Standard of Referees

[PynchonForest]

Come on mate, it's fine telling me not to try and get inside players heads but you're doing the exact same thing by saying that somehow you know it's accidental. He used his arm to control the ball, it was absolutely obvious and you could literally tell from his reaction as well. No one is mind reading, it was right there in front of you with the way he moved his arm and trapped the ball. I get it that Collina has set up a kool-aid drinking situation around things, but if people would just stop trying to call apples pears when we've literally seen them to be apples since anyone first kicked a ball in anger then this whole thing would be easier. Talking about getting in players heads is just management speak to explain away ignoring what is obvious.

No, I am saying is I never consider what a player is thinking when they do anything, unless they are doing something overt like trying to throw a punch at a specific person etc. Otherwise, I just judge outcomes based upon their action. I am constantly told by players "he didn't mean it" and so on. There has to be a fundamental understanding that intent has absolutely nothing to do with sanction (except in a circumstance that I used above). Though I will say that when "intent" was the term attached with the handball law--that is when I understood it best for that particular type of foul.

 

[PynchonForest]

Picking and choosing which laws to apply again I see.... It's no wonder refs think they are a rule unto themselves.

If you can't take a throw-in properly, something I (a pretty mediocre player at best) managed at about 6 years old, then you shouldn't be taking them in a professional game.

It's not important until it is, then there's a hullabaloo about foul throws and IFAB's "solution" ****s up the game even more. We have a perfectly valid and enforceable law for throw-ins already, all it takes is for refs to apply it consistently, not be so arrogant to think they can decide when teh laws should be applied.

Your jaywalking analogy is nonsense too, because everybody on the planet outside of North America is capable of crossing a road sensibly and doesn't need a law governing this.

You obviously have never refereed nine year old community league players. And my point is not based on dealing with professional players. It's nine to eleven year olds who are learning the game. I can easily call at least 20 foul throws in a U11 game. But I no longer have to. It's all kick ins now, which I am all for. The more time they spend with the ball at their feet, the better. Which is precisely why I didn't lean on calling foul throwins in younger age group gamesin the first place. I don't think the logic I apply is terribly complex. You are either get it, or you don't.

 

[Master Yates]

You obviously have never refereed nine year old community league players. And my point is not based on dealing with professional players. It's nine to eleven year olds who are learning the game. I can easily call at least 20 foul throws in a U11 game. But I no longer have to. It's all kick ins now, which I am all for. The more time they spend with the ball at their feet, the better. Which is precisely why I didn't lean on calling foul throwins in younger age group gamesin the first place. I don't think the logic I apply is terribly complex. You are either get it, or you don't.

Not sure what an u11 game in Canadian community leagues has to to do with the original point about refs in the PL not blowing up for foul throws, but nice story.

As I said before though, taking a legal throw-in is an incredibly simple thing to learn. Instead of refs just ignoring laws, why don't players just learn how to take them? If they are never penalised for throw-ins, they will continue to take foul throws. Why do you think it is the referee's job to decide what laws should and shouldn't apply to players, regardless of age or ability, or whether it's good for their development?

Back to my original point, refs picking and choosing what laws to apply just brings more needless subjectivity into it and results in inconsistencies between games. What if another of your ref colleagues thinks that shirt-pulling is no big deal and let's players get away with it? So one week I get booked for a shirt pull and the week after I get my shirt pulled all game and nothing happens. One week we get a goal ruled out for a foul throw and then next week you let the opposition score from one, because you don't bother to blow up for them.

You seem to have a severely misguided opinion of what a referee is on the pitch for - they are there to referee the game according to the laws, nothing else. I don't think that logic is terribly complex.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Not sure what an u11 game in Canadian community leagues has to to do with the original point about refs in the PL not blowing up for foul throws, but nice story.

As I said before though, taking a legal throw-in is an incredibly simple thing to learn. Instead of refs just ignoring laws, why don't players just learn how to take them? If they are never penalised for throw-ins, they will continue to take foul throws. Why do you think it is the referee's job to decide what laws should and shouldn't apply to players, regardless of age or ability, or whether it's good for their development?

Back to my original point, refs picking and choosing what laws to apply just brings more needless subjectivity into it and results in inconsistencies between games. What if another of your ref colleagues thinks that shirt-pulling is no big deal and let's players get away with it? So one week I get booked for a shirt pull and the week after I get my shirt pulled all game and nothing happens. One week we get a goal ruled out for a foul throw and then next week you let the opposition score from one, because you don't bother to blow up for them.

You seem to have a severely misguided opinion of what a referee is on the pitch for - they are there to referee the game according to the laws, nothing else. I don't think that logic is terribly complex.

No no you've got it all wrong. Referees are there to be centre of attention, and to gaslight you when they've ruined a game.

 

[Redofheaven2]

Not sure what an u11 game in Canadian community leagues has to to do with the original point about refs in the PL not blowing up for foul throws, but nice story.

As I said before though, taking a legal throw-in is an incredibly simple thing to learn. Instead of refs just ignoring laws, why don't players just learn how to take them? If they are never penalised for throw-ins, they will continue to take foul throws. Why do you think it is the referee's job to decide what laws should and shouldn't apply to players, regardless of age or ability, or whether it's good for their development?

Back to my original point, refs picking and choosing what laws to apply just brings more needless subjectivity into it and results in inconsistencies between games. What if another of your ref colleagues thinks that shirt-pulling is no big deal and let's players get away with it? So one week I get booked for a shirt pull and the week after I get my shirt pulled all game and nothing happens. One week we get a goal ruled out for a foul throw and then next week you let the opposition score from one, because you don't bother to blow up for them.

You seem to have a severely misguided opinion of what a referee is on the pitch for - they are there to referee the game according to the laws, nothing else. I don't think that logic is terribly complex.

The argument is that applying the laws will ruin the game and that makes my head spin.

My view is that at the start of the season you say that you are going to apply the laws and be strict, there will be pain initially but long term gain.

It does my head in that throw ins are taken from different post codes to where the ball went out and defensive free kicks are never taken from less than 15 yards from the dead ball line and 10 yards in field even if the offence occurred in the corner quadrant - how hard can it be to get them taken in the right place?

 

[Notcher]

Thought about it..... they're still shit.

 

[Notcher]

You obviously have never refereed nine year old community league players. And my point is not based on dealing with professional players. It's nine to eleven year olds who are learning the game. I can easily call at least 20 foul throws in a U11 game. But I no longer have to. It's all kick ins now, which I am all for. The more time they spend with the ball at their feet, the better. Which is precisely why I didn't lean on calling foul throwins in younger age group gamesin the first place. I don't think the logic I apply is terribly complex. You are either get it, or you don't.

Kick ins is the worst rule that they've introduced. It's completely ridiculous.

Now we're seeing kick ins basically becoming a free kick. Teams with the best kid at striking a ball are able to use them as a free kick. A throw in on the halfway line now becomes a free cross into the box. A throw in whilst in defensive area becomes an opportunity to clear the ball the length of the pitch unchallenged.

Throw ins used to allow kids to get used to controlling the ball at difficult heights and areas of the body whilst in tight areas. That's now been removed and replaced with something counter productive in the long term.

It needs chucking in the bin and I've put my views forward about this to the FA.

 

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

No no you've got it all wrong. Referees are there to be centre of attention, and to gaslight you when they've ruined a game.

All about 'game management'.

Whatever the f*** that is.

 

[Statto]

Kick ins is the worst rule that they've introduced. It's completely ridiculous.

Now we're seeing kick ins basically becoming a free kick. Teams with the best kid at striking a ball are able to use them as a free kick. A throw in on the halfway line now becomes a free cross into the box. A throw in whilst in defensive area becomes an opportunity to clear the ball the length of the pitch unchallenged.

Throw ins used to allow kids to get used to controlling the ball at difficult heights and areas of the body whilst in tight areas. That's now been removed and replaced with something counter productive in the long term.

It needs chucking in the bin and I've put my views forward about this to the FA.

It does seem somewhat silly, but then I can see they are probably concerned about the ball being in the air and being headed by kids who are still young and growing, with all the stuff going around with concussions, heading, dementia etc it seems a bit sensible they are being cautious.

But of course the real adults game involves throwing and heading so unless other countries do similar things all we're going to do is make a generation of kids who are crap in the air because they're not allowed to head whilst learning the game until a certain age...

 

[Notcher]

It does seem somewhat silly, but then I can see they are probably concerned about the ball being in the air and being headed by kids who are still young and growing, with all the stuff going around with concussions, heading, dementia etc it seems a bit sensible they are being cautious.

But of course the real adults game involves throwing and heading so unless other countries do similar things all we're going to do is make a generation of kids who are crap in the air because they're not allowed to head whilst learning the game until a certain age...

It's a nonsense that they even used that as one of the reasons for the kick ins introduction. Barely any kids head it at those ages anyway. Furthermore the no heading rule would prevent them from heading it off a throw in anyway.

 

[Statto]

It's a nonsense that they even used that as one of the reasons for the kick ins introduction. Barely any kids head it at those ages anyway. Furthermore the no heading rule would prevent them from heading it off a throw in anyway.

Im not sure it is nonsense, it makes sense that if you don't want kids to head the ball then not having the ball in the air is probably a good thing. If a kid launches it in the air at another from a throw in, with a no-heading rule or not, then there's still a fair chance they might head it whether intentionally or not, or that it might hit them in the head. In terms of brain injuries etc it doesn't really matter if it's intentional or not.

I'm not convinced by the idea but it makes sense in that respect not to cause brain issues later on

 

[Notcher]

Im not sure it is nonsense, it makes sense that if you don't want kids to head the ball then not having the ball in the air is probably a good thing. If a kid launches it in the air at another from a throw in, with a no-heading rule or not, then there's still a fair chance they might head it whether intentionally or not, or that it might hit them in the head. In terms of brain injuries etc it doesn't really matter if it's intentional or not.

I'm not convinced by the idea but it makes sense in that respect not to cause brain issues later on

The same applies to corners or free kicks though and they've not banned those. The kids know it's a no heading rule so they don't head it because it's a free kick of they do. There's no reason why that can't be extended to throw ins.

 

[Wes' Organ]

It's a nonsense that they even used that as one of the reasons for the kick ins introduction. Barely any kids head it at those ages anyway. Furthermore the no heading rule would prevent them from heading it off a throw in anyway.

I used to head everything at u11's, could head it further than I could kick it it, never did me any harm.

 

[Bing Crosby's Head]

So an extra week holiday for him?

Calm down with these punishments

He doesn't do games every week anyway so it's not much of a punishment.

 

[donny]

It's a nonsense that they even used that as one of the reasons for the kick ins introduction. Barely any kids head it at those ages anyway. Furthermore the no heading rule would prevent them from heading it off a throw in anyway.

My 17 year old niece plays for two teams (one agegroup, and one U21/B team of a 'pro' club), and I can count the amount of times I've seen headers attempted in the games they play, although, I'm not saying there is a complete absence, a lot more players at that age seem comfortable bringing the ball down rather than heading it.

 

[Nedski67]

Oh and another thing ……

Assistant Referees are really pissing me off these days. They look so pompous the way they wave their flag and don’t actually add any worthwhile contribution to the match.

They seem to make no decisions on throw ins, always looking to the referee before waving their flag whichever way the ref signals.

Plus they don’t bother with offsides these days leaving it to VAR to deal with.

The touch judges in Rugby aren’t anywhere near as pompous and make valid contributions.

So I can’t see the point of them in football these days.

 

[oobidoobi]

Kick ins is the worst rule that they've introduced. It's completely ridiculous.

Now we're seeing kick ins basically becoming a free kick. Teams with the best kid at striking a ball are able to use them as a free kick. A throw in on the halfway line now becomes a free cross into the box. A throw in whilst in defensive area becomes an opportunity to clear the ball the length of the pitch unchallenged.

Throw ins used to allow kids to get used to controlling the ball at difficult heights and areas of the body whilst in tight areas. That's now been removed and replaced with something counter productive in the long term.

It needs chucking in the bin and I've put my views forward about this to the FA.

It baffles me when professionals still throw the ball in so it bounces up to waist height when it reaches the target.

 

[andyd]

Kick ins is the worst rule that they've introduced. It's completely ridiculous.

Now we're seeing kick ins basically becoming a free kick. Teams with the best kid at striking a ball are able to use them as a free kick. A throw in on the halfway line now becomes a free cross into the box. A throw in whilst in defensive area becomes an opportunity to clear the ball the length of the pitch unchallenged.

Throw ins used to allow kids to get used to controlling the ball at difficult heights and areas of the body whilst in tight areas. That's now been removed and replaced with something counter productive in the long term.

It needs chucking in the bin and I've put my views forward about this to the FA.

My lads team got knocked out of a post season tournament on Sunday because the ref wasn't clear on whether he was giving a corner or a dribble in. Our team set up for a corner and the lad proceeded to just dribble in and smash it in for the winning goal in the last minute when we only needed a draw to make the semi final. Ref refused to order a retake despite the fact it was very clear that we thought it was a corner and would never have set up for the restart in the way we did if he had been stating that it was a dribble in. It still rankles with everyone 4 days later, especially because we beat the team that went on to win the tournament 5-1 the other week.

Wouldn't have happened with a throw in if the lads just played proper football. Why make a throw in a more advantageous restart than a corner? Bonkers.

 

[PynchonForest]

My lads team got knocked out of a post season tournament on Sunday because the ref wasn't clear on whether he was giving a corner or a dribble in. Our team set up for a corner and the lad proceeded to just dribble in and smash it in for the winning goal in the last minute when we only needed a draw to make the semi final. Ref refused to order a retake despite the fact it was very clear that we thought it was a corner and would never have set up for the restart in the way we did if he had been stating that it was a dribble in. It still rankles with everyone 4 days later, especially because we beat the team that went on to win the tournament 5-1 the other week.

Wouldn't have happened with a throw in if the lads just played proper football. Why make a throw in a more advantageous restart than a corner? Bonkers.

If it went directly in it should not have been allowed.

 

[Apollo11]

It does seem somewhat silly, but then I can see they are probably concerned about the ball being in the air and being headed by kids who are still young and growing, with all the stuff going around with concussions, heading, dementia etc it seems a bit sensible they are being cautious.

But of course the real adults game involves throwing and heading so unless other countries do similar things all we're going to do is make a generation of kids who are crap in the air because they're not allowed to head whilst learning the game until a certain age...

See to me it doesn't make sense not heading the ball now.

You need to teach kids how to header the ball at a young age whilst they don't still know how to kick a ball properly as there isn't much force behind the ball.

Leave it till they are 11 or 12 or whatever it is and boys especially will have some power behind their shot. Not being able to head a ball properly at that age will be a lot more impactful to brain injuries then not heading it properly at the age of 6.

 

[Trents]

As expected, Salisbury stood down for the last round of matches.

That'll teach him

 

[Rosie’s A Red]

As expected, Salisbury stood down for the last round of matches.

That'll teach him

Gets him on the plane to Ibiza sooner - it’s almost like he planned it…

 

[vertigored]

Why can’t we just have consistency, competency and clarity. Instead of a bunch of c’s.

 

[YellowBelly Red]

Gets him on the plane to Ibiza sooner - it’s almost like he planned it…

Pretty sure that he was down to do one of the Play Offs this weekend.

 

[andyd]

If it went directly in it should not have been allowed.

This was also pointed out to the ref but he simply wasn’t interested.