A&H

appointed to a last match of league where one participant may be relegated.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree ;)

I don't think he is disputing that. He is pointing out it has been taken off track to what the OP did not intend it for.

I didn't say he was disputing it. ;)

And I disagree with your disagreement.
It's exactly what this place is for. (And of course for me to keep you and your grammar on it's toes). :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
The Referee Store
I didn't say he was disputing it. ;)

And I disagree with your disagreement.
It's exactly what this place is for. (And of course for me to keep you and your grammar on it's toes). :p
Leave his Grandma out of this! 😄
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
And I disagree with your disagreement.
Are you really disagreeing with my disagreement? Does the double negative mean you think we are agreeing? I'll leave you to ponder on that one for a little bit. :)
 
Referees should absolutely look at things before the game, why would you not? Not just league table, but for lots of leagues now with Full Time you can see caution and red card counts, and if one or both teams have a very high card count you would perhaps be sensible in keeping a reign on things in the first few minutes rather than allowing a physical game. If you know that there has been previous history between the teams then you absolutely want to be taking that approach. If I'd had previous problems with players in the game then I would always make an effort to chat to them either before the game or if not early doors, just to show that I'm human and don't hold a grudge, and that generally seemed to work.

Also, something my coach taught me, and this probably only works at higher levels, but watch their warm up. If someone is charging around clattering his own players in the 6 v 6 warm up then you can be pretty certain that he will be doing the same to the opposition players - forewarned is forearmed.
 
Referees should absolutely look at things before the game, why would you not? Not just league table, but for lots of leagues now with Full Time you can see caution and red card counts, and if one or both teams have a very high card count you would perhaps be sensible in keeping a reign on things in the first few minutes rather than allowing a physical game. If you know that there has been previous history between the teams then you absolutely want to be taking that approach. If I'd had previous problems with players in the game then I would always make an effort to chat to them either before the game or if not early doors, just to show that I'm human and don't hold a grudge, and that generally seemed to work.
Not to over-labour a point, but am I the only one to have run into trouble when I've seen a game is likely to be "easy" and therefore not done this? I'd much rather go into all games on high alert, jump on the first few poor tackles or low-level bits of dissent and assert the level I like to work at - and I don't need to know what mood the players will be in to do that.

Again, the bits I've underlined are all things I do - I just do them consistently in all matches, rather than putting the effort into "difficult" matches and relaxing and assuming "easy" matches are ones I can coast through.

Also, something my coach taught me, and this probably only works at higher levels, but watch their warm up. If someone is charging around clattering his own players in the 6 v 6 warm up then you can be pretty certain that he will be doing the same to the opposition players - forewarned is forearmed.
I'd argue that's a different thing to pre-match research, and therefore a much better indication of what's going to happen. In fact, I'd go as far as arguing that pre-match research will probably hinder your ability to do this in a balanced way - if I turn up to a match thinking that the red team is going to be trouble, it's going to be very hard not to keep a closer eye on them and neglect observation of the other team. If I'm staring at the red team trying to work out if number 8 is in a good mood today or not, it frees up less time for me to notice that at the other end of the pitch, blue 6 is hungover/drunk/raging at the world.

Alternately, I can turn up with an open mind, keep an equal eye on all players and have a reasonable idea of what mood both teams are in.
 
Not to over-labour a point, but am I the only one to have run into trouble when I've seen a game is likely to be "easy" and therefore not done this? I'd much rather go into all games on high alert, jump on the first few poor tackles or low-level bits of dissent and assert the level I like to work at - and I don't need to know what mood the players will be in to do that.

Again, the bits I've underlined are all things I do - I just do them consistently in all matches, rather than putting the effort into "difficult" matches and relaxing and assuming "easy" matches are ones I can coast through.


I'd argue that's a different thing to pre-match research, and therefore a much better indication of what's going to happen. In fact, I'd go as far as arguing that pre-match research will probably hinder your ability to do this in a balanced way - if I turn up to a match thinking that the red team is going to be trouble, it's going to be very hard not to keep a closer eye on them and neglect observation of the other team. If I'm staring at the red team trying to work out if number 8 is in a good mood today or not, it frees up less time for me to notice that at the other end of the pitch, blue 6 is hungover/drunk/raging at the world.

Alternately, I can turn up with an open mind, keep an equal eye on all players and have a reasonable idea of what mood both teams are in.
I'd tend to agree with your overall view on this topic
We do need to know the important stuff, but this should be put to the back of the mind so that both teams can be afforded a clean slate and impartiality. I wouldn't want to know about specific things, like problem-players etc. Sometimes this leads to prejudiced refereeing towards individuals
(occasionally, the name on the back attracts the sanction in the EPL). We need to know 'just enough' (no more) to approach the game with the right mindset. Maybe my opinion will change as I gain experience
 
Not to over-labour a point, but am I the only one to have run into trouble when I've seen a game is likely to be "easy" and therefore not done this? I'd much rather go into all games on high alert, jump on the first few poor tackles or low-level bits of dissent and assert the level I like to work at - and I don't need to know what mood the players will be in to do that.

Again, the bits I've underlined are all things I do - I just do them consistently in all matches, rather than putting the effort into "difficult" matches and relaxing and assuming "easy" matches are ones I can coast through.

That's different, I didn't say that you should ever assume a game will be easy. I've seen lots of referees come unstuck when they have assumed it will be easy and then made an absolute horlicks of things. Including recently when a referee completely lost control of an U15 game because they usually do older age groups and mistakenly assumed it would be easy.

So be over alert in the first few minutes of every game, but if there is history between the teams perhaps extend that period a bit longer. There's no right and wrong though, it comes with experience.
 
Not to over-labour a point, but am I the only one to have run into trouble when I've seen a game is likely to be "easy"

Of course not. But when I have a theoretically easy game, I will often have a specific thing that I am going to work on that game, which will also help me stay focused if it really is an easy game. I don't think anyone is saying "learn it is an easy game so you can relax"--it's more "learn what you can so that you can be aware of areas you might want to be careful about not missing something." If I know I have a team (or teams) known for reckless plays, that may be a good day to focus on improving my awareness of what happens as balls play away. If I know a team gets lots of cautions for dissent, I may spend time before the game thinking about my management skills. There are lots of thinks that can give us small clues to help manage a game. But they can't radically change what you do, and obviously the amount of background that is useful varies by level. It's not really that different from when a player says "hey, #7 is holding my shirt all the time"--I'm not going to call it because of the complaint, but I'm going to be more aware and, in the right situation, may shift an angle a bit to have a different view of whether that is happening. At the top levels, its a lot of background. There is a reason professional pregames are extremely long--they aren't talking about signals and staying with the 2LD.
 
And of course for me to keep you and your grammar on it's toes.
Let he who is without sin ... "it's" [sic] - really?
Surely you mean ponder over ...

"Ponder on" is perfectly acceptable usage. From the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
ponder
to think about something carefully for a period of time
synonym consider
ponder (about/on/over something)
She pondered over his words.
They were left to ponder on the implications of the announcement.
 
Neither "it's" nor "ponder over" are incorrect.
So ner! 🤮😀
What? "it's" when used in the phrase "keep your grammar on it's toes" is most definitely incorrect.

Also, nobody is saying "ponder over" is incorrect but you were saying that "ponder on" was incorrect or at least implying it should not be used, which is wrong, either is acceptable.

Let me just say that I normally try to refrain from getting into discussions over grammatical errors but when a grammatical error is used in criticising someone else's grammar, as they say in legal circles, that has "opened the door."
 
Top response Peter.
Pleased to have another grammar Nazi on board. :D
Let's both keep Ones grammar on it's toes and you can keep me on mine. ;) :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top