MLS incident

[zarathustra]

1. In the above clip there is a definite hand on the shoulder, and it looks like the defender has also grabbed a handful of shirt, but it's difficult to say for sure. We also don't know whether the assistant is speaking with the ref to say whether it is or isn't a penalty. Personally I'm happy with the call.

2. Why are people getting hung up on "unauthorised" hand signals. Yes, on the local park a loud firm "No!" Will suffice, in a stadium with a large crowd people other than players who are close by aren't going to hear this, so a clear hand signal shows you've seen it and aren't giving anything.

 

[ref craig]

Right the cutting grass signal and a big no will surface whether or not you are local park or not I can see why the referee has given it and being any other most referees might

 

[santa sangria]

There is no such thing as unauthorised signal.
The LOTG prescribes what signals you MUST make in certain scenarios.
Where does it say the referee must use no other signals to convey messages regarding their decisions? Simple answer is it doesnt.
If we go by your "unauthorised" signals then there is an endless list of things all referees are doing wrong, routinely.
Thumbs up between ref and ar at goal kicks. Thumbs up at start of halves to confirm keeper ready. Gesturing to a player to come to you. Whilst the laws don't prescribe set signals for these scenarios they also dont prohibit any other signals being used by the referee.

Well, the laws state: "Body language is not an explanation of a decision." ...but I, and I think every other referee, accepts that, even though this hints that are a limited set of signals we should use, common practice is to us various signals to explain decisions...

 

[Ciley Myrus]

So who regulates and selects whether a cutting of grass signal can be accepted but a pointing at the ball to indicate the ball has been won fairly?
You cant pick and choose, the referee LOTG are universal, not, for the moment anyway, variable depending on whether its Utd V City live on Sky or Drunken Horse v Old Vic Reds? For me, not awarding the pen is explination that I am not giving a pen.
There is a danger also, that, you are 50 yards from play and give this signal because you are not giving a pen. In reality, does this mean, sorry guys I was so far away that even though if might be a pen, I cant justify giving it!
Anyway, whatever works for folk, fine. In 26 years I have managed not to cut grass at a non pen call, so I should be able to manage another 20 without it too
To this day, I cant recall any isues caused by its non use,
I rather that than signalling to say no pen, which am getting the message means, seen it but not giving it. Least without such signal you can stil be honest later nd say, was at a bad angle and did not get a gd look at it, or so on. I personally would not like to be seen on camera waving away the clearest pen of all time!
But whatever works i guess

 

[RustyRef]

Never a penalty for me.

In terms of signals, there is no such thing as an unauthorised signal. There are signals as prescribed in the LOTG which must be used, but that doesn't mean that others cannot be used. I know that some associations / observers say don't cut the grass, but some of those say put your hands behind your back instead, and that is still a signal that isn't in the laws of the game. Assistants and referees using low down hand and flag movement to make sure they don't cross is a signal, albeit a discreet one, and that is encouraged in almost all associations.

The reason they say don't point at the ball any more to indicate a fair challenge is obvious. 20 years ago you could win the ball even if doing so broke the other player's leg in the process, but these days winning the ball doesn't mean it isn't a foul, so pointing at the ball is a totally pointless motion that sends out the wrong message.

 

[ref craig]

I've always cut the grass as I got used to knowing the term and shouted no I think if I was to move from that I would not know how to change it

 

[Murri O]

The defender's hand over the shoulder of the attacker makes it a giveable penalty... but a very harsh penalty.
If the defender doesn't want to give away a penalty he shouldn't grab over the shoulder of the attacker with no attempt to play the ball...

Agree with this. Probably not enough contact to drag him down but the dope gave the ref the opportunity to give it by putting his hand on the attacker's shoulder and he complied. Why would you do that I don't know.

No hand on the shoulder - no pen.