A&H

Buffon leaves his mark

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly if your going by the letter of the law the game could have ended 11 v 8, we as referee’s are the only people on the planet that have half an idea of how Oliver must have felt, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
 
The Referee Store
GraemeS said:
To clarify, we're talking about the players, not the groundsmen, yeah? I wasn't aware player were employed to fix damaged pitches, regardless of the cause of the damage!
Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous. In this instance, the Juventus players tried some dark arts to damage the spot so Ronaldo scuffed his penalty or slipped. It wasn't noticed or action wasn't taken. The Real players tried to mend the spot by stamping on it to firm it up/flatten it after it has been scuffed. Again, this wasn't given any consideration or thought by the refereeing team.

But.

If you are suggesting they are the same thing, well they aren't. A defending team deliberately kicking, scuffing the penalty spot should be and is a bookable offence. If you are implying that if you sanction the defending team for damaging the spot, then you have to sanction the attacking team for flattening the damaged spot down with a few stamps then that is just silly.

What's the correct call? Let me guess. Sanctioning the defending team for damaging the spot, and then calling on the groundsman from the side of the pitch to fork and mend the spot?.

Even in other scenarios, nobody might of damaged the turf, but a player putting down a freekick might just stamp on the ground a little bit next to the ball if the turf is a little bit chopped up. That's absolutely fine. Numerous players distracting the referee and purposely scuffing up the spot isn't the same thing.

I have to say, this is a very silly discussion.
 
Players aren't entitled to do whatever they like to "cancel out" opponents breaking the laws. If the referee misses player A punching player B, that doesn't mean the correct decision is to ignore it when player B punches player A back.

Trying to claim that the Juve player should be sanctioned for modifying the pitch, but that it's fine when the Real players are doing it is applying the laws selectively to meet your definition of what is "morally right", which I don't think the laws support. My initial response was facetious sure, but I genuinely don't see a LOTG-supported distinction between what the two sets of players were doing, given there's no allowance for "restoring the condition of the pitch" or anything like that. If the spot was damaged in the course of normal play, how happy would you be if you turned round after awarding a penalty and saw them gardening?

What's the correct call? As the referee, are you allow to authorise modifications of the pitch markings? I'd suggest yes, as that's essentially what the vanishing foam is. So the technically correct answer is that you sanction the Juve players, then say "yes" when the Real players ask if they can try to flatten it off again. In the absence of the "fixing" team asking permission, you can either book both, book neither, or act outside the LOTG.
 
Talked to a Blades supporter behind me today who asked me what I thought of the incident. He said he was the only bloke he knew who agreed with the penalty and red card and wondered what I though!! Thought Oliver did very well under difficult circumstances!!
 
I am going to bud in.
@GraemeS So what you are saying, is the RM players ask the referee to flatten the damage, then the referee would say yes, they go ahead and all is ok.

The point that NLR is making is that your comparison with damaging the filed, or your later one with punching the player are not correct. You are not comparing apples with apples. Because in neither of those cases if permission was asked from the referee, permission would NOT have been granted.

A better comparison (a current thread) is that if a player leaves the FOP to change their boot without permission. Would you caution them? If they asked you for permission you would have given it. The common answer to that question is, no caution.
 
Last edited:
one said:
I am going to bud in.
@GraemeS So what you are saying, is the RM players ask the referee to flatten the damage, then the referee would say yes, they go ahead and all is ok.
Click to expand...
If we agree that the referee has the right to authorise modifications to the pitch markings (which I think he does), then yes, at that point they can do what they like to the penalty mark until the ref tells them to stop.

one said:
The point that NLR is making is that your comparison with damaging the filed, or your later one with punching the player are not correct. You are not comparing apples with apples. Because in neither of those cases if permission was asked from the referee, permission would NOT have been granted.

A better comparison (a current thread) is that if a player leaves the FOP to change their boot without permission. Would you caution them? If they asked you for permission you would have given it. The common answer to that question is, no caution.
Click to expand...
And if you're sitting down and taking a LOTG exam, the answer has to be a caution.

I disagree that the law includes the concept of "oh, well you would have given permission anyway". All of the actions I list and the actions you list are illegal for a player to just do. If asked for permission, a referee might allow some of them to happen and (you would hope) would say no to others. But the distinction between those actions only applied once permission is asked for and granted - in the absence of a question and an affirmative answer, we've come up with a list between us of sanction-able actions.

So in your example as well, the correct answer in law would be to show the yellow. The choice to apply law 18/spirit of the game is yours, but that doesn't change the fact that your answer isn't technically supported by the LOTG.
 
GraemeS said:
If we agree that the referee has the right to authorise modifications to the pitch markings (which I think he does), then yes, at that point they can do what they like to the penalty mark until the ref tells them to stop.


And if you're sitting down and taking a LOTG exam, the answer has to be a caution.

I disagree that the law includes the concept of "oh, well you would have given permission anyway". All of the actions I list and the actions you list are illegal for a player to just do. If asked for permission, a referee might allow some of them to happen and (you would hope) would say no to others. But the distinction between those actions only applied once permission is asked for and granted - in the absence of a question and an affirmative answer, we've come up with a list between us of sanction-able actions.

So in your example as well, the correct answer in law would be to show the yellow. The choice to apply law 18/spirit of the game is yours, but that doesn't change the fact that your answer isn't technically supported by the LOTG.
Click to expand...

But define modifications to the pitch markings....for me, scuffing and kicking the penalty spot is a clear intention to damage the pitch and also falls under unsporting behaviour. A player stamping on the turf to level it off or flatten it a bit is normal. It's like saying if Blue team player aggressively kicks the corner flag over and you give him a yellow card, you also have to give a yellow card to the Red team player because he put the corner flag back in place. It's illogical.

By your logic, everytime a player places the ball down for a free-kick and stamps the ground a little bit to the side of the ball, it should be a caution. You have to use common sense, and I'd question any assessor (or LOTG exam or whatever) to say otherwise. You deal with the players scuffing the PK spot. The PK taker doesn't need to ask permission to correct it as long as it's reasonable. This isn't kindergarten.

If the spot was damaged in the course of normal play, how happy would you be if you turned round after awarding a penalty and saw them gardening?
Click to expand...

It would be absolutely fine. It happens all the time. We aren't talking about a player pulling out a shovel and some compost from his socks, but a little stamp to the side of the ball or in this case the spot. The correction doesn't even fall under modifying pitch markings for me, it's just normal and a player wouldn't even need to ask me in this instance.
 
Last edited:
NorthLondonRef said:
But define modifications to the pitch markings....for me, scuffing and kicking the penalty spot is a clear intention to damage the pitch and also falls under unsporting behaviour. A player stamping on the turf to level it off or flatten it a bit is normal.

By your logic, everytime a player places the ball down for a free-kick and stamps the ground a little bit to the side of the ball, it should be a caution. You have to use common sense, and I'd question any assessor (or LOTG exam or whatever) to say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Unsporting behaviour because it's designed to distract/unsettle the PK taker I can buy. But that's not the same thing as whipping out a card because of markings on the pitch being modified.

You're the one telling me that one team deliberately kicking the pitch in a certain manner is illegal, while the other team deliberately kicking the pitch in another manner is fine. I might well be mistaken, but I can't remember a paragraph in the LOTG that specifies an exception to the modifying pitch markings rule if the opponents did it first?

I go back to the question about what you do if you award a penalty and then see a player from the kicker's team trying to "fix" a penalty mark that had been damaged in the course of play without asking the ref? That's almost certainly illegal surely? So what law (<18) suddenly makes it OK just because the damage was intentional rather than incidental?
 
GraemeS said:
Unsporting behaviour because it's designed to distract/unsettle the PK taker I can buy. But that's not the same thing as whipping out a card because of markings on the pitch being modified.

You're the one telling me that one team deliberately kicking the pitch in a certain manner is illegal, while the other team deliberately kicking the pitch in another manner is fine. I might well be mistaken, but I can't remember a paragraph in the LOTG that specifies an exception to the modifying pitch markings rule if the opponents did it first?

I go back to the question about what you do if you award a penalty and then see a player from the kicker's team trying to "fix" a penalty mark that had been damaged in the course of play without asking the ref? That's almost certainly illegal surely? So what law (<18) suddenly makes it OK just because the damage was intentional rather than incidental?
Click to expand...

Forget it. You are obsessing over LOTG and not using common sense. So unsporting behaviour to distract/unsettle the PK taker but digging up the spot to make him slip over or alter the way he strikes the ball is not included in that?. Do you think they are kicking and scuffing the pitch to just "alter the markings"? They aren't even trying to alter the markings or modify the markings....they are damaging the turf deliberately to try and gain an advantage. The attacking player stamping on the turf a little bit to flatten it back out is so far removed from this.

Yes. I am telling you that the defending team kicking and damaging the PK spot is illegal. The attacking team "mending" the pitch is fine. It's fine with you as well as long as they ask your permission which is what this actually comes down to. In this instance, I'd employ common sense.

And your last question. Again, that is normal and fine. It happens on a number of penalty shoot outs when the pitch has been cut up after extra time. Like I said, with that logic, everytime a corner kick taker or freekick taker plants their foot next to the ball before their run up to firm up the ground to avoid slipping etc it's a caution unless they ask. But that's fine because I doubt you caution a player everytime they do this because it happens all the time......but to then caution the attacking team doing this because the defending team damaged the spot and because you've cautioned the defending team you have to caution the attacking team is nonsense.

I've been in football a long time, but this is one of the most mystifying discussions I've ever had.
 
Last edited:
It mystified m e that we have 113 posts on six pages on this......go on count them if you don't believe me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top