Question for our refs on here

[johnnojudo]

The following is just an example. I've used team names to help.

 

What action as a referee would you take?

Scenario:

Cove v RPV

 

RPV have a corner. The usual tussle happens in the box. The cove #5 and RPV #10 are marking each other and then suddenly the Cove #5 hits the deck holding his head. Referee calls a stop to the corner being taken. Cove physio comes on and reveals either a nasty cut or very swollen bruised eye on the Cove player. After 20 seconds of treatment the Cove player has recovered and is up on his feet feeling ok to continue.

 

Ref didnt see it but its plainly obvious what has probably happened.

 

Under the laws of football, the Cove player is required to leave the pitch leaving Cove down to 10 men at a crucial time!

 

The Cove captain argues the point with the ref that due to a probable elbow or punch from the RPV #10 that Cove are now missing their best centre back for this corner due to a punch not seen by the ref.

 

What would you do as a referee at this point?

 

1. Would you make the Cove player leave the pitch (as the rules state) thus leaving Cove down to 10 men thru no fault of their own??

2.Would you take action against the RPV#10 and still make the Cove player leave the pitch?

3.Would you allow the Cove player to stay on (thus allowing Cove not to be disadvantaged) but not take action against the RPV player due to having to guess what probably happened?

 

Or would you do something else?

 

I know the rules state that it should be number 1 but i would use my common sense and choose number 3.

 

What would you do?

Edited September 26, 2010 by johnnojudo

[NICE GUY]

The following is just an example. I've used team names to help.

 

What action as a referee would you take?

Scenario:

Cove v RPV

 

RPV have a corner. The usual tussle happens in the box. The cove #5 and RPV #10 are marking each other and then suddenly the Cove #5 hits the deck holding his head. Referee calls a stop to the corner being taken. Cove physio comes on and reveals either a nasty cut or very swollen bruised eye on the Cove player. After 20 seconds of treatment the Cove player has recovered and is up on his feet feeling ok to continue.

 

Ref didnt see it but its plainly obvious what has probably happened.

 

Under the laws of football, the Cove player is required to leave the pitch leaving Cove down to 10 men at a crucial time!

 

The Cove captain argues the point with the ref that due to a probable elbow or punch from the RPV #10 that Cove are now missing their best centre back for this corner due to a punch not seen by the ref.

 

What would you do as a referee at this point?

 

1. Would you make the Cove player leave the pitch (as the rules state) thus leaving Cove down to 10 men thru no fault of their own??

2.Would you take action against the RPV#10 and still make the Cove player leave the pitch?

3.Would you allow the Cove player to stay on (thus allowing Cove not to be disadvantaged) but not take action against the RPV player due to having to guess what probably happened?

 

Or would you do something else?

 

I know the rules state that it should be number 1 but i would use my common sense and choose number 3.

 

What would you do?

 

QUE MEW AND KROONER PLUS SMUDGE WHO APPARANTLY WAS A REF UP UNTIL SATURDAY !

[Fat Boy]

Got to be number 1 if the ref or linos saw nothing.

[Krooner]

No choice JJ has to be Number 1.

[manager50]

Knowing that the rules do not really allow the referee the option of using common sense, the only possible outcome in that scenario would be option one, unfortunately. Not a comment on referees, just a fact of life.

 

Cue some quick thinking from Cove bench, or senior players.

 

1) Realising the outcome, Cove actually ignore the fact that the RPV 10 is responsible. They then tell the referee that their 5 bumped into their own 9 and, as per the new rule brought in at the start of the season, 10 can stay on.

 

2) On the basis that this idea does not register due to the nature of the incident - Cove take a short corner and endeavour to get another one off a RPV player. 10 can then come back on for the next corner and take revenge by powering home a header.

[Regan]

First option, there's no other choice!

[Regan]

2) On the basis that this idea does not register due to the nature of the incident - Cove take a short corner and endeavour to get another one off a RPV player. 10 can then come back on for the next corner and take revenge by powering home a header.

 

The problem there being that it was a Raynes Park Vale corner - Cove were defending.

[johnnojudo]

Knowing that the rules do not really allow the referee the option of using common sense, the only possible outcome in that scenario would be option one, unfortunately. Not a comment on referees, just a fact of life.

 

Cue some quick thinking from Cove bench, or senior players.

 

1) Realising the outcome, Cove actually ignore the fact that the RPV 10 is responsible. They then tell the referee that their 5 bumped into their own 9 and, as per the new rule brought in at the start of the season, 10 can stay on.

 

2) On the basis that this idea does not register due to the nature of the incident - Cove take a short corner and endeavour to get another one off a RPV player. 10 can then come back on for the next corner and take revenge by powering home a header.

 

Thought about this too.

 

As captain i would claim that we had a clash of heads and i receive treatment meaning that under the new rules both of us could stay on! Its all about manipulating the rules to suit yourselves!!

[manager50]

manager50, on 27 September 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

 

2) On the basis that this idea does not register due to the nature of the incident - Cove take a short corner and endeavour to get another one off a RPV player. 10 can then come back on for the next corner and take revenge by powering home a header.

 

 

The problem there being that it was a Raynes Park Vale corner - Cove were defending.

 

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

That's what happens when you try to be clever with an answer and don't fully read the content - thanks for picking me up on that!

 

Still a rule than gets on most people's t*ts as it invariably is the injured player that leaves the field of play in such instances. Happened to us twice Saturday, and once to the opposition, and in both cases the innocent parties were a man down whilst under a certain amount of pressure. Nothing referees can do unfortunately.

[Krooner]

Nonsense rule manager50 and up there with bloody undershorts and garments !!!!

Edited September 27, 2010 by Krooner

[The Fan]

KROONS you have restored my faith. i thought nobody but me felt the under garment rule was daft. in my mind it is just petty.

[Weeble]

No choice JJ has to be Number 1.

Q....

Goalkeeper comes up for a corner...effectively becoming an outfield player...gets injured and gets treatment does he have to leave the field of play before being called back on.

[Green_Fingers]

No choice JJ has to be Number 1.

Q....

Goalkeeper comes up for a corner...effectively becoming an outfield player...gets injured and gets treatment does he have to leave the field of play before being called back on.

 

He's still the goalkeeper Weebs wherever he is on the pitch. You cannot play the game without a keeper can you?

[Krooner]

Correct GF and also if he has collided with a player from the other side and he receives treatment he does not have to leave the field of play either.

[Terrence Collina]

KROONS you have restored my faith. i thought nobody but me felt the under garment rule was daft. in my mind it is just petty.

 

 

as is a goalkeeper wearing black or the same as the opposition keeper.

[Weeble]

No choice JJ has to be Number 1.

Q....

Goalkeeper comes up for a corner...effectively becoming an outfield player...gets injured and gets treatment does he have to leave the field of play before being called back on.

 

He's still the goalkeeper Weebs wherever he is on the pitch. You cannot play the game without a keeper can you?

I still cannot understand why.....But rules is rules... Could it not also be said that you cannot play without a centre half, centre fwd etc etc....

[Weeble]

PS...

 

GF how are my boys settling in with you. Abs came training on Thursday and says he is really enjoying it.

[TRS]

As we are on 'ask the ref', wonder if we could have an opinion from the officials (or anyone else) about the Liverpool goal on Saturday against Sunderland. Just listening to a debate on 5 live and some differing opinions. Claridge thought there wasn't a problem, the journo blamed the referee for turning his back on the ball instead of walking backwards. Torres was also blamed for being unsporting!

 

Any thoughts?

[Green_Fingers]

As we are on 'ask the ref', wonder if we could have an opinion from the officials (or anyone else) about the Liverpool goal on Saturday against Sunderland. Just listening to a debate on 5 live and some differing opinions. Claridge thought there wasn't a problem, the journo blamed the referee for turning his back on the ball instead of walking backwards. Torres was also blamed for being unsporting!

 

Any thoughts?

 

Defenders error - took the kick from the right spot, wasn't a need to roll it back a few yards even if it was in his mind that the keeper would take the kick.

 

Torres & Ref blameless, in my opinion.

[TRS]

Defenders error - took the kick from the right spot, wasn't a need to roll it back a few yards even if it was in his mind that the keeper would take the kick.

 

Torres & Ref blameless, in my opinion.

 

That was exactly Claridge's thinking. I think the fact Atwell was the ref makes a lot of people jump on the bandwagon to criticise.