If someone has already brought this subject up then ignore this post.
This has bothered me for sometime and after watching the game on monday its still very worrying and I think it could be seen to be as cheating.
We've all seen hundreds of games where offenses/fouls that happen out side of the area are usually given as fouls but when they occur in the box they are not. I think in the mind of the ref he gives a 50/50 decision. The nicky bailey incident on monday shows that, if that had happened outside of the box I think the ref would have given a free kick to us. Because it happened inside the box he's given the benefit of the doubt to the defender because in his mind he's not sure if there's contact and by giving him the benefit of the doubt then the only alternative is that bailey dived, so a booking. So if it happened outside the box then the punishment is lesser to give the decision to the attacker wheras in the box if he's not sure he can take easy option and go with the defender.
So in a way a form of cheating or just not being upto it?
Also the decision not to send off Blizzard was a disgrace. Again if that had happened in the 70th minute for example, I can be sure the guy would have been sent off.
So is there an unwritten rule that if incidents occur in the first five minutes of a game the full punishment is not given, the same can also be said of awarding a pen in the first 5 minutes, I don't think I have ever seen one.
0
Comments
No one in the greater authority ever does anything about it and its not like the ref is on his own out on the pitch as he has a couple of ref assistants and a fourth official
If you did that in the centre circle it would be a definite free kick.
Can any of the refs explain this to me?
Most refs avoid getting too liberal with the cards too early. If you caution or send off a player, or award a penalty early on, you have to be certain. By being too card happy, you set the standard for the remainder of the game, and that can get you into a real mess. By the rules of the game, such an approach isn't right, but many refs do seem to adopt this view.
The Bailey incident on Monday was a poor decision in my view. In situations like that, I think refs avoid giving decisions to the attacking side because the consequence of getting it wrong is significant. Outside the box, if you give the foul incorrectly, all you have done is inflict a free-kick against the defending side, not a penalty, so less significance attached to a wrong decision. I know you can take the reverse view (ie that the attacking side has been unfairly done by), but maintaining the status quo has always been regarded as preferential to changing the situation dramatically by making a wrong decision. Not defending it, just saying that's the way it is.
With regard to defenders 'deliberately obstructing a striker' ... that isn't strictly what is happening. A player is only guilty of deliberate obstruction when he is not in control or in play of the ball (Sam Sodje did it in our penalty area in the first half on Monday, and got away with it). What you see when a defender shepherds the ball out for a goal kick etc is the defender making sure that the ball is still under his control (ie close enough to him that he could play it) while keeping the striker away from the ball with his body. That is 'shielding the ball', not obstructing the striker. To the ref, it's no different to a striker holding the ball up in the centre circle and keeping the defender at bay with his arse, back, shoulders etc.
Thats you theory blown out the water.
Giving a decision outside and not inside the box is catergorically NOT cheating. No match offical is a cheat.
If you give a penalty you have to be 1000% certain it's definitely a foul because if you're wrong and team scores from it it's a massive mistake.
No law saying you shouldn't give a red in the first minute.
The Nicky Bailey diving/yellow card was harsh. If you have to be 1000% certain it's a penalty, you also have to 1000% certain it's simulation.
When a defender is screening the ball (with his back) usually for a goal kick it's legal and it's in the LoAF and isn't obstruction.
I still don't believe if Blizzard had committed that foul in ANY minute of the game he'd been sent off, I saw it as a yellow on first viewing and that's all the ref gets, one version from one angle at full speed, if he's not looking directly at the boot making contact with the leg (the ball had gone remember) for that split second then he's not going to see the contact.
This argument about consistency wrankles with me. Referees have to take every single decision on its own merits whether there's 1 foul in the game or 100. There's no such thing really as inconsistency when all incidents are different, all games are different, all players are different and all referees are different and fans of either side will see the same challenge totally differently again leading to this 'inconsistency' thing again. As regards supposed 'incompetency', the FA does so much to help the development of referees and the officals themselves put a hell of a lot of time, effort and training into being and improving as a football league referee and I cannot stress how difficult it is to get that high up and how good (and bloody fit) you have to be, how many games you have to complete, and excel at a lower level, before you get the chance to be a level 1 referee.
And the referee was Jack Taylor who is English! lol
I do agree if the 4th official sees a replay and can tell the referee to issue a red to correct the incorrect yellow. This cannot happen now but may come in sometime in the future.
Good posts here, Spankie.
One thing ...... some referees make their decisions instantly - and once made it's difficult for them to retract that decision.
Other referees stop the game, deal with the situation first (attention to the injured player, perhaps consult the nearest assistant) - and only then call the player over to show the card ......... giving themselves time to weigh up the context and a better chance of making the right decision.
Easy for me to be wise after the event, of course - but Trevor Kettle had no need to make his Basey decision so quickly, especially as it was so evident there was a player who had received serious injury.
Sounds logical, but is there a danger in that that the decision of the ref will be too heavily inflenced by the extent of the injury? Not all injuries are the result of fouls, some are just bad luck.
IMO, he then has a better chance to ensure his decision is correct.
He get's one view, one time, at real time. Mistakes will happen, just seems some refs make more than others (read kettle)
As for Bailey, can we really be surprised that the ref got it wrong, Bailey is a cheat, simple as that, how we can bitch and moan when he gets treated like one is beyond me.
I'm sure the party line would be to deny this.
If you did that in the centre circle it would be a definite free kick.
Can any of the refs explain this to me?[/quote]
I'm not a ref, but as I understand it, it is not obstruction if the player is within a yard of the ball.
Edited to say why do I never get these "quote" thingies right?
Click the 'BBCode' radio button under where you type in your comment
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19012010/58/bundesliga-fsv-frankfurt-stage-phantom-goal-competition.html
Look at this news re retrospective action re Patrick Viera. The ref Alan Wiley is now saying that he didnt 'properly' see it before, and now sees it as a redcard offence. Not that the Stoke player had to leave the pitch, let alone go to hospital.
Well, Mr Kettle? And his apologists among you?
I agree with your first point Prague. I always felt the FA's stance on this didn't do ref's any favours.
Not sure what your second point is. The FA will intervene if no punishment is handed down during the game. The Stoke thing was a high profile incident in the premier and the media have sought a quote from the player. (They also have a funny sound-bite about the size of his tool!) Had he issued a yellow at the time, Viera wouldn't have been charged and it wuldn't have been so news-worthy.
He wasn't lying.
The guy should have walked for that challenge, kettle had a perfect view of it and bottled it simple as. He saw the bloke go to ground, put his foot over the ball and almost snap Baseys standing leg.
He see's that, as a foul, and a yellow card offence.
Complete and utter plate