Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Unlimited

The Refereeing Thread

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this has already been covered, but why is that the officials, with the assistance of the VAR, rule that for offside calls a ball is played when it leaves the foot, not when it’s first touched? I have heard some of the talking heads query this before, but didn’t catch an answer. 
 

I’m keen to know given split seconds matter and the VAR is taking some of the fun out of watching a striker beat the offside trap. If it’s just the way it is and the offside rule is based on when the ball leaves the foot and not when the kick commences, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post

My guess is that the player receiving the ball is usually running towards the offside line so they’re going to be closest to the line/most offside at the end of contact with the ball rather than the beginning. It still shows how much error there can be in VAR. What if it’s a player in an offside position coming back onside? Then the beginning of contact with the ball would be worst case.

As for the red card last night in Adelaide v smurfs, I don’t think was correct. It was a foul as he pulled him back but it didn’t deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity as Le Fondre was still on his feet, had the ball and was one on one with the keeper. The only thing that took  away the opportunity was Le Fondre choosing to fall over.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see why people would debate the red from adl game - it’s not clearly enough to send him over, however if the referee deemed the contact sufficient then I live with the red - If it stops defenders doing it and they consistent with the call then it should lead to more goal scoring chances I guess which is always a good thing for the crowds. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, GunnerWanderer said:

I can see why people would debate the red from adl game - it’s not clearly enough to send him over, however if the referee deemed the contact sufficient then I live with the red - If it stops defenders doing it and they consistent with the call then it should lead to more goal scoring chances I guess which is always a good thing for the crowds. 

It's similar to the red Best Baccus got against ADL ..... ( cost us the game from memory ) 

Share this post


Link to post

Just checked the odds for Phoenix v Fraudsters. Fraudsters are favourites.

Share this post


Link to post

Does everyone remember the lead up to Dukes foul in the box against the ccm defender (fox)? After Duke made his initial turn and beat his man, he was in the clear but the man he beat grabbed at and pulled at Duke to slow him down, not only was no foul given but no yellow or red. If that Adelaide player deserved a red, we at least deserved a foul, it was pretty obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, matty said:

Does everyone remember the lead up to Dukes foul in the box against the ccm defender (fox)? After Duke made his initial turn and beat his man, he was in the clear but the man he beat grabbed at and pulled at Duke to slow him down, not only was no foul given but no yellow or red. If that Adelaide player deserved a red, we at least deserved a foul, it was pretty obvious. 

He complained, was noted, after the third whinge Alireza gave him a card for dissent.

Alireza may have had the chat from fox sports and the appointments people to let the game flow and that was his interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, matty said:

Does everyone remember the lead up to Dukes foul in the box against the ccm defender (fox)? After Duke made his initial turn and beat his man, he was in the clear but the man he beat grabbed at and pulled at Duke to slow him down, not only was no foul given but no yellow or red. If that Adelaide player deserved a red, we at least deserved a foul, it was pretty obvious. 

In the 14th minute? It wasn't going to be a red because there was a defender coming across in front of him. Despite the old saying "last man foul" not actually being in the laws, refs are reluctant to issues reds for denying goal-scoring opportunities if there are other defenders in the area. Also, Duke didn't go down like his legs had disconnected from his brain like Le Flopre did.

That Mariners defender (Kye Rowles) got very lucky with that, he was trying but didn't get a shirt pull when Duke turned him, then put a hand on the shoulder, and then as they went into the box he lunged across, got a very slight touch on the top of the ball then fell over with his left leg splayed out horizontally & could easily have got tangled up with Duke & caused a pen.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mack said:

In the 14th minute? It wasn't going to be a red because there was a defender coming across in front of him. Despite the old saying "last man foul" not actually being in the laws, refs are reluctant to issues reds for denying goal-scoring opportunities if there are other defenders in the area. Also, Duke didn't go down like his legs had disconnected from his brain like Le Flopre did.

That Mariners defender (Kye Rowles) got very lucky with that, he was trying but didn't get a shirt pull when Duke turned him, then put a hand on the shoulder, and then as they went into the box he lunged across, got a very slight touch on the top of the ball then fell over with his left leg splayed out horizontally & could easily have got tangled up with Duke & caused a pen.

Yeah, so as I was saying, the defender grabbed at Duke as much as the ADL player did when sent off. The only difference is Duke didn't go down like a pussy looking for a belly scratch. Frustrates me no end that referees only give fouls for good acting. 

Share this post


Link to post

Strebre has confirmed on the Fox Podcast that both calls for Baccus non-handball and ball not crossing the line were correct decisions and pretty much explained why they are not awarded goals.

BTW @mack, Bozza as brought up with encroachment to Strebre. The Newcastle Jets v CCM,Strebre has acknowledge the encroachment but the newcastle goal is still the correct decision, VAR cannot intervene is that situation

Share this post


Link to post
On 28/11/2019 at 11:31 PM, Paul01 said:

And here is the top 30 

http://refereeingworld.blogspot.com/search/label/News

Not one Australian. 

No surprise there, the more I watch the aleague the more I'm amazed at the lack of improvement. Maybe it would help if the referees actually play at a decent level. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, matty said:

No surprise there, the more I watch the aleague the more I'm amazed at the lack of improvement. Maybe it would help if the referees actually play at a decent level. 

What? They just need to be trained properly

You don’t need to play the game to know how to referee it. Imagine getting a former striker as a referee and how many penalties for handball you would see awarded compared to a former defender referee. Goodness knows what a goalkeeper would do.

Share this post


Link to post
On 30/11/2019 at 7:25 PM, Unlimited said:

What? They just need to be trained properly

You don’t need to play the game to know how to referee it. Imagine getting a former striker as a referee and how many penalties for handball you would see awarded compared to a former defender referee. Goodness knows what a goalkeeper would do.

I disagree 👍

Share this post


Link to post

A extract on the handball rule and the crap interpretation used by A-league referees as highlighted by my italics and underlines

The IFAB have now confirmed that a handball will be awarded if a player makes his body an "unnatural silhouette", i.e. making his body bigger with his arm. It is also automatically an offence if the arm is above shoulder height.

There is now no handball if the ball is deflected onto the arm, or if the ball hits a player using his arm for support.

How does the new handball rule work?

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

  • the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacker's hand or arm.
  • a player wins ball possession after it comes off their hand or arm and then scores, or creates a goalscoring chance.
  • the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their silhouette unnaturally bigger.
  • the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it's raised above their shoulder.

There will be no penalty if:

  • the ball touches a player's hand/arm immediately from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player.
  • the ball touches a player's hand/arm close to their body and has not made their silhouette unnaturally bigger.
  • a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground (but not extended to make the body bigger).
  • additionally, should the goalkeeper attempt to clear a ball from a teammate but fails, the goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball.

And so, gaining possession and scoring as a result of handling the ball will not be allowed - nor will a goal scored directly from handling the ball, regardless of intent.

"Deliberate handball remains an offence," IFAB technical director David Elleray stated. "In the past we've managed to improve the laws by focusing on outcome rather than intent.

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

Share this post


Link to post

See that rule is just moronic. What the hell does using your arms to make your “silhouette unnaturally bigger” even mean?

Presumably having arms is considered natural, so it’s the position of the arms that matters. I read that as saying that if you deliberately put your arms out to make yourself big or actively attempt to block the ball it’s an unnatural position. However, if you don’t do anything deliberately with your arms and they just end up naturally where they end up in the act of performing whatever movement you’re doing, by definition that’s a natural position.

But that goes against the second last paragraph, which says it’s not about intent it’s about outcome. If the player didn’t deliberately put their arms there then it can only be considered a natural position. The intent determines whether the position is natural or not. It’s all a mess.

The only way I see handball working is one of two ways. The first is to say any contact with the arm, regardless of context or intent, is considered handball. Then the only thing the referee/VAR has to prove is contact with the arm. It’d be much easier to rule on and you’d get less arguments, although it could end up like field hockey where players deliberately hit the ball at opponents feet to win penalties.

The second is to go back to more like the old rule where it needs to hit the arm and in the referees opinion it has to be deliberate. It’s up to interpretation but so many other rules are so why not this one?

Share this post


Link to post

Didn’t the referee award a free kick against us when Muller was falling and he put his arm on the ground for support but the ball hit his arm?

Now I’m confused 

Doesn’t help that the local association rules are always at least one year old

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Unlimited said:

Doesn’t help that the local association rules are always at least one year old

Don’t worry, when we get our updates next year before the start of the 2020 season, will just be in time for the end of the A-aleague season :lol:

10 hours ago, Unlimited said:

Didn’t the referee award a free kick against us when Muller was falling and he put his arm on the ground for support but the ball hit his arm?

Yep :rolleyes: 

10 hours ago, Davo said:

What the hell does using your arms to make your “silhouette unnaturally bigger” even mean?

Yep, so arms by your side is handball because you’re making yourself bigger? I just completely disagree with the direction they’ve gone.

10 hours ago, Davo said:

It’s all a mess.

They changed it to make it simple & easy to understand. What a mess!

Share this post


Link to post

So far this season there have been 20 penalties awarded and here is the stat of each teams winning and conceding a penalty

Teams Won Conceded
WSW 1 5
Sydney 3 0
Adelaide 3 3
CCM 1 3
Melb Vic 1 1
Newcastle 1 0
Wellington 4 2
Perth 0 2
Western Utd 2 0
Melb City 2 4
Brisbane 2 0

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SBW said:

So far this season there have been 20 penalties awarded and here is the stat of each teams winning and conceding a penalty

Teams Won Conceded
WSW 1 5
Sydney 3 0
Adelaide 3 3
CCM 1 3
Melb Vic 1 1
Newcastle 1 0
Wellington 4 2
Perth 0 2
Western Utd 2 0
Melb City 2 4
Brisbane 2 0

 

Nice analysis.

Smurf and Ex-smurf coaches doing well on your analysis 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...