A FED

[Dirk Gently]

..... And another black mark to the officials for failing to spot a good number of occasions when Cardiff forwards committed an offence by deliberately cutting across AUS as he went to kick the ball.

Is that actually an offence? I can understand standing in front or jumping up and down, or actually impeding the kick, but what is wrong with legitimately trying to slow down a keeper's distribution?

[ScottishRoyal]

Should our song for him be AUS AUS AUS re-working of the old USA classic?

No it shouldn't. HTH

ps, USA is neither a 'classic' nor funny.

[Rex]

It gave me a wry smile when Fed tried to place the ball outside the area when being awarded a free kick. Was he stating indirectly that he handled the ball outside the area!! There is a slight difference between impeeding a goal kick and slowing down play, minute i know but it exists.

[Victor Meldrew]

Early days for Adam but his goal must have given him great confidence and because of it he could get folk hero status very quickly.
He looked assured today and although people have gone a bit over the top about his distribution other parts of his game were good.
So far,so good and Marcus may struggle to get back in if he maintains this form.

[rabidbee]

..... And another black mark to the officials for failing to spot a good number of occasions when Cardiff forwards committed an offence by deliberately cutting across AUS as he went to kick the ball.

Is that actually an offence? I can understand standing in front or jumping up and down, or actually impeding the kick, but what is wrong with legitimately trying to slow down a keeper's distribution?

Depends how you interpret the Law:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee... prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands.

[Dirk Gently]

..... And another black mark to the officials for failing to spot a good number of occasions when Cardiff forwards committed an offence by deliberately cutting across AUS as he went to kick the ball.

Is that actually an offence? I can understand standing in front or jumping up and down, or actually impeding the kick, but what is wrong with legitimately trying to slow down a keeper's distribution?

Depends how you interpret the Law:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee... prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands.

Thanks. Another of those subjective ones.

Personally, I think the ref was over protective of Fed with those decisions - perhaps because he knew he'd messed up the Chopra decision earlier.

[rabidbee]

Almost all of the Laws egarding fouls are subjetive, as the language is usually "... in the opinion of the ref..." or "...in the ref's consideration...". Similarly, the Law states that it is a free-kick if a player deliberately uses the arm to control the ball - how often have you seen fouls/penalties given when there can be no suggestion of intent from the offending player (Halford at Spurs springs to mind).

[Rex]

Or in some cases the ref forming an opinion for an event that never happened and that he had an obstructed view of - Watford away this season for instance!!

3 yard encroachment in the pen area for the Spurs Penalty which still stood. (Defoe i think)

I still have an opinion that consistancy needs to be followed. FA regulatory guidelines certainly provide enough instances of subjective refereeing where a ref can often cynically balance up errors made earlier in a match.

[rabidbee]

I actually think that over-regulation has made reffing worse. The original idea was that you had one man in the middle who knew the rules and interpreted them to the best of his understanding and experience. By introduing ever more mandatory decisions, the authorities have IMO both removed a lot of the opportunity for refs to apply common-sense to a situation whilst also casting doubt on their ability to use common-sense in the first place.

[Rex]

I know this has really gone off on a tangent but the Respect campaign this season has gone seriously awry. I'm sure the thinking was that the captain could approach the ref and be the principle form of communication for the team and for the ref to pass advice to. (calming a player down to prevent a double yellow for instance). This season it seems to have gone off track and placed further emphasis of a ref making a travesty of a decision. This has resulted in players surrounding the ref / linesman, and managers being banished to the stands.

[chilipepper91]

I know this has really gone off on a tangent but the Respect campaign this season has gone seriously awry. I'm sure the thinking was that the captain could approach the ref and be the principle form of communication for the team and for the ref to pass advice to. (calming a player down to prevent a double yellow for instance). This season it seems to have gone off track and placed further emphasis of a ref making a travesty of a decision. This has resulted in players surrounding the ref / linesman, and managers being banished to the stands.

I think this is further evidence that rugby is taking positive steps forward. Only the player concerned and the captain being allowed to talk to the referee; video technology. With so much pressure now placed on a referee every time he makes a wrong decision, with the knowledge w e have this technology, why not use it? Many other sports have brought it in, to positive effect.

Read an interesting article in the Mail today (stop reading there if you like ) that said that of a 45 minute half, on average, the ball was only in play 27 minutes. SO what difference would 20-30 seconds make for important decisions?

[rabidbee]

But don't you see that video technology only serves to further undermine the authority of referees, by opening up all of their decisions to challenge. AFAIA, rugby *only* uses video technology to determine debateable tries. as the ball has already been grounded in these circumstances, there would be a stoppage at that point anyway, so video technology has been introduced with minimal impact upon the game. I would be in favour of goal-line technology, except that in football the ball will usually come back into play when there is a disputed goal, and I wouldn't want to introduce stoppages into the match for any reason other than a trangression against the rules. If we are to have goal-line technology, it must be something that is instant and clear - whether that's a microchip in the ball or a pair of line judges sat on the goal-line.

If you were to open up other decisions by a ref to video technology, you are effectively saying that the ref is no longer in charge of the match, but rather the video ref is the final arbiter, and you would have players demanding a replay of every decision. Not only would this make the game farcical, and totally destroy any authority a ref has on the pitch, but it's alsodoubtful that it would clarify matters. Last season, the BBC sat down a panel of experienced ex-players and referees, and showed them a reel of disputed penalties, penalty claims and other fouls, and asked them whether the decision given was correct. They themselves could rarely agree on what decision should have been given in each case, depite the benefit of slow motion replays from a variety of angles, let alone reach a concensus about whether or not the ref had given the right decision, so I very much doubt that video evidence would produce "better" decisions, just different ones.

As I said above, the equivocal nature of the Laws is written into the very fabric of the game. Personally, I would only hope that each ref tries to be consistent in their decisions, both within each game and from game to game, and that the FA try to encourage the referees to be consistent from one to another, but I will also accept that the rules are entirely open to interpretation, and that individuals can make mistakes. Harder though it is, I think the FA are right to prefer a campaign that attempts to challenge the attitudes of fans, players and managers, rather than binding it around with ever more complex innovations which, I'm convinced, will only ruin the game as a spectacle and as a sporting event. At the end of the day, it has succeeded as the most popular sport in the world because it is so simple - 22 guys kicking a bit of plastic/leather around a rectangle of grass, with three guys in black making sure everybody sticks to the 17 rules. Why make it more complex?

[royalroo]

Should our song for him be AUS AUS AUS re-working of the old USA classic?

No it shouldn't. HTH

How about

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie OI, OI, OI! ?

Or some new lyrics for Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport?

I think something to the tune of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo would be appropriate.

[Hoop Blah]

I actually think that over-regulation has made reffing worse. The original idea was that you had one man in the middle who knew the rules and interpreted them to the best of his understanding and experience. By introduing ever more mandatory decisions, the authorities have IMO both removed a lot of the opportunity for refs to apply common-sense to a situation whilst also casting doubt on their ability to use common-sense in the first place.

Totally agree with your further post about technology, but I think some of the 'mandatory decisions' are acceptable in a situation where the football world wants to see more consistency from officials. The problem is that you still get these mandatory decisions incosistenly applied because it's still down to the ref's opinion at the time. There is no easy answer, and I do agree these measures have made it more difficult for refs.

What really gets me is when the football world (especially the likes of Shearer and Gray etc on the TV) ask for common sense referring at the same time as calling for consistency. The two are pretty much opposite approaches.

[PieEater]

It doesn't help when experts like Lawro moan that the Spurs sending off was only a booking, despite the replay showing him standing in the other guys ankle and Harry agreeing with it. He's the expert as he's played the game.

[westendgirl]

But don't you see that video technology only serves to further undermine the authority of referees, by opening up all of their decisions to challenge.

I would agree if every decision was challenged, but why should that be? Tennis seems to have had successful technology intervention by allowing a limited number of incorrect challenges and it seems to have improved both the game and the temper tantrums as well as proving the officials actually get the decision right more often than the players. If a manager was allowed 1 unsuccessful challenge per half they would either get incorrect decisions changed or quickly run out of challenges.

[Hoop Blah]

But don't you see that video technology only serves to further undermine the authority of referees, by opening up all of their decisions to challenge.

I would agree if every decision was challenged, but why should that be? Tennis seems to have had successful technology intervention by allowing a limited number of incorrect challenges and it seems to have improved both the game and the temper tantrums as well as proving the officials actually get the decision right more often than the players. If a manager was allowed 1 unsuccessful challenge per half they would either get incorrect decisions changed or quickly run out of challenges.

Tennis decisions are matter of fact. Football decisions are largely matters of opinion. On almost all decisions the opinion of those viewing the incidents varies so the use of a video replay just opens up the scope for more debate and arguement.

If this was ever introduced I'd stop watching football.

[Dirk Gently]

I'd fight to the death against challenges or anything that involves holding up play - that will change the game.

But Isee nothing wrong with the use of technology for factual, line, decisions - to me that's essentially no different to putting a tape across the top of the goal posts and later replacing that with a crossbar.

There will still be enough subjective decisions to be made by the officials (was it a foul/hand-ball, was it deliberate, etc, etc, etc,) that giving an instant indication of line-decisions surely can't be a bad thing?

[rabidbee]

I totaly agree, Dirkers, as long as it is instant. If the game has to be stopped (with the ball in open play) for a video replay, it will just diminish the game. What happened to Addidas's chip in the ball?

[Dirk Gently]

I totaly agree, Dirkers, as long as it is instant. If the game has to be stopped (with the ball in open play) for a video replay, it will just diminish the game. What happened to Addidas's chip in the ball?

Not sure which system has which sponsor, but the Hawkeye system was tested extensively at Hogwood and worked beautifully. An instant beep in the ref's ear when the ball was wholly over the line.

Then IFAB (the rule making body, consisting of the 4 home nations and 4 votes from FIFA) threw it out in March - the Welsh FA broke ranks and voted with FIFA - to the shock and horror of virtually everyone in football.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2295110/Clubs-dismiss-Uefa-and-Fifa-goal-line-decision.html

Apparently, FIFA want the game to be the same from top to bottom, no matter where it's played, but that distinction has already been lost years ago - how come linesmen have flags with buzzers in and refs/linos have radio communication?

Shocking decision!