Do referees really want help?

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, onlyotib said:

I agree. Why do we not see the free kick taker absolutely welly the ball against the player stopping the quickly taken free kick. Is there consequences against this for the team awarded the free kick? 

Play should continue, imo, as the kicker decided to take the free kick in that way.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Crikey…..there’d be no-one left on the pitch if you reffed some games!!!

In principle, yes. But I think refs are right to show some common sense, turn a blind eye sometimes.

There was a story I heard a long time back from a league ref (can’t recall the ref or a player) who made a decision that a player disagreed with. Said player made his feelings known with an angry “you must be f###ing blind ref”. The ref replied “I didn’t hear that”. To which the player responded “F###ing deaf as well”

I’m sure after I’d sent off my first player in the opening 10 mins of the game, the other 21 players might decide to try to adhere to the rules!

I go back to school.

Those teachers who gave you detention for handing your homework in late, tended to get homework handed in on time after that.

Those who let you get away with it, allowed everyone else to do the same.

47 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Sorry, but the issue for me is that referees’ jobs have been made completely impossible by a) the attitude of the players, who think they are above the game; b) the constant and intense scrutiny via media that many referees experience; and c) the intolerance of fans who fail to understand how difficult a referee’s job is.

If players took some responsibility, rather than protesting about every decision that goes against them, whether the decision is correct or not; if managers reinforced good behaviour and supported referees rather than bawling abuse from the touchline and failing to criticise their own players’ behaviour; and if everyone acknowledged how difficult it is to referee a football match and that mistakes are inevitable - then we might get somewhere.

It’s a wonder anyone wants to be a referee these days, and there is a real crisis at grassroots level with so few refs available.

Great post.

[italian dave]

27 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What happened to the GK having 8 seconds to release the ball? 

Went the same way as moving a free kick forward 10 yards if the opponents didn’t retreat quickly enough.

In fairness, and to give credit where it’s due, the introduction of the ref’s white spray has been brilliant, and made a real difference.

[italian dave]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Play should continue, imo, as the kicker decided to take the free kick in that way.

Again though, isn’t it down to the nuances of each particular situation? If the kicker is trying to take a quick free kick then that’s a risk he takes. There were players <10 yards away in the video that begins Spudski’s thread on the Notts Co free kick. That’s a risk you take.

But if the defending teams player has run a full 10 yards in order to stand in front of the ball then, for me, that’s a different situation completely and the kicker shouldn’t be penalised.

[onlyotib]

16 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Play should continue, imo, as the kicker decided to take the free kick in that way.

But should it if the player hasn’t moved back the correct yards. If that’s the case surely if there was a free kick right on the edge of box you would have 5 or 6 players stood within a yard of the ball?

[firstdivision]

Some proposed law changes: 

players should immediately move ten yards away from a free-kick conceded. Punishment - five minutes in a sin bin for the closest player.

GKs should be compelled to release the ball within six seconds. Punishment- ten minutes in a sin bin. 
 

Time wasting - ten minutes in a sin bin. 
 

The game has shown in can act to speed up the game and make it more attractive: eg back-pass law, tackling from behind, pro-foul law, three points for a win. 
 

 

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Quite simply, once the whistle goes, you shouldn’t be allowed to touch the ball and should move away as quickly as possible.  So that would cover off picking it up…which often leads to a melee of players trying to grab it.

Whatever the motives of the offside…see above rule, whistle goes, stop, move away.

Refs frequently wont blow the whistle. Your nice Corinthian spirit there of moving and leaving the ball to the chivalrous opponents to not take advantage of you being out of possession would be a real disadvantage to your team. 

Knock the ball away and make them get it back. Grab the ball and get your team mates in shape. Stand in front of it, delay it.. The game is there to be won.  

[Steve Watts]

17 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

Some proposed law changes: 

players should immediately move ten yards away from a free-kick conceded. Punishment - five minutes in a sin bin for the closest player.

GKs should be compelled to release the ball within six seconds. Punishment- ten minutes in a sin bin. 
 

Time wasting - ten minutes in a sin bin. 
 

The game has shown in can act to speed up the game and make it more attractive: eg back-pass law, tackling from behind, pro-foul law, three points for a win. 
 

 

Could you imagine the carnage?!? 

I don't think it was ever a designated number of seconds, though I agree the general feeling at the time was 6 seconds.  I think referees do still have words with the keeper and gives a warning for blatantly taking the piss.  My assumption for why it's not really implemented very often is that there wasn't any real clarity as to when that "count" should start.  The common sense approach would accept that the "count" doesn't start until a situation arises that the ball can be released.  That's to say if a striker was blocking the release the count wouldn't start until the keeper is able to release the ball unimpeded.  If he drops to the deck to smother the ball, there's another judgment call then to be made as to how long down is too long.  Too many variables would make for even more massive inconsistencies in the application of the rules, hence it being rarely used.

[Cowshed]

18 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Could you imagine the carnage?!? 

I don't think it was ever a designated number of seconds, though I agree the general feeling at the time was 6 seconds.  I think referees do still have words with the keeper and gives a warning for blatantly taking the piss.  My assumption for why it's not really implemented very often is that there wasn't any real clarity as to when that "count" should start.  The common sense approach would accept that the "count" doesn't start until a situation arises that the ball can be released.  That's to say if a striker was blocking the release the count wouldn't start until the keeper is able to release the ball unimpeded.  If he drops to the deck to smother the ball, there's another judgment call then to be made as to how long down is too long.  Too many variables would make for even more massive inconsistencies in the application of the rules, hence it being rarely used.

If a keeper holds the ball for more than six seconds it can be a indirect free kick. Six seconds is in the rules now. Refs very rarely enforce it. Refs do have that word with keepers as you observe. 

Its an odd rule with too many variables that effect the release of the ball in six seconds = Refs ignore the rule. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Cowshed

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Refs frequently wont blow the whistle.

really? Since when do they not blow their whistle to stop play for a foul for example.  What do they do, use sign language, semaphore?  How do players know there is an infringement and a free-kick has been awarded?

Your nice Corinthian spirit there of moving and leaving the ball to the chivalrous opponents to not take advantage of you being out of possession would be a real disadvantage to your team.

nothing to do with Corinthian Spirit, just a simple “if you want to stand on the ball because you’ve fouled whilst being transitioned on, expect a yellow card”. Perhaps coach players to react quicker to a free-kick awarded against you?

Knock the ball away and make them get it back. Grab the ball and get your team mates in shape. Stand in front of it, delay it.. The game is there to be won.

and get a yellow card for it, toughski shitski if it’s a second yellow and off you go.

Why do you seem to be on the side of the team that has transgressed the rules?  Surely the whole point of the rules / laws are to not disadvantage the side(s) who abide by them, and penalise the team(s) that breaks them.

[Cowshed]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes Dave. A game can be stopped without use of the whistle, and restarted without one. Yes refs will use their voice, sigh language (the arms) at times in games. Some refs will blow for everything and restart everything with the whistle. The point was if  you, or your team is out of shape, delay what is going to occur. 

Perhaps .. Yes players are coached to slow down dead balls to get their team mates into shape. Its a process that starts early. Children will give the ball back at their and their team mates disadvantage, learning experiences alter that behaviour. Switching on can mean intervening to instantly hinder the opponents ability to use a dead ball quickly. 

And yes get a yellow card. Generally no cards are given. You do what you can to affect outcomes. 

Why do you seem to be on .. The side of attempting to gain success yes. You interpret the rules and push them to gain advantage. If the ref allows you a minimal gain you take that advantage. If the ref intervenes take the sanction if there is one, but the quest to gain advantage continues - Because your team doesn't, doesn't mean the opposition won't.  

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 hours ago, Midred said:

And if they do use their "powers" then use them consistantly to both teams. I used to think that the other team could get away with anything before the ref had booked one of our players and that would be after a first offence!

Yes I remember last season, a number of our players at Sheffield United got booked for kicking the ball away.

However when theirs did it...

[Portland Bill]

6 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What happened to the GK having 8 seconds to release the ball? 

It’s 6 seconds, it’s another one that the authorities didn’t feel the need to clamp down too hard on after the initial first season. It causes a lot of hastle and controversy, so instead the referees will normally vocally tell the keeper to get on with it if he/she feels the keeper is taking too long. 

[Portland Bill]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m talking about communicating / education to fans, to the media, etc.

re small misdemeanours, well for me they’ve made a rod for their own backs, and it’s a downward spiral of weakening the rules / laws (whatever they’re called).  Why not tell managers / players to “suck it up” rather than bend the rules for them l because they had a little whine.  And are decisions made with a view to how they they impact refereeing at lower levels.  It only takes a strong ref (and their bosses) to start tackling things like swearing, crowding, etc by sending players off, and it will start helping refs at lower levels.  Pro refs have a huge role to play in setting the standards of what is acceptable or not.

Mark my words, a few weeks of managers seeing refs enforce rules and sending a few off might make them think differently.  But today they moan and get their way as the rules are changed.

You’re passionate about refereeing.  I get that.  But I also think you’re in the camp of refs can’t come under any criticism too.

I’m passionate about the rules being followed consistently, I’m not blaming refs at all.  But, when does Alex Scott’s 5 yard kick the ball away become a distance where he does get a yellow for example.  6 yards, 7 yards…???  Isn’t an offence and offence, does “minor” come into it?  If kicking the ball away is a yellow card offence, and he’s on a yellow, then send him off.  It doesn’t matter whether he’s Alex Scott, nor what minute of the game it is, nor whether he’s on a yellow or not.  That’s what winds me up, I don’t believe there’s anything in the rules that say the ref should take those factors into their decision.

Rugby, usually very good about their rules, got it wrong a few years back with lifting at lineouts.  They changed the rules to allow lifting and it’s now a bloody farce.

I agree with the majority of what you say. I would love to see the Reds at the top throw red cards at these over pampered players.

But I know and so do you, as soon as this happened the media would go into overdrive and the officials would get the shit, not the players. 

Pro referees ‘have’ become soft on disciplining players, especially the swearing, diving and cheating, but if they clamped down big time, they will  get attacked from every corner, and especially on here!.  It will be the usual shite, the games not all about you ref blah blah. 

As for me protecting and support referees, someone has too!. It gets boring reading attack after attack on the officials. You only have to look on this forum. It amazes me just how many ‘football fans’ don’t even know the laws off the game, but feel they are qualified to attack the officials.

I can clearly remember a few years ago, an opposition player kneed the ball back to his keeper, 2/3 of Ashton Gate stood up and screamed for a back pass, they didn’t even know the rule. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Portland Bill

[Guest]

double post

Edited April 4, 2023 by gl2

[Guest]

Just now, gl2 said:

Mitro gets 8 match ban for his "push/pull" harsh or not harsh enough