Standards of refereeing

[caller]

As an ex class 1 referee, and therefore, technically, at the time, quaified to referee the world cup final (there, I'm blowing my own trumpet!), I can't be a**d with this debate, apart from pointing out that the rule about deliberate hand ball was changed a few years ago. Hence the number of "ball to hand" penalties now given, including in this world cup. The intent no longer counts. If its hand ball and its in the area, its a penalty.

[Jockey]

As an ex class 1 referee, and therefore, technically, at the time, quaified to referee the world cup final (there, I'm blowing my own trumpet!), I can't be a**d with this debate, apart from pointing out that the rule about deliberate hand ball was changed a few years ago. Hence the number of "ball to hand" penalties now given, including in this world cup. The intent no longer counts. If its hand ball and its in the area, its a penalty.

Is this why you are an ex class 1 referee? Are you trying to tell us an attacking player can ram the ball on to the hand / arm of an opposing defender who is standing in the box and justifyably claim a penalty? If so, surely this would become a valid tactic. If you kick a ball at a player 5 yards away and the ball touches the players hand because he was unable to get it out the way, you would give a penalty! Madness! It seems the trouble with referees is they don't know the f*****g rules!

[2dandan]

The following excert comes from FIFA - Laws of the Game

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:

tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

Penalty kick

A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.

Caller - Please note the section (2nd last ) which says the hand ball must be deliberate.

There is a saying going about regarding this and what is or what isn't a penalty and it's.....

Ball to hand - no penalty
hand to ball - penalty

Jockey is correct.

[Wanderlust]

2dandan,
Thanks for that clarification of the rules - can you send it to all the World Cup and Premiership referees as they don't appear to understand it?
However it does bring into the debate how to decide whether something is deliberate or not; most of the top players seem quite skilled in making something seem accidental so I believe this distinction should be removed, however harsh it may seem - there should be no room for error.

[Jockey]

2dandan,
Thanks for that clarification of the rules - can you send it to all the World Cup and Premiership referees as they don't appear to understand it?
However it does bring into the debate how to decide whether something is deliberate or not; most of the top players seem quite skilled in making something seem accidental so I believe this distinction should be removed, however harsh it may seem - there should be no room for error.

Sorry Wanderlust. As I indicated in my previous post, a player could easily conjure up a penalty by blasting the ball from short range on to a defending players hand or arm and get a penalty if the rule was changed as you suggest. I agree with you referees don't seem to understand it.

I have had conversations with referees from various grades and it is frightening how much they differ in their interpretation of the rules.

Here's a cracker of an opinion from a former grade 1 referee:

"During a penaly shoot-out, if the goalie was to "save the ball", and the ball travels a little away from the goal but then spins back into the goal, the goal would be disallowed by him because the projjectory of the ball had stopped moving forward when the goalie "saved" it."

Can you imagine the confusion and fans reaction if this twat refereed a world cup penalty shoot out.

[Harry]

*Does a Ronaldo cheeky wink*

[caller]

Oh well, I stand corrected - sort of - I'm well out of the loop now.

Certainly a directive was issued a few years ago which changed the emphasis on deliberate hand ball and certainly you now see hand balls and penalties awarded that would never have been given 10 years ago.

Referees are given guidance annually, sometimes in response to law changes, and sometimes in respect of interpretation, usually to ensure the spirit of the game is still being met and somewhere along the way, with respect to handball, that has changed.

This thread and the links from it was interesting. It just goes to show how many different opinions there are out there.

www.footballreferee.org/discus/index.html

Reading these responses, some referees might have seen Carvalhos action as deliberate?

[DaveT]

I've thought for years that video evidence should be used during games.

There are so many instances where this is blatantly obvious - probably the worst case I've seen was the Man Utd v Spurs game at the beginning of last season. It was 0-0 with Man Utd playing quite poorly and Spurs playing pretty well. A shot came in from Spurs, the Man Utd keeper let it slip through his hands, ran back and scooped it back out into play. The ball was 3 feet over the line, but because it was a long shot the linesman was nowhere near level with the goal line, so couldn't see it. The immediate video afterwards showed how far over the line the ball was.

The Utd keeper got some serious stick afterwards for not owning up, but realistically is he going to? It's not like cricket where the fielder will indicate that a ball has crossed the boundary or a golfer who'll admit to moving his ball accidentally, etc.

The area that really pees me off football-wise is offside. There are so many bad offside decisions these days and with the speed now of video replays the ref can let play go on for a few seconds until a message is given to him in his earpiece. He can then either blow up or let play continue. It's so wrong that a clever and quick forward who can outwit a defence with a well timed run gets incorrectly called offside by some dumb linesman who can't keep up or look at 2 things at the same time, i.e. when the ball is kicked and where the forward is at that precise moment.

What also irks me are the old guard who have opinions like "well, it would stop all the debate wouldn't it" or "we've been playing this way for years, no need to change it now" or "bad breaks even themselves out over the season". What a load of cobblers. Football is not an exact science, but at least let's get the majority of the decisions right when we have the opportunity to do so without interrupting the flow of the game.

[Jockey]

I've thought for years that video evidence should be used during games.

There are so many instances where this is blatantly obvious - probably the worst case I've seen was the Man Utd v Spurs game at the beginning of last season. It was 0-0 with Man Utd playing quite poorly and Spurs playing pretty well. A shot came in from Spurs, the Man Utd keeper let it slip through his hands, ran back and scooped it back out into play. The ball was 3 feet over the line, but because it was a long shot the linesman was nowhere near level with the goal line, so couldn't see it. The immediate video afterwards showed how far over the line the ball was.

The Utd keeper got some serious stick afterwards for not owning up, but realistically is he going to? It's not like cricket where the fielder will indicate that a ball has crossed the boundary or a golfer who'll admit to moving his ball accidentally, etc.

The area that really pees me off football-wise is offside. There are so many bad offside decisions these days and with the speed now of video replays the ref can let play go on for a few seconds until a message is given to him in his earpiece. He can then either blow up or let play continue. It's so wrong that a clever and quick forward who can outwit a defence with a well timed run gets incorrectly called offside by some dumb linesman who can't keep up or look at 2 things at the same time, i.e. when the ball is kicked and where the forward is at that precise moment.

What also irks me are the old guard who have opinions like "well, it would stop all the debate wouldn't it" or "we've been playing this way for years, no need to change it now" or "bad breaks even themselves out over the season". What a load of cobblers. Football is not an exact science, but at least let's get the majority of the decisions right when we have the opportunity to do so without interrupting the flow of the game.

Agree with you 100% - good post. Pity the powers that be are not as sensible as you.

[Heebio]

I've thought for years that video evidence should be used during games.

There are so many instances where this is blatantly obvious - probably the worst case I've seen was the Man Utd v Spurs game at the beginning of last season. It was 0-0 with Man Utd playing quite poorly and Spurs playing pretty well. A shot came in from Spurs, the Man Utd keeper let it slip through his hands, ran back and scooped it back out into play. The ball was 3 feet over the line, but because it was a long shot the linesman was nowhere near level with the goal line, so couldn't see it. The immediate video afterwards showed how far over the line the ball was.

The Utd keeper got some serious stick afterwards for not owning up, but realistically is he going to? It's not like cricket where the fielder will indicate that a ball has crossed the boundary or a golfer who'll admit to moving his ball accidentally, etc.

The area that really pees me off football-wise is offside. There are so many bad offside decisions these days and with the speed now of video replays the ref can let play go on for a few seconds until a message is given to him in his earpiece. He can then either blow up or let play continue. It's so wrong that a clever and quick forward who can outwit a defence with a well timed run gets incorrectly called offside by some dumb linesman who can't keep up or look at 2 things at the same time, i.e. when the ball is kicked and where the forward is at that precise moment.

What also irks me are the old guard who have opinions like "well, it would stop all the debate wouldn't it" or "we've been playing this way for years, no need to change it now" or "bad breaks even themselves out over the season". What a load of cobblers. Football is not an exact science, but at least let's get the majority of the decisions right when we have the opportunity to do so without interrupting the flow of the game.

Agree with you 100% - good post. Pity the powers that be are not as sensible as you.

Agree with most of that as well Dave.

I have to disagree on the offside video referee though. If the linesman raises his flag, unless it was a blatantly bad decision and the ref had a clear view of this, the ref has no choice but to instantly blow. If we relied on a video replay for all offsides this would for all intents and purposes negate the need for linesmen. And if you didn't use it for all offsides where would you draw the line on when to use it. If the ref blows for what is later spotted as an onside move, the defenders may have reacted to this and the attacker may have had an advantage - what would be the decision if the attacker scored after the defenders had played the whistle and where would the game recommence if the goal was not allowed to stand? Sorry, way too many permutations for it to have any chance of working in a practical sense.

The only place where it can work is where the rules aren't open to interpretation - where it's clear black or white. Great example given above, Pedro Mendes' shot was at least three feet over the line and if there had been a video ref the decision was clear cut and could have been relayed to the ref in seconds.

Only other way I can maybe see it working is for decisions re corners or goalkicks - ie, where it's not clear who it came off last before crossing the line. Quick replay, info passed to ref, decision made.

I'm afraid offsides, freekicks etc just cannot work. The linesmen are there to spot off the ball incidents if the ref hasn't seen them. To do this via video you'd have to have cameras trawling every player on the park for the full 90 and 22 other refs clued to the screens. Impossible I'm afraid.

Put cameras on the goal line. At least it's a start.

[Jaime]

Going back to the OP and as I know that Randy is a 'Rugger Bugger', the standards of refereeing in rugby are equally as bad as football and even the so-called fourth officials get it wrong in rugby - an obvious example that springs to mind was in the recent Cardiff v. Ulster (or could've been Munster) game - in favour of the Irishmen . The fact is, team sports need a ref and they are fallible, just like the players. If I remember the rugby football rule book correctly, the first law of the game states that: "The referee is the sole judge of fact and law." In otherwords, he is always right, even when he is wrong. I wonder whether football has a similar rule?

[DaveT]

I have to disagree on the offside video referee though. If the linesman raises his flag, unless it was a blatantly bad decision and the ref had a clear view of this, the ref has no choice but to instantly blow. If we relied on a video replay for all offsides this would for all intents and purposes negate the need for linesmen. And if you didn't use it for all offsides where would you draw the line on when to use it. If the ref blows for what is later spotted as an onside move, the defenders may have reacted to this and the attacker may have had an advantage - what would be the decision if the attacker scored after the defenders had played the whistle and where would the game recommence if the goal was not allowed to stand? Sorry, way too many permutations for it to have any chance of working in a practical sense.

The only place where it can work is where the rules aren't open to interpretation - where it's clear black or white. Great example given above, Pedro Mendes' shot was at least three feet over the line and if there had been a video ref the decision was clear cut and could have been relayed to the ref in seconds.

Only other way I can maybe see it working is for decisions re corners or goalkicks - ie, where it's not clear who it came off last before crossing the line. Quick replay, info passed to ref, decision made.

I'm afraid offsides, freekicks etc just cannot work. The linesmen are there to spot off the ball incidents if the ref hasn't seen them. To do this via video you'd have to have cameras trawling every player on the park for the full 90 and 22 other refs clued to the screens. Impossible I'm afraid.

Put cameras on the goal line. At least it's a start.




I think the offside video can work - and it is one of the most important decisions and the one that the officials get wrong so, so often.

If there is a blatant offside, then the linesman can flag. If it's not absolutely blatant, he should not flag and press the button or speak into his mike to simply say "video". It will only take 5 seconds to give the ref/linesman the "off" or "on" answer and they can flag/blow the whistle.

Your point about defenders stopping etc. shouldn't be relevant as no-one should stop doing anything until they hear the whistle. That's the case now, so the players don't have to do anything different, just play.

Trouble is the suits who make these decisions, at FIFA, the FA or wherever, are fuddy duddy old gits who don't like change and are dragging the game backwards.

To be honest, my preference on offside would be a line 30 yards from each goal and a player couldn't be offside unless he was closer to the goal than that if in an offside position of course. Or possibly even level with the penalty area. That would really open the game up too, create more space and therefore more goals. IF you watch a game live and see when a keeper takes a goal kick there's 20 players in an area of about 30 sq yards by 30 square yards, even at Premiership level.

[Jockey]

I have to disagree on the offside video referee though. If the linesman raises his flag, unless it was a blatantly bad decision and the ref had a clear view of this, the ref has no choice but to instantly blow. If we relied on a video replay for all offsides this would for all intents and purposes negate the need for linesmen. And if you didn't use it for all offsides where would you draw the line on when to use it. If the ref blows for what is later spotted as an onside move, the defenders may have reacted to this and the attacker may have had an advantage - what would be the decision if the attacker scored after the defenders had played the whistle and where would the game recommence if the goal was not allowed to stand? Sorry, way too many permutations for it to have any chance of working in a practical sense.

The only place where it can work is where the rules aren't open to interpretation - where it's clear black or white. Great example given above, Pedro Mendes' shot was at least three feet over the line and if there had been a video ref the decision was clear cut and could have been relayed to the ref in seconds.

Only other way I can maybe see it working is for decisions re corners or goalkicks - ie, where it's not clear who it came off last before crossing the line. Quick replay, info passed to ref, decision made.

I'm afraid offsides, freekicks etc just cannot work. The linesmen are there to spot off the ball incidents if the ref hasn't seen them. To do this via video you'd have to have cameras trawling every player on the park for the full 90 and 22 other refs clued to the screens. Impossible I'm afraid.

Put cameras on the goal line. At least it's a start.




I think the offside video can work - and it is one of the most important decisions and the one that the officials get wrong so, so often.

If there is a blatant offside, then the linesman can flag. If it's not absolutely blatant, he should not flag and press the button or speak into his mike to simply say "video". It will only take 5 seconds to give the ref/linesman the "off" or "on" answer and they can flag/blow the whistle.

Your point about defenders stopping etc. shouldn't be relevant as no-one should stop doing anything until they hear the whistle. That's the case now, so the players don't have to do anything different, just play.

Trouble is the suits who make these decisions, at FIFA, the FA or wherever, are fuddy duddy old gits who don't like change and are dragging the game backwards.

To be honest, my preference on offside would be a line 30 yards from each goal and a player couldn't be offside unless he was closer to the goal than that if in an offside position of course. Or possibly even level with the penalty area. That would really open the game up too, create more space and therefore more goals. IF you watch a game live and see when a keeper takes a goal kick there's 20 players in an area of about 30 sq yards by 30 square yards, even at Premiership level.

Pity your not on the FIFA commitee

[DaveT]

Pity your not on the FIFA commitee[/quote]


Wish I was, but can you imagine how much bull$hit you'd have to go through to get on the FA committee? I'd need to age 20 years for a start - and I'm 51 now!!

But it's common sense really, isn't it. What should make fans happy are correct decisions, even if they go against you. I'm a big Ipswich fan and sharefholder and I get so frustrated, like so many other fans, when decisions go against you that are wrong. At least with video evidence, which in my opinion would not interrupt the flow of the game now it's so quick, you'd know that the decision was actually correct. While still being frustrated and peed off with my team for losing, I'd know we were beaten fair and square and not because of a dumb official who shouldn't be doing the job.

[splitlid]

Going back to the OP and as I know that Randy is a 'Rugger Bugger', the standards of refereeing in rugby are equally as bad as football and even the so-called fourth officials get it wrong in rugby - an obvious example that springs to mind was in the recent Cardiff v. Ulster (or could've been Munster) game - in favour of the Irishmen . The fact is, team sports need a ref and they are fallible, just like the players. If I remember the rugby football rule book correctly, the first law of the game states that: "The referee is the sole judge of fact and law." In otherwords, he is always right, even when he is wrong. I wonder whether football has a similar rule?

yes absolutely right, but when an offical in rugby gets its wrong do we see all the bitching and whining by the players like we see in football,
NO.
and why?

respect!!
football referees have been allowed to be abused for so long it is now normal for players to argue and dissaprove of all decisions.

refs should start sending off players who try to intimidate and abuse.
so what if the team is reduced to 8 or 9 men.

all this bitching will stop pretty quick when they start to loose matches cos their top whiner was sent off!!!!!!!!!!