The Ref Stop

Wolves v Citee

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ref Stop
Unless it’s a deliberate act.....you have no basis on which to disallow the goal.

Balls going wide of the goal, hits the referee and goes in.......goal or not?

GOAL you know that.

What decision do you think would cause more grief (i know that doesnt matter when making a decision)

Allowing the goal or disallowing it ?
 
LAW 18 COMMON SENSE

Cant score a goal with your hands.
That's not common sense. It's a common belief and a commonly-expressed sentiment but it's not the law - any more. It used to be true, but that part of the law was changed in 1974.

Prior to that, the law said that a goal could not be scored if it had been:
thrown, carried or propelled by hand or arm, by a player of the attacking side, except in the case of a goalkeeper, who is within his own penalty−area.

However the law was changed in 1974 by the addition of the word "intentionally" before "propelled." Obviously, this now meant that a goal could be scored if the hand or arm contact was not intentional. This has remained the meaning of the law ever since.

It is no longer explicitly stated but the law now says that a goal is scored when the ball crosses the goal line inside the goal frame and no offence was committed by the attacking side. Since the law also says that it is only an offence to handle the ball deliberately, that still means that if a non-deliberate handball results in the ball entering the net, a goal is scored.

Edit: I see @Alex Rush-Fear beat me to it on that last part.
 
GOAL you know that.

What decision do you think would cause more grief (i know that doesnt matter when making a decision)

Allowing the goal or disallowing it ?

But the sentiment of ‘fair play’ is exactly the same......a non deliberate act results in a perceived ‘unfair’ outcome.....yet you only want to penalise one of them?

Both fall under the ‘**** happens’ part of football. It’s not our job as referees to invent interpretations of the LOTG just because it cause us less ‘grief’.

Be interested to see what Dermott Gallagher says on ref watch at 11.

No. It really won’t be. Remember he is playing to an audience.
 
Sorry, i thought a forum was where people gave their views and opinions.
You're asking a question which, by your own admittance, is redundant. It's irrelevant which decision "would cause more grief", as it has no bearing on the decision. As a referee, you make your decision based on whether you believe it's correct or not, not the consequences.
 
Be interested to see what Dermott Gallagher says on ref watch at 11.


But you have made your own mind up already, correctly, by saying the suspected infringment was not deliberate. Having judged it as so, the only correct course of action is to allow the goal. Dont need anybodys elses take on it, you have weighed it up yourself!
 
You're asking a question which, by your own admittance, is redundant. It's irrelevant which decision "would cause more grief", as it has no bearing on the decision. As a referee, you make your decision based on whether you believe it's correct or not, not the consequences.
Precisely..

Correct me if I am wrong but one of the criterias in the observation handbooks is "not afraid to make unpopular decisions" or something similar.

Falls exactly into that bracket.
 
Precisely..

Correct me if I am wrong but one of the criterias in the observation handbooks is "not afraid to make unpopular decisions" or something similar.

Falls exactly into that bracket.
I made many of those decisions.... £?@k em!
 
No way (for me) did he deliberately handle the ball no way BUT if i spot that im giving hand ball and disallowing the goal.

Hand on heart how many hand balls are given in a game when you actually believe that a player meant/tried to handle it.

I gave one on Saturday, player has the ball and it bounces up awkwardly, he never meant to handle it but it was still hand ball.
Aaarrrggghhhhh! Wrong wrong wrong wrong......
 
Has DH Just gave perfectly good reason why it shouldn’t be allowed ?

  • any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
 
  • any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.


Can you elaborate please, what does this have to do with a potential hand ball offence?
 
The law on offside mentions you can be off side when parts of your body allowed to score a goal is nearer to opponents goal, it doesn’t count the hand as it a part of body you can’t score with.

Probably not worded right but hopefully makes sense.
 
He says.

You could argue it is within the laws of the game because in the offside law, it shows a diagram of a player level with another player and his arm is ahead. It says you can't give offside because you can only give it as offside if he can score with that part of the body. So that infers that you cannot score with your hand.
 
He says.

You could argue it is within the laws of the game because in the offside law, it shows a diagram of a player level with another player and his arm is ahead. It says you can't give offside because you can only give it as offside if he can score with that part of the body. So that infers that you cannot score with your hand.

Seriously. Stop digging.

You’re beginning to look a little silly now.
 
The guidance is very simple and very clear.

It’s only referees that make it complicated by trying to find interpretations that aren’t there in order to give decisions that make players happy rather than the correct decisions.

I certainly don't use anything to appease players. I don't give many handballs as rarely does anyone deliberately handle the ball during a game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top