Ref Watch

halfcenturyup

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
1,970
I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.

Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t
 

Psychedelic Casual

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Sep 2016
Messages
25,389
Location
Great Britain, Greater Manchester
I've no idea how we always seem to give away more fouls than the opposition despite having more possession.
That’s our tactic and a good one. When we lose the ball, we press to win it back, if we can’t win it back a foul is a good option because it’s usually deep in the opposition half so not a danger on our goal.
 

Vic

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Jan 2009
Messages
15,701
Shame a manager can't be booked for their team persistently fouling the same player.

I remember the infamous Rag's v Arse game when Riley allowed the Rag's to take it in turns to kick f*ck out of Reyes.
There should have been about 5 or 6 yellow cards before the Whistling Wanker eventually booked Phil Chuckle.
Or the Derby when SWP was targeted...
 

Vic

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Jan 2009
Messages
15,701
The Law is open to interpretation, or as @richardtheref pointed out, could be subject to additional explanation or clarification for referees only.

There is a thread on this topic in a referee forum, here: https://refchat.co.uk/threads/persistently-infringing-lotg.16065/

This is an extract that is fairly typical of the general approach being taken by referees.

Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
 

MillionMilesAway

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Sep 2015
Messages
14,347
Location
London
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.

Yes, that's my thought too.

I think this is false memory from the Chelsea-Utd cup match from a few years ago with Oliver (I think) reffing. After about 25 minutes of rotational clogging of Hazard, the ref called the captain over and pretty much clearly said that the next one got a card, whether first foul or not. Less than 10 seconds later, Herrera clogged Hazard, got his second yellow card and was off.

There was a lot of discussion afterwards over whether the ref had applied the persistent infringement rule correctly, or interpreted something else, or just had enough!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic

Paladin

Well-Known Member
Joined
10 Jan 2009
Messages
4,859
Location
Cheshire
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
You didn't read my post correctly. That reply was typical of the majority of replies. Go have a look for yourself, the link is there.

I repeat, it is common practice for referees to caution players for persistent fouling (targeting) against one player, even if the cautioned player has only made one foul.
 

The slaughtered lamb

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 May 2014
Messages
3,229
Not wanting to defend refs here, but fouls that break up a quick counter attack are deemed more serious than someone knocking a guy over during two full minutes of possession. So that could be a reason. We don't foul much but, I hate to say it, maybe our fouls are more "tactical".

Also, time-wasting by goalkeepers only seems t
Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.
 

Vic

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Jan 2009
Messages
15,701
Is that a fact, as in written down somewhere in the rules? If it is it’s wrong. We score many of our goals after periods of long possession so I don’t see how a foul at that point is a lesser offence than a foul to stop a counter attack. A foul is a foul.
It's a caution for SPA (stopping a promising attack). That can be anywhere on the pitch.
 

richardtheref

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
2,121
Location
County Durham
Just because someone on refchat says something it doesn't make it right. The law says "a player" should be cautioned for "persistent offences". I've no doubt others on that thread corrected whoever posted that extract.
So last year McTominey committed 87 fouls between bookings. Imagine Fernandinho getting away with that
 

Don't have an account?

Register now!
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.