| For Clive ( and a few others) 14:07 - Jan 5 with 3187 views | PinnerPaul |
Interesting debate on RefChat about where we are re the LOTG at the moment.
Someone posted a list of the number of offences ignored in the PL (and the EFL) and also some down to grassroots. What is the answer though? Thought Clive and some of you may be intrested to see the list!
"-Dissent (individual)
-Dissent (group)
-USB (individual joining a melee)
-Abusive language
-Threatening behaviour (coach)
-GK six second release
-Delaying the restart by standing over the ball
-Delaying the restart be kicking the ball away
-SPA
-USB (blatant holding)
-Offside (narrow/blatant offside with interference not flagged, ball stays in play)
-Offside (offside position, prior to interference, high likelihood of collision with GK)
-DFK/penalty (shirt pulling)
-IDFK (preventing the GK from releasing the ball)
-Injured player to leave the field followed by dropped ball
-Substituted player to leave the field by the nearest touchline
-Any offence leading to a second yellow card (!)
That list is now pretty much normalised. The Arsenal Newcastle match had them all. Most competitive EPL matches have most of these.
Why does this matter? IMHO it makes IFAB, PGMOL and the LotG a farce. Moreover, it makes for an impossible task at grassroots. We just cannot referee like this. Most laws are there for good reason. Grassroots players and referees need to know it is a different game on TV."
Even a few he missed I think
Delaying restart by any number of ways
GKs and referees wearing the same kit
Players treated on the fop [Post edited 5 Jan 2023 14:08]
|  | | |  |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:27 - Jan 5 with 2370 views | WatfordR |
The answer imo is easy. The laws are there. They should all be observed. If for whatever reason there is a consensus that any individual law does not work for whatever reason, remove the law.
We've had this conversation before PP. What isn't acceptable is for officials to decide that their life gets easier if they ignore LOTG. Additionally any "law" that is open to interpretation is not a law, eg the idea that if a ball hits an official, play should continue if one team has a "promising attack". The law should be that if a ball hits the official, play is stopped and to be restarted with a drop ball. Clear laws, clear directions, no interpretation required, no ambiguity and no frustration for players or fans.
Although it's perhaps outside the scope of what you're looking to discuss here, a situation where managers, players, fans and even officials don't really understand what constitutes offside or handball any more, it's pure nonsense, and any of these situations where you can look back in slo-mo and see what happens and still come back with different decisions on what is right or wrong is ludicrous. All of this reduces the authority of officials imo, and I'm just not aware of what the potential benefit you get as a trade off is supposed to be.
Football is supposed to be a simple game, and introducing laws to overcomplicate it simply don't do the game any service. [Post edited 5 Jan 2023 14:29]
|  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:28 - Jan 5 with 2359 views | ozranger |
I have not seen any comment about the incident from Monday night's game.
When Senny and the opposition defender clashed in the second half, both were treated. I thought it was the correct decision that the defender did not have to leave the field of play even though he was treated - the referee actually stopped him from doing so. If two players, other than the goal-keeper clashed and both were treated they would both have to leave the fop. But as there always has to be a keeper on the field, then that player can only leave the fop to be substituted by another keeper (unlike in ice hockey). So, if he is not leaving then it is a bit of a disadvantage to the other side if the defender was to as well. That is how I saw the referee's decision in this instance. Is this a judgement decision or "supposedly" a strict law that should be adhered to?
Of course, had it been a cautionable offence by the defender and both were injured, the referee may not have taken such a lenient view. |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:32 - Jan 5 with 2336 views | paulhoop2 |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:28 - Jan 5 by ozranger |
I have not seen any comment about the incident from Monday night's game.
When Senny and the opposition defender clashed in the second half, both were treated. I thought it was the correct decision that the defender did not have to leave the field of play even though he was treated - the referee actually stopped him from doing so. If two players, other than the goal-keeper clashed and both were treated they would both have to leave the fop. But as there always has to be a keeper on the field, then that player can only leave the fop to be substituted by another keeper (unlike in ice hockey). So, if he is not leaving then it is a bit of a disadvantage to the other side if the defender was to as well. That is how I saw the referee's decision in this instance. Is this a judgement decision or "supposedly" a strict law that should be adhered to?
Of course, had it been a cautionable offence by the defender and both were injured, the referee may not have taken such a lenient view. |
I believe players don’t leave via the nearest touchline at LR is for safety reasons due to crowd being so close to pitch etc | |
| |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:35 - Jan 5 with 2300 views | ozranger |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:32 - Jan 5 by paulhoop2 |
I believe players don’t leave via the nearest touchline at LR is for safety reasons due to crowd being so close to pitch etc |
That's fair enough, but that was not the case here. The defender did not leave the pitch and play was restarted. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:40 - Jan 5 with 2280 views | Northernr |
Yeh, all currently being ignored, and the result is sometimes what you got in the Arsenal game, which I ended up turning off because I thought it was unwatchable, and contrary to what they said at the start of the season the ball is in play less and less, particularly in our league. |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:46 - Jan 5 with 2256 views | Dixie_CT |
I don’t understand why stopping the GK from releasing the ball isn’t an automatic yellow card. It’s deliberate, is done to break up the flow of the attack and can be unsafe/unsporting behaviour.
Have seen it a few times, including against Dieng, but just a FK. |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:48 - Jan 5 with 2251 views | Northernr |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:46 - Jan 5 by Dixie_CT |
I don’t understand why stopping the GK from releasing the ball isn’t an automatic yellow card. It’s deliberate, is done to break up the flow of the attack and can be unsafe/unsporting behaviour.
Have seen it a few times, including against Dieng, but just a FK. |
Teams do it to Dieng every week because they know his distribution is good. On Monday Sharp went so far as to lift his boot and studs down on the top of his foot as he kicked it - no card. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:53 - Jan 5 with 2224 views | QPR_Jim |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:28 - Jan 5 by ozranger |
I have not seen any comment about the incident from Monday night's game.
When Senny and the opposition defender clashed in the second half, both were treated. I thought it was the correct decision that the defender did not have to leave the field of play even though he was treated - the referee actually stopped him from doing so. If two players, other than the goal-keeper clashed and both were treated they would both have to leave the fop. But as there always has to be a keeper on the field, then that player can only leave the fop to be substituted by another keeper (unlike in ice hockey). So, if he is not leaving then it is a bit of a disadvantage to the other side if the defender was to as well. That is how I saw the referee's decision in this instance. Is this a judgement decision or "supposedly" a strict law that should be adhered to?
Of course, had it been a cautionable offence by the defender and both were injured, the referee may not have taken such a lenient view. |
In a similar vein, I was surprised that Kakay had to leave the pitch for a head injury caused by an elbow to the face while the elbowee was allowed to stay on the pitch and compete for the free kick, which he was awarded for a separate foul. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:55 - Jan 5 with 2214 views | PinnerPaul |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:28 - Jan 5 by ozranger |
I have not seen any comment about the incident from Monday night's game.
When Senny and the opposition defender clashed in the second half, both were treated. I thought it was the correct decision that the defender did not have to leave the field of play even though he was treated - the referee actually stopped him from doing so. If two players, other than the goal-keeper clashed and both were treated they would both have to leave the fop. But as there always has to be a keeper on the field, then that player can only leave the fop to be substituted by another keeper (unlike in ice hockey). So, if he is not leaving then it is a bit of a disadvantage to the other side if the defender was to as well. That is how I saw the referee's decision in this instance. Is this a judgement decision or "supposedly" a strict law that should be adhered to?
Of course, had it been a cautionable offence by the defender and both were injured, the referee may not have taken such a lenient view. |
He was right - its in the laws as one of the exceptions to when a player has to leave the fop after treatment. If the the GK needs treatment as well, the player stays on. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:57 - Jan 5 with 2207 views | PinnerPaul |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:53 - Jan 5 by QPR_Jim |
In a similar vein, I was surprised that Kakay had to leave the pitch for a head injury caused by an elbow to the face while the elbowee was allowed to stay on the pitch and compete for the free kick, which he was awarded for a separate foul. |
Not one of the exceptions I'm afraid. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:05 - Jan 5 with 2169 views | Clive_Anderson |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:40 - Jan 5 by Northernr |
Yeh, all currently being ignored, and the result is sometimes what you got in the Arsenal game, which I ended up turning off because I thought it was unwatchable, and contrary to what they said at the start of the season the ball is in play less and less, particularly in our league. |
Well it's probably been mentioned on here before several times, but they already have the latest cutting-edge technology to deal with time wasting antics, it's called a clock. Just stop it when the ball isn't in play and restart it when it is.
They seemed to be using this method (unofficially) in the world cup and it led to one of the most exciting tournaments ever. One team edging ahead and then using every trick in the book to wind down the clock didn't work, so you got loads of comebacks and last minute goals.
Of course English leagues have totally ignored it and gone back to adding on 2 minutes injury time after a team has wasted 15+ minutes. Idiots. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:08 - Jan 5 with 2161 views | Northernr |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:05 - Jan 5 by Clive_Anderson |
Well it's probably been mentioned on here before several times, but they already have the latest cutting-edge technology to deal with time wasting antics, it's called a clock. Just stop it when the ball isn't in play and restart it when it is.
They seemed to be using this method (unofficially) in the world cup and it led to one of the most exciting tournaments ever. One team edging ahead and then using every trick in the book to wind down the clock didn't work, so you got loads of comebacks and last minute goals.
Of course English leagues have totally ignored it and gone back to adding on 2 minutes injury time after a team has wasted 15+ minutes. Idiots. |
I agree.
I've found it depressing to come out of that tournament back to our football, where QPR basically waste the whole second half at Preston, and Newcastle try to shthouse an entire game away at Arsenal, and it's still just the standard guess of 1/2 minutes first half, and 4/5 for the second. Time wasting died away pretty quickly in the World Cup when teams realised they'd end up defending whatever they were defending for 15 minutes extra time.
As others have said, it's like our attitude to VAR. UK football authorities think they know better than the rest of the world, We'll do it differently, and it'll work a lot better because we're so good at it and know more about football than everybody else. Result - farce. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:24 - Jan 5 with 2113 views | PinnerPaul |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:08 - Jan 5 by Northernr |
I agree.
I've found it depressing to come out of that tournament back to our football, where QPR basically waste the whole second half at Preston, and Newcastle try to shthouse an entire game away at Arsenal, and it's still just the standard guess of 1/2 minutes first half, and 4/5 for the second. Time wasting died away pretty quickly in the World Cup when teams realised they'd end up defending whatever they were defending for 15 minutes extra time.
As others have said, it's like our attitude to VAR. UK football authorities think they know better than the rest of the world, We'll do it differently, and it'll work a lot better because we're so good at it and know more about football than everybody else. Result - farce. |
Agree.
It just leads to the perception that referees are rubbish.
Fans KNOW that dissent/OFFINABUS should be punished, but watch it being ignored, so how do you sell the argument - yes it IS in the LOTG, yes he IS ignoring it, yes he IS a good referee - helps no one in my view. | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:41 - Jan 5 with 2081 views | paulhoop2 |
On another similar note i wonder how many tight calls the last few years would have gone our way with VAR? | |
| |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:45 - Jan 5 with 2067 views | terryb |
Cheers Paul. It is indeed a long list!
Would I be right that RefChat is mainly used by "grassroot" officials ? I struggle to picture PGMOL members discussing decisions in the Premier/EFL & they would probably be prohibited to do so. Not that this would make it a less worthwhile site.
My assumption is that many of the posters can't understand why the professionals are not following the laws & the problems that is giving them as officials at lower levels.
You're aware that I'm exasperated with referees lecturing players at corners, free kicks & penalties. I also believe that the increase in delaying restarts is completely due to the referee in not taking action. Tell the player to withdraw 10 yards & if he doesn't immediately start moving away, caution him. That should have an instant effect, but I assume the powers that be would not be amused!
Sorry to go back to the Arsenal Newcastle game, but I was astonished when the Newcastle assistant manager (Tindall?) caught the ball in his permitted box, made as if to hand the ball to the Arsenal throw in taker, but then threw it into the centre circle! No caution issued, but if you kick the ball five yards away a caution might be given.
It certainly can't be fun for officials at any level! | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 16:24 - Jan 5 with 1936 views | nix |
I agree it's ridiculous not to be following the LOTG. But what makes me incandescent is when they use them selectively. Like Dickie getting booked for dissent, when other players have been seemingly far more aggressive. Or Dykes getting a penalty against him for shirt pulling last season and yet Dunne practically gets his shirt pulled off, lands on the ground, and nothing. Or Field getting booked for kicking the ball away when it happens repeatedly every single match. It IS an offence or IT ISN'T. Make your minds up. That's why I don't like not following the rules because it becomes subjective which can lead to inconsistencies.
With the dissent I think sometimes refs more often book players when they know they've most probably got the decision wrong, as some kind of doubling down thing.
I also agree that the offside laws are ridiculous and need to be simplified. |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 18:42 - Jan 5 with 1836 views | PinnerPaul |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:41 - Jan 5 by paulhoop2 |
On another similar note i wonder how many tight calls the last few years would have gone our way with VAR? |
Same number that would have gone against I suspect! | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 18:45 - Jan 5 with 1815 views | PinnerPaul |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:45 - Jan 5 by terryb |
Cheers Paul. It is indeed a long list!
Would I be right that RefChat is mainly used by "grassroot" officials ? I struggle to picture PGMOL members discussing decisions in the Premier/EFL & they would probably be prohibited to do so. Not that this would make it a less worthwhile site.
My assumption is that many of the posters can't understand why the professionals are not following the laws & the problems that is giving them as officials at lower levels.
You're aware that I'm exasperated with referees lecturing players at corners, free kicks & penalties. I also believe that the increase in delaying restarts is completely due to the referee in not taking action. Tell the player to withdraw 10 yards & if he doesn't immediately start moving away, caution him. That should have an instant effect, but I assume the powers that be would not be amused!
Sorry to go back to the Arsenal Newcastle game, but I was astonished when the Newcastle assistant manager (Tindall?) caught the ball in his permitted box, made as if to hand the ball to the Arsenal throw in taker, but then threw it into the centre circle! No caution issued, but if you kick the ball five yards away a caution might be given.
It certainly can't be fun for officials at any level! |
Mainly Terry but a good sprinkling of Level 4s and 3s with the odd Ex level 2 thrown in.
Very closely monitored, so any straying into fan posts are firstly ridiculed by everyone and if they persist the thread is locked, as it is if we end up just going round in circles arguing the same points.
Any criticism is based on LOTG and not a personal attack on anyone who a poster has a dislike for.
Always learning on there, ..................just like on here!  | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 19:29 - Jan 5 with 1734 views | derbyhoop |
I suspect if refs, at top level particularly, started handing out multiple cards for dissent then the FA would not back them.
Similarly with penalties for the shenanigans at every corner.
And, in both cases the refs concerned would have s lot of blank Saturdays. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 21:23 - Jan 5 with 1590 views | OldPedro |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 19:29 - Jan 5 by derbyhoop |
I suspect if refs, at top level particularly, started handing out multiple cards for dissent then the FA would not back them.
Similarly with penalties for the shenanigans at every corner.
And, in both cases the refs concerned would have s lot of blank Saturdays. |
".....And, in both cases the refs concerned would have s lot of blank Saturdays"
Don't think that would happen as they don't really have enough refs, so no matter how poor a ref's performance, they always get another game next week |  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 22:04 - Jan 5 with 1494 views | stainrods_elbow |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 14:53 - Jan 5 by QPR_Jim |
In a similar vein, I was surprised that Kakay had to leave the pitch for a head injury caused by an elbow to the face while the elbowee was allowed to stay on the pitch and compete for the free kick, which he was awarded for a separate foul. |
Speaking as Stainrod's Elbow, wouldn't the perpetrator be the elbower? |  |
| |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 22:35 - Jan 5 with 1454 views | Match82 |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 16:24 - Jan 5 by nix |
I agree it's ridiculous not to be following the LOTG. But what makes me incandescent is when they use them selectively. Like Dickie getting booked for dissent, when other players have been seemingly far more aggressive. Or Dykes getting a penalty against him for shirt pulling last season and yet Dunne practically gets his shirt pulled off, lands on the ground, and nothing. Or Field getting booked for kicking the ball away when it happens repeatedly every single match. It IS an offence or IT ISN'T. Make your minds up. That's why I don't like not following the rules because it becomes subjective which can lead to inconsistencies.
With the dissent I think sometimes refs more often book players when they know they've most probably got the decision wrong, as some kind of doubling down thing.
I also agree that the offside laws are ridiculous and need to be simplified. |
If a single referee is applying the same rule differently within the same game then that's a bad referee.
If different referees are applying the same rule differently, but each does it consistently in every game they referee, that's a failing of the system. |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 22:56 - Jan 5 with 1410 views | colinallcars |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 22:04 - Jan 5 by stainrods_elbow |
Speaking as Stainrod's Elbow, wouldn't the perpetrator be the elbower? |
Elbow - a much used term. Give 'im the elbow, more power to his elbow, up and down like an elbow at opening time in the pub ( my favourite ). |  | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 00:18 - Jan 6 with 1326 views | nix |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 22:35 - Jan 5 by Match82 |
If a single referee is applying the same rule differently within the same game then that's a bad referee.
If different referees are applying the same rule differently, but each does it consistently in every game they referee, that's a failing of the system. |
Exactly right! | | | |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 07:21 - Jan 6 with 1214 views | essextaxiboy |
| For Clive ( and a few others) on 15:05 - Jan 5 by Clive_Anderson |
Well it's probably been mentioned on here before several times, but they already have the latest cutting-edge technology to deal with time wasting antics, it's called a clock. Just stop it when the ball isn't in play and restart it when it is.
They seemed to be using this method (unofficially) in the world cup and it led to one of the most exciting tournaments ever. One team edging ahead and then using every trick in the book to wind down the clock didn't work, so you got loads of comebacks and last minute goals.
Of course English leagues have totally ignored it and gone back to adding on 2 minutes injury time after a team has wasted 15+ minutes. Idiots. |
Another example of how the culture at FIFA is changing since Blatter . Ref selection is on performance and quality , not politics . Chairman of the Refs commitee ? ...... Pierluigi Collina ..... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
