A&H

PARIS SG V MONTPELLIER

I can see both sides to the debate. Ref should not have involved himself in the OP, but as @one argues, there are some rare circumstances of taking the p*** in which I'd be getting involved (lack of respect for the game)
Lying down to unnecessarily head the ball over the line is probably the most likely example
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
It is rarely that I disagree with you on many subjects, and your knowledge of the laws, generally, is impressive.
But, I have just read those sections and still can't see how you could find an offence in the scenario described.
So long as a player plays within the framework of the laws there is little you can do to stop them but pray they **** it up and end up with egg on their face.
Click to expand...
We must be reading this through different angles.
"Laws which keep the game ‘fair’ as a crucial foundation"
"...players to show respect for their opponents and ..."
"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players..."
" The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, ... the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game"

I don't see how humiliating your opponent in ways that has nothing to do with playing the game (but using the game as a tool to do it) can be within "spirit of the game".
 
Last edited:
one said:
We must be reading this through different angles.
"Laws which keep the game ‘fair’ as a crucial foundation" there is nothing unfair about trickery, in a footballing sense.
"...players to show respect for their opponents and ..." I think the whole sentence should be taken into consideration here. The whole section is based around fair challenges and keeping players safe from physical harm. I think you are honing on that bit which is a bit throwaway in the context of that whole paragraph.
"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players..." again we need to look at the whole context of the paragraph. Otherwise we should just end the game at 6-0 as the team that are losing aren't enjoying it.
" The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, ... the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game" the referee should ask what does football want/expect. Again, as I said earlier, I really don't think football would expect the referee to get involved here.


I don't see how humiliating your opponent (and using the game as a tool to do it) can be within "spirit of the game". I don't buy it, I am sorry. There are multiple examples where players humiliate their opponents using tricks and skills a la Ronaldo doing multiple step overs, taking a player on twice. David Beckham lobbed a keeper from the halfway line. That goal should be disallowed as the opponent was humiliated?

The spirit of the game, for me, and my interpretation of it is about participation and dealing with offences within the framework of the law. A player using his feet to move the ball around his opponents just isn't that.
Click to expand...
 
one said:
We must be reading this through different angles.
"Laws which keep the game ‘fair’ as a crucial foundation"
"...players to show respect for their opponents and ..."
"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players..."
" The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, ... the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game"

I don't see how humiliating your opponent in ways that has nothing to do with playing the game (but using the game as a tool to do it) can be within "spirit of the game".
Click to expand...

The act of doing a rainbow flick or any other trick to get past a defender is not in itself attempting to humiliate a player.

If on the other hand the player then decides to taunt the opposition player about having done it, there's where it gets close to crossing the line.

You could easily argue that doing something like a rainbow flick is in fact giving the defender respect, because you have to pull something special out of the bag to be able to successfully get past them.
 
Context. It's Neymar. Pink hair. Fans pay thousands to see him. The referee shouldn't have got involved.
Clear YC for dissent by action (aggressive).

But on a Sunday morning with a bunch of lads looking for an excuse to kick off - then, of course - get involved, be proactive.
 
Unfortunately, we don't know what the referee said - and to be fair, givne this is in France, most of us wouldn't have known even if his mic feed was piped directly into our speakers!

It's possible the referee was giving him a sensible warning (as per @RustyRef ) and it's possible the ref was an idiot and basically walked up to him and told him to stop being a dickhead. We don't know. Either way, the reaction is unacceptable, deserves a yellow and he needs to count himself lucky that his petulant reaction to the card didn't immediately earn him another!
 
Last edited:
one said:
We must be reading this through different angles.
"Laws which keep the game ‘fair’ as a crucial foundation"
"...players to show respect for their opponents and ..."
"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players..."
" The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, ... the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game"

I don't see how humiliating your opponent in ways that has nothing to do with playing the game (but using the game as a tool to do it) can be within "spirit of the game".
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. Executing a difficult and extremely skillful move against an opponent has everything to do with playing the game and goes to the absolute heart of the phrase that you've shortened and altered the meaning of above. The full quotation should be:

"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players, match officials, coaches, as well as spectators, fans, administrators etc."

As a coach, I used to spend hours (and have special, dedicated skills sessions) teaching "moves" to players, such as the "Cruyff turn", the "elastico," the "Rivelino" and yes, the "rainbow." As a coach, a spectator and a fan, I reckon there are few things more attractive and enjoyable than watching a player pull off one of these skills.

When Johan Cruyff did that famous (and possibly the first?) "Cruyff turn" in the World Cup game against Sweden, that we've all seen the clip of, the opponent was left bewildered and humiliated, almost ending up on the seat of his pants on the deck. According to what you're saying, Cruyff should have been booked for it as he most definitely humiliated his opponent.

As far as I'm concerned, a player should never be cautioned for using a difficult foot-skill or intricate move to take the ball past an opponent. Taunting a player using provocative, derisory or inflammatory language or gestures is a different matter, of course. Skill should never be punished.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grove said:
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. Executing a difficult and extremely skillful move against an opponent has everything to do with playing the game and goes to the absolute heart of the phrase that you've shortened and altered the meaning of above. The full quotation should be:

"Football must be attractive and enjoyable for players, match officials, coaches, as well as spectators, fans, administrators etc."

As a coach, I used to spend hours (and have special, dedicated skills sessions) teaching "moves" to players, such as the "Cruyff turn", the "elastico," the "Rivelino" and yes, the "rainbow." As a coach, a spectator and a fan, I reckon there are few things more attractive and enjoyable than watching a player pull off one of these skills.

When Johan Cruyff did that famous (and possibly the first?) "Cruyff turn" in the World Cup game against Sweden, that we've all seen the clip of, the opponent was left bewildered and humiliated, almost ending up on the seat of his pants on the deck. According to what you're saying, Cruyff should have been booked for it as he most definitely humiliated his opponent.

As far as I'm concerned, a player should never be cautioned for using a difficult foot-skill or intricate move to take the ball past an opponent. Taunting a player using provocative, derisory or inflammatory language or gestures is a different matter, of course. Skill should never be punished.
Click to expand...
I think you're absolutely right with most of that, particularly the last paragraph.

He's nutmegged the opponent to get into the corner and I'm fine with that. But is a rainbow flick really the best way to get out of that position? Or is he trying to wind up that player? For me, I think the latter, and I think a quiet word as to the potential consequences of overdoing the unnecessary flair isn't a crazy thing for the referee to do.
 
I'm not averse to having a quiet word with a player for something that I judged might end up causing problems but I certainly don't think it can be actually classified as USB, which would then make it a caution.

One of the more popular and probably more humiliating tricks is the 'nutmeg' - and certainly where I grew up playing, if you nutmeg someone, you have to call it, which if anything, increases the humiliation factor. Still doesn't warrant a caution though (IMHO). I used to play in a team where our centre forward was particularly adept at this. He probably averaged one every couple of games and although I saw him do this dozens of times, there was never, ever the slightest suspicion that he might be booked for it - and of course, he never was.
 
The referee is a bell end for getting involved. End of.

As for the notion that "showboating" @one is somehow disrespectful to opponents and should be frowned upon - that's ridiculous. I suppose that when a team is winning by a 1 goal margin and is playing keep-ball down near the corner flag - that's something else you'd be "having a word" with them about is it? :rolleyes: :wtf:
 
Peter Grove said:
I'm not averse to having a quiet word with a player for something that I judged might end up causing problems but I certainly don't think it can be actually classified as USB, which would then make it a caution.

One of the more popular and probably more humiliating tricks is the 'nutmeg' - and certainly where I grew up playing, if you nutmeg someone, you have to call it, which if anything, increases the humiliation factor. Still doesn't warrant a caution though (IMHO). I used to play in a team where our centre forward was particularly adept at this. He probably averaged one every couple of games and although I saw him do this dozens of times, there was never, ever the slightest suspicion that he might be booked for it - and of course, he never was.
Click to expand...
Agree completely, but the caution isn't for USB in this clip. It's because Neymar loses his mind at what he's been told, gets (borderline physically) aggressive with the referee and is yelling in his face. Textbook dissent, by the letter of the law probably OFFINABUS.

Now if he hadn't done that but then went on to keep trying to humiliate the opponent, you've got a case for the old classic tenuous caution for "Dissent by ignoring the referee's instructions". I think you can get to a yellow either way without needing to resort to USB?
 
Pampered, filthy rich 20-something who’s never been told “no” in entire life loses his mind when asked to stop being such a nob shocker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top