Since when was common sense a quality refs possess? - If you find one with it - he gets kicked out - sack em all and replace with ex players who no the game and are not pedantic oafs.
Harsh decision by the ref. The stewards certainly won't going to catch the streaker the speed they were walking at. I would like to know whether any refs on here could interpret the laws of the game for us to possibly give reasons why the ref sent him off? Violent conduct is the only one I can think of.
Yes and if anybody argues that it was right proves my point - you cant ref a game properly without applying common sense. But if you do the ref club kicks you out.
So technically he was right to show him a second yellow? Therefore exercising common sense in what you say means contravening the laws of the game. The referee was well within his rights and the laws of the game to send him off but got nothing but abuse I'd imagine. Maybe the laws of the game aren't common sense enough? The referees don't make the laws, they simply apply them.
I also know the referee of that game too. Used to be a Kent referee but now lives down in Sussex.
Great idea getting ex players. What if not enough want to do it? What if they get sick of the abuse/hassle and quit in huge rafts? Where would football be then? With the amount players get paid now why would they want to do it? Some shun the pressures of management so what makes anyone think they'd want to don a black kit and become a referee after a 20-odd year career playing? For me it makes no sense whatsoever.
[cite]Posted By: Spankie[/cite]So technically he was right to show him a second yellow? Therefore exercising common sense in what you say means contravening the laws of the game. The referee was well within his rights and the laws of the game to send him off but got nothing but abuse I'd imagine. Maybe the laws of the game aren't common sense enough? The referees don't make the laws, they simply apply them.
I also know the referee of that game too. Used to be a Kent referee but now lives down in Sussex.
Great idea getting ex players. What if not enough want to do it? What if they get sick of the abuse/hassle and quit in huge rafts? Where would football be then? With the amount players get paid now why would they want to do it? Some shun the pressures of management so what makes anyone think they'd want to don a black kit and become a referee after a 20-odd year career playing? For me it makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes technically the Ref is right and if refs only ever applied the rules without question it would be fine and no one could really argue. Trouble is Spankie Refs do use Common sense and their judgement on individual instances continuously, but it's the consistancy of those decisions they're so bad at. Every week we see incidents like Rooney getting away with a blatant elbow with a hug from the ref, and Caragher this weekend getting away with a yellow for a dangerous ott tackle that should have been a red. Yet they then don't apply the same judgements to less important situations like this one and just say it's the rules.
are you seriously suggesting that the ref was right to send off the player or am i mis reading you.
the ref did not need to do anything other than restart the game
For what benefit did the refs decision bring to the game.
The ref is there to aid the game not reduce the team to 10 men because a complete idiot entered the field of play and a player had aided the capture of the bafoon .
I agree the recent spate of incidents haven't helped the view of referees by the football world in fact I would go so far as to say it's put us right back - we want respect yet these decisions are being made incorrectly and not being corrected, it does affect respect lower down the leagues! Rooney should have been sent as should Carragher and Raphael (who fouled Lucas?) The PL referees do have an enormous responsibility not just to the players, officals and fans of the teams but every other referee in the country right down to park level as rickets like we've seen recently do tarnish the already very damaged view of referees in this country and it doesn't help anyone else who officiates. If they get it right at the top then it filters respect down through the divisions. I still don't get the consistency thing. Everyone bangs on about consistency, consistency, consistency (or lack thereof) and I see where people are coming from but all referees are different and will see incidents in a different way. Some decisions are unavoidable and everyone who knows anything about football knows it's a foul, a yellow or a red card. The little technical fouls will always be open to that little bit of interpretation. The law states ITOOTR (in the opinion of the referee) so laws then are the discretion of the referee's interpretation of that law in any one incident. One referee may allow one level of physical contact and the next will say it's a foul. One may decide one incident is a talking to, another says it's a yellow. One will allow the game to flow early on, some like to clamp down early on. You see my point? There'll always be debates about teams, managers and referees but one thing I've noticed is the scrutiny in football now. Every game, pass, decision, foul, goal, substitution and free kick is scutinised within an inch of its life and that includes the human error factor of match officials. Unless we introduce video replays of just about every single decision then there will always be decisions that will be open for debate and scrutinised.
I don't blame the ref, he was following the rules, our courts of law allow for discretion based on individual cases but we don't seem to apply that sort of thing in a game of football. However, for me it is an issue for a club disciplinary to resolve, but as I said the ref had no choice.
Comments
As someone said in the comments, with that kind of common sense we'll be seeing him in 3D in the Premier League in a couple of years.
He clearly wants to get on with the game and the steward is just ambling along
"A player who commits a cautionable or sending-off offence, either on or off
the field of play, whether directed towards an opponent, a team-mate, the
referee, an assistant referee or **any other person**, is disciplined according to the nature of the offence committed."
"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• ...
• violent conduct
..."
Not common sense, but according to the rules
I also know the referee of that game too. Used to be a Kent referee but now lives down in Sussex.
Great idea getting ex players. What if not enough want to do it? What if they get sick of the abuse/hassle and quit in huge rafts? Where would football be then? With the amount players get paid now why would they want to do it? Some shun the pressures of management so what makes anyone think they'd want to don a black kit and become a referee after a 20-odd year career playing? For me it makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes technically the Ref is right and if refs only ever applied the rules without question it would be fine and no one could really argue. Trouble is Spankie Refs do use Common sense and their judgement on individual instances continuously, but it's the consistancy of those decisions they're so bad at. Every week we see incidents like Rooney getting away with a blatant elbow with a hug from the ref, and Caragher this weekend getting away with a yellow for a dangerous ott tackle that should have been a red. Yet they then don't apply the same judgements to less important situations like this one and just say it's the rules.
are you seriously suggesting that the ref was right to send off the player or am i mis reading you.
the ref did not need to do anything other than restart the game
For what benefit did the refs decision bring to the game.
The ref is there to aid the game not reduce the team to 10 men because a complete idiot entered the field of play and a player had aided the capture of the bafoon .
in this case the ref is wrong on so many levels
I still don't get the consistency thing. Everyone bangs on about consistency, consistency, consistency (or lack thereof) and I see where people are coming from but all referees are different and will see incidents in a different way. Some decisions are unavoidable and everyone who knows anything about football knows it's a foul, a yellow or a red card. The little technical fouls will always be open to that little bit of interpretation. The law states ITOOTR (in the opinion of the referee) so laws then are the discretion of the referee's interpretation of that law in any one incident. One referee may allow one level of physical contact and the next will say it's a foul. One may decide one incident is a talking to, another says it's a yellow. One will allow the game to flow early on, some like to clamp down early on. You see my point? There'll always be debates about teams, managers and referees but one thing I've noticed is the scrutiny in football now. Every game, pass, decision, foul, goal, substitution and free kick is scutinised within an inch of its life and that includes the human error factor of match officials. Unless we introduce video replays of just about every single decision then there will always be decisions that will be open for debate and scrutinised.