The Refereeing Thread

[Paul01]

What a weird day.

Went to my 4 appointed games and had to abandon due to water with rain failing in both goal mouths. Incident Report No 1

Volunteered for 3 other games near home which were uncovered

In the second (AAM) I had to issue a straight red R6. Send off report time. The player decided to have another go after full time. Incident Report No 2.

The third game was a forfeit which was found out during the AAM game.

 

[Prydzopolis]

2 hours ago, Paul01 said:

In the second (AAM) I had to issue a straight red R6. Send off report time. The player decided to have another go after full time. Incident Report No 2.

That’s the worst thing about being referee, paperwork. Just finished mine

2 hours ago, Paul01 said:

Went to my 4 appointed games and had to abandon due to water with rain failing in both goal mouths. Incident Report No 1

I was lucky the ground I was at today had fantastic drainage. Absolutely belted down for the first match, start of the second match the rain just stopped & was at a point where there was lots of water starting to pool on the field but not at a point which was unplayable. Lucky there was no further rain & better weather plus time meant we got in all our games.

Unfortunately a bad collision meant the last game couldn’t be completed & ambulances had to be called (there was my paperwork for the day )

[Davo]

I know I'm banging on about the handball rule but the Premier League games overnight did my head in with some decisions.

Here are the highlights from the Southampton vs Spurs game.

At 2:53 a handball is given after the Saints player tries to play a pass along the ground, it hits a defenders foot a metre away, flicks up and hits the outstretched arm of another defender which is in contact with the opponent. The arm is extended but below the shoulder, a fraction of a second passes from kick to deflection to arm and his arm is nowhere near the original path of the ball. Handball given.

Here are the highlights from the Leicester vs Burnley game.

At 0:08 the ball is crossed in to the back post, comes off the defender and hits the strikers outstretched arm which is in contact with the opponent (this is a handball rant so we'll ignore that the outstretched hand was a blatant push). The arm is extended but below the shoulder. Ball comes off the strikers arm, drops perfectly to his feet for him to score. No handball, goal given.

In both cases the offending player has an arm out touching an opponent (arguably those actions are fouls in themselves, particularly the Burnley one). In both cases the arm is below the shoulder. In both cases the ball deflects off another player within touching distance. The Burnley player gets a huge advantage from the contact as it sets him up to score. The Spurs player arguably doesn't gain an advantage as the pass had already been blocked by his team mate and wasn't going anywhere dangerous.

I can't figure out how both of those VAR reviewed decisions are correct.

[mack]

I might be just a stupid non-referee who don't know the interpretation properly because I haven't done 50 courses but to me those two decisions should have been the other way around. No pen, then goal disallowed.

One of the purposes of the rebadged handball law was to make it official that a non-deliberate handball that leads to a goal should be over-ruled, instead of just having to rely on the unwritten rules that refs would call such situations as a foul even though they weren't deliberate.

[Prydzopolis]

1 hour ago, mack said:

One of the purposes of the rebadged handball law was to make it official that a non-deliberate handball that leads to a goal should be over-ruled, instead of just having to rely on the unwritten rules that refs would call such situations as a foul even though they weren't deliberate.

This is correct in part but it was more because goals were never intended to be scored by the hand however it was possible under the old law that a goal could be scored from a non - deliberate handball. It was never the intention of the initial law to be able to score using your hand. Perhaps I’ve just worded what you’ve said differently.

1 hour ago, mack said:

might be just a stupid non-referee who don't know the interpretation properly because I haven't done 50 courses

It’s not about doing courses, it’s that extra bit of knowledge in how to interpret the laws. It’s one thing to read & understand the LOTG but another being taught how to interpret it.

6 hours ago, Davo said:

I know I'm banging on about the handball rule but the Premier League games overnight did my head in with some decisions.

I’ll check it out when I watch the games. Pretty sure BT have a version of Ref watch with the head of the PGMOL, should be an interesting read.

On the world feed (Optus sport) the Monday review show they have a referee as part of the show & talk through the contentious decisions. You’ve got to watch the whole show though. Two seasons ago they just had a 10 minute ref watch segment.

[mack]

2 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

This is correct in part but it was more because goals were never intended to be scored by the hand however it was possible under the old law that a goal could be scored from a non - deliberate handball. It was never the intention of the initial law to be able to score using your hand. Perhaps I’ve just worded what you’ve said differently.

No I was thinking more along the lines of the Henry goal vs Ireland (although that was hardly just an issue of deliberate vs non-deliberate), where someone might accidentally non-deliberately handle the ball and then score. But either apply since under the laws it doesn't matter (similar to how you could score off the ref under previous laws).

[Edinburgh]

11 hours ago, Prydzopolis said:

This is correct in part but it was more because goals were never intended to be scored by the hand however it was possible under the old law that a goal could be scored from a non - deliberate handball. It was never the intention of the initial law to be able to score using your hand. Perhaps I’ve just worded what you’ve said differently.

It’s not about doing courses, it’s that extra bit of knowledge in how to interpret the laws. It’s one thing to read & understand the LOTG but another being taught how to interpret it.

I’ll check it out when I watch the games. Pretty sure BT have a version of Ref watch with the head of the PGMOL, should be an interesting read.

On the world feed (Optus sport) the Monday review show they have a referee as part of the show & talk through the contentious decisions. You’ve got to watch the whole show though. Two seasons ago they just had a 10 minute ref watch segment.

There's the whole problem in a nutshell! I read that as being brainwashed into not applying the laws as they are written.

[Davo]

From those decisions I posted above, here is the Ref Watch article on Sky Sports.

On the Spurs one:

Quote

INCIDENT: Moussa Djenepo's pass ricochets off Harry Winks and strikes the arm of Matt Doherty, who is a matter of inches away from his team-mate. Referee David Coote points to the spot after looking on the pitchside monitor.

VERDICT: When you look at how the law is written, referees have been very consistent, but this is the one I was most uncomfortable with. I was uncomfortable for two reasons; the proximity is so close, and it strikes Winks' heels before going up to Doherty's arm. In fairness to Doherty, his arms are in front of him and not outstretched, so it could have gone up and hit him in the chest. So this is not a decision I can defend, Doherty was very unlucky.

Uses a few weasel words like "uncomfortable" and "unlucky" but it sounds like he's saying that the decision is wrong.

On the Burnley one:

Quote

INCIDENT: Chris Wood brings the ball under control with what appears to be the top part of his arm before firing Burnley into the lead. The goal stands.

VERDICT: I'm not convinced the ball even stuck Wood's sleeve. He's used a lot of strength to get to the ball and I think it comes off his chest or the top of his shoulder, it certainly doesn't come off his arm.

Describes the blatant push as "used a lot of strength" and says "it certainly doesn't come off his arm". Not sure how to argue with this as it's so far from the reality of what the replays show that it seems pointless, which is probably what he was going for. Maybe there's some interpretation of the law I'm not aware of where his arms count as legs when it's the first half, you're in the opposition box and your name is Wood.

[mack]

4 hours ago, Davo said:

Uses a few weasel words like "uncomfortable" and "unlucky" but it sounds like he's saying that the decision is wrong.

There's also "When you look at how the law is written, referees have been very consistent". That's meaningless non-sequitur. A criminal might consistently break the law, doesn't mean that being consistent is some kind of positive factor.

[Prydzopolis]

Dale’s version of events 

13 hours ago, Edinburgh said:

There's the whole problem in a nutshell! I read that as being brainwashed into not applying the laws as they are written.

It’s long been the case that IFAB write the LOTG but sometimes it doesn’t translate in practice. It’s not perfect but has been that way for a long time.

[Edinburgh]

17 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

Dale’s version of events 

It’s long been the case that IFAB write the LOTG but sometimes it doesn’t translate in practice. It’s not perfect but has been that way for a long time.

Doesn't make it right.

In the case of handball, we've gone from:

- a law which is applied subject to the referee's interpretation and opinion of what actually happened in the match

to

- the interpretation (opinion) of a law and its meaning/application with guidelines on what that interpretation/opinion is and/or isn't which is then interpreted by the referee in the match based on his opinion (which is then potentially subject to the opinion of the VAR on how to interpret the law, the interpretation of the law and the guidelines of the interpretation) together with an intimate knowledge of how the body works and reacts to any and all physical movement during the course of attempting to play in a football match 

For christ's sake - give me a bloody break!

Sorry, I don't mean to shoot the messenger.

It's time for referees to rebel and reject the brainwashing and tell IFAB or whoever to wake up to themselves.

[Cynth]

My poor son who referees in the weekends complained about the handball rule and the difficulty interpreting it. He knows the rule clearly and yet there are instances where you are needing to make complex decisions about the consequences of the handball in split seconds. And of course there’s always some “expert” on the sideline abusing him for a decision whichever way he goes! 

[Prydzopolis]

3 hours ago, Cynth said:

My poor son who referees in the weekends complained about the handball rule and the difficulty interpreting it. He knows the rule clearly and yet there are instances where you are needing to make complex decisions about the consequences of the handball in split seconds. And of course there’s always some “expert” on the sideline abusing him for a decision whichever way he goes! 

It’s a thankless task & so complicated but it can have its moments.

13 hours ago, Edinburgh said:

Doesn't make it right.

For christ's sake - give me a bloody break!

Sorry, I don't mean to shoot the messenger.

It's time for referees to rebel and reject the brainwashing and tell IFAB or whoever to wake up to themselves.

I sympathize with you, in making the handball law more black/white rather than depending on a referee’s interpretation. It has complicated matters but hopefully leads to more consistency.

In terms of getting us referees to rebel, I’d say we play a similar role to fans in terms of global football. Just like fans, referees are pivotal to the game but we have no influence on these things. Just like the fans, we see the game changing above us but it’s only the big players who have proper influence & are able to change things.

We are taught how to interpret the LOTG so the application of handball is the same you see in your MAA match as it is in the professional leagues. 

[Prydzopolis]

I meant to get back to you Davo but had 2 different nights plus weekend of games.

A quick flick through twitter shows that there is more handball law controversy in the EPL over the weekend

[StringerBellend]

On 23/09/2020 at 8:27 AM, Cynth said:

My poor son who referees in the weekends complained about the handball rule and the difficulty interpreting it. He knows the rule clearly and yet there are instances where you are needing to make complex decisions about the consequences of the handball in split seconds. And of course there’s always some “expert” on the sideline abusing him for a decision whichever way he goes! 

He should follow the official FFA edict, and give the decision in favour of the light blue team 

[Paul01]

On 23/09/2020 at 8:27 AM, Cynth said:

My poor son who referees in the weekends complained about the handball rule and the difficulty interpreting it. He knows the rule clearly and yet there are instances where you are needing to make complex decisions about the consequences of the handball in split seconds. And of course there’s always some “expert” on the sideline abusing him for a decision whichever way he goes! 

I sympathize with him.

The interpretation of rule should have clearly explained by his branch coach. And even then every circumstance is not covered.

I was appointed to Football NSW games where the handball issue was clearly an issue. Some players brought their hands up to protect their chests. In some cases I awarded a free kick and sometimes not. When the hands were on the body before the ball was kicked, not a free kick. When the hands were raised defensively as the ball was kicked, a free was awarded. (This was confirmed by my Football NSW compatriots)

With handball, my branch coach has gone over this on multiple zoom branch meetings since June, hands away from the body (sometime described as a silhouette), direct free kick for handball EXCEPT where a defender kicks the ball into his/her hand which is play on. Also, not hand ball if the arms are by the side and ball bouches into a hand/arm or is kicked directly into arm by any player.

Hopefully IFAB redo the rule AGAIN since almost no coach understands this rule as they usually live on their memory of rules from 10 or more years ago.

The FFA can take some of the blame for failing to educate coaches on rule changes leaving to the people with the whistle on the first day of the season.

[Prydzopolis]

Dale’s take on this weeks handball controversy

 

[Davo]

Thanks for posting. One of those tweets in particular clears a lot up.

I think a lot of the problem is that they've used completely the wrong wording. They should have steered clear of the words "unnaturally bigger" and just said that it depends on whether the ball would have continued on after the arm or whether another part of the body would have stopped it. You can have the arm in a completely natural position and it still be handball so why bring "natural" or "unnatural" into it? It just adds confusion. Also even with that cleared up it's still a dumb rule because now any contact with the arm will be handball unless the defender runs around with their arms behind their back. I also don't like that there's handball and defensive handball. The rule should be the same everywhere on the field and for every outfield player.

Then there's this:

"The concept of 'natural' position of the arm (which is very difficult to interpret) has been replaced by a more factual judgement - has the position of the hand/arm 'made the body unnaturally bigger'"

That's crazy. They accept that natural is difficult to interpret so instead they have to determine whether it's unnatural. Surely if natural is too hard then unnatural is equally as hard. It's like saying it's hard to tell if a player is left footed so instead we're just going to see whether they're not right footed.

Also:

The Havertz call is annoying. If it didn't hit his arm it probably goes out for a goal kick so the contact with the arm has kept the ball in the penalty area. From this contact the defender has had to scramble and Mount scores, yet because the defender got the first touch after the hand it isn't handball. If the defender did an air swing and the first touch was Mount it probably would have been handball. They say it's about outcomes rather than intent, well his arm prevented a goal kick and kept the ball in a dangerous area which led to a goal.

Summary: I understand the rule a lot better now and I hate it equally as much as before.

[Edinburgh]

3 hours ago, Davo said:

Thanks for posting. One of those tweets in particular clears a lot up.

I think a lot of the problem is that they've used completely the wrong wording. They should have steered clear of the words "unnaturally bigger" and just said that it depends on whether the ball would have continued on after the arm or whether another part of the body would have stopped it. You can have the arm in a completely natural position and it still be handball so why bring "natural" or "unnatural" into it? It just adds confusion. Also even with that cleared up it's still a dumb rule because now any contact with the arm will be handball unless the defender runs around with their arms behind their back. I also don't like that there's handball and defensive handball. The rule should be the same everywhere on the field and for every outfield player.

Then there's this:

"The concept of 'natural' position of the arm (which is very difficult to interpret) has been replaced by a more factual judgement - has the position of the hand/arm 'made the body unnaturally bigger'"

That's crazy. They accept that natural is difficult to interpret so instead they have to determine whether it's unnatural. Surely if natural is too hard then unnatural is equally as hard. It's like saying it's hard to tell if a player is left footed so instead we're just going to see whether they're not right footed.

Also:

The Havertz call is annoying. If it didn't hit his arm it probably goes out for a goal kick so the contact with the arm has kept the ball in the penalty area. From this contact the defender has had to scramble and Mount scores, yet because the defender got the first touch after the hand it isn't handball. If the defender did an air swing and the first touch was Mount it probably would have been handball. They say it's about outcomes rather than intent, well his arm prevented a goal kick and kept the ball in a dangerous area which led to a goal.

Summary: I understand the rule a lot better now and I hate it equally as much as before.

[Prydzopolis]

On 30/09/2020 at 10:15 AM, Davo said:

Summary: I understand the rule a lot better now and I hate it equally as much as before.

Hahaha!!! Yes, it’s funny you know, they started the process of changing it easier to understand in 2014 & 5 years later they made great progress but created much confusion in the process.

Interestingly enough, the EPL have decided to have a different interpretation of handball going forward. I don’t know exactly what they intend to do but will be interesting seeing the fall out 

On 30/09/2020 at 10:15 AM, Davo said:

The Havertz call is annoying. They say it's about outcomes rather than intent, well his arm prevented a goal kick and kept the ball in a dangerous area which led to a goal.

This specific call is about ensuring that the handball rules out a goal when it directly comes from the goal. Otherwise it’s a case of how far back do you go to rule out a goal from a handball. 

This is one of the updates from the 19/20 law, that came into effect 20/21

[mack]

12 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

Otherwise it’s a case of how far back do you go to rule out a goal from a handball. 

VAR can go back minutes, even after the game is over and award a pen but not call that a handball because one defender touched it before it resulted in a goal?

[Prydzopolis]

22 hours ago, mack said:

VAR can go back minutes, even after the game is over and award a pen but not call that a handball because one defender touched it before it resulted in a goal?

Initially the law was about ruling out a goal that had a handball in the lead up. Initially it did not specify when the handball could/could not occur & therefore that’s why in the 20/21 update they made it more specific.

It was always only meant to be in the direct lead up to a goal, not in 2 or 3 previous moves however the wording was too general meaning it could be interpreted that way.

The handball law was not created specially for VAR. You interpret it the same if you’re doing AAM or PL. It is meant to be directly leading to a goal, not in the previous 2, 3 or 4 plays back.

[Prydzopolis]

On other news in the amateur world, had a surprise assessment the other day when I was doing WPL. Got a really good report, was really happy with me & wanted me doing higher grade games.

The one point of feedback is my interaction with players on the field. I always go out of my way to explain decisions & explain the LOTG but it’s a weakness as players start a back & forth (argument). 

Anyway, pretty happy going into the final series coming up. Still one weekend left in one comp & 2 in another. 

[Unlimited]

5 minutes ago, Prydzopolis said:

On other news in the amateur world, had a surprise assessment the other day when I was doing WPL. Got a really good report, was really happy with me & wanted me doing higher grade games.

The one point of feedback is my interaction with players on the field. I always go out of my way to explain decisions & explain the LOTG but it’s a weakness as players start a back & forth (argument). 

Anyway, pretty happy going into the final series coming up. Still one weekend left in one comp & 2 in another. 

I have a mate in the Gladesville comp who is dying

He's hating playing in the hotter weather. How are you finding this extremely late finish, especially since you'd have multiple games per day?

[Prydzopolis]

29 minutes ago, Unlimited said:

I have a mate in the Gladesville comp who is dying

He's hating playing in the hotter weather. How are you finding this extremely late finish, especially since you'd have multiple games per day?

Yeah it’s definitely a challenge but I’ve been very lucky. Last weekend was freezing, a few weeks ago it rained in the morning. I’ve really one had one Saturday afternoon a few weeks ago it was late 20’s and hot. To be honest I wouldn’t consider any of that hot.

This weekend though? 32 degrees Saturday & 33 Sunday!  That’s going to be a test! I’ve got 4 women’s games Sunday (2 CR & 2 AR) but tomorrow should be a challenge with 4 games. I’ve also been lucky that I’ve had a PT who trains a lot of state league referees. My fitness levels are the best they’ve ever been and have no issues doing games. My record on a Sunday was 26kms & was good to the end whereas in the past would struggle at the 18km.

I totally understand now why the football season were meant to end in September. It’s only now that we are in October, even mid 20’s it’s a noticeable step up.

[Unlimited]

1 hour ago, Prydzopolis said:

My fitness levels are the best they’ve ever been and have no issues doing games. My record on a Sunday was 26kms & was good to the end whereas in the past would struggle at the 18km.

Woah, that is really impressive. I used to die at the 12-13km mark. Maybe I'm not running as much as you do or your games are a lot more end-to-end

[Paul01]

So darn hot for 3 days of refereeing.

4 games on Saturday 2 AR and 2 centres. During the first game we had large juvenile brown snake sliver across the field my son and I were at during the first game. The girls on the field saw it but did not tell my son about the snake till one of the spectators saw it. Of course we stopped the game until the snake was in the property next door. At the same ground a few weeks ago we had a pregnant ewe. Getting back to the heat, drinks breaks for all games on Saturday.

3 men's games from 9.00 till 3.00 pm yesterday with multiple drinks breaks.

2 games today. Even the 9am game needed a drinks break in the second half. At least there was a breeze for the men's game which started at 12pm.

[Prydzopolis]

On 02/10/2020 at 10:42 PM, Unlimited said:

Woah, that is really impressive. I used to die at the 12-13km mark. Maybe I'm not running as much as you do or your games are a lot more end-to-end

Don’t worry, there are games where not much happens or it’s just long ball after long ball. I guess the biggest point of feedback for my games last season was that I wasn’t getting close or wide enough when the ball was in the box. I thought I wasn’t doing too bad but the training has helped a great deal.

On 05/10/2020 at 6:39 PM, Paul01 said:

So darn hot for 3 days of refereeing.

Yep, I feel for you mate. At least we only had games on the Saturday & Sunday. Though Monday wasn’t as bad as Sat/Sun?

I found Sunday harder, maybe because I was fresh when I started Saturday. It didn’t help that daylight savings meant that I missed an hour of sleep. I don’t know how I got through Sunday, I was delirious by my last game & made a few random calls. Let’s hope that we don’t have too many more weekends like that before we finish.

How long you got left @Paul01? I know that hills comp had there grand finals over the long weekend. My Saturday comp has two weekends left & Sunday has 3.

[Paul01]

1 hour ago, Prydzopolis said:

How long you got left @Paul01? I know that hills comp had there grand finals over the long weekend. My Saturday comp has two weekends left & Sunday has 3

Next weekend all "winter" comps finish in my association. Last Monday I had my assessment with a thumbs up from the assessor.

Football NSW youth is supposed to finish at the end of October where I occasionally get appointed 

Summer Football starts next week. 

[sonar]

Do any of our refs on here have an answer.........?