No, i wouldn't. What a strange thing to say.
The caution was for the keeper doing a dance (taking the p) combined with the sarcastic comment and tone.
Junior/Youth Goalkeeper dancing with the ball at his feet!
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
- Status
The caution was for the keeper doing a dance (taking the p) combined with the sarcastic comment and tone.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
No, I know you wouldn't. But when you're saying that if an action prompts a cautionable response, then the action itself must be cautionable that is what you're saying 
Monotone Whistle
Well-Known Member
This thread is comedy gold.....
A wise man once said, when you hold an opinion yet everyone else tells you that you are wrong, you probably are.
Move on OP, the dozens of experienced refs, tutors and observers on here (most of whom know what they are talking about
) are telling you that you are wrong. Accept that you are and keep the "feeling sorry for the player" attitude for after the final whistle.
A wise man once said, when you hold an opinion yet everyone else tells you that you are wrong, you probably are.
Move on OP, the dozens of experienced refs, tutors and observers on here (most of whom know what they are talking about
) are telling you that you are wrong. Accept that you are and keep the "feeling sorry for the player" attitude for after the final whistle.CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
But your reasoning is a bit of a concern here - your argument that 'if somebody retaliates, then I'll caution the first player'. You're stating that you're letting the players determine whether you're going to card their opponents.
If a Blue player commits a foul, but then the Red player gets in his face and pushes him needing a caution, are you then going to caution the Blue player?
If a Blue player commits a foul, but then the Red player gets in his face and pushes him needing a caution, are you then going to caution the Blue player?
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If the only reason for it is that you judged the keeper had done something worth cautioning for, then fine. But your earlier posts carried the clear implication that you would caution the keeper because it would be unfair not to do so, if you were going to caution for the retaliation.
For me, if what the keeper had done wasn't worth a caution in its own right, it shouldn't become cautionable in retrospect merely because an opponent reacted badly to it.
Yes, that's what i am saying.No, I know you wouldn't. But when you're saying that if an action prompts a cautionable response, then the action itself must be cautionable that is what you're saying
I am saying it is wrong for a referee to not caution the keeper IF you are going to caution a player for later retribution. If you let the keeper off is it fair to let the second offender off? That's why i always try and be consistent in any one game.
No, i am not going to caution the blue player if the foul was not worth a caution.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
How is it fair to punish the keeper for the actions of another player?
You're having the players tell you what is cautionable. You're cautioning the keeper based on the decisions of the opponents!!
How is it fair that you've cautioned the keeper for something the opponents did?
Also, I don't think you know what 'consistent' means. 'Consistent' doesn't mean that if you card one player, you also need to card everybody else around him. Consistent means that your decisions are roughly the same for equivalent instances.
In fact, your approach is highly inconsistent. Because what you're saying is that if the red keeper dances over the ball and there's no reaction you'll let it go, but if the blue keeper dances over the ball and is pushed, you'll caution him for being pushed (as well as the attacker who pushed him).
You just said that's not what you're saying. Now it is what you're saying.
So, I'm presuming that every single time a player pushed an opponent who fouled him - or perhaps didn't even foul him - you're cautioning the first player for being pushed?
I wasn't aware that 'being the target of an action' was a cautionable offence.
The keeper is getting a caution regardless of the reaction. In this scenario i was saying if the attacker took retribution at a later point.
If the retribution happens at the same time it's a caution for the keepr and a yellow/red for the attacker dependent on how strong the retribution is.
If there's no reaction to the keeper he was/is still getting a caution.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Paul March
Well-Known Member
Would you book a player who said 'nuts' when he or one of his team mates completed a nutmeg?
This is boring now.- Status