You Are The Ref

[Simon]

Just found a backlog of You Are The Ref columns, thought it might be a bit of fun to discuss them but also maybe turn it into something of a competition, as there is a 'correct' answer for each of them provided by a former Premier League referee.

On that topic, is it just me or is the answer to this one, well...wrong?


Two overseas players are in each other's faces, screaming in a mix of English and their own language. You only understand the English bits, and hear one of them reply with the line "Well you're a ******* too!". It's a clear racist insult, what should you do?

Take firm action. You have witnessed an aggressive, two-way confrontation, and you have evidence, based on the use of the word "too", that the pair have traded racist insults. So show a red card to both and later file a detailed report. Quote what you heard, then leave it to the FA to investigate the situation in detail.


Now is it just me, or is it wrong to send both players off when you only heard the second guy say something racist? All you've got is an implication based on what the first guy said. It's theoretically not much different to sending someone off because an opposition player tells you he said something racist - without hearing it yourself, you're relying on the opposition player being honest.

Anyway...does this sound like a good idea for a competition (I was thinking along the lines of the Rockbusters thing, where the guessing continues until someone matches the professional's opinion, but we could do it another way if someone can think of a good one) or should we just leave it as a discussion?

[Rip]

I'd agree, you can only send off the guy you heard say it, you can't send off a player if someone tells you he kicked them first and it's the same thing.

Fill in the report making note that the player claims to have been abused first and leave it to the FA to see if they can find supporting evidence.

Good idea, leave it as a discussion though :yes:

[Beefy]

I wouldn't send either off but would state what I'd heard in my report.

[turdpower]

It's a red card definitely.

"using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures". Is a red card offence.

I don't think you can send off the other guy because the other person said "too" at the end. It's like some horrible logic puzzle where some assumptions have to be made.

[turdpower]

I'd agree, you can only send off the guy you heard say it, you can't send off a player if someone tells you he kicked them first and it's the same thing.

Fill in the report making note that the player claims to have been abused first and leave it to the FA to see if they can find supporting evidence.

Good idea, leave it as a discussion though :yes:

He didn't claim to be abused, the referee is assuming that from the word the other player used.

[MikeHunt]

YELLOW CARD!!!!!

[Simon]

One of these a day I reckon.


During a goalmouth scramble, you are sure you saw the ball cross the line - but your goal-line tech buzzer does not go off, so you play on. The defending team break quickly and the ball is hammered into the back of the net - but still your buzzer does not go off. What should you do?

[Beefy]

Give the second goal. Although I'd say if he was sure the first was a goal then that should have been given.

[The Rosk]

Match abandoned for snow.

[JP]

Yep, if he's sure it went over the goal line initially and now has evidence that suggests the technology is not working correctly then he should give the first goal.

For the first, both sent off.

[Beefy]

He surely can't give the first goal now because he made a decision there (play on)?

If he does go back and give the first then what is the window where that is the right decision? In this case they've gone straight up the field and scored but what if it had been 30 seconds later, or two minutes or the next half? I don't see how he can go back and give the first goal.

[The Rogerer]

It's a red card definitely.

"using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures". Is a red card offence.

I don't think you can send off the other guy because the other person said "too" at the end. It's like some horrible logic puzzle where some assumptions have to be made.You don't need to speak a language to tell if someone is speaking in "offensive, insulting or abusive" language. He's not shouting "that was a fine tackle there if perhaps a little rough my friend".

The second one is rubbish because it forces you into an assumption. Would I have played on? Am I Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap?

[Simon]

You don't need to speak a language to tell if someone is speaking in "offensive, insulting or abusive" language. He's not shouting "that was a fine tackle there if perhaps a little rough my friend".

That's not the point - swearing is essentially fine, it's only pulled up when it goes into taboo areas such as racism or homophobia. I'm really surprised that the former ref said he would have sent both off, as as far as I can tell he has no basis to send the first guy off because he didn't hear him say anything dodgy.

[The Rogerer]

I think you'll find those are the rules of the fictional sport Baseketball

[Beefy]

The second one is rubbish because it forces you into an assumption. Would I have played on? Am I Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap?

That's the point of the thread.

[Andy]

First one you can only send off the player you know for certain made the remark.

Second one if you're certain it went over the line stop the play. If you can then confirm the thing is faulty throw it in the bin and give the goal.

[Andy]

Although I suppose if the scenario is that you haven't given the first, all you can do is give the second then dump the faulty equipment.

[The Rosk]

I would genuinely do a drop ball from the centre circle and inform the IT guys they're fucking useless cunts.

[The Rogerer]

That's the point of the thread.Yes, but you can't assume my previous actions. I play on after the first goal and then I remove the control chip from my brain and allow it.

[Beefy]

'You're The Ref' segments have been going on for decades but no here comes The Rogerer to point out the flaw. Brilliant. Someone email Shoot Magazine.

[The Rosk]

saaagfaafasagsgaassasfhas

[Beefy]

This thread is pointless because it has assumed I've decided to become a referee and then done all my training. Fucks sake Simon, close the thread.

[Simon]

Sorry everyone.

[The Rogerer]

I've just looked through quite a few 'You are the ref' scenarios and none of them do it like that one. Probably because it doesn't work.

[Simon]

What exactly is your problem with it? I don't understand, it's just a standard You Are The Ref scenario.

[JP]

'You're The Ref' segments have been going on for decades but no here comes The Rogerer to point out the flaw. Brilliant. Someone email Shoot Magazine.

:lol:

[The Rogerer]

Find me another one like that one. I looked through about 90 of them and not another one made a decision on my behalf like that.

[Simon]

Again, you're going to have to explain what you mean by "one like that". What is notably different about that one to the others that you don't have a problem with? If you mean the decision not to award the first goal, it's simple - the buzzer didn't go off, and the whole point of the buzzer is that (if it's functioning correctly) it is more accurate than the human eye, so you're not having a decision made on your behalf - there is no decision to be made, provided the buzzer is functioning correctly. If the referee thought the ball crossed the line but the buzzer didn't go off, the referee is duty-bound to overrule what he (thinks he) saw, because the buzzer is provably more accurate. So there is no decision being made on your behalf.

[Beefy]

Find me another one like that one. I looked through about 90 of them and not another one made a decision on my behalf like that.

The other one in this thread is like it.

The ref has heard a player say something and taken the decision not to act. The second player then says something back which makes the ref realise that the first player was being racist. It's pretty much the same scenario and in both cases you're being asked to picture a situation where you're having to rethink a decision that already been made.

[Beefy]

...the whole point of the buzzer is that (if it's functioning correctly) it is more accurate than the human eye, so you're not having a decision made on your behalf - there is no decision to be made, provided the buzzer is functioning correctly. If the referee thought the ball crossed the line but the buzzer didn't go off, the referee is duty-bound to overrule what he (thinks he) saw, because the buzzer is provably more accurate. So there is no decision being made on your behalf.

You've read the answer and I haven't but I'm surprised if you're saying that is the case. Are you suggesting that if a player thumps the ball into the back of the net and 36,000 people see it and the goalkeeper has to reach right to the back of the net to fetch the ball to return it for a kick-off the ref can't give a goal unless the buzzer has gone off?

[The Rogerer]

The other one in this thread is like it.

The ref has heard a player say something and taken the decision not to act. The second player then says something back which makes the ref realise that the first player was being racist. It's pretty much the same scenario and in both cases you're being asked to picture a situation where you're having to rethink a decision that already been made.No, that's silly. In the first one you're making a reaction to the situation. You're approaching an ongoing scenario. There's one decision to make.

In the second one, the hypothetical situation is making a decision on your behalf. Referees have the final say. It says I am sure I saw the ball go over the line - so why the hell did I play on? I've looked through about 120 now and none of the other ones have made me think that.

[Beefy]

You played on because the buzzer didn't go off hence your assumption is that it is not a goal. It's the same ongoing situation because it is only when the second 'goal' goes in that you realise that the first one was a goal and not your eyes playing tricks.

[Simon]

You've read the answer and I haven't but I'm surprised if you're saying that is the case. Are you suggesting that if a player thumps the ball into the back of the net and 36,000 people see it and the goalkeeper has to reach right to the back of the net to fetch the ball to return it for a kick-off the ref can't give a goal unless the buzzer has gone off?

I wasn't talking specifically about the incident in that example, I'm talking about in general. But yeah I take your point, the referee has a decision to make insofar as he has to judge just how sure he is that the ball crossed the line, bearing in mind that the accuracy rate on the buzzer is incredibly high. The example given isn't brilliantly worded in that respect, but I took it to be a scenario where the referee thought it had crossed the line but wasn't sure enough to overrule the buzzer (at this point he doesn't know it's malfunctioning).

[Simon]

No, that's silly. In the first one you're making a reaction to the situation. You're approaching an ongoing scenario. There's one decision to make.

In the second one, the hypothetical situation is making a decision on your behalf. Referees have the final say. It says I am sure I saw the ball go over the line - so why the hell did I play on? I've looked through about 120 now and none of the other ones have made me think that.

Yeah as I mentioned above, this is just a case of poor wording I think - it's written as "you are sure you saw the ball cross the line" but I don't think it is intended to imply that much confidence. Obviously if the ref was actually SURE the ball had crossed the line ie. certain enough to overrule technology which is over 99% accurate, he should give the goal. Reading between the lines, I think the intention of the example is to bring up a scenario where you are very confident of what you saw, but not to the extent that you would overrule the near-perfect accuracy of GLT.

[The Rosk]

You have to look over 160 to make an accurate assessment though Rog.

[The Rogerer]

Only 147 so far. Damn. They're surprising easy. The most I know about football was reading the subbuteo instructions and it's served me well.

I would have given that goal.

[The Rosk]

Do this Rog and say what you got.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/markassonne/offside

[turdpower]

Interesting query the second one - do refs now only going by their tech?

[The Rogerer]

Do this Rog and say what you got.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/markassonne/offside7/12

Didn't know about goal kicks or throw ins, wasn't sure about player blocking the keeper, number 8 where the passer was already past the defence with the ball, and the rebound off the keeper. If I'd ever watched a football match I'd have witnessed these things at some point.

[Beefy]

Simon, what was the answer to the second one?

[Simon]

It is clear that there is a technical fault, so call both captains over to you. Explain to them what has happened, and that you were certain that the ball had crossed the line in the original incident. As such, tell them you are disallowing the second goal and awarding the original goal scored in the scramble.

I guess that is the correct action, but could you imagine the mayhem that would ensue?! :lol:

Next one coming up soon, just having a look for an interesting one now. Get your stretches done Rog.

[Simon]

Just as the second half is about to begin, with the home manager still in the tunnel, one of the home substitutes hands the fourth official a sub form, apparently signed by the manager, requesting that he be brought on. You sanction it - but seconds after kick-off, the irate manager insists his signature has been faked and the substitution was not his choice. He demands the substitution be reversed - what do you do?

OH BUT WHY HAVE I HAD THE DECISION TO SANCTION THE SUBSTITUTION MADE FOR ME :( :( :(

[Beefy]

I guess that is the correct action, but could you imagine the mayhem that would ensue?! :lol:

Next one coming up soon, just having a look for an interesting one now. Get your stretches done Rog.

That is bonkers.

As I said last week, what is the statute of limitations there then? He has given the goal because they've gone straight up the other end. What if they'd then got a corner and scored from that? What if it had been five minutes later or in the second half?

I don't see how you can go back and give the first goal once you've decided to play on.

[JP]

:cool:

[Hlebsfall]

It's all bollocks anyway. The actual rulebook is only about 30 pages long. Most of it is left to common sense. Like that one with the two goals, no ref in their right mind would go back and give the first one, they'd just give the one that actually went in, and say that the other one wasn't over.

[Simmo Fortyone]

I would tell the manager to go fuck himself. Internal club disputes are not my problem.

[turdpower]

I've learned that managers sign a form to bring players on.

[Canuck]

In the NHL, they go back and award the first goal. It would obviously have a different effect since there is no stop clock, but I imagine it's the right thing to do.

[Simon]

The winger loses his footing and is about to slide out of play until he crashes into the linesman. As the lino is sent flying, the winger gets up and whips over a cross to the striker, who looks offside. He puts it away - goal or no goal?

[Gangers]

If I as the referee think he's offside to a reasonable degree of certainty, no goal. I think referees can overrule linesmen on offside calls (though almost never do for obvious reasons) so I assume can give an offside without a linesman indicating either way as he's been murdered.

Do more of these Simon, obviously I can see why you didn't as nobody replied to that last one but dammit, I'm here for you now.

[Simmo Fortyone]

Yeah as someone who volunteer lino'd a few times in my journeys I can personally attest to the central ref overruling any spaz calls :$

[Simon]

A winger skips along the goalline and nutmegs a defender, stepping out of play in the process. But as he does so, he is brought down - the foul taking place off the field of play. The ball rolls out to safety - what do you do?

[Gangers]

Hang on, what was the answer to the old one from 10 months ago?

[Gangers]

A winger skips along the goalline and nutmegs a defender, stepping out of play in the process. But as he does so, he is brought down - the foul taking place off the field of play. The ball rolls out to safety - what do you do?

Free kick from the touchline, in line with the foul.

[Simon]

Not quite, but almost.


As the offence took place off the field, you cannot award a penalty. Caution the defender if it was a reckless foul, or send him off if it involved excessive force, endangered the opponent's safety, or if it constituted denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Restart with an indirect free-kick from where the ball was when play was stopped.