You Are the Ref - 14 Feb 2013

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Chas (Psyatika), Feb 14, 2013.

  1. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Uh, never. I couldn't care less what the GK said. But whether the GK said anything or not, you still have to make a decision. As FPFL notes, the time to make that is instantly -- either (a) arm drop and point to center for goal, or, I think, (b) tweet-tweet with arm still up, then signal for GK.
     
  2. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I haven't seen anyone post that any credence should be given to the GK. The discussion point is what you have to see to make the call. Do you have to (a) see that the ball was touched before it left the field to know it was eligible to score, or (b) see that the ball was out of play before it was touched to conclude that it hadn't scored.

    I think I've actually flipped by view on this, and am now quite firmly settled in at (b): If I have not concluded the ball is out of play, it is still in play: I think we would all agree that if it bounded back into play off the GK in this situation, we would play on b/c we were not certain that the ball was out of play. So if it hits the GK and bounds into the goal instead of into play, the result is still the same: unless I can conclude it was out of play first, then it was in play when it touched the GK, and the goal is good.
     
    BTFOOM repped this.
  3. GKbenji

    GKbenji Member+

    Jan 24, 2003
    Fort Collins CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've been reading YATR for years. It seems to date back to this strip from 2009 featuring, of course, Gary Neville. A commenter named "vomittingmeerkat" answered the questions snarkily that the answer was to punch Gary in the face (or kick him in the groin). The "punch Gary Neville" meme appeared in occasional strips in the following weeks and just continued to pick up steam.
     
  4. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    Yeah. That's why VC exists. For actions.
     
  5. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    I guess I'm just looking at this from the opposite perspective and thus feel that you are, somewhat, jumping to conclusions. Yes the ball crossed the goal line but the first option for that isn't to award a goal, it is to give a goal kick. And thus, IMHO, you have to be sure that a touch was made before it crossed the line to even consider giving a goal. If you are not then your only option is a goal kick.


    Actually I think you have to because the rules for scoring a goal from an IDFK is flipped.


    And IMO you have to be able to answer Yes to part (a) to award a goal regardless of how you view part (b). If you are not sure that a goal can be scored then you can't assume that is has.
     
  6. Gary V

    Gary V Member+

    Feb 4, 2003
    SE Mich.
    And for a while it got so bad that they deleted posts that said anything about punching Gary Neville.
     
  7. tomek75

    tomek75 Member+

    Aug 13, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To answer #1: In my opinion it is a goal and here is my reasoning: Let's assume that this is a direct kick and the ball hits the GK just like in this picture but comes back to the field. Do you allow the goal? Unless the AR or AAR saw it, than no, because you were not sure that the ball has completely crossed the goal line. So taking this into consideration, now lets take a look at the actual scenario. In this case the ball hits the GK and goes into the net. Therefore again unless the AR or AAR has seen it, you are not sure that the ball has hit the GK before or after it has crossed the Goal Line, therefore its a goal.

    Answer #2: Again lets look at it from another perspective. If the sub took down his own shorts to moon the fans, would you give him a YC or a RC. I bet it would be a RC. So it does not matter if he did it himself or he did it to another player (especially an opposing player) it is a RC for OFFINABUS.

    Answer #3: This one is simple, if you did not see an infraction it did not happen. Put in in your report, calm down the protesting players and get on with the game.
     
    Bubba Atlanta repped this.
  8. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    But if you aren't sure that a goal has legally been scored how can you award one???
    This isn't a question about not having enough information to disallow a goal. It is, just as in your made up scenario, a question about not having enough information to allow it in the first place.
     
  9. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member+

    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I think you're starting from the wrong default. A ball inside the goal is a goal unless there's some reason to disallow it. Unless the ball was clearly out-of-play when touched, award the goal.
     
  10. soccerman771

    soccerman771 Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    Dallas, Texas area
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #1 - Bogus scenario. I've never seen a team with an obvious goal-shot opportunity, just take a shot on goal. There's always a touch first.

    #2 - The sub is gone. VC or otherwise.

    #3 - Good goal. Look for new angles on future kicks into the box towards that player. If he climbs air again and you see it off someone's back, straight YC and it's coming out.
     
  11. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What I am about to say in regards to scenario 1 is a bit of blasphemy but here we go:

    I equate the goal decision as a touchdown in American Football. If the call on the field is touchdown, you need irrefutable proof to take it away. I think we should apply the same concept in soccer if you were about to award the goal. The rub is that the referee is supposed to consult with the AR via eye contact before awarding the goal so how do you both get consent from the AR for a goal and then go to them as the only person who can also refute the goal?

    All this should be premised by the overlying fact that if you when in doubt the decision is no goal, so be conservative before you go putting yourself in this position.
     
  12. soccerman771

    soccerman771 Member

    Jul 16, 2011
    Dallas, Texas area
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What if that's a female player, do you change your tune?
     
  13. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    If that matters, does it matter if you're a female referee?
     
  14. kayakhorn

    kayakhorn Member+

    Oct 10, 2011
    Arkansas
    I guess I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. The keeper touched the ball and the ball is in the back of the net. Barring evidence to the contrary (most likely from the AR) the goal should count.
     
  15. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I meant that as the general premise for goal decisions of was it in or not. If you don't see it go all the way in you can't award a goal. If you do, you are wrong both morally and technically.

    There is clearly a difference here and thus our debate.

    [Edit]

    Also just because the ball ends up in the net doesn't mean the default should be to give a goal. If it somehow sneaks in through the net from the outside and you have any doubt as to whether it went in legally you should not give a goal.
     
  16. ChomskyReferee

    Jan 24, 2013
    No I believe in equality. Nobody hit anyone, this isn't assault. Why is it that America has such a problem with nudity? Italian players end up in their skivvies all the time, no one cares.
     
    tomek75 repped this.
  17. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think you have lost the forest for the trees. This is a far larger issue that was it violent or not. It is an act deserving of a red card as it has no place in the game.
     
  18. ChomskyReferee

    Jan 24, 2013
    Can you justify it within the Laws of the Game? I can't because it's not violent.
     
  19. tomek75

    tomek75 Member+

    Aug 13, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's not a nudity problem, it is a problem with the fact that he deliberatly took someones shorts off. As I said in my previous post. If the sub mooned the fans himself would you give him a R for OFFINABS or would you let it go. I see no difference between him mooning the fans and him taking the shorts off of an opposing player. This is soccer not a beach.

    By the way I agree that a lot of people in the US have a problem with public nudity. I am not one of them. But this is getting a bit political, so lets not go there.
     
  20. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am not going down the semantics road of strict interpretation of dictionary definitions of words in the LOTG. Its a foolish and unwarranted. Besides you were the one that argued not carding a keeper for an illegal substitution, which is specifically in the laws, in another thread so lets not start a technicality argument.

    Let's disregard the fact that I am arguing for OFFINABUS and not VC for a moment.

    Are all acts of violent conduct "violent", whatever that means, no.

    Is taking the card away from the ref violent? How about lightly pushing a ref to show them what you think happened to you? How about grabbing a kids soft cuddly teddy bear from the touchline and throwing it at someone, how violent is that?

    There are ways to argue all of these as being not violent but the fact is that VC is an all encompassing term that addresses acts that are not allowed in the game and don't strictly fall into a nice neat package. VC/SFP is to Red Card as UB is to Yellow Card of course there are some parameters but its a pretty wide window of interpretation.

    Now let's analyze the fact that under no circumstances is there supposed to be physical interaction between a sub and a player so what business does the sub have doing anything to a player other than to provoke them for a violent confrontation in the given situation.

    I think the overwhelming agreement amongst the many posters on here that this is a Red Card in some fashion should tell you something. Just like the overwhelming amount of arguments against the two passback videos I posted made me at least evaluate the decisions of those involved.
     
    Bubba Atlanta and soccerman771 repped this.
  21. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Not quite.... I had a high school game last fall where I called PIADM (boot almost against the face) about 8 yards from the goal. I told the kid that it was an IFK and it must be touched before it went in. He proceeded to blast it at an unguarded portion of the net. It does happen.....
     
  22. kayakhorn

    kayakhorn Member+

    Oct 10, 2011
    Arkansas
    Of course it is going to end up being the judgement of the referee, but I don't think it's appropriate to compare this situation to a ball on the line - maybe over, maybe not. In this specific case the ball is in the back of the net, it got there by going under the crossbar and between the posts, and it touched the keeper thereby apparently satisfying the requirements of scoring from an IFK. The AR is not being any help in determining if the ball crossed the line completely before touching the keeper, leaving the referee to make the call as best as he can. Where it appears we differ is that I think that the referee needs to be reasonably certain of the exact point of contact in order to negate the other evidence for the goal, with doubt being insufficient to disallow it. It sounds like you think any doubt in this situation is sufficient to disallow. We disagree.
     
  23. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Which is why I posted on how I would look at this situation. As to the AR not being able to help though, I think they are the only one that is going to have even a remote chance to see where the ball was in relation to the line when it hit the keeper.
     
  24. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    Not from an IDFK. Until there has been a touch it doesn't matter if the ball crossed the line inside or outside the goal because it can only be a goal kick either way.
     
  25. ChomskyReferee

    Jan 24, 2013
    You've made a very persuasive argument, I can't really find any fault with it. But it still bothers me that playful pantsing needs a referee to step in and throw someone out of the game. I don't get what upsets you so much about this particular instance, but it's nonsensical to me to get upset about the human butt.

    Also what about pulling of the shirt? If a sub pulled a guys shirt to nag at him while the balls out of play would you give a red card? I think yellow would be enough.
     

Share This Page