- 26 Jun 08, 09:20 AM
Here's a double-headed You Are The Ref question:
Question number 11
Part A: A player sees a goalscoring opportunity, but you - the referee - are unfortunately in the way. He deliberately pushes you out of the way to get to the ball and knocks you to the ground in the process.
He puts the ball in the net but the defence claim they stopped when they saw you on the floor. You didn't see the goal as you were on your backside and your linesman is unsighted and not in a position to rule.
What would you do in this siuation?
This question was inspired by a suggestion from fearlessJon_Taylor. Here is his original submission:
Hi Mr Hackett
Thanks for answering all of the questions asked, the answers have been very helpful. Here's my conundrum:
Part B: It's 1-0 to Spain against Russia in the last few minutes, with the game swinging end-to-end. Russia have a corner which is cleared but passed back to Arshavin who looks certain to score, unfortunately the referee accidentally elbows him in the face knocking him off balance. The Russia players surround you, complaining that you have denied them a goal. What do you do?
We will bring you the answer to both scenarios from You Are The Ref's Keith Hackett on Friday.
This is the final week of our special Euro 2008 edition of You Are The Ref. So keep sending us your suggestions and BBC Sport will choose some to be turned into You Are The Ref scenarios. We reserve the right to modify any we select.
BBC Sport Euro 2008
Who are you supporting in Austria and Switzerland? Share your thoughts on all things Euro 2008 with our BBC Sport experts.
Fletch's view of Euro 2008
Recent Comments
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- swampeemarsh on You Are The Ref #13
- BlueStarIT on You Are The Ref #13
- goalie_up_front on You Are The Ref #13
Teams
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Podcast
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Part A.
No goal. Regardless of circumstance/excuse surely a player is not allowed to push the referee over deliberately. I would declare it unsportsman like behaviour and disallow the goal. The player in question should be probably be cautioned, and I would award a free kick to the other team.
The key word here is 'deliberately'. If the player had inadvertently knocked the referee over, then I believe the goal would be awarded, provided it can be confirmed the ball crossed the line. The implication here is that maybe the defence are claiming they cleared it. My understanding is a goal is only awarded if the referee or the assistants see the ball cross the line for themselves.
Part B.
In that situation I can only apologise and wave play on. I can't award a goal if it hasn't crossed the goal line. I may need to caution players if they get too over-heated in their complaints.
Complain about this comment
agree with #1 however I wouldnt cation the player. Again the key word is deliberate, and would restart the game with a drop ball. agree ?
Complain about this comment
full agree with 1...
Part A...
No Goal - Sent player off - restart play with indirect free kick..
keep your hands off...
Part B...
Unlucky - the referee trys to stay away and allow the games to flow.... but sometimes this happens... but you have to allow the game to continue - for any dissent caution...
keep right on
Complain about this comment
Nice scenarios!!
A - Firstly, the defence cannot argue that they stopped 'because they saw you on the floor'. Their role is to play football, not to act out a part as a St John's Ambulance person.
The question therefore hinges on whether the player was within his rights to push you out of the way and whether you can allow a goal that neither yourself nor your assistant (not 'linesman' ;o) ) have seen.
If the referee is as much in the way as it appears here, then his positioning is poor. If I found myself caught like this, I would fully understand a player having the committment to get to the ball and so finding myself pushed out of the way would not be unreasonable.
However, if the player used excessive force (ie appeared to be expressing frustration at my being in the way) then I would stop play and either warn, caution or send off dependent on how much force was used.
Regardless of this, in this instance the 'goal' has not been witnessed by either official. We cannot, therefore, be sure that no offence has occurred.
If play had been allowed to continue, the goal would be disallowed and play would restart with a drop ball from the point it was at when the referee was knocked over.
Complain about this comment
B - Unfortunate but sometimes these things happen.
If the elbowed player required treatment, then I would stop play for this, although he would still need to leave the field if the trainer needs to be involved.
If the complaining players make it impossible for the game to immediately continue, then I would stop play. Being sympathetic to their complaints, I would not look to caution unless they quickly accept it was an accident and just part of the game. If necessary, however, cautions for unsportsmanlike behaviour, or perhaps dissent, may be needed before the match can resume with an indirect free-kick to the opposition.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
On scenario a) This is a tricky one. But I think I would have to allow the goal (assuming that the ball does end up in the net and I see it in the net - which the original scenario suggests has happened.)
If I am in a poor position, I would find it acceptable to be pushed out of the way in the heat of a game (provided it was not done really violently). I think I would allow the goal, as I have no grounds to disallow it. In the same way, I can't send a player off for a punch I did not see (even if someone ends up with a bloody nose and the player is actually standing over him...) I don't think I can assume something MAY have happened and rule a goal out. It would be just one of those things - provided I have seen the ball in the net!
Scenario b) Same answer really. As the referee I am part of the game and this would just be unfortunate. In the same way, if the ball hits me and goes in, that would be a goal.
Depending on the injury to the player you would probably stop play to check on him (head injury) and get him treated if required. This would be sensible anyway, as you would not want the opposition playing on while the 'Russians' are complaining...
As people have said, you would probably be reasonable if there were complaints (as you could understand them) but you would still caution or dismiss if players went overboard and kept going once you had explained and probably warned them.
Re-start with a drop-ball where the 'collision' took place.
Complain about this comment
The referee is part of the pitch, you can't go pushing him out the way! Agree with 1 - if the ref was knocked over by accident then fair enough, but this scenario says 'deliberately', so free kick to the defending team. Although their excuse of having stopped playing when they saw the ref go down is poor - always play to the whistle.
As for B, acccidents happen - again, the ref is part of the pitch, just play on.
Complain about this comment
Well I think with A, what if the player was clearly not intending to hurt you or even knock you to the ground, but with one hand pushed you back out of his path without excessive force, and you lose your own footing and fall. If you were in this position it must have been because you have adopted a poor position, so if that happened, I would greatly sympathy for the player, and would maybe not call a foul. However, maybe it's totally illegal and I'm wrong.
Also, you are allowed to say, go in for a strong tackle and knock the player to the ground consequentially, as long as you get the ball and the tackle isn't dangerous. If the ball ends up near the referee and you go in for that sort of tackle, strong but not dangerous, winning the ball and knocking the ref to the ground, is that a foul?
For B) I would stop the play to make sure the player is alright, then advise the Spanish captain that he should kick the ball out from the restart for another corner or a throw in near the corner flag, as they have just been saved from a seemingly certain goal.
Complain about this comment
8. Joe_smith_83
I see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure (in law) how you are going to give a free-kick to the other team for a ''foul'' on you (as the referee).
I am not totaly confident about my answer, but, working through it logically, I don't think you can disallow a goal if you see nothing wrong (even though you were in no position to see anything right or wrong).
Having said that, I am begining to think that if the referee does not see the goal 'legitimately scored' and neither do either of his assistants and the fourth official (if there is one) then he probably can't award the goal and would re-start play with a drop-ball where he was when he became 'incapacitated'
Just have the feeling this is what the answer will be - even though I don't totally agree it should be.
Complain about this comment
award 5 points for the try
Complain about this comment
Yorkshireref:
I don't know the laws inside out, I only play I don't ref - but is there not a violent conduct law or something that would cover it? Different situation, but Di Canio got a long ban for pushing over a ref? I thought the ref was allowed some discretion (/common sense) too, which would allow for the free kick, or maybe just an uncontested drop ball.
Complain about this comment
Part A- for one thing, it cannot be a goal if none of the officials can definitely say the ball crossed the line (see Mendes at Old Trafford for a porime example.)
Part B- You certainly can't award a penalty/ goal if the ref does something like that. It's just bad luck.
We had an incident at Reading a few years ago where the ref deflected a defenders clearance nicely into the path of an opposition striker, who put the ball in the net. The goal was given, and won them the match. There's nothing that the rules can do to disallow it.
Complain about this comment
Joe:
I think that purposely pushing over the ref is different to pushing him out the way in order to play the ball.
I would think that a ref using his common sense would realise that the player only pushed him to get to the ball. And if the ref was in the way then that is because HIS position is wrong.
Would you expect a ref to stop play if a player pushed past a player on his own team? A foul hasn't been commited, the same would be true of playing the ref.
Many refs would probably wag a finger at the player afterwards but would take it in good humour.
The problem would be that neither official saw the goal - and so I am not sure how they could award it. Maybe it would be decided on current position of the ball - if it is still in the back of the net then it would suggest a goal was score.
My guess would be drop ball and a jokey comment from the ref about how he would have seen the goal if the player hadn't knocked him over!
Complain about this comment
12. joe_smith_83
Again, I hear what you say, but the violent conduct thing would probably not apply as despite this being a deliberate push, it is not in the same vein as Di Canio, which was a violent reaction to a decision and not an act in the middle of the heat of a game.
The player is pushing the ref to get to a ball in open play and not as a violent act.
As I said, in law, the most the referee can do is award a drop-ball (which only the players can decide whether to contest or not - althouigh he might ''suggest''' it).
Complain about this comment
10. I think that's a fairly good point, unless it's actually violent conduct, and I think there's a bit of a difference between violent conduct and a player trying to get you out of the way without excessive force. So how can you give a free kick to the opposition when they haven't been fouled?
13 a), Surely if the ball is in the back of the net the officials are allowed to assume it must have crossed the line? Assuming there's no gaps in the netting. Fair enough if it was a powerful shot and the ball came back out though.
Complain about this comment
Scenario
You are the ref, and your linesman is having a TERRIBLE game. Every time the ball is played forward in his half, he rules for offside, whether that is the case or not.
He makes two or three descisions that you can clearly see are wrong, and you over-rule him, allowing play to continue.
At half time, you are fortunate enough to see footage of several clear goal scoring opportunities that were ruled out by your linesman. You have a word with him and he assures you that he is fit and well, and that from where he was standing, the players appeared to be clearly offside.
In the second half, the scenario is reversed - the linesman's flag stays down for twenty minutes, and a goal is scored when the player looked offside to you (but you couldn't be sure).
After over-ruling the linesman for the second time on a CLEAR descision, you are faced with the possibility that he may be getting these descisions wrong not by accident, but on purpose.
Even from fifteen yards away, you could see that the attacking player was inside the box, and the last defender was outside it - both by almost a yard (or a metre if it is a European game ;)). There is no way that the linesman could have got it wrong, as he was level.
You have stopped play for offside.
The managers, and the players of both teams are understandably angry (but not doing anything that warrants action from you) - one team is asking for the linesman to be removed, the other is berating you for constantly over-ruling him.
Here are the options i see available -
a) continue with play (perhaps saying something to him), and mention his performance in your match report.
b) 'substitute' the linesman for the fourth official. and write in your match report that you felt him to be unable to perform his duties properly.
c) abandon the match and recommend an inquiry into corruption - as you feel the repeated and one-sided nature of the descisions MUST be more than incompetence, and you feel that concluding the match would prejudice the team who are currently leading (based on the marginal nature of the goal and the previous goal-scoring opportunities that were denied).
d) continue play, but over-rule him on every marginal (and obviously wrong) call
e)something else
Complain about this comment
a goalscorer wheels round in delight pulls his shirt over his head and reveals his sports bra
a- what does the ref do?
b- what do the attending police force do ?
Complain about this comment
With a) I could not grant the goal if it was not seen by either myself or one of my officials. No cautions would be dealt as in my opinion I would have been positioned poorly, as a ref you are not supposed to be in the thick of the action and would understand the action of pushing me out of the way. However, as it was the push to the ground that caused me to lose focus on the play and therefore the scoring of the goal i would explain this to the scorer (and if different the player that pushed) and award a drop-kick restart from the point i was pushed.
b) would simply be a conitnuation of play, if the player needed treatment the game could be stopped .... and any normal follow on rules would apply. If other players protested i would explain the situation and if still unhappy or volatile would explain that a caution would be dealt if it carried on and if necessary brandish the yellow card.
Complain about this comment
I disagree i'm afraid. The goal would be disallowed on the basis that no official was able to confirm the ball crossed the line.
If the referee is in the way then that is poor positioning from him. If the player had no other way of getting to the ball then his course of action was not to hurt the referee, in which case the official needs to learn from it.
For the second scenario, calm the players down and apologise to the player. Encourage the opposition to sportingly give the ball back in some way.
Complain about this comment
surely if ur such a ppor ref that u make these kind of mistakes ur decision should b 2 let somebody else try
Complain about this comment
As suggestion.....
Team A are up 1-0 in injury time...a defender from Team A takes the ball to his own corner flag and sits on it....he feels that he is just shielding the ball... A striker from Team B is unable to dislodge the ball and claims obstruction..who is right? Further in attempting to dislodge "Mother Hen" the striker makes contact with the ball and then accidentally the defenders posterior thus uprooting him....causing him to scream "fowl".....ok foul......and he puts the ball in the net does the goal stand?
Cookie
Complain about this comment
The referee takes no action in either case. In part A the goal stands as the referee is nothing more than a blade of grass. If the referee sees no reason to disallow the goal, which he has not (him getting knocked over is equivalent to a blade of grass being crushed and not a reason to disallow the goal) then the goal should stand.
B. Tough luck Russia, the referee is little more than a blade of grass, you have to deal with it, sucks to be Russia and you have done a poor refereeing job but thats life, its no different to making a bad decision, one cannot punish Spain for your inadequacies as a referee!
Complain about this comment
Cookie, to the latter part, if he contacts the ball first then it is not a foul! Simple, the goal would stand in the scenario you describe!
Complain about this comment
For case A - Maybe referee can be wrong in reading a flow of game too. And to disrupt a game by obstruct a clear goal scoring opportunity is such shame to me.
If the referee is put to the groud by the fact that the player solely intention just to score is somehow acceptable.
This is referee fault to stand in the way in and defender fault to stop playing before a whistle.
Think like that if you stand a metre away from play since its start. this case shouldn't happen. how rare this case should be.
For case B - I'll suddenly stop the game, apologize to them and award a re-take corner at most.
Complain about this comment
Give Russia a win lol
Let them Thrash Germany then 4-0 lol
But Germany to win :D
Complain about this comment
If i was the ref...Id get up and beat the face of the player who pushed me and say it was self defence! lol
Complain about this comment
I would give Russia the goal purely because I am totally and utterly biased towards the underdog in these games, and allow it to cloud my judgement and affect my decisions.
And I have had a fiver on Russia to win since very early in the tournament with some tasty odds...
Seriously though, for number one, if none of the officials saw a goal they surely cannot give it. I would probably ask the fourth official if he saw it. Then when he says no, pause the game until around 11.30. By then, match of the day will have been on and we will have seen the highlights...
For number 2, I personally would go and elbow Torres in the face ("accidentally") to even things up a bit. Then stage a game of rock, paper, scissors between the two captains to decide whether or not the Russians get a free kick.
Once they miss it, we can all go home and toast their efforts with a vodka or two, then put all our money on the Germans to win on pens.
Complain about this comment
seanario 1 - the goal would stand no question about it couse the ref should no be standing in the pen area the ref should be running diagonaly across the pitch (from top left 2 bottum right or visversa) id personly have a little word with the striker after saying "be carful mate doing that" but laffin at jokeing with him.
seanario 2 - all u can do is say sorry to the player and play on, but expect to get dropped as the ref haha, serpose in theory ud have 2 send ur self of aswell haha
Complain about this comment
A. Play stops when the referee is pushed over (if it is clearly deliberate). The player is cautioned and a free kick is given to the other team.
B. The referee says sorry and lets play go on. Every Russian in the world sends him death threats.
Complain about this comment
Speaking of referee's getting "involved" in the play. Take a look at this real example from the mid 70s I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NR-CDSTKRo
It is worth noting that the player who crossed the ball got sent off.
Apologies if the title of the video offends anyone but was unable to find another version of it.
Complain about this comment
Part A - As far as I can remember the referee is part of the game. Therefore, should a ball/player come into contact with the ref in open play then thats perfectly acceptable.
The problem comes with officials seeing the ball cross the goal-line. It's gona be obvious to the assistants or ref if the ball is sat in the back of the net so I would assume it would require some common sense from them. The defending team have no excuses because play had not stopped, any player is always taught play to the whistle so its tough cookies for them...
Complain about this comment
Firstly, you send the player off for barging you. Secondly, you award the other team a penalty as a crude form of retribution for your embarrassment.
Thirdly, you arrange with your 2 linesmen and the 4th official to wait for the offending striker outside the dressing room (ideally there will be "bike sheds" provided" and give him a kicking
Fourthly, you ensure that the other team wins, at all costs, and then go on TV later that night and apologise for your mistakes, citing "human error" - at least that's what they do in Scotland! ;)
Complain about this comment
Part A: I would retaliate on the player who pushed me over, giving him a swift punch then sending him off before he hits me back.
Part B: I have denied them an obvious goal scoring opportunity so would have to send myself off leaving them to play the rest of the ninety minutes with no referee only linesmen. As linesmen can only signal to the referee and not actually award goals, fouls, throw ins, etc themselves tyhe rest of the match would be less than a playground kick about.
Complain about this comment
In part A, sad as it may seem, you cannot push the referee out of the way . It is assault of the referee and the player should receive a red card. Play would be re-started with a goal kick to the defending side.
In part B, it is hard to understand how a fereree could be in such a position; however a player should be aware of where the refere is positioned and should avoid contact. It is not the referee's problem. Play should be re-started with a dropped ball where the incident occured.
Complain about this comment
It's a goal. The other team should play to the whistle to the whistle and the ball was in play.
Complain about this comment
Discuss the goal with the 4th official. Give the goal because you can't punish a player for trying to get into a position to score. The defenders can complain all they like as players should play to the whistle.
Complain about this comment
The first one cannot be a goal as you did not see it and you were pushed out of the way deliberately. The second one the refeere is considered part of the field so you cannot award anything and tough luck to the Russians.
Complain about this comment
GOAL!!!
The ref is part of the pitch. If the ball was kicked off the referee then it's tough for the player. But if the ref is in the players way the player has the right to push the ref out of the way for being there in the first place. There is no question that this goal should stand. The push is not intented to hurt the referee or injure him so it's not malicious.
Goal Stands!!!
Complain about this comment
Yay GOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
to number 1, the goal should still stand, no dout. if the ref was in the way of the ball, the ref shouldnt be in the way in the first place. and the opposition cant complain and say they just stopped, because it is one of the key rules in any team sport to "play to the whistle,". the only possible dout is if the ref did not see the goal, because if he cant see it and is linesman cant see it then it never happend, but this is unlikely cos the ball is most likely to roleing around in the net.
to number 2, you have to play on, again if the russian players decide to argue with u without mercy then it would be up to the referee to card the players till they decided to stop. the problem with this is it is very poor refereeing in the first place and you would find it likely that the referee would be delt with by higher powers
Complain about this comment
A: In my opinion the moment the attacking player fouls the referee is the "cut off" point. Where the ball did or did not end up is irrelevent as if not on the floor the referee would stop play.
Disallow the goal, free kick to the defence (the attacking team infringed so a drop ball would, to my mind, be inappropriate.) Allow resonable protest but caution if these persist.
B: These things happen, allow treatment of player and restart with a drop ball. Again allow protest of a reasonable nature.
Complain about this comment
A good referee doesn't ever go in the 18 yard box or get that close to a player, especially one with the ball. These situations should never happen. I know that doesn't answer the question. But what is the point of answering a question when it won't every become reality?
Complain about this comment
[quote]
But what is the point of answering a question when it won't every become reality?
[/quote]
Who's harder Rocky or Rambo?
It's a bit of fun
Complain about this comment
43 - Vidafan15
Hmmmm - good referees don't go in the 18-yard box?
What do you base that on?
Good referees go where they need to go to get the best view of the action (not too close and not too far away). There are many occasions when a ref has to go into the penalty area...
Also, even good refs can get caught in a tricky position, when play is switched quickly, a player changes direction unexpectedly or a deflection takes the ball near you - even if you think you have anticipated what is happening and have positioned yourself accordingly.
You really can't say this kind of thing will never happen. Believe me, anything is pretty much possible and the oddest things do happen...
Complain about this comment
This happened a few Sundays back, the ref awarded the goal but I think he got it wrong...
A stricker is fouled outside the penalty box in the last 10 minutes and tumbles half way into the area in apparent agony.
The goalkeeper and walks up to the injured opponent and calls for some water from the side line. The attacking team sees the open goal and takes a sneaky quick free kick to score a consolation goal to bring the score to 4-1.
Complain about this comment
B is no goal. The referee is part of the field. Unfortunate but those are the breaks. Don’t even stop play unless the player needs treatment.
A is tricky. The defense’s claim is clearly rubbish. Regardless of the circumstances, you play the whistle. The ref couldn’t allow the goal if neither he nor the ARs saw the ball cross the line. Since the scenario used the word ‘deliberately’ (as opposed to an accidental bump), the player who shoved would have to be punished in some way. I think the ref has to consider if he was in poor position such that the pushing was the instinctive reaction of a player trying to get the ball (caution) or whether he felt there was some malice (sending off). Either way, it’s a free kick to the defending team.
Complain about this comment
46 - publeaguesuperstar
While not wrong in law - I think the majority of refs would not allow this to happen.
In general, you should give as much advantage to the team that has been fouled against as possible. But if the goalkeeper is showing concern for an apparently injured player, it would be very much against the spirit of the game to allow the opposition to score into an empty net in these kinds of circumstances.
Complain about this comment
Part A -
Striking or attempting to strike a match official is a sending off offence that (rightly) automatically carries a lifetime ban from all football activities - unless you're called Paulo Di Canio for some reason! Forward sent off, direct free-kick for the defending team where the offence took place, and obviously no goal awarded as a result of the infringement.
Part B -
The referee is deemed as "being part of the field of play". Consequently, whilst it is unfortunate that he has prevented a possible goal, play just continues, end of....Well, until after the game when:
(i) the referee's assessor destroys him in his match report for his positional sense,
(ii) UEFA end up taking sanctions against the Russian coach and assorted players for "bringing the game into disrepute" for their post match comments to the media,
and possibly:
(iii) the referee concerned maybe retires shortly afterwards, writes a book and gets a pundits job with Radio 5!!
and
(iv) The referee is mysteriously poisoned to death after accidently being kicked by a man wearing a 'tipped' shoe or poked by a tipped umbrella on a bridge somewhere in central London!
Complain about this comment
A- Ask the other 2 officials if they saw the goal, if so, allow the goal to stand. I shouldnt have been in the way of a goal scoring opportunity in the first place.
B - Tough, should have knocked me out of the way before I had the change to elbow you.
Peace
Complain about this comment
In the case of A, even if the referee gets up and sees the ball in the back of the net what's to say that the player hasn't missed, rebounded off the barrier and kicked in again.
The ball would be in the back of the net but because the player kicked it out it wouldn't count.
Whats to say the goal wasn't offside either or whether there was a foul committed which would void the goal?
In this case the linesmen have been very poorly positioned for BOTH of them to miss a goal, what's so hard to follow the ball and check if it crossed the line.
The only way that could happen is if both linesmen were concerned as to how the tackle went on the referee which would cause a stoppage in play if it looked like the referee could be seriously hurt.
This is more of a mistake of communication between the players, the linesmen and the referee. From the sounds of things the tackle wasn't bad and wouldn't have mattered if the ref stayed on his feet but in the heat of the moment everyone assumed something had happened and because of which play would need to be resumed with a drop ball.
The player should not recieve a red card automatically if it was indeed an accident or meant to be a light push out of the way because he was going for the ball.
I mean picture what would happen if a ball was being crossed from a long distance to a striker, he's looking behind him (at the ball in the air) as he's running and the ref is jogging back to avoid things yet when the ball falls to the ground the striker turns round and is surprised by the ref right there and sticks his arms out to avoid a collision.
Thats one way in which this scenario could happen and I wouldn't give the player a red card for a challenge like that or allow the goal if it was scored
Complain about this comment
I like the first scenario... its a tough one, but seems confusing.
I think the fact that the goal is scored is undisputed, seeing as how the defending teams claimed they stopped when you were knocked over.
Goal, restart with a kick off. The player was going for the ball, he wasn't trying to hurt you or anything, be in a better position.
The defending team shouldn't stop simply because you're on the ground, they should know to play the whistle.
Maybe have a friendly word or two with the striker, and check with the fourth official and assistant to make sure nothing zany happened.
I'm confused about the last sentence though. What does you not seeing the goal have to do with anything? Its undisputed that a goal was scored isn't it?
(You could definately award a free kick to the defending team, assuming you stopped play to caution the attacker.)
B) Seems straightforward enough. Its an unfortunate accident, play on. Or restart with a drop ball if the player is badly injured.
22: Doesn't get that far. Book the defender for unsporting behaviour.
As for the positioning of the referee, I remember hearing at a recertification class that if you didn't get hit by a ball twice in a match you were too far away from the action, and if you got hit more than that you were too close. =)
Complain about this comment
It's almost certainly some kind of foul.
You can't intentionally push over the ref just because you want to score a goal, no more than you shove a linesman out the way just because you want to get to the ball to take a quick throw-in.
Give him a yellow card as well, the scoundrel !!
Complain about this comment
A scenario to consider...
A deliberate passback to the keeper is under hit and a forward is closing in and is now clean through with only the keeper to beat and directly in front of the goal. The keeper dives at the forwards feet and, before the forward has touched the ball, gathers it with his hands within the penalty area.
Obviously an indirect free kick for handling the deliberate passback but what do you about cautioning or dismissing the goalkeeper. From the list of sending off offences:
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a
goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
5. denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick
or a penalty kick
Which one applies?
Complain about this comment
I don't know about part A but part B is impossible, the ref shouldn't be in the box when there is a corner.
Complain about this comment
neither, send the striker off
Complain about this comment
54 - philjimbill
Neither applies in this case - the handling of the backpass is a technical offence, punishable by an indirect free-kick.
The free-kick in (5) would have to be an offence punishable with a direct free-kick - not an indirect free-kick.
(4) does not apply because - as the goalkeeper - he is allowed to handle the ball in his area.
In law, you could consider a caution for the keeper for unsporting behaviour, as there is a lot of leeway for referees in this area, if they think any act (such as this - which was quite deliberate) is judged to be unsporting.
Complain about this comment
55 - stokecitystoke
Not sure why you say a referee should not be in the penalty area for a corner...
You are right that at the higher levels (when working with assistants) you can afford to be outside the area and let your assistant look for offside and when the ball crosses the line.
But people should be clear that when a referee is on their own (perhaps just using club assistants) he needs to be in a good position to see if a ball crosses the line (byline or goal line) so he may well need to be in the penalty area - but away from the main action area.
Just pointing this out, so that when people see the ref in their ''parks'' game they don't wonder why he's there.
Complain about this comment
Depends on which time i had a bet on before the game :P
Complain about this comment
team*
Complain about this comment
Part A - For this I'd like to refer to some advice given to me during my referees' course. The instructor told us that 'the fans come to see goals and that an unneccesary disallowing would spoil it for them, therefore it his unrecommended.' In my opinion, the situation given to us can be viewed in two ways the act was either aggresive and the player would be dismissed. Or , bearing mind the officials are part of the pitch, what was said earlier and the fact that the referee is obstructing play, the goal should be allowed to stand. Personally, I would allow the goal to stand.
Part B - Play would be stopped due to the head injury obtained by Arshavin and would be restarted by a drop ball. Any Russian players deemed to be desentful should be cautioned.
Complain about this comment
#44 - Rambo definitely
Complain about this comment
54 - I'd be inclined to send the keeper off there...but don't know what the rule book would say!
44 - Rocky. He didn't need weapons.
Complain about this comment
57 - Yorkshire ref
Looked very hard at law 12 - actually copied the text from the published LOTG2006 (latest version I have on the PC)- and number 5 says "punishable by a free kick..." not "punishable by a DIRECT free kick..."
As you say "the handling of the backpass is a technical offence, punishable by an indirect free-kick." which is still an offence punishable by a free kick, so on what basis are you dismissing number 5? Can't see anything in the Decisions of the International FA Board enhancing the description of the free kick to only be a direct free kick.
Complain about this comment
57 - Yorkshire Ref
By way of clarification I included number 4 to ask does this clause effectively override number 5 even though the keeper has commited an offence punishable by a free kick?
It would not be sensible to dismiss the keeper under number 4.
Sorry if I mislead in the original phrasing
Complain about this comment
part A, i would not give the goal and i would give a yellow card to the player that had pushed me over. I would then give a dropball from where i was pushed over.
part B, i would give yellow cards to the players that continuousley pestered me and would let the game play on as it was not me who stopped the game.
Complain about this comment
Part A.
There are plenty of situations where the ref could be in ok (not perfect, but ok) position but also in the way of a player running for the ball.. thinking retreating whilst signalling for a goal kick to be taken, which is then sclaffed by the goalkeeper, a player advancing from deep could well find the ref in the way, or a rebounded penalty, with a player coming in from the edge of the box..
But in any case, its irrelevant - the only time the ref can be treated as a blade of grass is during contact with the ball (and then hes more of a moving corner flag!) - there is plenty of room on the pitch for a player to run round the ref even if he is poorly positioned... so if he intentionally shoved me out of the way whilst going for the ball he'd be off for violent conduct, and it'd be a free kick to the defending team...
If however our runs brought us together accidentally, and there was no other reason to rule out the goal then it'd be given...
Part B
Poor Russia.. :( Shut up and get on with it... its the same as him colliding with a goal post, or clashing heads with his own player.
Complain about this comment
"With a) I could not grant the goal if it was not seen by either myself or one of my officials."
The problem there is, if you take out the part about the referee, what do you do if you and your assistants dont see the ball go in the back of the net, but you see it actually in the net. If you arent going to award the goal, what else could you give? IMO the goal would be given because the ball is clearly in the goal, and there is nothing to prevent the award of the goal.
Complain about this comment
A- To me, it would totally depend on the severity of the referee pushing. If the player glances by him and brushes against the referee, play on, goal. If he runs up, arm up and shoves the ref over, no goal, and without a doubt a card should be given
B- Think of it as though it were the referee who had gotten in the way of the ball/player, what happens? play on!, same with if the player got in the way of the ref, unfortunate, but play on lads!
Complain about this comment
The key word being deliberate is almost not important. Because the game isn't written down, and the player could claim he didn't do it deliberately. For it to be a different outcome if he charged the referee without acting specifically to move him, and for him to move him out of the way, is stupid, as his intention is to score, not to attack the referee.
Complain about this comment
54/57/64/65: Indirect free kick to the attacking team, send the keeper off.
"The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an
indirect free kick."
Complain about this comment
31. martceltic1....
It is absurd that the referee can send a player off for that! Full stop, end of story, shocker, i hope that card was rescinded. Particularly given that in the 70s u could practically snap a bloke in 2 and the ref would wave play on!
Complain about this comment
A:
Simple enough in essence. Pushing the referee over amounts to violent conduct, a sending off, and probably a lengthy ban - remember, violent conduct does not have to be against an opposition player. The goal would certainly not stand. The fact that the picture clearly shows the referee kicking the player in the groin should not alter the decision.
However, it does raise the question of whether a goal can stand if the referee is incapacitated. I'd imagine yes, provided he was not - as in this case - deliberately put out of the game. But I'd be interested to know for sure.
B:
Of course the players would be upset. But you can't award a goal on the basis that Arshavin would have scored - I remember Kanu playing for West Brom, and blazing over the bar when he was 2 foot from an open goal - and the referee has no right to make assumptions.
Nor could a penalty be awarded, as the defending side did not commit any offence. Rather, it has to be put down to bad luck, and nothing more.
Complain about this comment
Heh 72.. speaking of, I realllllly disliked the way the ref handled the Italy/Spain game. Every time spain was on the attack the Italian that lost the ball simply stayed down until the ref blew the whistle and messed up the Spanish attack every time. ENOUGH ALREADY! So weak. I was glad when Spain won the shootout. So much time wasted. What horrid tactics. Should've started handing out yellows for simulation.
Complain about this comment
Well, the referee is part of the field of play, and there is no excuse for such violent conduct, so surely the scoring player must be sent off and the goal disallowed.
The same goes for part B - I would give a contested drop ball, but nothing more can be given to the Russians as it is not the Spaniards' fault.
Complain about this comment
I have a question for Mr. Hackett:
If a player is sporting a prosthetic leg, and as they a running down the pitch the leg flies off and trips up an opposing forward who is rushing towards the goal, is the freekick given from the spot where the leg landed, or from where the player who now only has 1 leg is still standing?
Complain about this comment
The kick is taken from where the object struck or would have struck the opponent.
Complain about this comment
The key to both is that the official is for all intents and purposes, part of the field, not a player and not an outside agent.
Case B is straightforward, no goal as the official is part of the field, just like goal posts, corner flags, or ruts in the grass from play. No free kick would be given for tripping over a sinkhole, play on!
Case A, well the defense claims are rubbish, absent a whistle to stop play, play continues, the fact that all of them made the same mistake is no excuse.
The player going through you is not relevant, you are part of the field, again, you'd not sanction the player for trying to charge through a goal post to get a ball... So long as the player was legitimately trying to play the ball, no foul, no issue, except, of course why you're standing in such a foolish place.
The only part of A which is relevant is the fact that no official saw the goal, although the example omits the other assistant and the fourth official... who also should be consulted in such a case.
But as written, no goal, drop ball, I'd go so far as to wave the Russian player off and instruct the Spanish player to kick it back.
Complain about this comment
A.) Allow the goal. The player is trying to get the ball and score, not attack me. I am part of the field of play. I had not blown my whistle, so play was still live.
B.) As with A, I am part of the field. It is an accident, and thus play could be restarted with a drop-ball. The player would come off the field for treatment, if necessary.
Complain about this comment
part A:
i think some people seem to take the word 'deliberate' too literally. the way i look at it:
1- if the player wanted to get to the ball in a clear goalscoring opportunity, and i -as the ref- got in his way then i should expect him to do his best to get to the ball, and if that means me getting pushed aside then fair play to him, i will allow play to continue. 2- however, if he got out of his way to push me over, thats a different matter as his action wasn`t exactly playing the ball, the same can be said if he is agressive, i will stop play and award the opposition a free kick.
for situation 1, the opposition have no case because they shouldn't have stopped as the ref didn't blow his whistle. now for the goal, i have 2 assistants, and the 4th official to ask before deciding, if they are unsure i cannot allow the goal.
HOWEVER, WE SAID THIS WAS A CLEAR GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY, I Don`t See How There Can Be Controversy Whether The Ball Crossed The Line; a clear goalscoring opportunity means the player should easily bury the ball into the net, not when he is stopped from hitting it hard enough to cross the line, or when others are there to stop it from going in.
see what i mean?
Complain about this comment
Ist one its a goal i was in the way and i deserve the push every one makes mistakes, fair chance.
Second one I would apologise and give them the ball were the foul was and imagine nothing happened.
Complain about this comment
Jesus! What is the dispute here, the laws of the game are quite clear on both issues.
Part A is governed by Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct:
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesAndRegulations/FIFALawsOfTheGame/Postings/2002/05/12117.htm
Read International Board decision 1! If the attacker has deliberately pushed the referee he has committed an offence, therefore the goal CANNOT stand. NOTHING else matters and all these debates about if the linesmen saw it, etc, etc are TOTALLY irrelevant!!
Part B is governed by Law 9 - The Ball In And Out Of Play
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesAndRegulations/FIFALawsOfTheGame/Postings/2002/05/12108.htm
I refer you to the phrase:
"The ball is in play at all other times, including when:...it rebounds from either the referee or an assistant referee when they are on the field of play."
Frankly, it amazes me (as a coach) how many people involved in the game (including within the professional game) whether coaches, players or supporters (and some refs I've met!!) are so ignorant of the laws of the game.
Complain about this comment
BlueStarIT: I like your common sense approach and clarity of thought, but with one exception. By the same token that you would be correct in not being sure that no offence had been committed before the ball ended up in the back of the net, the exact opposite would be equally true - it equally may have been the case that No offence had occurred during the ball's passage to the back of the net. Would it not be fairer to apply the following 2 tenets: innocent until proven guilty; and advantage to the attacking team?
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Would it not be fairer to apply the following 2 tenets: innocent until proven guilty; and advantage to the attacking team?
=============================
No - you apply THE LAWS!
Complain about this comment
Taking the word deliberately too literally?
How is it possible to do that?
He knocked him over deliberately but didn't mean to do it?
And for the rest of you that don't read the scenario properly, where does it mention penalty area? The referee's position may have been fine, perhaps there was a ricochet that took the ball into his and the player's path. Stop putting your own slant on it.
Then take your pick on the first offence, unsporting behaviour, ungentlemanly conduct, violent conduct...it's just the colour of card that varies.
Also bear in my mind that the officials can only make decisions on what they see, not what they think happened. Irrelevant in this case as play will come back for, I suspect, a drop ball.
The second instance is tough luck and the outcome again a drop ball
Complain about this comment
Frankly I don't think running into the referee is the problem with this scenario... the much trickier question is what happened between that and the ball ending up in the goal.
The decision you seem to put so much stock in is rather redundant.
IITOOTR. IMO, play on.
What would you book the man for? SFP? VC? I don't think a little shove on the way to a clear goal scoring opportunity is EXCESSIVE and/or BRUTAL.
The attacker DOES NOT commit a foul, and the only thing you COULD stop play for is if he committed one of the 7 cautionable or 7 sending off offences, and in my opinion doesn't violate any of these.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe Part B was even chosen for YATR!
The quote 'Arshavin looks certain to score' implies that he is standing in the 6 yard box or just outside it.
When a corner is taken, the ref NEVER stands in the 6 yard box or anywhere near it! The situation is just ridiculous.
Part A is a good question but I would think that you cannot, in any situation, push the referee to the floor. I would simply give a free kick to the opposition.
Complain about this comment
Part A give a penalty to the player that pushed me over or ask the 4th official. Part B give them a freekick inside the box.
Complain about this comment
While thhe goal in a is a tricky one the push is less so, it is not an offence at least judging by the picture, it's plainly not violent or unsporting conduct, any physical reaction by the ref would be assult and a police mater. Violence against a ref or player is inexscusable but this is clearly not violent.
Complain about this comment
Referee is "part of the pitch" so Spanish goal stands, and Russians can not complain about he elbow incident.
Complain about this comment
Part A: If you've blown the wistle straight after your down, then drop ball and caution to player. If not, then its not a goal coz you've not seen it going in!
Part B: Drop ball. Maybe if Spain are fair players then they'd let Russia score, which they won't do in a million years!
Part C: Russia still rules!
Complain about this comment
No.88 - Why would a penalty be given in scenario A, there is no feesable reason to do this. Not seeing the ball enter the goal doesn't give the referee reasoning to award a penalty.
Complain about this comment
In both cases the player must be cautioned. In the first instance it will be for violent conduct in pushing the ref to the ground. It may even warrant a red card. In the second instance the captain of the Russian team must be cautioned for dissent.
Complain about this comment
88, your answer was ridiculous. How can you possibly think that that would be the case?
Complain about this comment
With this being the last one, I thought I would say you lot have made me laugh over the last few weeks on how seriously you take this.
Keep it up
Complain about this comment
I have an enquiry although it is not so much about the rules of football but more about the structure of the tornament. In the group containing the Netherlands, Romania, Italy and France heading into the final game the table read:
Team W L D F A P
Netherlands 2 0 0 7 1 6
Romania 0 0 2 1 1 2
Italy 0 1 1 1 4 1
France 0 1 1 1 4 1
What would have happened had the Netherland beaten Romania 3-0 and France and Italy played out a 0-0 draw? This would result in Romania, Italy and France with the same goal difference and same amount of points. How would they decide who goes through?
Complain about this comment
Stands2reason - post #83 (regarding post #4)
A referee is instructed that he cannot award (or punish for) something neither he nor his assistants have seen.
The ball is in the net and the referee 'knows' that the 'goal' was almost certainly legitimately scored BUT must consider the possibility that handball, foul on a defender, etc. could all have occurred between his being knocked down and him regaining his full senses.
Similar to a player lying bleeding and the referee being told that another player had punched him. You may 'know' that that is the likely scenario but cannot act upon it unless it was seen.
So the goal cannot be awarded, regardless of how likely the referee thinks that it was scored legitimately.
Complain about this comment
In response to 96, UEFA stated at the beginning of the tournament that in the case of two teams being equal on points and goal difference a penalty shoot out would decide who would advance through to the next round. For three teams level, a penalty shoot out would be confusing so I presume that the head to head records during the tournament would be used.
Complain about this comment
#96 do you not read the bbc sport text commentary? The person who was commenting the game stated about 5 times what would happen if this situation was to arise!
italy would go through on their superior coefficients points. For example their world rankings, success in previous tournaments ( world cup 2006) and head to head with the teams would all be takin into consideration.
Complain about this comment
Also, these situations are ridiculous! neither would ever happen! for one the linesman must be a pretty poor one to be un-sighted as they are supposed to be in a position to overule the ref when needed ( for example the rescinded red card for russia vs holland) and as for scenario b the ref would surely be watchin the play and the ball and should never get into the position to elbow a player in a goal scoring position!
Complain about this comment
Re 100: The linesman CANNOT overule the Referee!
In the Russia game. all that happened was the lino pointed out that the ball was out of play. It was not his decion to rescind the red card!
And 43:
"A good referee doesn't go in the penalty area".
True but as we all know, not all Refs are good ones!
Complain about this comment
54: phil. I thought about it and changed my mind. There is an indirect free kick given, no send off for the keeper. Perhaps a yellow for unsporting.
Complain about this comment
A. The referee is part of the field of play. If the ball is kicked by a player, bounces off the refereee to an oppostion player who scores, the goal would stand.
Thjerefore in this instance, if the ball was seen by any official to cross the line I would allow the goal.
B. It's an unfortunate accident. I would stop play and re-start with a dropped ball.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS