The Ref Test

[Hornet-Fez]

You cannot be offside from a goal kick because technically it is a means of bringing the ball into play, similarly a throw in. Nor can you score direct from a goal kick because, technically it is an indirect free kick (ditto a throw in, there have been experiments to replace the throw in with a 'kick-in' -unsuccessful thus far thank goodness).

Paul Robinson of Spurs scored from a direct free kick into the Watford goal, it would not matter if it was in his own area or not (it was outside). Had the wind blown the ball back into the Spurs goal it would be a corner. This is to avoid the ridiculous situation of accidentally scoring an own goal directly from a position gained by unfair play by the opposition.

 

[Charlie Livesey was my hero]

Sorry Charlie you are wrong. In this case it does not matter if the kick is indirect or not.
The ball is not in play until it has left the penalty area.
So in the case of the question the free kick is retaken if it has not left the penalty area, or it is a corner if it did. The question is skewed. And it is probably too bloody windy to be safe to play!

If the free kick was outside the penalty area and goes directly into the goal then it is a corner.

Sorry Fez you're talking out of your hat (Pun intended) however what you state is true of Goal Kicks. Please look up the rules I can assure you that you are wrong and it does not matter where the freekick is taken from, but the answer to the question is quite surprising.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/rules/newsid_3635000/3635265.stm

Dear all, don't look up the answer if you have not taken the quiz

 

[oldnickhornet]

So now our esteemed Moderator(who swears) believes he should be granted an audience,or more like the other way round, with the referee who'll probably just wanna get off the pitch after 90 could be tough mins .
Is this on the basis that: You could give him the benefit of your wealth of experience; Have contacts with VIPs like Darius Henderson;you have autographs; or is it the old one ' I've paid my admission money so I've got rights'.
In that case I must have spent far more than you at that ground over the years Mr Mod, so I will be contacting the club and DEMANDING they name a stand after me.
There is also another far more senior in years to me who should get even more recognition.

Next time you attend a home game expect to enter the OFH Stadium.

 

[babyhornetdan]

So now our esteemed Moderator(who swears) believes he should be granted an audience,or more like the other way round, with the referee who'll probably just wanna get off the pitch after 90 could be tough mins .
Is this on the basis that: You could give him the benefit of your wealth of experience; Have contacts with VIPs like Darius Henderson;you have autographs; or is it the old one ' I've paid my admission money so I've got rights'.
In that case I must have spent far more than you at that ground over the years Mr Mod, so I will be contacting the club and DEMANDING they name a stand after me.
There is also another far more senior in years to me who should get even more recognition.

Next time you attend a home game expect to enter the OFH Stadium.

If you dont like the swearing you have the option to filter it. I am quite happy to show you how if you like. Otherwise there is no rule against it.

And yes i think the officials, the refs at least, should be accoutable for their decisions. As previously mentioned the officials in the NFL are miked up and they have to give their decision (after consultation) over the PA system and since this was introduced there have been fewer instances of abuse over incorrect decisions as the fans understand the call. Here we are simply expected to watch a man dressed in black blow his whistle and point in a direction, but with no knowledge of what the infraction is. Was it a push? Was it dangerous? What happened?? Why should the officials not be accountable, it would have prevented the whole Clattenburg fiasco, and would also, in my humble opinion, reduce the abuse as the fans would understand the reasoning.

 

[hornethologist a.k.a. theo]

If you dont like the swearing you have the option to filter it. I am quite happy to show you how if you like. Otherwise there is no rule against it.

And yes i think the officials, the refs at least, should be accoutable for their decisions. As previously mentioned the officials in the NFL are miked up and they have to give their decision (after consultation) over the PA system and since this was introduced there have been fewer instances of abuse over incorrect decisions as the fans understand the call. Here we are simply expected to watch a man dressed in black blow his whistle and point in a direction, but with no knowledge of what the infraction is. Was it a push? Was it dangerous? What happened?? Why should the officials not be accountable, it would have prevented the whole Clattenburg fiasco, and would also, in my humble opinion, reduce the abuse as the fans would understand the reasoning.

"Humble" opinion? Little sign of that, I'm afraid. Rare that a post manages to be patronising and arrogant at the same time.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Sorry Fez you're talking out of your hat (Pun intended) however what you state is true of Goal Kicks. Please look up the rules I can assure you that you are wrong and it does not matter where the freekick is taken from, but the answer to the question is quite surprising.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/football/rules/newsid_3635000/3635265.stm

Dear all, don't look up the answer if you have not taken the quiz

Charlie - My hat is quite correct! From FIFA Laws of the Game 2012/13

LAW 13 - FREE KICKS

Types of free kick:
Free kicks are either direct or indirect.

The direct free kick

Ball enters the goal


•if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal is awarded
•if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the team’s own goal, a corner kick is awarded to the opposing team

Position of free kick

Free kick inside the penalty area

Direct or indirect free kick to the defending team:

•all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball
•all opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play
•the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty area
•a free kick awarded in the goal area may be taken from any point inside that area

Ergo - if the ball does not leave the penalty area before leaving the Field of Play (i.e. crossing the goal line be it inside or outside the goal but within the confines of the penalty area) the kick is retaken.

If the ball crosses the goal line between the penalty area and the touchline the ball is in play and a corner is awarded.
If the ball sails past the 18 yard line (the ball is in play) and is blown back in the goal by the wind then it is a corner.
If the goalkeeper, seeing the ball leave the penalty area plays the ball again (to save the corner) the opposition are awarded an indirect free kick from where he played the ball unless he plays it with his hands outside the penalty area where a direct free kick is awarded.
If the goalkeeper,seeing the ball leave the penalty area, 'saves' the ball in the goal area the indirect free kick is taken from the 6 yard line in line with where he played the ball.

I trust I have clarified the correct interpretation of the law for you.

 

[babyhornetdan]

"Humble" opinion? Little sign of that, I'm afraid. Rare that a post manages to be patronising and arrogant at the same time.

It was intended to sound that way. Nick was suggesting that i wanted an audience with an official based soley on reasons including that i have autographs or talk to the players or have bought a ticket. This was not what i said at all. I was putting forward the idea that referees become accountable in that they either get miked up and have to explain some of their decisions. Some fans (myself included) are often left confused by decisions and we are given no reason as to why the decision was reached. How many people were questioning why Matej Vydra was sent off. The ref could simply press a button on his belt which links to the PA system (as in the NFL) and say Violent conduct, Yellow number 20, red card. As the Nfl officials do.

 

[hornethologist a.k.a. theo]

It was intended to sound that way. Nick was suggesting that i wanted an audience with an official based soley on reasons including that i have autographs or talk to the players or have bought a ticket. This was not what i said at all. I was putting forward the idea that referees become accountable in that they either get miked up and have to explain some of their decisions. Some fans (myself included) are often left confused by decisions and we are given no reason as to why the decision was reached. How many people were questioning why Matej Vydra was sent off. The ref could simply press a button on his belt which links to the PA system (as in the NFL) and say Violent conduct, Yellow number 20, red card. As the Nfl officials do.

Referees are already accountable and are subject to demotion and suspension. They are trained professionals who, like the rest of us, make occasional errors. "Miking up" is unlikely to change that. In fact it may make make it worse by drawing more attention to them. While I may disagree with some of their decisions, the ones which are confusing are very rare. I'd hate to think they had to justify themselves to people incapable of taking a detached view.

Describing a man who has almost certainly devoted a lot of time to reaching the level he has with phrases like "a man dressed in black blow his whistle and point in a direction" is not expressing a humble opinion, certainly not as I and most others understand the word.

 

[HaslemereKev]

The main change I would like is goal line technology. This is a decision that is black or white, over the line or not. The rest is down to opinion and interpretation. The ref's decision should be final and if we don't like it, tough! Yes it will cost us some points, but the hope is it will even itself out over time.

Another rule change I would consider is the offside rule. Needs to be clearer, who is interfering or not interfering, and the 2nd phase rule.

I think we all dream it would be more like rugby with their respect to the referee (although think it is starting to creep in a little there too). One rule if properly enforced is the 10-yard rule. Abuse/answering back and the ref just moves the ball 10-yards forward. As long as the refs are consistent with it, it will soon stop!

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I really think that refs have a very hard job and most of the time they are right. Of course they make mistakes, they have a hard enough job in just keeping up with the speed of players, they are down on the pitch where they will not have the same view as fans in the stands, and they don't have the benefit of a second chance. I don't think however that they always make the best use of the assistants, who are also prone to get it wrong at times. I have watched a lino roaring up and down the line, but still be behind the play. With him/her being so close to the fans I suspect that they close their ears rather than listen to the helpful comments coming from the fan's.

Watch any highlights programme on a Saturday night, there will always be an item of refereeing to talk about. Even with slow motion the 'experts' cannot always agree, so what chance for the man who has given a decision on what he has seen, or thought he has seen.

Managers have to give pre and post match interviews and it has been suggested that refs could do the same thing. The problem with this is that he cannot say much in case a club wish to appeal a decision. To expect him to explain himself to any fans after a game doesn't work either as he would still be there on Sunday afternoon.

To have him give his reasons over the PA system doesn't work either. American football stops and starts, something that does not happen in our game. If you want to go down the route of a game stopping so that he can stick his head under a blanket to watch a TV replay, then you might just as well introduce 'timeouts' and fit a few TV adverts in while you are at it.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

It was intended to sound that way. Nick was suggesting that i wanted an audience with an official based soley on reasons including that i have autographs or talk to the players or have bought a ticket. This was not what i said at all. I was putting forward the idea that referees become accountable in that they either get miked up and have to explain some of their decisions. Some fans (myself included) are often left confused by decisions and we are given no reason as to why the decision was reached. How many people were questioning why Matej Vydra was sent off. The ref could simply press a button on his belt which links to the PA system (as in the NFL) and say Violent conduct, Yellow number 20, red card. As the Nfl officials do.

The beauty of football at the moment is that it is the same game for all of us regardless of level. Okay most Junior Leagues (not to be confused with Youth Leagues) use 'Club Assistant Referees' and don't have available a 4th official etc until probably cup semi-finals or end of season tiltle deciders etc. We only get one go at it and for the most part we get it right or at least credibly wrong. I do not like the idea of goal line technology and even less, BHD, the 'miking up' of referees which works superbly in grid-iron and would work well in rugby.

I put it to you that so many were questioning the Vydra sending off because they do not understand the laws of the game, evidenced by the not brilliant scores in the quiz. Here was a case of the referee thinking (actually he didn't stop to think at all, therein lay the problem) he had seen violent conduct by Vydra when that clearly was not the case - borne out by the players reactions (the Boro player thought he was off) and the crowd and confirmed by the appeal. The violent conduct was technically kicking the opponent (stamping in reality) when in reality he had accidentally trodden on the player in trying to avoid what was at best a careless challenge. The referee immediately showed red and did not give himself time to assess the situation as a top class referee should.
{Older fans might remember Xavier Gravellaine being sent off by Uriah Rennie against Sunderland in not dissimilar circumstances, though as I recall he made damned sure he landed on the Sunderland player after jumping out of the way of a studs up 2 footed straight legged shin high lunge - a red card tackle no doubt by todays standards.}

I played (to County League level) and watched football for 25 years before 'taking the whistle' and was staggered by how little I knew the laws. I get annoyed with top class officials because, by and large, they have not played the game. They know the laws but not how to play, have no understanding why players do what they do (they do not know the laws either) and as a result many officials at the top end of the game apply what I call a "Judge Dredd" mentality and lose sight of the fact that the laws are written to serve the game not to serve the law itself!

Pierluigi Collina is rightly regarded as the best referee of recent times - and how many referees have adopted his look??? He played the game for several seasons before officiating, to the equivalent of Ryman League (7th / 8th tier) not brilliant, but better than most of us and it gave him a core understanding. Stuart Attwell and Martin Atkinson, to name the two I've had first hand conversations with, have not kicked a competetive ball since they were 14. I am pretty sure that that is the norm thoughout the professional match official ranks, they are actively discouraged from playing from an early age. That to me is a big part of the problem at the top level.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Just did the test and got 9 right, but there were some strange ones to answer.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

The main change I would like is goal line technology. This is a decision that is black or white, over the line or not. The rest is down to opinion and interpretation. The ref's decision should be final and if we don't like it, tough! Yes it will cost us some points, but the hope is it will even itself out over time.

Another rule change I would consider is the offside rule. Needs to be clearer, who is interfering or not interfering, and the 2nd phase rule.

I think we all dream it would be more like rugby with their respect to the referee (although think it is starting to creep in a little there too). One rule if properly enforced is the 10-yard rule. Abuse/answering back and the ref just moves the ball 10-yards forward. As long as the refs are consistent with it, it will soon stop!

GLT, providing it is absolutely foolproof, would be an acceptable addition to the game. However it is not likely to be affordable / accessible to all (and I'm talking just league clubs here); maintenance etc etc. What will work at Old Trafford will surely be struggling at Underhill, purely on security and finance. What about the FA Cup? Say a Blue Square South (or further down the pyramid) team reach the 3rd round and are at home to, say, Wigan... then what happens? Or some Albanian team reaching the group stage of the Champions League to face Barca, Inter and Bayern when in reality they've not got two beans to rub together. Gets a bit messy!

The offside law is, indeed, an ass! The law itself has not been reworded but the interpretation has changed. I do believe we have Herr Blatter to thank for this, mid-season, a few years ago. It is confusing now and goes against the spirit in which the law is written on many occasions. I have had many a heated discussion with my colleagues on this one... it wasn't broke and it didn't need fixing. Worthy of a separate thread methinks.

As to respect to referees there is enough in the laws to combat the abuse we are likely to face. At professional level it strikes me that players get away with a lot more than they would at Cassiobury Park on a Sunday morning. PGMO's rarely use the means at their disposal, though it must be said most pro players seem to think they are above the law when they don't even know the laws! The trouble is that referees have individual tolerance levels which leads to the inconsistancy that so annoys players and spectators alike. Personally I like the idea that the only person able to speak to the referee is the captain (as in rugby) which is one of the ideas the 'Respect' campaign seeks to introduce. I have my own way of dealing with things on the pitch and I do not recall giving more than 2YC's for dissent in any game, ditto RC's for foul language (aimed at me) and only once do I recall being surrounded by a gaggle of angry players (alas that was understandable as I had, with hindsight, made a howler, if not acceptable in terms of undermining my authority).

Sorry to rabbit on, I've obviously got far too much time on my hands, but they are issues close to my heart - great thread!

 

[babyhornetdan]

Referees are already accountable and are subject to demotion and suspension. They are trained professionals who, like the rest of us, make occasional errors. "Miking up" is unlikely to change that. In fact it may make make it worse by drawing more attention to them. While I may disagree with some of their decisions, the ones which are confusing are very rare. I'd hate to think they had to justify themselves to people incapable of taking a detached view.

Describing a man who has almost certainly devoted a lot of time to reaching the level he has with phrases like "a man dressed in black blow his whistle and point in a direction" is not expressing a humble opinion, certainly not as I and most others understand the word.

I can understand that mistakes will be made and i can accept that. But there are times where they blow the whistle but it is unclear what for. They are 100% to give the decision, but to the untrained eye (including mine) it seems like a stupid decision. Therefore they get heckled/abused or what ever you wish to call it (RE whoever mentioned the choice of the word abuse) by the fans. If they could explain that they had given it for X/Y/Z reason it might prevent this as the fans can understand. Have you never looked at a decision and though, 'why did he do that?' or 'i did not see that'??

Well that is exactly what happens. A man(traditionally) dressed in black blows his whistle and points in the direction to indicate which way the free kick has been given. If you have not seen the incident he has, or do not have the full understanding he does then the decision might baffle you. And after a few of these decisions you might get angry which then could lead to you shouting out in anger.

 

[HaslemereKev]

GLT, providing it is absolutely foolproof, would be an acceptable addition to the game. However it is not likely to be affordable / accessible to all (and I'm talking just league clubs here); maintenance etc etc. What will work at Old Trafford will surely be struggling at Underhill, purely on security and finance. What about the FA Cup? Say a Blue Square South (or further down the pyramid) team reach the 3rd round and are at home to, say, Wigan... then what happens? Or some Albanian team reaching the group stage of the Champions League to face Barca, Inter and Bayern when in reality they've not got two beans to rub together. Gets a bit messy!

The offside law is, indeed, an ass! The law itself has not been reworded but the interpretation has changed. I do believe we have Herr Blatter to thank for this, mid-season, a few years ago. It is confusing now and goes against the spirit in which the law is written on many occasions. I have had many a heated discussion with my colleagues on this one... it wasn't broke and it didn't need fixing. Worthy of a separate thread methinks.

As to respect to referees there is enough in the laws to combat the abuse we are likely to face. At professional level it strikes me that players get away with a lot more than they would at Cassiobury Park on a Sunday morning. PGMO's rarely use the means at their disposal, though it must be said most pro players seem to think they are above the law when they don't even know the laws! The trouble is that referees have individual tolerance levels which leads to the inconsistancy that so annoys players and spectators alike. Personally I like the idea that the only person able to speak to the referee is the captain (as in rugby) which is one of the ideas the 'Respect' campaign seeks to introduce. I have my own way of dealing with things on the pitch and I do not recall giving more than 2YC's for dissent in any game, ditto RC's for foul language (aimed at me) and only once do I recall being surrounded by a gaggle of angry players (alas that was understandable as I had, with hindsight, made a howler, if not acceptable in terms of undermining my authority).

Sorry to rabbit on, I've obviously got far too much time on my hands, but they are issues close to my heart - great thread!

No need to apologise, it's great getting a referee's point of view on the matter. We can only really comment as fans; of our team and of the sport in general.

With regards to GLT, your stance has been my very own until maybe quite recently, with similar technology used in tennis, and more recently, cricket. I certainly do not want technology used in the game, but GLT seems to be the one they are pushing for most at the moment. I guess it is a bit like rugby where only the top level will be able to realistically use it. I think in my mind when I thought about it a few years ago, it would be simply a case of a chip in the ball, if it registers the whole ball goes over the line, a little red flashing light above the goal goes off. It seems a lot more complicated than that!

I also agree that the captain, and only the captain, be allowed to talk to the ref, as long as it is in a calm and respectful manner... but when you see the likes of John Terry effing and blinding at the ref, it's not an ideal example to the rest of the team. I don't want to see people sent off for such things, which was the reasoning behind the 10 yard rule. If it happens on a number of occasions, they will soon stop, and their own players will be telling them to shut up as well.

 

[hornethologist a.k.a. theo]

I can understand that mistakes will be made and i can accept that. But there are times where they blow the whistle but it is unclear what for. They are 100% to give the decision, but to the untrained eye (including mine) it seems like a stupid decision. Therefore they get heckled/abused or what ever you wish to call it (RE whoever mentioned the choice of the word abuse) by the fans. If they could explain that they had given it for X/Y/Z reason it might prevent this as the fans can understand. Have you never looked at a decision and though, 'why did he do that?' or 'i did not see that'??

Well that is exactly what happens. A man(traditionally) dressed in black blows his whistle and points in the direction to indicate which way the free kick has been given. If you have not seen the incident he has, or do not have the full understanding he does then the decision might baffle you. And after a few of these decisions you might get angry which then could lead to you shouting out in anger.

Fans heckle or abuse a referee because they think he has given a decision against their team, rarely because they don't understand it and almost never if the decision is in favour of their team. There are quite a few who sit very close to me. Attempts to explain to them why a decision was made (I attend with at least one former semi-professional player, referee at county level and chairman of a country referees' association) are met with either annoyance or disbelief. A ref announcing his explanation would only be fodder for further abuse.

I'm not sure who the 'you' in your second paragraph is meant to be. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of attributing reactions to people you don't know. Needless to say I find fans shouting angrily at a referee more than a bit tiresome.

 

[Mexican Hornet]

You scored 4 out of 12

League Two Referee


Thank you for taking part in the Referee League 2011/2012. Your responses and score will be collated and added to your teams final total. The league table will be announced shortly.

RUBBISH REALLY< good job I am NOT a ref...

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Fans heckle or abuse a referee because they think he has given a decision against their team, rarely because they don't understand it and almost never if the decision is in favour of their team. There are quite a few who sit very close to me. Attempts to explain to them why a decision was made (I attend with at least one former semi-professional player, referee at county level and chairman of a country referees' association) are met with either annoyance or disbelief. A ref announcing his explanation would only be fodder for further abuse.

That is so true! Alas!