The Ref Stop

Wales v Ukraine

cwyeary said:
I don't know what Rob Paige said and how much he was or wasn't previously warned by the fourth official. But he did step out of his technical area and began to visually and verbally descent towards the match official. He was cautioned for this and seemed to accept it. The referee also cautioned a Wales player early on for obvious dissent.

So I just find it funny that the number of times people on this forum complain about referees at the top level not dealing with dissent, and then we get a referee who deals with the two biggest examples of dissent in the game and now he's apparently arrogant and quick to card.

Personally I'd rather have more referees like him who show enjoyment and personality while they're officiating. The Andre Marriner I'm a statute style of officiating gets kind of boring after a while.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with the issuing of the card in terms of the law, it’s the way he did it was my issue. How often are we taught as referees to isolate offenders and communicate? He’s ran over, flashed a yellow from 5+ yards away and ran off again. It just looks messy to me
 
The Ref Stop
QuaverRef said:
Nothing wrong with the issuing of the card in terms of the law, it’s the way he did it was my issue. How often are we taught as referees to isolate offenders and communicate? He’s ran over, flashed a yellow from 5+ yards away and ran off again. It just looks messy to me
Click to expand...
I don't think what is taught at grass roots has anything to do with what is expected at the professional level.
 
socal lurker said:
I don't think what is taught at grass roots has anything to do with what is expected at the professional level.
Click to expand...
Speaking of that, and I know it almost breaks from the thread, at what sort of step do you break away from: isolate, explain, details, warn, show card and to a more show card and take number
 
socal lurker said:
I'm in the US, where we are not as dedicated to that model even at low levels.
Click to expand...

95%+ of my yellows are show then write. I don't need to explain most of them because they usually know why theyre getting it.

Personally I think the grassroots English model of dealing with cards is wildly ineffective and outdated. When there is a 100% reckless tackle or spa, everyone on the pitch knows it's a yellow. Pull it out of your pocket, show it and calm down the situation. I don't think lecturing and showing a yellow to an adult on a nailed on yellow 60 seconds after the foul is useful for match control.
 
cwyeary said:
95%+ of my yellows are show then write. I don't need to explain most of them because they usually know why theyre getting it.

Personally I think the grassroots English model of dealing with cards is wildly ineffective and outdated. When there is a 100% reckless tackle or spa, everyone on the pitch knows it's a yellow. Pull it out of your pocket, show it and calm down the situation. I don't think lecturing and showing a yellow to an adult on a nailed on yellow 60 seconds after the foul is useful for match control.
Click to expand...

In fairness, for all you are supposed to isolate, explain reason, take name, show card and then warn as to future conduct, no one really cares about the 2nd and 5th of those activities. What they don't want is flashing of cards, as it has led to issues with ARs recording the wrong number and then not getting involved when the referee cautions again and doesn't send off. Fine at higher levels as they can ask the number over comms, but I've been on the line before when I haven't had a scooby who the referee has cautioned. Indeed, I observed one L4 and I honestly was clueless to who he was cautioning as he was flashing the card in the general direction of a pocket of players.

And taking the name is because team sheets at grass roots, and even at some higher levels, are notoriously inaccurate. They are often filled in by the manager or captain at the side of the pitch, he can't put the shirt numbers down until everyone has arrived and is dressed, and therefore relying on this information to submit misconduct is always likely to be risky. I've seen it whilst waiting for it to be finished, "Oi Dave, what number are you wearing", "7 I think, wasn't really looking". I was at L4 and L3 before the new rules came in, I did flash cards as it was allowed then, and I know that things went wrong as I was contacted by discipline departments on several occasions to clarify who I had cautioned. I think what tipped it is one L3 referee reported 9 cautions and every single one was challenged by both clubs as being wrong, the thinking is he used the home numbers for the away team sheet and vice versa, so they said enough is enough and you have to take names.
 
RustyRef said:
In fairness, for all you are supposed to isolate, explain reason, take name, show card and then warn as to future conduct, no one really cares about the 2nd and 5th of those activities. What they don't want is flashing of cards, as it has led to issues with ARs recording the wrong number and then not getting involved when the referee cautions again and doesn't send off. Fine at higher levels as they can ask the number over comms, but I've been on the line before when I haven't had a scooby who the referee has cautioned. Indeed, I observed one L4 and I honestly was clueless to who he was cautioning as he was flashing the card in the general direction of a pocket of players.

And taking the name is because team sheets at grass roots, and even at some higher levels, are notoriously inaccurate. They are often filled in by the manager or captain at the side of the pitch, he can't put the shirt numbers down until everyone has arrived and is dressed, and therefore relying on this information to submit misconduct is always likely to be risky. I've seen it whilst waiting for it to be finished, "Oi Dave, what number are you wearing", "7 I think, wasn't really looking". I was at L4 and L3 before the new rules came in, I did flash cards as it was allowed then, and I know that things went wrong as I was contacted by discipline departments on several occasions to clarify who I had cautioned. I think what tipped it is one L3 referee reported 9 cautions and every single one was challenged by both clubs as being wrong, the thinking is he used the home numbers for the away team sheet and vice versa, so they said enough is enough and you have to take names.
Click to expand...
That's it, being down at grassroots, I'm looking to referee Open Age, as I'll get Level 7 next week (will work myself up to that one), but I'm expecting to receive team sheets with names and numbers, but I feel like in the lower divisions of the league, it's certainly worth taking names as well as numbers in a more formal cautioning procedure, but I remember on the course, the warning of further conduct felt slightly extra and a bit obvious sometimes.
 
ggroves.2 said:
That's it, being down at grassroots, I'm looking to referee Open Age, as I'll get Level 7 next week (will work myself up to that one), but I'm expecting to receive team sheets with names and numbers, but I feel like in the lower divisions of the league, it's certainly worth taking names as well as numbers in a more formal cautioning procedure, but I remember on the course, the warning of further conduct felt slightly extra and a bit obvious sometimes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they have to tell you that but 99% of times you won't need to tell people why they are being cautioned, it will be apparant to everyone. Likewise warning them as to their future contact, I always say "be careful" after I show a yellow, but for all we think players have rocks for brains, there isn't one out there that knows they are walking if they get a second yellow.
 
RustyRef said:
Lahoz is the Spanish version of Mike Dean, he has always been flambuoyant and if anything has reigned it in over recent seasons. He has had a high card count, but also seems to have a very good rapport with players.

There aren't that many referees that would have done this at the end of the game ...

View attachment 5712
Click to expand...

Getting a nail on penalty decision correct was more important than this moment for the cameras
 
David F said:
Looked a nailed-on penalty not given after VAR check - striker clearly nips in to get the ball and gets kicked by the defender.

I guess slightly unusual in that both are moving in the same direction away from goal, but still feels like a pen?
Click to expand...
Seems like an effect of the VAR protocol to me.

(If I understand right) The VAR will obviously consider if there is foul contact. But, to class the incident as a 'clear and obvious' error by the referee, they will consider if 'the contact had a consequence' i.e. if the attacker throws themselves to the floor then the contact didn't have consequence. Probably a case of the VAR believing it to be a foul, but not believing it to be a clear and obvious mistake.

Alternatively, the VAR could also be left no choice by the referee based on what's said over the comms. If the referee says "I've seen the contact but for me it's not a pen", then the VAR can't really consider it a clear and obvious mistake because the referee's seen the full incident and made his decision. Whereas, if the ref tells him "I didn't see any contact, he's gone down for no reason", then the VAR can see that the referee is factually wrong, and that opens the door for it to be 'clear and obvious' and therefore advise to check the monitor
 
FK2001 said:
Seems like an effect of the VAR protocol to me.

(If I understand right) The VAR will obviously consider if there is foul contact. But, to class the incident as a 'clear and obvious' error by the referee, they will consider if 'the contact had a consequence' i.e. if the attacker throws themselves to the floor then the contact didn't have consequence. Probably a case of the VAR believing it to be a foul, but not believing it to be a clear and obvious mistake.

Alternatively, the VAR could also be left no choice by the referee based on what's said over the comms. If the referee says "I've seen the contact but for me it's not a pen", then the VAR can't really consider it a clear and obvious mistake because the referee's seen the full incident and made his decision. Whereas, if the ref tells him "I didn't see any contact, he's gone down for no reason", then the VAR can see that the referee is factually wrong, and that opens the door for it to be 'clear and obvious' and therefore advise to check the monitor
Click to expand...

However it happened, the team got a HUGE decison wrong TWICE.
The ref didn't give it then the VAR didn't say "go to the monitor NOW".
Referees get sent home from world cups for much less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top