a foul in the field of play then it's a foul in the box. If refs applied the rules as they were written and stopped adding "standards" then players would quickly learn what not to do.
Yes, there's a higher standard for contact in the area. Hence why you don't see a penalty at every single corner for grabbing that is punished on the rest of the field.
As far as I'm aware there is nothing in the laws that say there is a higher standard/bar to be met in the pen box. But I can see why it is applied. For mine, if its a foul in the field of play then it's a foul in the box. If refs applied the rules as they were written and stopped adding "standards" then players would quickly learn what not to do.
I feel refs do the same thing with cards - if a player makes the same foul twice and gets a yellow for the first one, they probably won't give a yellow for the 2nd
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
Re that penalty. I don't recall seeing an end on clip of the incident and Isighe actually being knocked .We have only the players word for it that he was. On the that basis it wasn't clear and obvious so the ref took the highest of tests and disallowed it.End of story. Correction: Ive been back and stand corrected. The Prof is right. There was obvious contact that did put him off his stride and should have been enough for ma pen.So we have grades of contact now do we? So do we reopen the rule books and guidance notes for refs?
'Re that penalty. I don't recall seeing an end on clip of the incident and Asighe actually being knocked .We have only the players word for it that he was. On the that basis it wasn't clear and obvious so the ref took the highest of tests as disallowed it.End of story.
Ishige, and I'd love to know what coverage you were watching that you diodnt see any contact. Even the ref saw contact, he just didnt think it was enough to warrant a foul.
NZF L3 ref here. Over my years of many assessments and so on, the general message I get is on a penalty decision, you need to be 100% sure as whether you make the right or wrong decision is a likely a key match decision, whereas a foul in most other areas of the field this is not the case. (Keep in mind we don’t have VAR in NZ league)
This is why referees are reluctant to give penalties in an era where VAR can overturn a non call, which looks much better than overturning an on field penalty decision.
One might think that the introduction of VAR would turn referees to back themselves more and call more penalties, knowing that VAR can save them if they made the incorrect call.
But what it seems to be doing is refs are more hesitant to call penalties, as in a pre VAR age if they don’t call a penalty they know there is no going back, making them more decisive then and there in the moment.
We have been on the extremely unlucky end of edge cases the last two weeks with these penalties. Refereeing is so subjective and it can sometimes feel a ref is talking themselves into or out of a decision as it seems like a logical process in the moment.
Any questions please reply. Refereeing plays on the mind, and also I believe watching these refs these last two home games, they are just not cut out for it.
Clearly not sure to the naked eye but a referees eye, they are flustered on all these decisions by body language and just can’t cope with the level of pressure the decision has. Only the few Full time refs in the league seem to be better at this, being consistent throughout games, overall fairer calls and a style that better matches the flow of the game Eg, Alireza, Alex King, Shaun Evans, Kersey
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
theaucklandphoenixfan
NZF L3 ref here. Over my years of many assessments and so on, the general message I get is on a penalty decision, you need to be 100% sure as whether you make the right or wrong decision is a likely a key match decision, whereas a foul in most other areas of the field this is not the case. (Keep in mind we don’t have VAR in NZ league)
This is why referees are reluctant to give penalties in an era where VAR can overturn a non call, which looks much better than overturning an on field penalty decision.
One might think that the introduction of VAR would turn referees to back themselves more and call more penalties, knowing that VAR can save them if they made the incorrect call.
But what it seems to be doing is refs are more hesitant to call penalties, as in a pre VAR age if they don’t call a penalty they know there is no going back, making them more decisive then and there in the moment.
We have been on the extremely unlucky end of edge cases the last two weeks with these penalties. Refereeing is so subjective and it can sometimes feel a ref is talking themselves into or out of a decision as it seems like a logical process in the moment.
Any questions please reply. Refereeing plays on the mind, and also I believe watching these refs these last two home games, they are just not cut out for it.
Clearly not sure to the naked eye but a referees eye, they are flustered on all these decisions by body language and just can’t cope with the level of pressure the decision has. Only the few Full time refs in the league seem to be better at this, being consistent throughout games, overall fairer calls and a style that better matches the flow of the game Eg, Alireza, Alex King, Shaun Evans, Kersey
I thought that after Ishige played it with his knee he was no longer in possession. The ball was looping up and well in front of him with other players as close or closer to it than he was.
Again, as I saw it, the defender attempted to play at the ball as it looped in the air, raising his knee and leg towards the path of the ball trying to do so. When he didn't get to it, and his leg was accross Ishige's path, I am inclined to agree with their captain post match, that the defender actually tried to pull his leg away.
That's when Ishige ran into his leg, trying to run through to get the ball, but with Ishige also off balance after stretching to get his knee on the ball in the first instance.
Between those two things going on I said it was closer to a dive than serious contact. Not meaning that it was a dive, but that Ishige had somewhat fallen into the contact and that I didn't think the contact was really what brought Ishige down. Nor was that heavy. Others differ.
I think the ref ruled contact between two players, neither having or gaining possession, with both reasonably trying to get to and play at the ball. Nothing too different from two players trying to get up to head a ball, in contact doing so and neither getting to it. Both are entitled to contest space so long as they are attempting to get to the ball, not just obstructing or pushing or holding the other player.
This was not a popular comment in the thread on the night, but that's also pretty much how Chief saw it post match. Not in possession. And a melee of players trying to get to the ball.
I thought we had a chance of getting the pen, especially when VAR intervened.
I did a fair bit of club refereeing at lower levels and attended three referee training programs for club referees. Which, of course doesn't make me an expert. But it gave me more of a refs perspective on the rules on contact, obstruction and fouls.
I've also been convinced about fouls and pen shouts watching Nix games live and realised after watching TV replays that my initial impression was wrong and the ref got it right. I've become somewhat circumspect about jumping to criticise the refs as a result.
I saw it as a call of neither player being in possession and two players reasonably contesting space attempting to play the ball. Hence contact but no foul (including no obstruction), as the ref called it.
Reasonable interpretation?
And, all that said, I still thought we might get the call. As you say - interpretation.
Hard to argue that the above opinion is wrong, but the key for me is how you define "in posession" and when the contact was made. For me, the defender is going for the ball and misses, due to Ishige bumping it passed him, whether he was withdrawing his leg or not it was there and contact was made which impedes the attacker getting to the ball = pen!
None of the other stuff matters, there no intent required, theres no degree of force required. It's a simple defender blocks attacker from a scoring opportunity decision.
about 1 year ago· edited about 1 year ago· History
As we saw above- the law is impedes and this particularly key for the Kaltak one. Nagasawa went round him and was attempting to regain the ball. Kaltak sticks out his back leg to impede him. Even if there’s no contact, he’s preventing Nagasawa attempting to get a shot off. Deliberately in that case, with all the guile of an experienced defender!
Yeh look I was over the line in the game thread. Sorry I had a go at you. But we’ve seen some ridiculous calls in a short period of time. 3 not going our way, 1 for Auckland and 1 against Auckland. Most would have been given by most refs, particularly when instructed to look at them by the VAR.
I didn’t actually see it live. And if it was in isolation I might have been less of a firecracker.
Particularly weird is this kind of reasoning that it was a foul, but not enough. The Elliot shirt pull was not an attempt to compete for the ball or play football. It’s just foul play.
The Moreno one was also mind boggling. A mistimed challenge, trips him as he lines up to shoot.
To me at the moment there should not be such a difference in interpretation between the VAR and the ref on the field. Whatever the interpretation is the majority of referees should, especially with video evidence, be on the same page. And if that’s clear it can be clear to us.
And these kinds of calls don’t matter if we were building up pressure and creating a lot of chances. Which we should be against the bottom team on the table.
And thanks for taking the time to ref even with the odd prick like me with a sideline opinion. As we are more and more user pays and ‘cutting fat’ we are losing volunteers and community goodwill. So cheers for doing that👍 Assuming of course that the league didn’t stump up for pro refs, which it might well have done!