The Ref Stop

Giving a ‘holding’ decision

P

puddles15

New Member
Level 6 Referee
Incident from today where we had a bit of a goalmouth scramble and ball pops up towards/in the goal, where defender handles it to keep it out.

Lots of shouts either way, defending team saying it was already in (probs to avoid pen/RC). I wasn’t 100% either way so blew to stop the game, and pointed to the spot, but made it clear I wanted to check with CAR before going further.

Question is, is it better to just blow up and discuss with AR, or give a decision (pen in this case) and then overrule yourself once you have clarity? CAR said it was already in, so fair enough, gave the goal and just a verbal warning - everyone seemed ok with that (probs because it was right!)
 
The Ref Stop
I come from a County FA where CAR's give ball in and out for throw-ins and that's it. I know other counties have them doing offside, but I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be letting them get involved in a decision like this.

If you did give the goal, it should have also been a caution

Ultimately, I think you have to either give a decision and stuck to it. If you give pen, then it's a pen. Unless you have NAR's, in which you could have some input from them.
 
puddles15 said:
Incident from today where we had a bit of a goalmouth scramble and ball pops up towards/in the goal, where defender handles it to keep it out.

Lots of shouts either way, defending team saying it was already in (probs to avoid pen/RC). I wasn’t 100% either way so blew to stop the game, and pointed to the spot, but made it clear I wanted to check with CAR before going further.

Question is, is it better to just blow up and discuss with AR, or give a decision (pen in this case) and then overrule yourself once you have clarity? CAR said it was already in, so fair enough, gave the goal and just a verbal warning - everyone seemed ok with that (probs because it was right!)
Click to expand...

As @Runner-Ref says handball that is a failed attempt to stop a goal is a mandatory caution,.as per law 12.
 
Thanks for the feedback - really helpful. Can I press on the ‘holding decision’ question? Is there the same expectation throughout the levels that you give a decision and then overrule only if you’ve got sound NAR advice to what you gave?
 
puddles15 said:
Thanks for the feedback - really helpful. Can I press on the ‘holding decision’ question? Is there the same expectation throughout the levels that you give a decision and then overrule only if you’ve got sound NAR advice to what you gave?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you really dont want be changing a decision like that from a CAR, as it opens up a whole can of worms. Of course there is an element of bias, but there's also the fact that very few of them will actually be qualified referees. So their input will be based on what they've heard on the TV, rather than actual law.

If you're lucky enough to do games in which you have NAR's, then you could look to change a decision based on their input. But this comes down to many factors before you change your mind.
 
puddles15 said:
Thanks for the feedback - really helpful. Can I press on the ‘holding decision’ question? Is there the same expectation throughout the levels that you give a decision and then overrule only if you’ve got sound NAR advice to what you gave?
Click to expand...
Even in regions where CARs are allowed to indicate offsides, they don't get decisions like fouls or goals. The chances of an NAR being even anywhere close to the goal line to rule on a decision are very small, and even if they are you still have to remember that they are associated with the team that would be conceding a goal.
 
RustyRef said:
Even in regions where CARs are allowed to indicate offsides, they don't get decisions like fouls or goals. The chances of an NAR being even anywhere close to the goal line to rule on a decision are very small, and even if they are you still have to remember that they are associated with the team that would be conceding a goal.
Click to expand...

Surely in this case if a CAR says the ball was over the line then it's worth taking their word for it as it would be against their best interests to tell you that? I agree that you shouldn't go and ask them their opinion because if they say it wasn't a goal then there could be bias behind that - but say you've not given a goal and they flag you and tell you it's gone in, that should have some weight at least?
 
ChrisBLD said:
Surely in this case if a CAR says the ball was over the line then it's worth taking their word for it as it would be against their best interests to tell you that? I agree that you shouldn't go and ask them their opinion because if they say it wasn't a goal then there could be bias behind that - but say you've not given a goal and they flag you and tell you it's gone in, that should have some weight at least?
Click to expand...
Not really.

The CAR might believe giving the goal is the easier decision, as it will save them a red card. Say the game was already 5-0 and this was to make it 6-0, they might as well give the goal as the game is gone. It also means their player who would have bene sent off will save some money and not be banned later down the line.

You the may have a tight game in which hbthe decision carries a bit more weight. Then another controversial decision happens. The clubs will then expect you're going to ask the CAR for guidance on what one too. As I said earlier, it opens up a very big can of worms
 
So just to clarify: CARs can't be trusted to put effort in to be in position or to know what they're doing, but also, should simultaneously be assumed to be smart and switched on enough to know that recommending a goal against their own team is the best way to cheat?

Or perhaps we just use Occam's razor and assume that the people giving up their Saturday afternoons to run a line just might sometimes be honest volunteers who want to help?

Go in with an open mind IMO. If they actually are lagging behind or looking disinterested then it often is best to treat them with a pinch of salt, but if they're putting the work in then we should take the view of the person in the right place.
 
ChrisBLD said:
Surely in this case if a CAR says the ball was over the line then it's worth taking their word for it as it would be against their best interests to tell you that? I agree that you shouldn't go and ask them their opinion because if they say it wasn't a goal then there could be bias behind that - but say you've not given a goal and they flag you and tell you it's gone in, that should have some weight at least?
Click to expand...
Depends on the scenario. Where are they, and were they more credibly placed than you were to say the ball has crossed the line. Then you have to look at what happens if the goal is given. In the OP giving the goal would save the defending team a DOGSO-H red card, so did it really cross the line or are they trying to save the player who handled it.
 
GraemeS said:
So just to clarify: CARs can't be trusted to put effort in to be in position or to know what they're doing, but also, should simultaneously be assumed to be smart and switched on enough to know that recommending a goal against their own team is the best way to cheat?

Or perhaps we just use Occam's razor and assume that the people giving up their Saturday afternoons to run a line just might sometimes be honest volunteers who want to help?

Go in with an open mind IMO. If they actually are lagging behind or looking disinterested then it often is best to treat them with a pinch of salt, but if they're putting the work in then we should take the view of the person in the right place.
Click to expand...
Even since I started refereeing the accepted practice for CARs has been that they get ball in and out of play and can help to indicate offsides. They've never been given fouls and misconduct, which is sometimes unfortunate as occasionally you get a qualified referee doing it (I used to do it myself for the team I ran). But you can't give one CAR additional duties but not give them to the other.

In reality you can tell within 2 minutes how much use they are going to be. If you look at the first offside decision and they are level, or at least making an effort to be there, you gain confidence, whereas if they are on the half way line with the flag over their shoulder alarm bells are ringing.

Ball over line for a goal is way beyond throw-ins and offsides, it is a game changing decision. Should we be giving a totally unqualified person the responsibility to indicate such such decisions? Would we let them indicate penalties, even against their own team? If you take his advice against his team what then happen 5 minutes later if you give a goal and he tells you there was a foul just before it was scored? It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
 
RustyRef said:
Even since I started refereeing the accepted practice for CARs has been that they get ball in and out of play and can help to indicate offsides. They've never been given fouls and misconduct, which is sometimes unfortunate as occasionally you get a qualified referee doing it (I used to do it myself for the team I ran). But you can't give one CAR additional duties but not give them to the other.

In reality you can tell within 2 minutes how much use they are going to be. If you look at the first offside decision and they are level, or at least making an effort to be there, you gain confidence, whereas if they are on the half way line with the flag over their shoulder alarm bells are ringing.

Ball over line for a goal is way beyond throw-ins and offsides, it is a game changing decision. Should we be giving a totally unqualified person the responsibility to indicate such such decisions? Would we let them indicate penalties, even against their own team? If you take his advice against his team what then happen 5 minutes later if you give a goal and he tells you there was a foul just before it was scored? It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
Click to expand...
A goal/no goal, in terms of did the ball enter the goal, is a ball in or out call though.
Devils advocate, If we trust them to say the ball has or hasn't crossed the touchline or goal line elsewhere then why wouldn't the 8x2.5yd rectangle be included in that.
You don't need to be qualified to judge the position of a ball.
Certainly more trusting when they are saying it is a goal... Less so if it saves a red of course.
 
RustyRef said:
Even since I started refereeing the accepted practice for CARs has been that they get ball in and out of play and can help to indicate offsides. They've never been given fouls and misconduct, which is sometimes unfortunate as occasionally you get a qualified referee doing it (I used to do it myself for the team I ran). But you can't give one CAR additional duties but not give them to the other.

In reality you can tell within 2 minutes how much use they are going to be. If you look at the first offside decision and they are level, or at least making an effort to be there, you gain confidence, whereas if they are on the half way line with the flag over their shoulder alarm bells are ringing.

Ball over line for a goal is way beyond throw-ins and offsides, it is a game changing decision. Should we be giving a totally unqualified person the responsibility to indicate such such decisions? Would we let them indicate penalties, even against their own team? If you take his advice against his team what then happen 5 minutes later if you give a goal and he tells you there was a foul just before it was scored? It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
Click to expand...
At no point am I jogging over and asking them to make a decision - Ironic misrepresentation from someone who's one of the main forum advocates of "VAR only makes recommendations"!

IF they have been generally useful and IF they are in the right position when you look over, there might be value in jogging over. IF they are then able to clearly and confidently describe what they've seen, you an use that as PART of the information to make the final decision.

There's no need to make up a ridiculous "slippery slope" fallacy either. Asking them for their view on a ball over the line decision (even in a key context) doesn't suddenly mean you have to ask them for penalty shouts as well for some reason? A good grassroots ref uses different CARs differently, judging how much you can rely on them is an important skill.
 
GraemeS said:
? A good grassroots ref uses different CARs differently, judging how much you can rely on them is an important skill.
Click to expand...
and what local rules are. In the US, CARs are only authorized to advise the ball went over a line—not even to suggest direction. (But we also have NARS on far more games than it sounds like in the UK.)
 
socal lurker said:
and what local rules are. In the US, CARs are only authorized to advise the ball went over a line—not even to suggest direction. (But we also have NARS on far more games than it sounds like in the UK.)
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, there aren't loads of rules here, more regional expectations.

But even within that, I'll often treat the two ends of the pitch a little differently if I feel one CAR seems more reliable than the other. Do I need to get close enough/at the right angle to have an opinion on throw direction or do I "only" need to be in foul-detection range? Ditto for offsides, particularly for FKs. These are all semi-automatic judgements you have to make.
 
JamesL said:
A goal/no goal, in terms of did the ball enter the goal, is a ball in or out call though.
Devils advocate, If we trust them to say the ball has or hasn't crossed the touchline or goal line elsewhere then why wouldn't the 8x2.5yd rectangle be included in that.
You don't need to be qualified to judge the position of a ball.
Certainly more trusting when they are saying it is a goal... Less so if it saves a red of course.
Click to expand...
By ball in and out of play I meant throw-ins, I can count on one hand the number of times a CAR has indicated a throw-in or corner.
 
GraemeS said:
At no point am I jogging over and asking them to make a decision - Ironic misrepresentation from someone who's one of the main forum advocates of "VAR only makes recommendations"!

IF they have been generally useful and IF they are in the right position when you look over, there might be value in jogging over. IF they are then able to clearly and confidently describe what they've seen, you an use that as PART of the information to make the final decision.

There's no need to make up a ridiculous "slippery slope" fallacy either. Asking them for their view on a ball over the line decision (even in a key context) doesn't suddenly mean you have to ask them for penalty shouts as well for some reason? A good grassroots ref uses different CARs differently, judging how much you can rely on them is an important skill.
Click to expand...
Each to their own, and in reality if a CAR from the defending team said the ball had crossed the line, was on the goal line, and there wasn't a potential ulterior motive for them to say so, I probably would go with it. Thinking it through more, I probably wouldn't have a lot of choice otherwise the other team would be using the "even their assistant said it went in" line.

By the way, no need for the attitude. If you actually go back and bother what I wrote I said "indicate such decisions", not "make such decisions", and there is a world of difference between the two.
 
GraemeS said:
IF they have been generally useful and IF they are in the right position when you look over, there might be value in jogging over. IF they are then able to clearly and confidently describe what they've seen, you a use that as PART of the information to make the final decision.
Click to expand...
I have on rare occasion asked CARs to describe an incident, but if I have to do so I first make it very clear that I’m not asking for their advice, just their recollection of what actually happened. When there’s a big call to make that can then be useful in forming a decision in combination with your own view. It is only useful in very limited circumstances, for example in establishing whether a player has been struck on the head or simply pushed, or for establishing whether something offensive has been said on the back of a player reporting it to you.

If I ever do this I try not to make it obvious what I’m looking for and just ask them to describe what they’ve seen in the last minute or so. That information can sometimes be of some use in forming a decision.
 
Ta for the responses. For some context, defending team were already down 3-0 and getting battered in the first half at this point.

As there was a lot of appeals for a lot of things, and I wasn’t 100%, I paused, gave a penalty whilst stating I’m going to check. I feel that going over to and asking the CAR ‘was it already over the line?’ bought me some time to think, and I’d already given the ‘worst case’ (pen/RC) so had that to fall back on (CAR wouldn’t have liked it I guess). In the end, I couldn’t be sure of the pen/RC so more reasonable to give the goal.

Noted the caution for the failed handball was a miss from me.
 
Al
puddles15 said:
Ta for the responses. For some context, defending team were already down 3-0 and getting battered in the first half at this point.

As there was a lot of appeals for a lot of things, and I wasn’t 100%, I paused, gave a penalty whilst stating I’m going to check. I feel that going over to and asking the CAR ‘was it already over the line?’ bought me some time to think, and I’d already given the ‘worst case’ (pen/RC) so had that to fall back on (CAR wouldn’t have liked it I guess). In the end, I couldn’t be sure of the pen/RC so more reasonable to give the goal.

Noted the caution for the failed handball was a miss from me.
Click to expand...
so very much noted not all CARs are made equal - there’s plenty I wouldn’t ask…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top