Off Topic Rules Ignored by Refs (or Dropped Without Telling Us?)

Some refereeing decisions - or lack of them, to be more specific - really annoy me. FIFA introduces new rules for every WC. The FA introduce new rules willy-nilly. But when referees eventually fail to act on these rules, I have to ask myself: "Are these old rules still in place". "Confused? You will be", as the old intro for 'Soap' went.

6-8 seconds my arse!
Here goes - one of my most hated rules. Unless things have changed, my understanding is that 'keepers are entitled to hold the ball for an unspecified amount of time, but generally accepted to be 6-8 seconds. Ever timed a 'keeper, especially when it's 1-0 to his team & there's only 80 minutes left? I'm being a bit sarky, but it happens in almost every game. There also seems to be an unwritten rule that in these circumstances, a 'keeper can fall forward holding the ball & lie there until everyone is at least 50 yards away from him (sarky again), following which, he then seems be allocated the 'normal' time to let go of the ball. The beauty of watching a match with the official time ticking in full view is that it's there to measure - and rewind to check. Like any refereeing supervisor can too. So what exactly is this rule these days? Do they now have longer? Anyone got a formal explanation? @JonnyLosAngeles (long time no see - Help!).

There are loads of others that rile me, so I'll leave a few a few prompts to avoid War & Peace:

* Simulation, or less formally, cheating is the worst. We see it every match. Every match! How many yellows dished out for that, recently? Is it still a FIFA / FA rule?

* 10 yard rule. Remember the flurry of yellow cards for players not retreating 10 yards? Straight yellow, wasn't it? .

* 'Shielding the ball out of the park', or obstruction, as we used to call it. I've seen players grappled off the ball, shoved forcefully with 2 hands off the ball. You name it, it appears to be acceptable. Not for me, it isn't. Try it anywhere else on the park & you're booked. But not when approaching the touchline, it appears.

* Kicking the ball away. Another one that was an immediate yellow. When was the last time that happened? And yet it happens every game, multiple times.

* Throw-in meandering. Another one we see every game. Generally ignored by the officials. Even if they intervene, the player will step back a few paces, then walk forward even more paces before throwing the ball in. I have a solution to this, actually, but would need a referee to see if it's allowed. I know that you're supposed to keep 2m away from the guy taking the throw-in, and someone is always allocated to mark him in case of pass-back, So why not stand 2m away from him on the touchline, preventing him from meandering up the line? Would this work (if allowed)?

I could go on, but I'd rather hear the views on the above, plus anything else that irritates you. Have fun .....

 

Some great points there WJ just to add a couple more irritations:

When play is stopped for what is obviously not a head injury, usually by a team that's winning and the losing team is on the attack. Blatant cheating. The rule seems to have changed as play was supposed to be stopped, quite rightly, for a clash of heads etc. What makes it worse, as Wolves demonstrated on a few occasions against Leeds, is that the team whose cheating player caused the stoppage in the first place, gets the ball when play resumes. Absolute joke.

Another gripe is when a team (obviously I'm thinking Leeds again here) tries to take a quick free kick to keep the game flowing and gain maximum advantage only to find an opposing player standing over the ball until his teammates are all back in position. Happens so many times during a game, and why it's not an automatic yellow card offence I'll never know. Another case of blatant cheating that's allowed to go unpunished.

The game is gradually being ruined by incompetence, and what's more annoying is that these things are so easily rectified.

 

Also players surrounding and/or gobbing-off at officials.

 

Very long post in response to WJ and others, if you dont like reading novels I suggest you skip to the next post in the thread

It's been a few years since I did any official refereeing, and whilst I try and keep up with the numerous changes they make every season, I am bound to miss 90% of them, as they are mostly subtle changes

Taking your points as they mention them ( also taking into account that I reffed at amateur Saturday/Sunday type of games, so obviously not gospel for professional refs)

Spoiler: 6 second rule

1) 6 second rule for goalkeepers is still in place, and like the 6 yard rules before it, about 5 years after qualification, we were told this is a minor offence and shouldn't be something that we are too strict on, as given the level of the game we would end up giving a free kick every time the ball was in a keepers hands. The actual rule states that the 6 seconds starts from when the keeper has the ball under his control, so theoretically even if the keeper is on the ground. I would normally check my watch when they stood back up , get myself in position for the keeper to release the ball, and if it was less than 8 seconds, I usually ignored it.

Spoiler: Going down to easily/diving

2) There was a big crusade on this in the late 90's/early 2000's, and again it was something that we were told to ignore, unless it was blatantly obvious. When I say ignore, I mean just let play continue. I'm sure I remember Robbie Keane getting sent off for us against Coventry at the time when he tried to jump over the keeper, caught (or left ) his foot, and went down. Now Keane never tried to claim a foul/penalty but the ref decided it was simulation (think Robbie was already on a yellow) but luckily ref gave him a straight red, which we managed to successfully appeal, and it was just after then that it appeared like professional refs backed down from making those kind of decisions. Alternatively we have the cheating Gordon "Twotface" Watson doing this

Spoiler: Interfering with Restarting the Game

3) It's a cautionary offence if a player deliberately stops a free kick being taken when less than 10 yards away. However with ref's marking where the freekick should taken from and when necessary where the defenders should be standing, it reduces the chance of a quickly taken free kick and thus the need for defenders to stand over the ball. I always told the teams that I would let them know when they could take the free kick before kick off, to save any hassle during the game. I guess this is what the professionals have been trying to do by stating players should wait for the whistle, which saved us against Southampton and caused all the palaver in the WBA - Brighton game at the weekend.

Spoiler: Obstruction near the corner flag / touchline

4) If the ball is within playable distance, there is nothing to stop a player placing themselves between the ball and an opponent, providing that the ball remains within playable distance. A lot of those times you will find the defender trying to physically hold off his opponent and the attacker trying to manhandle his opponent out of the way , and as a ref you think I could give a free kick to both players from what I've seen, but am I 100% certain who instigated it.

Spoiler: Interfering with Restarting the Game Part 2

5) Delaying the restart of the game, by holding onto the ball, kicking it away, obstructing the movement of a player etc is a sending off offence. However common sense then plays a part. A goal is scored, then I'm allowing additional time to take into account the players resuming their positions to kick off again, so an attacker holding the ball to stop the defenders kicking off quicker. This is what always annoys me with with commentators, managers etc moaning that 4 minutes injury time was signalled, why did we play 5 minutes. They seem to forget that the injury time announced is a minimum amount, and also if as a ref I see that intend to add 4 minutes 55 seconds onto 90 minutes, then that would be signalled as 4 minutes. One team makes a substitution and we are now playing 5 minutes 25 seconds, but no doubt some manager would then moan that the ref played an extra 1 1/2 minutes more than originally stated

Spoiler: Stealing Yards

6) This is another one of those rules over common sense. Every team does it to some extent, and thus as a ref am I going to over officiate and send players back for stealing a couple of yards or am I just going to let the game flow. Rather than your idea WJ, as whilst I think it would work in the long term, I think short term it would cause more issues than it attempts to resolve. I'd rather have two extra lineman (or assistant refs ) who can stand in the right place.

Spoiler: Head Injuries

7) Essex highlights the issue with every new or amendment to a rule. Teams will attempt to bend them as much as they can in their favour. I totally agree about the Wolves incident, however I can also understand, especially given the high profile of concussion/dementia from head injuries within the media, would I want to be the ref that delays making that decision, and then finding out it was more serious. I'm going to side with caution. Again as to giving the ball back to Wolves, I totally agree, however this again is a case of the rules being applied over common sense. When the ref stops play for a head injury, the ball is returned to the side in possession. The Wolves player was the last person to touch the ball, thus by the rules he could be deemed to have been the last player in possession. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I can understand a ref interpreting it that way. When it happened I was screaming at the tv saying another 2 seconds and ball was out for a corner, that was the time to check on the player, but when you are on the pitch and have to make a decision in the heat of the moment.

As an aside I played in goal for a team in a 5 a side league, and the amount of times I would get the ball booted in my face, well lets say it was lots. Whenever it happened I'd stay down for a few seconds to clear my head and get my bearings again, and you could virtually guarantee the ref would blow to stop the game to make sure I was ok. Of course sometimes with the amount of blood streaming from my nose it was fairly obvious that I wasn't faking it

Spoiler: Surround the Ref

8) Stonkin's point is so easily remedied and I was told that I wasn't allowed to do it after a complaint from one team. I told both managers and captains before the kick off that if they wanted to dispute one of my decisions, then I would freely listen to either captain, but no one else, and I would book the captain for failing to control his players if approached by any other player in an aggressive manner. This was after a pretty intense situation the week before when I'd been surrounded by about 10 players , and I used that as an example of what I considered to be aggressive.

Whilst as a fan I agree totally with every point raised by WJ and the other posters, but as a ref ( or ex ref) we were told to allow the game to flow as much as possible. Thus in certain games I would blow for what would be considered a petty infringement ie taking a throw in from the wrong place, probably because that game has been an easy one to ref and I am able to concentrate more on those minor issues. Where as in another game, where I've given a penalty, disallowed a goal and sent two players off my focus is more on not letting the game get too out control and thus someone stealing a couple of yards for a throw in I'd let go, or even may not notice it because I'm concentrating on getting the major decisions correct.

The biggest issue is for professional refs to respond to those issued raised above how you would like them too, is that we would end up to how the offside and to some extent handball is being interpreted at present.

IE A Player goes down and the ref doesn't think its a foul, is that then interpreted as that player dived, went down to easily and should there be punished, because that's what the law says or do we allow common sense to play a part, in which case the following week, a similar incident is interpreted differently and thus the media managers and fans go on a crusade about inconsistency .

 

I'm more a follower of Rugby League over here and I am disappointed by the changes in the game brought about by referees not being able (man enough?) to enforce the rules. Rugby league scrums are a complete farce due to the referees, seemingly, being unable to enforce three simple rules, feeding the ball into the centre of the scrum, allowing the opposing hooker to strike for he ball and not penalising the team that collapses the scrum. Like the above posters I could go on but all these problems could be solved by referees doing their job properly (and the players obeying the rules would help!). All in all, these simple actions ruin a good game of footy.

 

Great post

we can all go back to the last World Cup as new rules were brought in for wrestling in the box in corner and dead ball situations. Refs penalised everything and penalties awarded. That rule change worked and we then saw players lining up behind each other to protect themselves and break out when corner taken. Amazing result as within a week no more wrestling and shirt pulling or holding.

Then we had goalkeepers not allowed to move yet again it was a great success because it stopped keepers cheating and although we saw plenty of retakes it soon stamped it out.

These were not rule changes they were actually orders to refs to uphold the rules that had been in place for donkeys years.

Within a couple if months of back into normal domestic footy the refs ignored the good work and we are back to wrestling, shirt pulling and holding with the result if Bamford not getting a penalty which costs us 3 points

 

Great post Aski.

Surrounding the ref and interfering with free-kicks could be stamped out so easily with a few yellow cards

 

Goal keepers not allowed to move, OK, but the striker must address the ball in one movement and not change feet or shuffles as he approaches the ball. Let's be fair, this is a rule that has been ignored too. These days the strikers get up to all kinds of tricks to put the keeper off.

 

Just to clarify...

Goalkeepers can move before the ball is struck, but must have at least a part of one one foot on/or above the line at that moment

However, I agree with you about the staccato run ups as it's seeking to gain an unfair adavantage. It's also clear that most penalties are given for offences that were unlikely to have actually resulted in a goal...making it a more fair contest from the spot would reflect that.

 

serious query, Jampot. What if the keeper is behind the line? Can he then move seeing as he is not in the field of play? He may be just a few inches behind his line so that it won't make lot of difference to his timing but can he move at all? Just asking.

 

All the rule says

So the keeper is allowed to move whether he is behind the line or not, providing that at the moment the ball is kicked, he is complying with the above rule.

Thus if the keeper wants to run back and forth between the two goal posts he can do so, providing that at least one foot complies with the above rule.

Being behind the line would make no difference (as far as I can see), because everything a keeper is likely to do behind the line for a penalty kick he would be able to do on the line, so there would be little point in the keeper staying behind the line.

An over officious ref could also say that a keeper behind the line has left the field of play without authority and thus cannot then re-enter the field of play to save the penalty without the officials authority. However most ref's would still consider the keeper active and thus the restrictions imposed upon a keeper for a penalty would apply even if he was behind the line.

 

Speaking on the official Leeds United Podcast on Thursday, Bamford admitted that he got an honest verdict from the officials after the game.

“With the penalty at the end, I don’t think it was a penalty personally,” he said.


“Before when the ref brought us together, he said to them ‘stop, if you keep doing that, it’s going to be a penalty’ so all I did was make sure the way I moved, he had to grab me again and basically nudge me down.

“He didn’t give it. After the game, I wanted to speak to him, and he was actually honest and fair enough he spoke to me in the tunnel and was honest about his views on it.”
How does any of this make sense?

Bankes claimed that he would give a penalty should the same thing happen again, which it did, and then didn’t give the decision.

Bamford admitted he didn’t think it was a penalty and may have been soft, but the facts are that Mings made contact and didn’t win the ball, so where do we draw the line?

It brings back the argument that players should throw themselves to the floor more dramatically, just as Ian Poveda was told he should have done against Chelsea.

We can’t win; either go down dramatically and get accused of diving or don’t go down and you are too honest, there must be a middle ground.

 

A foul can be called for obstruction and last night at corners we saw blatant obstruction but no whistle. We had the biggest player in the pitch stood right in front of Meslier and he was leaning back making sure the keeper couldnt come and claim the ball. Dallas had to try and get between Antonio and Meslier but that just made it worse. So why was Antonios actions deemed legal when the tactic is to impede obstruct the goalkeeper?

 

Erm ..... wasn't it Big Jack that invented this?