City Vs The Champions then
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
I think that's a fair outlook for juniour and grassroots.
But, as you move up through the refereeing pyramid, which I expect you will if u want to, the expectations are very different. There is an element of risk to playing football and even the fairest of challenges can threaten injury.
It isn't for us to decide what was the best method to play the ball, we are refs, they are the footballers, that is the coaches job. You must decide did the player threaten injury to anyone. Was there a real threat of injury, not, well he could have played thst with his foot, so I am saying it's dangerous. For a threat of injury, generally the action must come close to potentially injuring somebody. A good example is a high boot. A high boot with no one around, is not dangerous, nobody was threatened with injury. As players come in closer proximity the danger levels increase along with the threat of injury to someone.
In your example, was mane ever threatened with injury? From what you have described it doesn't sound like he was..
Fair enough. Never seen a situation where I felt I'd need to do that!
I've done it where the action threatened injury to someone or themselves. You can't just penalise someone for heading a low ball. There has to be a threat of injury present.
Of course......
Sorry, I missed this post yesterday. I raised questions in the other thread about the "clarifications" to the changed wording, and I'm not sure where your interpretation comes from. I could understand your reasoning from "immediately" in the new wording, but the clarification seems to complicate that.
• if an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a handball offence;
• it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity."
I'll repeat the questions (I don't think anyone attempted an answer...)
Dribble? What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
Immediately? How long is that?
How far is some distance?
How many is several?
and/or? Seriously? It can't be both.
So far as I can see, the wording could have been written by someone meaning one thing, and the clarification by someone meaning something different.
It's just odd to leave the law like that - it's an inbuilt "last week's ref" scenario. "Last week's ref allowed a goal like that as there were two passes." "I'm disallowing it this week as I don't think two passes count as 'several'". Is 18 yards away enough for "some distance"? How much closer to goal would Mahrez / Kane have to be before they were near enough to be too close to score after an accidental handball?
It certainly shouldn't be an "IMO" for VAR - or it will just be a national TV version of "last week's ref". (Bear in mind how long it took PGMOL this season to work out that one of their colleagues could make any mistake!)
If you're okay with the phrase ITOOTR existing, your objection is already irrelevant.
If you're not okay with it, you have far bigger problems than whether two passes counts as several.
The laws are more than twice as long as they used to be. The main reason for that is to reduce the referee's discretion and increase consistency. So is VAR (even when it mandates consistently stupid decisions like the disallowed goals this week). The opinion of the referee counts for far less than it did. Except when IFAB clarifies something and it becomes less clear.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
i posted on here about three years ago, that the days of the onfield referee, but certainly the ARs, are numbered
Understandably this was met with derision.
I had no time scale for my prediction, merely that, it would happen
I still of course cannot have an accurate time scale, but am willing to guess one
5 year, AR, gone
10 year, on field referee, gone
As you say, the opinion of the referee means nothing, if the opinion of the VAR means more....
I can't see our league having the technology for that, unless they can put a camera in the tree that overhangs the touchline at one pitch, or they can rig up a loudspeaker that yells "Get off my line!" to stray spectators at regular intervals.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
ok, to clarify.....at top level...
at our level we celebrate if we have a suitable ball, nevermind anything else
Rugby has used TMO for close to (or more than) two decades.
Hockey has had it for one and a half decades.
The roles of the on-field officials has only been strengthened in both sports.
Talking as if VAR will replace referees at all, let alone in ten years, is on par with Chicken Little's breaking news.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
If thermonuclear war were sharp on the horizon, that might be a legitimate point, but unless you expect the total collapse of civilization to the point football never occurs again, seems more like an avoidance of acknowledging the total groundlessness of the prediction.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
It wouldn't matter if a thousand referees died right now, there are still thousands of others who would live. So, again, unless you are seriously expecting the majority of football to be forever lost, making nonsense predictions and then hiding behind "nobody really knows the future" is very small beer indeed.