The Referee's A ...

[Withnail]

As much as Admin has thus far been rather antipathetic to generic threads - i wonder whether we might be given leave to discuss the black arts in a non-specific way...

...specifically - this evening at least - the indirect free kick awarded by everyone's favourite yellow-card wielder, Howard Webb.

It is quite difficult to quite so gast someone's flabber in the beautiful game - after all it is quite unusual to see something you've never seen before - but flabbergasted i nonetheless was with that particular decision.

I would be interested what others think about this, so i'll stake my own position, on the basis of a 'you are the ref'* scenario -

a) was it a back pass?

it may or may not have been - tricky one - i'll award an indirect free kick on the basis that it may well have been

b) the opposition want to take it quickly, but the defensive goalkeeper is out of his goal and remonstrating with me

the goalkeeper has a point, it's a close call - given i'm not going to change my decision, the very least i can do is to give the defending side the opportunity to defend, by not giving assent to the offensive side

c) wait until both defence and offence are ready to recommence play - blow whistle...

I genuinely cannot believe the man in black allowed play to progress in the way he did.

And it proper p***ed me orf.

Anyhow... please feel free to condemn/defend Our Man In Black - and use this occasional column for the venting of referee-based spleen 'down the line' (assuming Admin approval).


* for those unfamiliar with the bleeding-heart-pinko-commie paper that is the Grauniad You are the Ref is a long-running feature of the bleeding-heart-etc paper

*** iss

 

[Admin]

As much as Admin has thus far been rather antipathetic to generic threads - i wonder whether we might be given leave to discuss the black arts in a non-specific way...

I have to admit, I am not entirely sure what the majority of your posts means (which I'll put down to midnight-posting ), but if I am understanding correctly this is a thread for discussion of poor decisions by football referees? If so, I wouldn't consider that 'generic' and I am sure it will attract some lively responses!

It's just things like "The news headline thread", "The film megathread", etc. which I would discourage, as in my opinion each headline/film/article/etc. is worthy of its own thread, to encourage discussion on that specific subject.

To wit: carry on!

 

[Gramaisc]

One has to wonder how long it will be before officials, and others, in various sports (i.e. 'businesses') are sharing accomodation with certain cricketers?

 

[Withnail]

... if I am understanding correctly this is a thread for discussion of poor decisions by football referees?

You are...

If so, I wouldn't consider that 'generic' and I am sure it will attract some lively responses!

You would think...

 

[gilbert grape]

Ref at the Chester v Stafford game -
Did......give Chester a penalty when it wasn't one and turned the game.
Didn't.....give Stafford a penalty which was in most people's eyes and would've got us back into it.

A club at our level can depend on such decisions for improving our finance and profile, that could turn us round. A club in the Premiership can lose £500k on a league place due to a crap decision!

 

[Withnail]

On a side note - anyone else notice Sian Massey demonstrating women's inability to understand the off-side rule by, err, correctly flagging Kuyt for being off-side and disallowing a potential winning goal?

What is Andy Gray up to these days?

 

[speak65]

On a side note - anyone else notice Sian Massey demonstrating women's inability to understand the off-side rule by, err, correctly flagging Kuyt for being off-side and disallowing a potential winning goal?

What is Andy Gray up to these days?

Oyyyyyyy!!!
Women can and do understand the offside rule - well this one does - so along with Sian Massey that makes two of us, so point proved.

Na na na na na

 

[Mikinton]

Returning to the OP, whilst at the time I thought that it seemed a bit unfair, I can't actually see that anyone's done anything wrong. Aren't refs under instruction to keep the game moving?

I guess I would say this anyway (see my posts on the photography thread), but, like in American Football, maybe the procedure should be for the ball to be returned to the referee for him to place at the spot of the infringement ..... and for no-one then to touch it until the free-kick is taken.

 

[Jonah]

Webb decided it was a back pass. Personally I thought it was a bit of a harsh decision as the ball appeared to come off the Stoke player's shin and travelled in a different direction to what appeared to be intended. But as the decision was given, Webb had his arm in the air indicating that it was an indirect free kick and it could be taken at any time BEFORE the Bolton player had kicked the ball. Therefore he was correct in letting the play continue and correct in allowing the goal.

Once the referee has indicated play can continue, whether that is by blowing the whistle or other indication (such as the raised arm) then the team who have been awarded the free kick can take it when they are ready. If the opposition aren't ready then that's their hard luck.

If the referee deems the free kick should be a "ceremonial" free kick (i.e. most likely with a defensive wall) then he will convey this to the team awarded the free kick that it should not be taken until he had indicated so (in this case it is usually by blowing the whistle).

Webb was correct in the actions he took after awarding the indirect free kick but it is whether or not it was a back pass where opinion differs. But it must have been a back pass as all decisions taken by the referee on a football field are taken "in his/her opinion" so are always correct.... except when they aren't

Actually referees are NEVER wrong, just less right on occasions!

 

[Withnail]

Aren't refs under instruction to keep the game moving?

It's a fair point - but in this instance i felt that he clearly gave one team an unfair advantage over another. I don't think the referee need place the ball personally, as they can and do get players to move the ball if they feel it has not been placed correctly. They also determine whether the free-kick can be taken quickly or not - to allow it when the keeper isn't between the posts seems harsh in the extreme to me.

 

[Jonah]

It was the goalkeeper's fault that he wasn't between the posts as he was too busy moaning about the decision.

Goalkeeper's should be cautious about picking any ball up if it comes off the legs of their own players. The Stoke keeper should have thought about that. He had the time to control and clear the ball without using his hands.

 

[Withnail]

Webb decided it was a back pass...

Once the referee has indicated play can continue, whether that is by blowing the whistle or other indication (such as the raised arm) then the team who have been awarded the free kick can take it when they are ready. If the opposition aren't ready then that's their hard luck.

Now there's the rub...

As far as i'm concerned this is where the referee has interjected his own idea of who and what he is in the game.

A reasonable man may well have decided it was (or was it? i'm not 100% sure) a back pass and awarded a free kick. A reasonable man may well have been aware that this was not going to go down well, so would expect to have a bit of fall out. A reasonable man would accept that a judgement call that could have gone either way deserves to be adjudicated in a balanced way - a way that still gives the upper hand to the attacking side by allowing both teams to prepare for a free kick in the defensive side's area.

I don't think Mr. Webb acted reasonably in the circumstances, though, as you most persuasively point out, he did act quite legally.

I look forward to more of the same as the season progresses.

 

[Withnail]

Oyyyyyyy!!!

Oy was bein

Sar
Car
Stick

 

[Withnail]

Blackburn's second was interesting.

Uncontroversially ridonkulous, but interesting nonetheless - but how?

How is this possible?

 

[gilbert grape]

Blackburn's second was interesting.

Uncontroversially ridonkulous, but interesting nonetheless - but how?

How is this possible?

seems that people actually saw things that didnt actually happen! Jumpers for goalposts? Mmmm, interesting angles....frustrated Manager crying like a girl.....not happy eth eth ethetheth!

 

[Jonah]

Just seen it and the referee got it completely wrong. The Blackburn player didn't even touch the ball with his feet before Pedersen dribbled it into the box.

The incident is from 2 minutes 59 seconds into the video.

http://footyroom.com/wigan-athletic-3-3-blackburn-rovers-2011-11/

 

[Withnail]

I was discussing this earlier with a friend of mine who was convinced that, whether the player touched the ball or not, the ball wasn't in play as it had not crossed the corner arc.

I have since discovered this is not the case (as well as the fact that it is called the 'corner arc')

The ball shall be placed inside the corner arc and is in play when it is kicked, therefore the ball does not need to leave the corner arc to be in play.

Cue a lot of training ground shenanigans...

 

[Mikinton]

I was discussing this earlier with a friend of mine who was convinced that, whether the player touched the ball or not, the ball wasn't in play as it had not crossed the corner arc.

I have since discovered this is not the case (as well as the fact that it is called the 'corner arc')

The ball shall be placed inside the corner arc and is in play when it is kicked, therefore the ball does not need to leave the corner arc to be in play.

Cue a lot of training ground shenanigans...

I don't know if it's defined exactly what constitutes a kick, but I can remember back in the '70s (and I'm showing my age here) Coventry's goal by Ernie Hunt and Willie Carr was eventually ruled an illegal way to take a free kick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjq2xT-tx38

 

[Withnail]

On the one boot, that would seem fair enough - if we agree that a 'kick' comes from one foot alone. Two footed challenges for the ball have been outlawed after all.

On the other boot, that would suggest that any incidence of the ball touching both feet simultaneously must be similarly adjudged as not a kick, and if not legal, be treated in the same way as handball perhaps?

Enforcement might be an issue

 

[John Marwood]

Working Time Directive means injury time will be restricted to four minutes in each half except for Sunday games which is double time