I was watching an isthmian game earlier and there was an offside which was given and that player passed it and then the other player shot over the bar. No caution and not even a word. Are we still clamping down on kicking the ball away, etc ?
What was the circumstances of the game. Was it impactful?I was watching an isthmian game earlier and there was an offside which was given and that player passed it and then the other player shot over the bar. No caution and not even a word. Are we still clamping down on kicking the ball away, etc ?
Did it delay the restart?What was the circumstances of the game. Was it impactful?
Did it delay the restart?
Your last two or three lines include the reason I asked my question, James . . .That isn't really to do with the clampdown though.
"Football stakeholders are aligned in their views in wanting referees to take strong actions against players where we deduce their actions are clear, deliberate and impactful on delaying the restart of the game and wasting time for tactical advantage"
Which is why I asked about the impact and circumstances... There are still scenarios where this doesn't have to be a caution because the game does not need/want it.
If this happens at minute 95, and the game is dead in the water, then no one really cares about that, nor does it demand strong actions.
The answer to the OP is yes we should still be clamping down on this behaviour when "their actions are clear, deliberate and impactful on delaying the restart of the game and wasting time for tactical advantage"
We were sent an email from Dan Meeson, copied relevant extract from above, this was a top down clampdown as far as I am aware.The "clampdown" only applied to games appointed to by PGMOL, so not the Isthmian League.
In my opinion it was. The home team were loosing by one goal and chasing the game. It just felt like it should have been a yellow.What was the circumstances of the game. Was it impactful?
I thought it was for everyone. (Expect some things like the 30 seconds thing) I thought dissent, kicking the ball away, etc were being clamped down onThe "clampdown" only applied to games appointed to by PGMOL, so not the Isthmian League.
Sent to all officials or just ones at specific levels? I don't recall seeing anything.We were sent an email from Dan Meeson, copied relevant extract from above, this was a top down clampdown as far as I am aware.
There were some bits that were PGMOL specific like the 30 seconds before a player could return but we should be taking a stricter approach to DRPs
Absolutely right Mr JamesWe were sent an email from Dan Meeson, copied relevant extract from above, this was a top down clampdown as far as I am aware.
There were some bits that were PGMOL specific like the 30 seconds before a player could return but we should be taking a stricter approach to DRPs
I'm not active as an observer at supply league at the moment, just doing grass roots.Absolutely right Mr James
Level 4's were told via email to focus on C4/C5's. Worrying that an Observer does not know this, but quite common in my experience for refs and observers to be on a different page. Twice from my seven observations have I come across an observer not aware of the specific guidance we get
OK, I thought you were still active at Supply League Level. Apologies. Even so, annoying they don't send this to everyone in the gameI'm not active as an observer at supply league at the moment, just doing grass roots.
This guidance was sent to all Observers who operate with Level 2/3/4 referees, although not always the case. Communication is improving.Absolutely right Mr James
Level 4's were told via email to focus on C4/C5's. Worrying that communications dont reach everyones, but quite common in my experience for refs and observers to be on a different page. Twice from my seven observations have I come across an observer not aware of the specific guidance we get
We are at a point in time in the game where everybody is aligned with their view that it is no longer acceptable to accept the unacceptable
What sort of gibberish is this?