Ok let me be more clear, you can't judge intent, because you can't read minds. The expert analysis on this was that this action deserved a yellow card, I agree with it. You of course may disagree, I feel in good company with my view on this and I'm unconcerned about it since it is so unlikely to happen.
Let me be even more clear: You CAN judge intent. Saying you can't is just an attempt to get out of something you don't want to do. And it was an expert analysis, not the expert analysis.
JA got the same place as KH on a pantsing in the run of play: http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=517 ... depending on the context/level, I'm still likely to conclude it is VC or OFFINABUS and see if a protest committee disagrees ... but this is up there on the pretty unlikely course of events . . .
ChomskyReferee, I more or less agree with your general sentiment about people being too easily offended in contemporary America. That said, that's really not the point here at all, even if someone else brought it up. Someone else said you were missing the forest for the trees and I agree; it strikes me that you are looking to make a comment on the broader societal implications instead of evaluating the act and looking at the match management consequences. First, we're dealing with a substitute. Getting rid of him does not affect the game whatsoever insofar as having a direct impact on on-field play. I've argued before (and have received some pushback, but I firmly believe this): the threshold for sending off a substitute is lower than it is for a field player. For example, I've never seen an international referee come over to the technical area and show a substitute a caution for dissent; they always send the player off if they have to deal with someone (Collina at EURO 2000 and Busjaim at WC02 are the two most prominent examples). No one is playing down because of it so, to put it bluntly, if a substitute is acting like a twat, you get rid of him--including by bending the laws if need be. If a substitute has done something that rises to the level of you needing to deal with him, in my opinion he should be gone barring a few very specific situations. Second, recall why this act was taken in the initial question. It's done against a player who the substitute believed has dived earlier to win a penalty. The substitute is looking to embarrass an opponent who he feels cheated the game. So the premise is that this is not done on a lark; there's real malice of forethought. You may personally not be offended by a "pantsing," but given the dynamics as laid out, there's likely a real chance at retaliation if you don't step in and handle it. You say you wouldn't give the substitute a red card. Would your answer be the same if the player who got "pantsed" turned around and took a swing at the substitute? Would you really only send off the player who had his pants taken off in that situation? Third, say what you want about the broader implications of decency and attitudes about nudity, but this is a situation where one person's clothes were deliberately and forcibly removed by another person (an adversary). I don't think many people find that acceptable--certainly not at the adult age and definitely not in front of thousands of people, if we're talking about a professional match. It's an act of aggression, even if you personally find it comical. It may not fit the book definitions of "excessive force or brutality," but when you consider the substitute should be using zero force to intentionally remove the clothing of an opponent, I think you can find a way to tick the "excessive" box here. Hackett gets it wrong here. If you want to maintain control of the game and adequately punish the substitute, you send him off for violent conduct. A yellow for unsporting behavior is a viable book answer, but it's just not the right answer on the field for this situation.
The premise of the question laid out explicitly why the substitute was committing the act. So in this scenario, someone has already judged the intent for you.
Yes in hypothetical questions you sometimes have to deal with that. I refuse to accept it though, even when you are told the intent of a person, it could be a lie or it could be misunderstanding.
Well you can do the research for yourself, I don't think you'll find a consensus among the experts who study the brain.
The point about being offended was the point of the post that I was replying to. I have to address it because I was replying to that particular post. Hackett does not get it wrong anymore than you and your colleagues feel you have gotten it right. Whether or not you will maintain control of the game is a hypothetical that doesn't factor into this question. The question is what the Laws of the Game call for. If you as the referee believe this to be Offensive or Abusive, then you would send the substitute off. If you feel as I and apparently Hackett do that it was not meant to be offensive, then you give a yellow card for Unsportsmanlike behavior. Citing this as an act of aggression or excessive force is farcical. I cannot continue this, it's gone beyond any reasonable discussion.
Not quite. Hackett "gets it wrong" because he does not flesh out the in-match consequences of the act and of the referee's response to the act. Hackett is giving what he views is the "book answer," which he almost always does--it's one of the reasons, quite frankly, why I think these "You are the ref" strips are typically useless and don't help real referee education that much. It's more about trivia than education. I usually don't respond in these threads, but when I skimmed it, I was just struck that you were so adamant that this can't or shouldn't be a red. As I said, by the book, of course it can be unsporting behavior and game disrepute. I'm not saying he's technically wrong in that regard. But given the context of the question, it should be a red. And it should be a red in almost any adult or professional match you do. "Farcical," really? We sanction violent conduct often when there's no real "violence" by a dictionary definition. The idea that forcibly removing an opponent's clothing could constitute "violent conduct" is not farcical and it's perfectly reasonable.
I agree. As I mentioned in the previous thread, these are mainly for fun and games and the entertainment of the readers. Much of the fun is reading all of the "answers" in the newspaper some of which are funny, others ridiculous and one or two very bizarre, sent in by seemingly disturbed or weird people. The situations are contrived, although some may come from actual things that happened in some matches that KH heard about. I don't think anyone on these boards should take them seriously or get upset with others' analyses. PH
86 replies to this thread seem to suggest otherwise! Anything that generates discussion among us helps us get better.
I disagree entirely with that premise. I think time wasted on trivial matters takes away from referee development in far more important areas. We have too many officials who can recite the Laws or ATR but don't have a firm grasp of foul recognition or match management. In this case, if you think about how you'd handle the scenario and why, then it's potentially useful if you're thinking critically about how you execute on the pitch in a similar situation. If you're just searching for what one former FIFA referee asserts is the "correct" answer, then you're wasting time that could be spent on more important things if developing as a referee is your goal. If answering trivia is your goal, then that's a different story.
Agree. Amongst the silliness are questions that make us think -- if we actually think, and ignore the silliness, it can be useful. (And we can't take what KH says as gospel -- IMO, sometimes he gives insightful answers, more often they are toss away simplistic answers that are based on other assumptions (which is fine for entertainment, but not education).)
I guess we disagree on this too. If you allow the goal then, IMHO, you have used faulty reasoning and faulty mechanics to justify the decision you want over the correct one. Well I guess that there are a few players out there that doesn't know that an IDFK can't be scored directly but I'm sure a clear majority does know this law.
Are you intentionally being dense? It's a touched ball. Everyone saw it touched except apparently you.
Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they have faulty reasoning or faulty mechanics. My view that this should be a goal (not withstanding KH's answer) has nothing to do with what I want the answer to be bur from parsing the events in the order they happened. Did I or my AR see the ball leave the field of play for a GK before it made contact with the GK? No. then it is still in play -- just as if the ball had been maybe out on the goal line outside the goal and centered to a teammate for a goal; we don't say, "well, I'm not sure the ball was still on the field, so I have to give a GK." The ball is either within the field of play or not; if we cannot determine that it has left the field of play, it is in the field, and therefore must have been touched in the field of play and the goal stands. Nothing in the LOTG, I&G, ATR, or any other authoritative writing precludes that logical reasoning -- just your view that if you aren't sure you can't allow a goal. I believe that you (and KH) have lost the forest for the trees and are letting discomfort with uncertainty leading to a goal color the reasoning process. If you take things in order, IMO, logic and the LOTG dictate this is a goal. True statement - I'd go farther that past u12 everyone knows this law. (Knowing and reacting to in the heat of the moment, however, can be very different things sometimes.)
So which one is happening in this thread? Looks like the former to me. I'm sure you would have locked it by now if it served no purpose!
You're jumping to conclusions. There are plenty of threads which I personally feel serve no real purpose. But that's not a value judgment I get to make as a moderator. That'd be like saying I could abandon a game as a referee because I think the quality of play sucked.