A&H

Never given one of those before...

The Referee Store
Brian Hamilton said:
Corner kick because you couldn't call that a deliberate action. It may have been an intended deliberate action but the outcome was not as intended
Click to expand...
The outcome is irrelevant. Was it a deliberate kick? Was the keeper the intended target?
IFK. As Goldfish said, the fact that the keeper muffed the kick doesn't matter. And that goes both ways - if it looks like he intended to kick it out and it skimmed off the side of his foot and went to the keeper, that's not an IFK.
Of course, if you have any doubt over whether he was trying to kick it to the keeper or out, then you'd give him the benefit of the doubt - and that may be reasonable in this case. But a poorly made kick is not relevant.
 
DanCohen17 said:
Question for you, and all;
Defended attempts to play a pass to keeper, but chips it too high (think Dixon if you remember it) and it's going over the keeper's head and in the goal. With an acrobatic backwards dive, he tips it over the bar for a corner. Defender apologises, everyone laughs, attacking team set up for a corner and there's no appeals.
What do you do...?
Click to expand...

Everyone's laughing and everyone EXPECTS a corner. Why disappoint them? Give the corner. (Even if you might be technically wrong...)
 
DanCohen17 said:
Question for you, and all;
Defended attempts to play a pass to keeper, but chips it too high (think Dixon if you remember it) and it's going over the keeper's head and in the goal. With an acrobatic backwards dive, he tips it over the bar for a corner. Defender apologises, everyone laughs, attacking team set up for a corner and there's no appeals.
What do you do...?
Click to expand...

2 ways to deal with this imo...

1) The easy way; point to the corner. No-one really cares and they appear to have accepted the fact that it's a corner. Referee still has positive match control and everyone's happy. Assessor not so much...

2) The hard way; hand straight up and a blast of your whistle. "Defender attempts to play a pass to keeper"; If you are clear in your mind that the outcome of this defenders pass, regardless of whether he messed it up or not was to land at the keeper, regardless of whether that pass actually comes off or not, it is still a deliberate act. He wanted the ball to go to the keeper; he intended for the ball to go back to the keeper; it's just that the execution wasn't fantastic. Indirect free kick from where the infringement took place. Earplugs out of the pocket and into the ears, stern voice applied and plenty of face now required! Assessor needs a fresh pair of underware!

What would I do in this situation? I think it's a "you have to be there" moment. If the game is already up there (at a high level) and you've got a sweat on, purely for the sake of bringing it back down to an acceptable level, take the easy way out. The only person that knows you are in the wrong would be the assessor (and yourself).
 
DB said:
2 ways to deal with this imo...

1) The easy way; point to the corner. No-one really cares and they appear to have accepted the fact that it's a corner. Referee still has positive match control and everyone's happy. Assessor not so much...
Click to expand...

I think there's enough debate in this thread that suggests you could argue either viewpoint. Certainly, I think you'd get away with this unmentioned at least some of the time, and other assessors would be persuaded to agree (or at least understand) with your viewpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DB
DanCohen17 said:
Question for you, and all;
Defended attempts to play a pass to keeper, but chips it too high (think Dixon if you remember it) and it's going over the keeper's head and in the goal. With an acrobatic backwards dive, he tips it over the bar for a corner. Defender apologises, everyone laughs, attacking team set up for a corner and there's no appeals.
What do you do...?
Click to expand...

I've said this before and I'll say it again, don't go looking for trouble.

All about the interpretation. No assessor would argue, provided that the referee explained that they did not believe there was a deliberate action.
 
I think in the case where everybody seems happy with the wrong decision......then if you're considering that approach, at least keep it to decisions where you could make the argument that the 'expected' decision is correct. In this case, maybe you could stretch the argument to say you thought there was a chance he was trying to clear it over the goal line. And if there's an assessor, maybe he'll accept that, maybe he'll state there was no way.

The problem with the 'don't go looking for trouble' view is that it's very, very dangerous. i remember once incident, goalkeeper was chasing after a ball going over the goal line, reached down to stop it with his hand, dribbled it for a bit, then picked it up. I didn't do anything because nobody appealed and I 'didn't want to go looking for trouble'. Maybe my match control was easier, but it also means that I ducked a blatant decision, and I became 'last week's referee' by perpetuating an incorrect interpretation of the law. All I'm saying is it's dangerous.

It can make sense......but to a certain extent. And that extent is where you find the difference between bending the laws and breaking them. Or to put it another way, between really stretching an interpretation of a law/situation, and simply not applying the LOTG.
 
The scenario is set-up to give a 'no surprises' result, realistically the decision would have to be made well before the players are lining up for a corner.
 
in response to recent posts, as an assessor, I'd want to hear the Referee's reason for whatever action he took, check he understood the alternative viewpoint and agree an outcome.

It would be all too easy to crucify a referee for failing to apply law to the letter but the competencies require an understanding of how football works before applying law. Application of the letter of the law could cause a loss of match control in this scenario, if you believe laws should be applied, then do so, do it and try to earn marks for re-establishing control OR do the right thing and interpret the law according to the situation ... and award the corner.
 
HRW said:
Try and re-write the sentance with the "intent".

Best bit of advice I received was "remove the word intent from your reffing vocabulary and see if you still come to the same decision."

wW can never know what another person's intent is, so we must remove that possability. At the Pro level there may be an element of a known or assumed intenet. but guys that you see once or twice a season , na.
Click to expand...
You can't remove it completely. While the element of intent was removed from the Laws of the Game for most offences in 1995 it still remains for others. Since "deliberately" and "intentionally" mean the same thing, intent is still a consideration for handling offences and for this offence, since the word "deliberately" is part of the wording.
 
Last edited:
Brian Hamilton said:
It would be all too easy to crucify a referee for failing to apply law to the letter but the competencies require an understanding of how football works before applying law
Click to expand...
"Spirit of the Game" eh Brian? ;)

I'm with Captain on this one. If you (and everyone else in the ground) is crystal clear that it was a deliberate 'back pass' then I don't think there's a choice to be made .. has to be an IFK. If, however, it's in any way plausible that the defender was trying to do something else then by all means take the simpler route of the corner ...
 
If you look at that last post, with no knowledge of past posts, it kinda looks like you're saying the kid is ruffles? :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top