Harsh or fair??

[Viking]

I don't think the player was infringing the spirit of the law in this case because he was promptly running to leave the FOP
I think this Law change would've been better if it had given the referee the option to insist that the player departed at the nearest point. The existing Law change is unmanageable and unnecessary for most us

The law states; 'the player must leave at the nearest point unless the referee indicates otherwise'. I would say he is still infringing even the spirit of the law simply because it would have been quicker for the player to run to the far touchline to get off the pitch even more quickly. Your comparison between simply walking and running is not the comparison to make. The law mandates a 'must'. The referee didn't indicate otherwise. This player clearly showed a lack of respect for the law and the referee.

Of course, in youth and park games, this law, as with several others, won't be brought into play by the referee.

 

[Big Cat]

The law states; 'the player must leave at the nearest point unless the referee indicates otherwise'. I would say he is still infringing even the spirit of the law simply because it would have been quicker for the player to run to the far touchline to get off the pitch even more quickly. Your comparison between simply walking and running is not the comparison to make. The law mandates a 'must'. The referee didn't indicate otherwise. This player clearly showed a lack of respect for the law and the referee.

Of course, in youth and park games, this law, as with several others, won't be brought into play by the referee.

OK, my recollection of the Law was wrong in that case as the option is there
It's still pointless and unworkable at grass roots and I maintain that this player was leaving the FOP much faster than expected, so it was the referee who got the 'spirit of the law' wrong. Overly officious... and we'll routinely see the law ignored when it should be enforced (according to my crystal ball)

 

[socal lurker]

OK, my recollection of the Law was wrong in that case as the option is there
It's still pointless and unworkable at grass roots and I maintain that this player was leaving the FOP much faster than expected, so it was the referee who got the 'spirit of the law' wrong. Overly officious... and we'll routinely see the law ignored when it should be enforced (according to my crystal ball)

I don't think the referee got anything wrong. I think the referees were instructed to take a hard line on this, and the referee followed the instructions given to him by those who rate him and give him assignments.

Do I think IFAB made a mess of this? Yes. But the blame for this goes with IFAB and the competition authorities who are dictating what they expect.

To me, this is another misguided IFAB draconian idea (c.f. carding keepers for PK movement) that somehow offended someone and they are digging in their heels.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I don't think the player was infringing the spirit of the law in this case because he was promptly running to leave the FOP
I think this Law change would've been better if it had given the referee the option to insist that the player departed at the nearest point. The existing Law change is unmanageable and unnecessary for most us

Laws DO give the referee the option " ….unless referee decides otherwise" (See above)

 

[PinnerPaul]

I don't think the referee got anything wrong. I think the referees were instructed to take a hard line on this, and the referee followed the instructions given to him by those who rate him and give him assignments.

Do I think IFAB made a mess of this? Yes. But the blame for this goes with IFAB and the competition authorities who are dictating what they expect.

To me, this is another misguided IFAB draconian idea (c.f. carding keepers for PK movement) that somehow offended someone and they are digging in their heels.

Problem is then that 'guidance' is clearly different at top levels where players hardly ever leave from the nearest point.

I've been to every QPR home league game this season - 5/6 subs every game and I've seen ONE player asked to leave at nearest point and, as I said previously, players from the team winning at the time leave the pitch much much slower than our friend in the clip!

 

[socal lurker]

I'm not arguing it's good guidance! (Though it seems to be what IFAB thinks the guidance should be.) My only point is that it seems unlikely that a referee would choose this hill to die on unless he had been instructed to do so. Just as no referee would have chosen to lead the charge of calling for PK retakes because a GK is millimeters off the line.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I'm not arguing it's good guidance! (Though it seems to be what IFAB thinks the guidance should be.) My only point is that it seems unlikely that a referee would choose this hill to die on unless he had been instructed to do so. Just as no referee would have chosen to lead the charge of calling for PK retakes because a GK is millimeters off the line.

Sorry SL if my post wasn't clear - I wasn't implying you are wrong or saying you agree with the action or not - my point was, guidance or no guidance - this is at odds with what we see at the top every week. Some on here say that doesn't matter - but to me it seems perverse to ignore what those at the top of the tree are doing - even more perverse to do something completely different to them!

 

[jofusref]

referee being way too fussy

 

[Peter Grove]

My only point is that it seems unlikely that a referee would choose this hill to die on unless he had been instructed to do so.

Exactly - and that's what the captioning on the clip implies, that referees in Northern Ireland have been told to strictly enforce this law.

 

[ladbroke8745]

During England game yesterday a czech player walked most of the pitch applauding crowd. Inconsistency in decisions...
Irish lad runs and gets 2nd yellow, czech player walks and gets nothing.

 

[RobOda]

Inconsistency in decisions...

I think it was always going to be one of those laws that was tricky to implement anyway. Well, I think it's nigh on impossible to do at grassroots, where you have to go to the halfway line and take the number/names anyway. But it's also extremely unlikely to be enforced on the tiers that aren't using sub cards/boards since they're still just going to shout "DAVE, YOU'RE COMING OFF NOW!" and who the hell is Dave? Number 2 or number 5?

Good law in theory though.

 

[ladbroke8745]

I think it was always going to be one of those laws that was tricky to implement anyway. Well, I think it's nigh on impossible to do at grassroots, where you have to go to the halfway line and take the number/names anyway. But it's also extremely unlikely to be enforced on the tiers that aren't using sub cards/boards since they're still just going to shout "DAVE, YOU'RE COMING OFF NOW!" and who the hell is Dave? Number 2 or number 5?

Good law in theory though.

Yes, good law in theory...
But both of these games are ones that are managed by a 4th official, with sub cards etc and they still massively apart in the actual practice.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Yes, good law in theory...
But both of these games are ones that are managed by a 4th official, with sub cards etc and they still massively apart in the actual practice.

Agree and I said above, I've seen different practice in the same game!

 

[socal lurker]

Good law in theory though.

Is i? Or is it a solution looking for a problem? Referees always had tools they could use. And the problems we se are all totally predictable and were discussed as soon as the Law came out, before it was in use.

 

[Iain]

Once the referee had told him to leave by other side. he should have done it. He ignored the referee and was being disrespectfully.

 

[deusex]

Player is 100% atempting to mug the referee off and deserved it