Ref Today
Make no bones about it, the referee was generally terrible today. However, the laws of the game state that if the offense warrants an expulsion the referee must stop play and send the player off unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score a goal. They then say that if the offense warrants a caution (no mention of expulsion) it must be given at the next stoppage.
As Hume had a clear opportunity to score and the punishment would have been a red card, the referee was right on that occasion - the better opportunity to score was Hume's rather than a free kick and once Hume had missed it he couldn't bring play back.
As Hume had a clear opportunity to score and the punishment would have been a red card, the referee was right on that occasion - the better opportunity to score was Hume's rather than a free kick and once Hume had missed it he couldn't bring play back.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 39,310
Advantage or not... their guy had already been booked.
He should have gone back and given him a second yellow card.
If you, wld, are suggesting that he was not allowed, on the grounds that the fouls was so bad (or so "professional") - that simply HAS to be a wrong interpretation of the rules.
He should have been off. End of.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,098
At this stage it might be useful if every one know what the guidelines referees say about the advantage rule:
The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.
The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:
• the severity of the offence: if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the
referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a subsequent
opportunity to score a goal
• the position where the offence was committed: the closer to the
opponent’s goal, the more effective it can be
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack
• the atmosphere of the match
The decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few seconds.
If the offence warrants a caution, it must be issued at the next stoppage. However, unless there is a clear advantage, it is recommended that the referee stops play and cautions the player immediately. If the caution is NOT issued at the next stoppage, it cannot be shown later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my view, after reading this, he played the advantage rule correctly, but should have sent the player off at the next stoppage of play.
The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.
The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to apply the advantage or stop play:
• the severity of the offence: if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the
referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a subsequent
opportunity to score a goal
• the position where the offence was committed: the closer to the
opponent’s goal, the more effective it can be
• the chances of an immediate, promising attack
• the atmosphere of the match
The decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few seconds.
If the offence warrants a caution, it must be issued at the next stoppage. However, unless there is a clear advantage, it is recommended that the referee stops play and cautions the player immediately. If the caution is NOT issued at the next stoppage, it cannot be shown later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In my view, after reading this, he played the advantage rule correctly, but should have sent the player off at the next stoppage of play.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,703
Considering the ref gave them an advantage in the first half and after a few seconds it came to nothing and he pulled the game back and awarded them a free kick from about 20 yards which they then smashed over the bar.
If he plays it for one team he has to play it for both.
The law might be an ass but he applied that law correctly - end of. The only possible punishment for the foul would have been a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. However, he correctly played advantage, he correctly didn't bring it back once Hume missed and he correctly didn't send their player off -in effect, he hadn't denied a clear goalscoring opportunity because we still had one.
And the paragraph quoted by RallyMonkey relates to cautions not red cards
Let me take you back to a PNE v Wigwam game many moons ago.
Wigwan player goes clean thro on 'town end'.....I think it was Lucas brings him down...play spills to Wigwam player Barlow(I think) who has an open goal....ref waves advantage.....he shoots....puts it wide...the ref then pulls play back, sends Lucas off and awards a penalty to Wigwam. They score.
Hardly the same rules applied.
That same incident crossed my mind too and decided either the law has changed or some referees are shit and don't always apply the laws correctly. Decide for yourself which of the two it is!
Why did a right said fred tribute band officiate the game today?
I thought the first penalty should have been an offside decision against the attacker. I thought he was right to pull back play and give Carlisle the free kick, as it was clear no advantage was gained. We failed to capitalise on the advantage and that was our own fault, but he should have produced a card. The injury was strange, I thought he signalled a throw in and then gave a free kick and a yellow card because of the injury.
The linesman on the Finney side didn't understand the offside rule and their number 14, kept on challenging from an offside position from their keepers goal kicks. Another thing that grated on me was how anal he was about the position we took free kicks from but let Carlisle take theirs from wherever they liked.
I think it's about time that the league released referees assessor reports to the fans, I would be intrigued to see how my biased opinion matched that of a neutral assessor.
I thought the first penalty should have been an offside decision against the attacker. I thought he was right to pull back play and give Carlisle the free kick, as it was clear no advantage was gained. We failed to capitalise on the advantage and that was our own fault, but he should have produced a card. The injury was strange, I thought he signalled a throw in and then gave a free kick and a yellow card because of the injury.
The linesman on the Finney side didn't understand the offside rule and their number 14, kept on challenging from an offside position from their keepers goal kicks. Another thing that grated on me was how anal he was about the position we took free kicks from but let Carlisle take theirs from wherever they liked.
I think it's about time that the league released referees assessor reports to the fans, I would be intrigued to see how my biased opinion matched that of a neutral assessor.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 1,098
The section I quoted is the whole of the guidance to referees on the advantage rule. It does leave a lot of room for interpretation. My point is that we need to refer back to the rule, rather than some incident at a another game.The rule is very poorly written, hence the inconsistency.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 56
You can't be offside from a goal kick.
I didn't know that, I thought it was only throw-ins you couldn't be offside from. Learn something new everyday.
Only if you are in your own half of the pitch when the gk kicks the ball, otherwise you can.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 56
Not true mate. You can't be offside from a gk at all.
Exactamundo.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 39,310
I know that, on a technicality, you could twist it to argue your case. But I simply don't believe that he has applied the law correctly. I'd bet a lot of money that today's ref just bottled it, and your (IMO 'convoluted') interpretation of the rule never crossed his mind.
RallyMonkey correctly quotes the laws of the game (which should be MUCH better written).
They clearly do NOT forbid you from going back and booking a player after he has committed a red card offence. And this exactly what he should have done.
It says that, if he's going to send him off, he should stop play immediately (unless there is a subsequent opportunity to score). It does not explicitly say whether you can, or cannot, send him off at the next stoppage which is very ambiguous.
But it clearly says that if the offence warrants a caution, you can go back and give him a caution at the next stoppage in play.
Today's offence warranted a caution - indeed it warranted more.
In the absence of a very clear instruction from FIFA.... and that a ref should always apply common sense... I believe that today's ref, and all refs would, in the calmness of watching on TV (ie not prone to bottling it), would say that their player should have received a 2nd yellow today.
I'd be interested if you have seen any evidence that referees actually interpret the rule in the way that you do.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,610
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,482
Carlisle's penalty was bang on. Obvious two handed push in the box. Too obvious for any ref to miss. Betting slip obvious. I honestly thought that there had been an infringement already as no central defender is stupid enough to do that- how wrong was I?
As for the advantage thing. I agree with most. Ref played advantage then pulled it back for them - It isn't rugby is it?
Ref then remembered the laws of the game when Barton (YES, BARTON) put Hume through, was clobbered and then Hume fucked up.
I remember the Wigan win at Deepdale all those years ago and I can't remember the ref playing advantage. He kind of took his time, waited for the miss then gave the pen and sending off (from memory).
As for the advantage thing. I agree with most. Ref played advantage then pulled it back for them - It isn't rugby is it?
Ref then remembered the laws of the game when Barton (YES, BARTON) put Hume through, was clobbered and then Hume fucked up.
I remember the Wigan win at Deepdale all those years ago and I can't remember the ref playing advantage. He kind of took his time, waited for the miss then gave the pen and sending off (from memory).
That actually happened?
Absolutely dreadful officiating.