|
Mickolution posted:I wish people would stop using this argument. You Are The Ref is about the letter of the law, not about being nice. Really though, as the ref here you've basically given one team a goal by accident, it's lovely to let it stand.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
Modus Trollens posted:Really though, as the ref here you've basically given one team a goal by accident, it's lovely to let it stand. But the column is about the rules. Often what would happen in reality is different to the answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Modus Trollens posted:Really though, as the ref here you've basically given one team a goal by accident, it's lovely to let it stand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
Adidas used to make gloves back about 15 years ago called fingersaves (back when I was actually still playing). They had some sort of plastic or metal spine in the fingers to keep your fingers from getting bent the wrong way, and those were perfectly legal. I never used em, but a couple guys I was in school with at the same time swore by them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
No, the referee is not supposed to vocalize, hint at, or suggest in any way. They usually do anyway a la 'don't be a oval office' law. What if the keeper turned around and slammed the goal kick off the post and sent it into play that way? Would you call it differently? The ref is part of the field of play. It's lovely, but you always have the option to signal to a kick taker to wait for your whistle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
sweek0 posted:Is the ref allowed to strongly encourage the team that profited from that mistake to give the ball to the other team and just let them score a goal without interfering, as shown here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPk-wmqP5ec ? Or would that be considered being biased? Not really biased. Fair play and everyone on the pitch knew it. I will give similar encouragement for drop-ball situations following an injury or when a team has kicked the ball out for the same reason. There is NOTHING in Law to say that the team has to kick the ball back to the keeper of the team who had possession. Most of the time the players will say, "I'm giving it back", so that's easy. If they don't I'll explicitly ask what they are going to do ("No surprises" is a key referee mantra). If ultimately they decide to throw fair play out of the window and want to challenge for the drop ball then I can't stop them. That said, it will be a caution if they say "I'm giving it back" and then try and score instead! Can't be much more unsporting than that. Note that the Premier League actually has directives on 'Fair Play Procedure'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
Actual letter of the law aside, why does allowing the 2nd goal make you a oval office? The keeper takes the goal kick when the ref is nearby and blasts it off of him. That's a keeper mistake, not anything the ref should be blamed for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
The point is the words "You signal for a goal kick to be taken". You're supposed to be positioned properly when you allow the kick to be taken, and the ref should not be the last one to leave the box for a goal kick if he wants to be positioned properly. The goalkeeper should have been more sensible in taking his kick but the ref has still cocked up by allowing the situation to happen in the first place. I think if I was the ref I would try to get around it by arguing that I wanted the kick to be retaken from the moment it hit me. At that point the ball had not left the area and was therefore not in play so I'm allowed to change my mind about being ready for the goal kick (and it was shown in a previous dropped whistle one that what counts is when the ref makes his decision, not when he blows his whistle). It might be a very liberal interpretation but it's better than allowing a goal which is against the spirit of the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's that time of the week again 1) Make him change or threaten to give him a card if he doesn't. 2)I guess the goal still stands since I would assume play started up again. 3)I don't know, I guess just let it go on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's that time of the week again 1: If the gloves aren't a danger to anyone else, then whatever. If they are, force him to change. 2: Award the goal, tell the keeper he's a ginormous retard, and play on. 3: If the home club can't do anything about it (call the council/cops?), then you have to abandon the game and report it to the league. Leave it to the league to decide whether to reschedule or record an away win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's that time of the week again 1. Make him change, give him a card if he whines. 2. Keeper's retarded but you have no room in the Laws to not award the goal. 3. Face away from the dog-walker. You didn't see them punch him in the face so you can't do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
1) I don't believe they contravene any law (wasn't there one about gloves a while ago?) so play on. If they appear dangerous, for example, if the metal protudes the glove-skin then get him to change, otherwise I see nothing wrong. 2) Goal. It's the keeper's gently caress up as he should have waited until you were out of the way. 3) Have a word with the home team's manager/captain. Legally the chap is entitled to do what he's doing, but in any real circumstance he'll be just seen as a loving wanker. Anyone seeing that there's a game taking place would simply walk round. I guess you could take a very twisted interpretation of the rules as having the pitch "being unfit for play" as it allows some nob to keep walking across it, but it's up to the home manager to sort this out. If he can't/won't then abandon the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 12:18
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:1) Tell him to change them, mention it in your match report as this is against the rules but not really something you can apply a sanction for after the fact. Maybe the FA will choose to fine the club. 2) Retake as it hasn't left the area. 3) Stop the game to let him past, ask the teams involved to investigate this to prevent future occurrences. Question of my own: Stevenage today had a goal disallowed. A defender blatantly handled it, denying a goalscoring opportunity, and then the ball broke to Mark Roberts, who stuck it in the net. The referee had already blown for a penalty and sent the defender off. Should he have allowed play to continue, or is he correct to blow instantly upon seeing a sending off offence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Psybro posted:Stevenage today had a goal disallowed. A defender blatantly handled it, denying a goalscoring opportunity, and then the ball broke to Mark Roberts, who stuck it in the net. The referee had already blown for a penalty and sent the defender off. Generally the rule is "unless there's a red card incident or a serious injury, play advantage". So yeah, if the other player had missed there would have been no red card or penalty. The correct thing to do is blow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
1) Far as memory serves me there isn't anything in the rules to disallow something like metal reinforcement in gloves. Like it was said before, unless the metal starts sticking out and becomes a danger I wouldn't worry about it. False edit: the rules only state that equipment is not allowed if it's dangerous (like certain jewelry). Nothing about gloves at all. 2) The ref is part of the field. As long as the ball left the penalty area the opposing player is free to do whatever he wants with it. 3) I'd do my best to politely ask the guy to quit being a douche and let us play on regardless of whether it's a public footpath or not. If he refuses then I'd abandon the game and firmly let the players know that whatever happens to the invader after the match is no business of mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
Shoren posted:1) Far as memory serves me there isn't anything in the rules to disallow something like metal reinforcement in gloves. Like it was said before, unless the metal starts sticking out and becomes a danger I wouldn't worry about it. False edit: the rules only state that equipment is not allowed if it's dangerous (like certain jewelry). Nothing about gloves at all. Pretty sure there was a question a while ago about a keeper wearing oversized gloves to save penalties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Pretty sure there was a question a while ago about a keeper wearing oversized gloves to save penalties. As far as I know there are no rules about the size of the gloves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Mickolution posted:As far as I know there are no rules about the size of the gloves. if you go out wearing giant clown gloves it probably goes down as unsporting behaviour i'd have thought
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 12:35
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:if you go out wearing giant clown gloves it probably goes down as unsporting behaviour i'd have thought Perhaps, but unsporting behaviour is a a bit of a catch-all, really for acting the bollocks. I don't think there are any restrictions on glove size in the rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2011 13:13
|
|
|
Keith Hackett's verdict posted:1) The gloves are illegal – they clearly represent a danger, and an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Show the keeper a yellow card for unsporting behaviour, and, as the offence happened before the ball went out, restart with an indirect free-kick on the six-yard line. Give the gloves to the fourth official so they can be used as evidence by the authorities, and check the replacement gloves before allowing play to resume. Steal his loving gloves, the oval office. Also the 3rd answer... play on around him (and his little dog too) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 08:02
|
|
|
pik_d posted:Steal his loving gloves, the oval office. Has Hackett jumped the shark yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
Looks like the gloves are off in this classic edition of You Are The Ref
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
The purity of the laws must be preserved! Otherwise you'll be sorry next time Barcelona are up by 1 and deploy an army of pensioners with poodles to halt every attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 12:13
|
|
|
Fiskiggy posted:The purity of the laws must be preserved! Otherwise you'll be sorry next time Barcelona are up by 1 and deploy an army of pensioners with poodles to halt every attack. You can still have additional league rules against pitch invasions even if it's not covered in the laws of the game. It's not something the ref should have to deal with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Fiskiggy posted:The purity of the laws must be preserved! Otherwise you'll be sorry next time Barcelona are up by 1 and deploy an army of pensioners with poodles to halt every attack. If Mourinho finds about this ruling God help us. Also Hackett has been materially wrong at least once before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Surely "play on around him" contradicts some rule, somewhere. There's a man and a dog on the pitch, and neither he (nor his little dog) is part of either team or an official. The game can't be allowed to carry on freely. I know it's grassroots football but the rules are the same across the entire game. What stops streakers or pitch invaders then, trespassing laws?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:34
|
|
|
You couldnt deploy an "army of pensioners" unless there was a public footpath which is mentioned in the question. Streakers or pitch invaders on a proper pitch would be totally different
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Taff posted:You couldnt deploy an "army of pensioners" unless there was a public footpath which is mentioned in the question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
The Laws were changed this season. It used to be that 'outside interference' could be ANYWHERE on the field of play and it would count. This meant that, per Law, an extra ball appearing in the penalty area opposite to where play was actually happening would count and the referee should get on the whistle. Now, it is more sensible in that it must ACTUALLY be interfering with play. However, it would be patently ridiculous to keep playing when there was a pensioner walking their dog around the pitch, even if play was at the opposite end. It would soon turn into a farce, not to mention the safety aspects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 11:04
|
|
|
Taff posted:You couldnt deploy an "army of pensioners" unless there was a public footpath which is mentioned in the question. Just lol if you think Real or Milan can't get a public footpath on the pitch at short notice if they need one
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
I was watching the Barcelona v Granda game today and one of Barca's fullbacks, already on a yellow card, made a yellow-card worthy challenege. However, the ref chose to play the advantage. Nothing materialized, Granada lost possession, and before there was an opportunity for play to stop so a yellow card could be given, the fullback almost scored a goal. What would have happened if he had scored? The ref would have had to give the goal and then send the guy off at the kick off, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
derin posted:I was watching the Barcelona v Granda game today and one of Barca's fullbacks, already on a yellow card, made a yellow-card worthy challenege. However, the ref chose to play the advantage. Nothing materialized, Granada lost possession, and before there was an opportunity for play to stop so a yellow card could be given, the fullback almost scored a goal. What would have happened if he had scored? The ref would have had to give the goal and then send the guy off at the kick off, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
To avoid this sort of thing, the referee is not meant to play advantage if a second yellow offence occurs, just like for a sending-off offence. If he realises he hasn't done so, he will bottle the decision and not do anything to the player.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
derin posted:The ref would have had to give the goal and then send the guy off at the kick off, right? Yes. You allow the goal then send off the player. The send-off doesn't need to be immediate because it's only given after the 2nd yellow. Besides, he probably worked hard for that goal. You could use the excuse that you forgot you gave him one until you booked him at the restart and saw his number in there already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 09:28
|
|
|
It's Friday!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! 2) Difficult to call. I would declare it 3-3, book the disallowed player and and make the home team take another penalty. Match report blah blah blah 3) I say no problem, not an offside pass
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 10:46
|
|
|
1. By Law, the substitution is completed as soon as the new player enters the field of play. Play does not need to have restarted for it to count. Consider the situation where the player went and punched an opponent in the face before play was restarted: He wouldn't be punished like a substitute! 2. The unused substitute is not eligible to take a penalty. Book the player, ensure they leave the field of play (as they are not meant to be on it), and discount that goal. Home team would need to retake that penalty and nominate an eligible player to do so. 3. This hinges on whether the second offside player was offside at the time of the original long-pass. If so, it is offside. Recent guidance is that a DEFLECTION from a defender does not count as a reset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:It's Friday! 1) Thats a tough one, guess it just depends on when the sub actually starts to count. Probably either at the restart, in which case allow it, or when the 4th assistant is informed in which case haha you're hosed, get better physios. 2) So a penalty was already taken and counted and it was taken by an un-used sub. Shoot yourself in the head for being a loving retard. Like jesus, they give you a list of takers before they start. If you noticed it before you carried on, then surely its the same as if a fan ran on and belted it in, but worse. So you'd disallow, send the fucker off and report it before carrying on as normal. hmm I was about to say since you carried on you'd just have to finish it and look forward to being the ref in league two next week, but actually I have a suspicion its not allowed at all, retake it with an actual player, report the team for being cheating cunts. 3) Offside, attacker in the first pass was interfering in play. If he wasn't offside and threatening the defence the defender could have just let it go back to the keeper\wouldn't have to make a possibly difficult interception. The way it makes it sound is some Xabi style pass is flying down to an attacker, defender doesn't know he is offside so does what he can to stop the ball, he doesn't control it perfectly so it cannons off to another player (also offside), possibly due to the pressure of feeling forced to make an interception, which if that first player wasn't there he wouldn't have to do. So its offside for the first player.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
Suarez would be involved in that play...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
The other replies have convinced me about 1. If the guy's on the pitch, he can't come off again. I forget the exact rule, doesn't the subbed-off player have to be off the pitch before the sub can step foot on? He can't come off again after that, the substitution stands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 14:21
|
|