Rules & Interpretation

[terpin]

interesting, the thread is entitled 'rules & interpretation' and the first line is 'when is a foul not a foul'?, substitute that for 'when is a yellow card not a yellow card'? and your answer is when it's the first minute of a game?. Had he applied the letter of the law then the rest may not have happend, it's called setting your stall out and leaving the players in no doubt where they stand, instead of allowing things to escalate to a point where he totally lost control.

As a referee when it comes to the strict letter of the law he is not allowed to apply common sense, that's why it's the strict letter of the law.

An offence is an offence whether it is in the first or the last minute. The awarding of an offence and subsequent punishment is in the opinion of the referee and depends on what is deemed as careless, reckless or using excessive force. Therefore, that does give him the option of using common sense in certain situations - in this case letting a tackle that would usually result in a caution go in the first minute whilst trying to let the biggest game in world football breathe. If he had started branding cards within 30 seconds he would have no doubt been accused of ruining the spectacle. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If a referee applies the letter of the law to all decisions then they get accused of not using common sense. What did you think of the Robin Van Persie Red Card? Or the red card for the player who tackled the streaker the other week? Both correct by law.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I guess anyone can be a backseat driver.

As for the ref consulting his linesman, how many times do we hear fans and pundits moan whats the points of the linesman is the ref never listens to them when they have something to say!

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.

Fine, firstly when he made the original decision he seemed quite sure, he did'nt hesitate to call it, therefore it could only be the harrassment from the Liverpool players that caused his doubt and the linesman never called it until well into Liverpools protests and then what about the 2nd half incident where he allowed an advantage to Liverpool on the edge of the box (again something refs are often criticised for not doing) and when the Liverpool player wasted the advantage he then brought play back for a free kick to Liverpool, there is no rule in the book that allows for that, it's either play the advantage or not and if the advantage is wasted tough, is it ok to allow the referee to make the rules up on the hoof?.

[terpin]

Fine, firstly when he made the original decision he seemed quite sure, he did'nt hesitate to call it, therefore it could only be the harrassment from the Liverpool players that caused his doubt and the linesman never called it until well into Liverpools protests and then what about the 2nd half incident where he allowed an advantage to Liverpool on the edge of the box (again something refs are often criticised for not doing) and when the Liverpool player wasted the advantage he then brought play back for a free kick to Liverpool, there is no rule in the book that allows for that, it's either play the advantage or not and if the advantage is wasted tough, is it ok to allow the referee to make the rules up on the hoof?.

1st Incident: They would have been discussing it over their headpiece with the linesman telling him it was inside. The signal from the linesman communicated the decision to the rest of the stadium.

2nd Incident: I didn't see the incident you refer to but from your description does it not appear that the referee has followed what is written in law: "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time".