Ref Watch City Games - 2023/24

[The Future’s Blue!]

Grealish booked for kicking the ball away… no action when the spurs player did it…

I’m not a great believer in the corrupt conspiracy theory but performances such as hoopers yesterday (and some of Atwells) make it hard to justify anything other

Seemed to target our players on 4 cards, but I can’t prove that, whether personal or directed, but was quite obvious to me.

 

[Paladin]

When did you ref up to? It’s still the guidance to do exactly that in the lower levels. The recommendation a few years ago changed at the elite level to not signal but there’s still plenty that do and don’t, it’s never been a rule.

I refereed in and around Manchester until the late 90s. I refereed in Warrington in the 2000s and 2010s. I have been involved in football administration for over 40 years. I currently organise weekly vets football.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but it has always been in the laws that advantage must be signalled with one or both arms.

Playing advantage is a decision that referees must take in every game. They take a few seconds to make their assessment of whether or not there might be an advantage, and then they make their decision. Either play an advantage, or give a free kick. This then becomes the final decision in respect of the offence that occurred. There is no scope to play advantage then give the free kick. The advice that goes with the laws prohibits this.

I stand by this interpretation. People keep saying it is a common occurrence for referees to signal advantage then go back and give a free kick if the advantage didn't materialise. They are wrong. I have challenged them to show me just one single example. The best I have had in return is that there might have been one when we played Hull City at some point. Certainly not that common, as we've not played Hull City since 2017.

 

[Paladin]

Assuming you’re working your way through the replies but that’s not correct.

Yes I am.

Why isn't it correct? I've given a fuller explanation just above this reply. I think mine is a perfectly valid way of interpreting the LOTG. And the only thing that would prove its inaccuracy would be examples, which I have asked for numerous times, and nobody can provide.

 

[meltonblue]

I refereed in and around Manchester until the late 90s. I refereed in Warrington in the 2000s and 2010s. I have been involved in football administration for over 40 years. I currently organise weekly vets football.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but it has always been in the laws that advantage must be signalled with one or both arms.

Playing advantage is a decision that referees must take in every game. They take a few seconds to make their assessment of whether or not there might be an advantage, and then they make their decision. Either play an advantage, or give a free kick. This then becomes the final decision in respect of the offence that occurred. There is no scope to play advantage then give the free kick. The advice that goes with the laws prohibits this.

I stand by this interpretation. People keep saying it is a common occurrence for referees to signal advantage then go back and give a free kick if the advantage didn't materialise. They are wrong. I have challenged them to show me just one single example. The best I have had in return is that there might have been one when we played Hull City at some point. Certainly not that common, as we've not played Hull City since 2017.

If you were refereeing in the nineties and noughties, then you weren’t applying the rules yourself correctly from 97 onwards if you kept that interpretation. Signalling advantage then being able to pull it back was written into the laws. The advice nowadays does not prohibit it at all. It encourages it still for lower level referees (read the guidance for going from level 6 to 5 and 4 for example) and recommends against it for higher level ones.

Before the rule change in 97, you would be correct that if a ref signalled for advantage, he couldn’t bring the play back.

 

[Paladin]

Grealish doesn't score in every possible scenario that could follow.

I don't see any grounds for Spurs players to complain if Hooper delays his whistle. They committed the foul. They can't complain if Hooper delays his whistle indefinitely, and Grealish goes on to score. Or if Grealish didn't score, why would they complain at that?

It's your line about Spurs complaining that I can't understand.

 

[meltonblue]

Yes I am.

Why isn't it correct? I've given a fuller explanation just above this reply. I think mine is a perfectly valid way of interpreting the LOTG. And the only thing that would prove its inaccuracy would be examples, which I have asked for numerous times, and nobody can provide.

Because it just isn’t, which is why you have no one pointing that out as an error.

The rule in 97 was to adopt this -

“If the Referee applies the advantage clause and the advantage which was anticipated does not develop at that time, the Referee shall penalize the original offence."

There’s nothing now in the laws against that guidance. Refs are allowed time, whether they signal or not, to bring the game back if they don’t believe the advantage has been accrued.

This is the guidance now -

• allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

 

[SatOnTheWall]

Ref fucks up, oh well he must be corrupt. Grow up.

Season before last rodri got away with a very very blatant hand ball v everton. Remember?
Cost liverpool the title that decision. Was that corrupt too?

The one where we got the indirect free kick because the Everton player was offside in the build up, you mean?

 

[SatOnTheWall]

Liverpool had a perfectly good goal chalked off a few weeks back because of a fuck up between var and the ref.

An actual goal cancelled

We had two of those last week.

 

[bluenova]

I don't see any grounds for Spurs players to complain if Hooper delays his whistle. They committed the foul. They can't complain if Hooper delays his whistle indefinitely, and Grealish good on to score. Or if Grealish didn't score, why would they complain at that?

It's your line about Spurs complaining that I can't understand.

It's something else that happens in football games :)

The ref waves play on, and, for example, a Spurs player makes a great tackle a couple of seconds later. The advantage doesn't develop enough for the ref, but the Spurs players think that the advantage was allowed for long enough and complain. Clearly there's a sweet spot, and the ref went far too early on Sunday, but there is also a pressure not to leave it too long.

 

[cheekybids]

Because it just isn’t, which is why you have no one pointing that out as an error.

The rule in 97 was to adopt this -

“If the Referee applies the advantage clause and the advantage which was anticipated does not develop at that time, the Referee shall penalize the original offence."

There’s nothing now in the laws against that guidance. Refs are allowed time, whether they signal or not, to bring the game back if they don’t believe the advantage has been accrued.

This is the guidance now -

• allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

@Paladin stated this…..

“They take a few seconds to make their assessment of whether or not there might be an advantage”

So you are both right they can change their mind within a few seconds if there’s no advantage. The reason everyone is pissed off is there was a clear advantage.

Now in true PGMOL fashion I’d imagine they’d argue a “few” seconds is subjective.