You Are the Ref - 14 Feb 2013

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Chas (Psyatika), Feb 14, 2013.

  1. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    This week's scenes:
    Full article available by clicking here.
    [​IMG]

    My attempts at refereeing:
    1) If you have an AR, use him! If the contact was made before COMPLETELY crossing the line, award the goal. Otherwise, award a goal kick. If he doesn't know because Steve Clarke is blocking his view, punch him (the AR), and go home.
    If you DO NOT have an AR (and therefore can't see the picture above from your perspective), then you're just taking a guess! Common sense would tell you that the goalkeeper should not be standing inside his own goal during a free kick. He's gaming you to see if you will bail him out of a situation that was 100% his fault for screwing up. The ball hit him on the back, then entered the goal, so it's valid.
    (The above answer, of course, ignores the picture above, which seems to illustrate that the goalkeeper was, in fact, correct.)
    2) What is that amber colored thing above his arse?! Anyway, caution the unused sub, have the striker repair his equipment (the shorts!), and give the corner.
    3) Didn't see it, so it didn't happen. Award the goal. And pay more attention next time!
    soccersubjectively repped this.


  2. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    2. Any thought to OFFINABUS here?
  3. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    I was thinking about that, too, but didn't know if i could justify it.

    (I assume you mean against the sub, not the player taking the corner.)
  4. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006

    I don't think you can card the fans.


  5. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    According to the text, it was an "unused sub" who pulled the shorts, not a fan.

    By the way, what is the origin of the "Punch Gary Neville in the face" thing has seems to pop up on every strip? I found a strip from 2010 that actually has Gary Neville being punched, but the comments seem to indicate that it's actually a callback to an already existing meme.
  6. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006

    Yeah, but if you read the text, it was the fans who reacted in horror..

    Which is more appropriate for OFFINABUS
  7. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    If a sub depantsed your AR, it would be a writeup for referee assault and a sendoff for what - VC or OFFINABUS? Is it different when the victim is a player?
  8. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
  9. ChomskyReferee

    ChomskyReferee Red Card

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    It's funny in both cases. Laugh it off.
    soccersubjectively repped this.
  10. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    1. This one is tough because its a see saw of "what did I not see?" The ball hitting the keeper while in play or the ball hitting the keeper while out of play. I am leaning towards no goal if you have any doubt as to whether the ball was in the goal or not. As others have stated though. Where was your AR on this one?

    2. I am finding a way to make this red. This would certainly rise to an abusive or offensive gesture. Its a disgusting act that has no place in the game. Not to mention the fact that its a sub trying to provoke a player.

    3. Didn't see it, can't call it unless my crew did.
  11. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    [​IMG]
    I understand it was the correct answer before YATR asked the question.
  12. Gary V

    Gary V Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    SE Mich.
    It's the flag - so either he's a giant (maybe that's how the guy in #3 got such height) - or the flag post is less than 5 feet and we shouldn't be playing the game.
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009

    Pretty much agree. While #1 is kinda why they have AARs, there is always the possibility of anyone being shielded. While it is a bit topsy-turvy from the usual what-did-I-see, I think if you didn't see it touch in the field of play, it didn't.

    I can argue for OFFINABUS -- calling the pantsing an offesnive gesture -- or VC -- a level of violence against a player that is wholly unwarranted. (I have a vague recollection, that could be my imagination, that JA went the other way on a very similar scenario some years back.)

    #3 is a no-brainer.
  14. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006

    if you call depantsing a gesture you run across the first page of the FIFA LOTG, which says conflicts in language are resolved in English.

    So you need to look the meaning of the word up in English.

    wikipedia helps here, explaining that gestures differ from physically expressive displays that do not convey explicit messages.

    so, while you may wish to redefine english, its not there.

    just write up VC. its easier and shorter.
  15. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire

    What was the old phrase with offside? If you are not 100%, let it go? "Better to award a questionable, potentially bad goal, then take away a good goal."

    1) Unless your AR is 100% sure it was over before the GK touched it, GOAL.

    2) Send off for VC or OFFINABUS, take your pick. If you don't send off the player hear, you have lost this game.

    3) Same as number 1. If you don't see it, you can't call it. GOAL.
    Sport Billy and BTFOOM repped this.
  16. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I think you might be confusing the application of not seeing it and not calling it on infractions to a goal. With fouls and offside, if you aren't sure they did occur then you don't call them.

    With a goal if you aren't sure it did occur you don't award it, not the other way around. We had this discussion before and the overwhelming majority was I believe that awarding a goal that was not there was much worse that not awarding one that was.

    Someone remember that thread?
  17. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    Yes - the latest iteration of it was only a day or two ago. But this is an interesting twist on the "are you sure" situation. Here, there's no dispute that the ball (a) crossed the goal line and (b) was touched by a second player - so it's a goal unless it was all the way over the line when the touch occurred. Are you sure that it was?
    BTFOOM repped this.
  18. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    I don't understand the doubts about #1 - specifically, that one would actually listen to the goalkeeper's bizarre excuse for completely screwing up the situation and costing his team a goal.

    Is it because the illustration shows that the ball is already in the goal when it hits the GK? I'm not sure a referee in the correct position would be able to see this precisely (he certainly wouldn't see the funny lines showing the path of the ball in flight).

    If i'm in that situation, and the AR (if he's there) has no clue, i'm thinking, "Really!? You were standing inside your own goal while trying to defend during open play!? On purpose, to the point that you actually KNEW you were doing it?!"

    Of course, based on the illustration, i would be wrong in allowing the goal, and the GK's bizarre excuse is somehow actually correct. But i just can't see myself giving "But it was already over the line when it touched me!" even half a consideration.

    Basically, what i'm asking is: Under what circumstance do you take a crazy excuse from a player into account when making a decision?
  19. ChomskyReferee

    ChomskyReferee Red Card

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Were a lot of you guys pants'd as kids or something? Referees get nagged at for taking things too seriously, and I can see how that's true in this case. What's offensive about a butt anyways? We've all got one.
  20. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I see what you are saying. I just didn't want the misconception to come up that when in doubt, you give a goal, in almost every other scenario you don't give a goal unless you are sure. This one is particularly tricky because you as the ref might be asking, "Did I even put my hand down when the ball hit the keeper?" "I wasn't really sure the ball was in play or not when it hit him?"
  21. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    As far as the definition of gesture not applying on #2 I find it strange now that I thought about it, that dissent can be by word or "action". Clearly action is a broader term than gesture based on pure definition. Do you think OFINABUS was supposed to be written the same or that they really meant only "gestures" and not "actions"?
  22. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Exactly. Thank you. We can't just flip the "rules" because it is an IFK.
  23. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I probably should have phrased that alot better than I did but Bubba understood what I was getting at.
  24. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    Well, yes, but ... on the other hand I have to add that I disagree with this statement:
    I agree with fairplay that, as a general rule, it's the other way around.
  25. BTFOOM

    BTFOOM Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    MD, USA
    Absolutely agree 100 times out of 100. Even though the diagram is difficult to see exactly where the GK's shoulder is wrt the line, in a game, the ball hits a player and goes in completely over the goal, I would want to be absolutely sure that the GK was completely in the goal (that's where the AR comes in). I can tell you that any player will complain about giving up a goal, no matter how clearly the play was.

    One other thing to consider - if the 'unused sub' stepped onto the field (even on the line), then you could get away with YC for the act of pulling down the shorts and YC for entering field of play w/o permission == RC and see you later.

    Exactly. Again, when will would take the word of the team who was scored upon when you didn't see an infraction.

Share This Page