Ref Watch

[Paladin]

Dias got to the ball first was in full control the Leicester player jumped into Ruben should have been a foul for City

These decisions are subjective. I think it's harsh to criticise for decisions that are 50/50.

It doesn't really matter who got to the ball first. Dangerous play is just that, no matter who gets to the ball first. An overhead kick looks spectacular, but if a boot is flying past lots of heads, it is dangerous.

The law provides that if a challenge against an opponent is considered to be careless, a direct free kick should be awarded. Careless is when "a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." Now personally, I don't think Dias was careless - his challenge was quite careful in the circumstances. I don't think this was the worst refereeing decision today though, and for a newbie, we can afford to cut the referee a little slack.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Was at a non-league game last night and one of the players was sin-binned for repeatedly swearing at the referee. Didn't realise that was a thing.

Sin Bins

Temporary dismissals also known as ‘sin bins’ have been implemented across all levels of grassroots football to improve levels of respect and fair play

www.englandfootball.com

Should it be something brought into the professional game?

Yes

 

[BillCarlisle]

I can forgive and forget a lot of the poor decisions in the heat of the moment by referees, as they’re just human error most of the time.

Two things that are deep rooted that are constantly called incorrectly by the officials though, are:

1. Playing ‘advantage’ when the ball has gone backwards. There’s no advantage if you aren’t in a better position to score than if you were given the free kick… so give the free kick if it’s near the box. Letting the game flow and having them passing it back on the half way line isn’t better than giving a team an opportunity to score.

2. Aggressive swearing at the officials (often by the same players week-in-week-out: Rooney over the years, Vardy, Robertson…), sometimes with hand gestures to go with it. Send them off!

The solution is so simple, isn't it ? As you suggest, start sending players off every time for the extreme dissent which we witnessed today and it would soon put a stop to it. The LOGT provide for it so why not apply the rules ? Unfortunately they are so caught up with "protecting the brand" that the very brand they feel they are protecting is in reality being continually dragged down. Along with the rest of the football, as the grass roots copy PL behaviour. It needs the FA to step in and make them enforce it, but thats never going to happen whilst the FA is hand in hand with the PL & PIGMOL.

 

[Leeky]

These decisions are subjective. I think it's harsh to criticise for decisions that are 50/50.

It doesn't really matter who got to the ball first. Dangerous play is just that, no matter who gets to the ball first. An overhead kick looks spectacular, but if a boot is flying past lots of heads, it is dangerous.

The law provides that if a challenge against an opponent is considered to be careless, a direct free kick should be awarded. Careless is when "a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." Now personally, I don't think Dias was careless - his challenge was quite careful in the circumstances. I don't think this was the worst refereeing decision today though, and for a newbie, we can afford to cut the referee a little slack.

Are you a referee

 

[bluenova]

These decisions are subjective. I think it's harsh to criticise for decisions that are 50/50.

It doesn't really matter who got to the ball first. Dangerous play is just that, no matter who gets to the ball first. An overhead kick looks spectacular, but if a boot is flying past lots of heads, it is dangerous.

The law provides that if a challenge against an opponent is considered to be careless, a direct free kick should be awarded. Careless is when "a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution." Now personally, I don't think Dias was careless - his challenge was quite careful in the circumstances. I don't think this was the worst refereeing decision today though, and for a newbie, we can afford to cut the referee a little slack.

My initial view was that the Leicester player had full view of the situation and chose to run into the space that Dias already occupied, so it should be a foul.

However, I read a post by a referee suggesting that if the opponent is close enough to challenge, but realistically can't because doing so would be dangerous, then the high kick is classed as dangerous play. That does seem reasonable to me.

 

[ctwrd]

My initial view was that the Leicester player had full view of the situation and chose to run into the space that Dias already occupied, so it should be a foul.

However, I read a post by a referee suggesting that if the opponent is close enough to challenge, but realistically can't because doing so would be dangerous, then the high kick is classed as dangerous play. That does seem reasonable to me.

These situations are stupid because the player who gets there first always concedes a free kick. Better to be second which is stupid.

 

[richardtheref]

It was poor that he missed the corner, but when all said and done, he simply didn't see the ball hit the defender. It happens. Oliver didn't see Ederson's touch the other week, and we almost had a goal from the incorrect goal kick.

Dias was penalised for a high boot, which was near the guy's head, so that's a fair decision also - dangerous play.

I thought the foul by Gundo was harsh, but every team gets those now and again. Thankfully, we defended well and got the win we deserved.

My main concern is that referees do not punish dissent and foul and abusive rants, as they are required to by the LOTG. But this guy isn't alone in that, and it's not really up to him to set the tone for this sort of thing.

There's definitely room for improvement, but for a referee new to the PL, I thought he was OK.

Yes, Vardy quite clearly swore at him yet all he did was tell him to shut up. Now most PL refs tell me you cannot hear what is being said to them because of the noise. However, for him to tell him to zip it he must have known what was said. Automatic red for me

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Yes, Vardy quite clearly swore at him yet all he did was tell him to shut up. Now most PL refs tell me you cannot hear what is being said to them because of the noise. However, for him to tell him to zip it he must have known what was said. Automatic red for me

This is something that could be dealt with easily.

All the PL have to do is brief clubs that any swearing or abusive language aimed at officials will result in an automatic red card and then ensure that they follow through.

Seeing PL players and managers getting away with abusing official's week-in-week-out is doing so much damage to grass roots football.

 

[richardtheref]

This is something that could be dealt with easily.

All the PL have to do is brief clubs that any swearing or abusive language aimed at officials will result in an automatic red card and then ensure that they follow through.

Seeing PL players and managers getting away with abusing official's week-in-week-out is doing so much damage to grass roots football.

When I reffed in the Northern League the chairman of the league told all refs they would be suspended if they did not send players off for swearing , as per the laws of the game. He would show up at random games & if the ref didn't do as instructed, sure enough they were suspended. Lo & behold after about 6 weeks & numerous suspensions swearing was eliminated from the league.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Yes

Absolutely it should. The abuse that steptoe was hurling at the referee was ridiculous.