[tartanboy]

I think it's fair to say that Referees in Scotland are taking an absolute bashing at the moment. With some of the decisions being made it is no surprise that conspiracy theories are growing and criticism for Referees is at an all time high.

As i look at most topics on this site, fans are wanting an explanation from the referee on why they make a certain decision.

The problem is that referees do not explain decisions anymore and that is why there is such a gulf between the referees understanding of the game and the fans understanding.

Now i have been a referee since i was 18 and I have worked my way up the refereeing ladder. I believe it is essential for the fans to know why referees make decisions and what their interpretation of the incident was.

So basically I am offering my services to the fans to tell you why a referee made a decision, if it was the correct decision and to basically stop the confusion surrounding some refereeing decisions.

I am not a Grade 1 referee and don't intend to be and it is not my motive to basically act like a smart-arse.

But if the SFA will not co-operate with the fans then I guess this is the next best thing.

[chico]

Davie Weir? Penalty or not?

[tartanboy]

chico, on 08 March 2010 - 00:45, said:

Davie Weir? Penalty or not?

It is a freekick JUST outside the box with a clear yellow card.

Weir was pulling back Higdon for a second or two and when Higdon fell to the ground he fell into the box but the initial contact was made outside.

It is very surprising however that Weir never got a yellow card as he clearly intentionally impeded the progress of the opponent.

[BLF]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 00:56, said:

It is a freekick JUST outside the box with a clear yellow card.

Weir was pulling back Higdon for a second or two and when Higdon fell to the ground he fell into the box but the initial contact was made outside.

It is very surprising however that Weir never got a yellow card as he clearly intentionally impeded the progress of the opponent.

So you don't think it was a goalscoring opportunity, interesting also that you talk about initial contact rather than where the foul ends which seems to be the rule (admittedly I am trusting MOTD got this correct) in any case the main frustration for St Mirren fans is that weir stayed on the pitch - why would you only have issued a yellow, under what rule?

[Liam.]

Why are you all so biased against Celtic?

[phanni tikklar]

Kingston's sending off.. Yellow at worst I thought, plus fyvie had his foot higher than Kingston.. Thoughts please

[chico]

Thanks tartanboy.

[Jambo Stu]

Anyone who has sat the refereeing course, indeed anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever could do what you are offering...

[Jambo Stu]

BLF, on 08 March 2010 - 01:04, said:

interesting also that you talk about initial contact rather than where the foul ends which seems to be the rule (admittedly I am trusting MOTD got this correct)

This is quite correct, it is where the foul ends. See Manchester City penalty against Manchester United in the first leg of their semi final. Fabio clearly fouled Bellamy outside the box and continued inside, hence the penalty was given. The yellow card would have been issued for deliberatley tripping an opponent. I haven't seen the issue though to comment further.

[Helpma]

Jambo Stu, on 08 March 2010 - 02:28, said:

Anyone who has sat the refereeing course, indeed anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever could do what you are offering...

Oh sure, and any woman who's still breathing has the ability to satisfy my base instincts. But they don't, dammit..... they don't

[Geefoxer]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 00:19, said:

I think it's fair to say that Referees in Scotland are taking an absolute bashing at the moment. With some of the decisions being made it is no surprise that conspiracy theories are growing and criticism for Referees is at an all time high.

As i look at most topics on this site, fans are wanting an explanation from the referee on why they make a certain decision.

The problem is that referees do not explain decisions anymore and that is why there is such a gulf between the referees understanding of the game and the fans understanding.

Now i have been a referee since i was 18 and I have worked my way up the refereeing ladder. I believe it is essential for the fans to know why referees make decisions and what their interpretation of the incident was.

So basically I am offering my services to the fans to tell you why a referee made a decision, if it was the correct decision and to basically stop the confusion surrounding some refereeing decisions.

I am not a Grade 1 referee and don't intend to be and it is not my motive to basically act like a smart-arse.

But if the SFA will not co-operate with the fans then I guess this is the next best thing.

 troll.jpg (6.66K)
Number of downloads: 2

Why do you support Algeria? Is it because you're a Currant?

[tartanboy]

BLF, on 08 March 2010 - 01:04, said:

So you don't think it was a goalscoring opportunity, interesting also that you talk about initial contact rather than where the foul ends which seems to be the rule (admittedly I am trusting MOTD got this correct) in any case the main frustration for St Mirren fans is that weir stayed on the pitch - why would you only have issued a yellow, under what rule?

Well last night i gave my answer without actually seeing the incident and was going based by description.

I would have actually given a red card because he did deny Higdon "his best chance" of a goal-scoring opportunity. This is from the FIFA rulebook :

"If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal IS scored directly, the player committing the foul cannot be sent off."

So basically that means if you have a clear shot at goal but you do not score and there are no defenders in front of you to block the ball, then it should be a red card.

Referees are told to consider the following circumstances when deciding if a foul is a goal-scoring opportunity or not.

"The distance between the offence and the goal
The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
The direction of play
The location and number of defenders"

Now I would say that this incident ticks all the boxes in denying a goal scoring opportunity.

[tartanboy]

Jambo Stu, on 08 March 2010 - 02:28, said:

Anyone who has sat the refereeing course, indeed anyone who has any knowledge whatsoever could do what you are offering...

You are 100% correct.

I've only done this because I think its important that people know why referees make decisions and what the official rules are.

I'm just a normal ref who is trying to make things a little clearer for fans.

[Colin M]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 00:56, said:

It is a freekick JUST outside the box with a clear yellow card.

Weir was pulling back Higdon for a second or two and when Higdon fell to the ground he fell into the box but the initial contact was made outside.

It is very surprising however that Weir never got a yellow card as he clearly intentionally impeded the progress of the opponent.

Why just a yellow card? Surely it is a clear goalscoring opportunity - Higdon's next action is a clear shot on goal with only the keeper to beat. How clear does it need to be?

Edit: Sorry, just read your reply to BLF, well played ref

This post has been edited by Colin M: 08 March 2010 - 11:20

[MattBairn]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 11:14, said:

Well last night i gave my answer without actually seeing the incident and was going based by description.

Never base posts on descriptions from PnB. EVER.

[tartanboy]

phanni tikklar, on 08 March 2010 - 01:14, said:

Kingston's sending off.. Yellow at worst I thought, plus fyvie had his foot higher than Kingston.. Thoughts please

Sorry, i have not seen the incident and the highlights are not available on BBC anymore.

[tartanboy]

MattBairn, on 08 March 2010 - 11:20, said:

Never base posts on descriptions from PnB. EVER.

Na i was basing it on the Sunday newspapers.

But come to think of it, thats actually worse!

[pozbaird]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 11:14, said:

Well last night i gave my answer without actually seeing the incident and was going based by description.

No offence my friend, but if you're going to start a thread offering your services to describe why referees give decisions to help us muppets understand some stuff the SFA don't want to talk about, then to publicly say you offered an answer without actually seeing the incident - even on the telly, then fcuk me, you're off to a good start. Did you actually post the quote above without feeling any thoughts along the lines of 'bollocks, I'm making a right cu*t of myself here."

This post has been edited by pozbaird: 08 March 2010 - 12:15

[The Old Northerner]

pozbaird, on 08 March 2010 - 12:14, said:

Did you actually post the quote above without feeling any thoughts along the lines of 'bollocks, I'm making a right cu*t of myself here."

Proof positive that 'what actually happened' is only one (and not necessarily the most important) factor in a ref making a decision

[Todd_is_God]

Jambo Stu, on 08 March 2010 - 02:34, said:

This is quite correct, it is where the foul ends. See Manchester City penalty against Manchester United in the first leg of their semi final. Fabio clearly fouled Bellamy outside the box and continued inside, hence the penalty was given.

Except he didn't. He fouled bellamy outside the box, but bellamy got away. The ref played advantage, during which he again fouled bellamy, this time in the box. It was 2 seperate fouls, not 1 continuous foul

[phanni tikklar]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 11:25, said:

Sorry, i have not seen the incident and the highlights are not available on BBC anymore.

I can understand what you're trying to do.. But if you don't watch any games it's pretty pointless!!!

I'd even say if you don't watch all the games it's pretty pointless as nobody knows what games you've watched and what games you haven't..

[BLF]

tartanboy, on 08 March 2010 - 11:14, said:

Well last night i gave my answer without actually seeing the incident and was going based by description.

I would have actually given a red card because he did deny Higdon "his best chance" of a goal-scoring opportunity. This is from the FIFA rulebook :

"If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal IS scored directly, the player committing the foul cannot be sent off."

So basically that means if you have a clear shot at goal but you do not score and there are no defenders in front of you to block the ball, then it should be a red card.

Referees are told to consider the following circumstances when deciding if a foul is a goal-scoring opportunity or not.

"The distance between the offence and the goal
The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
The direction of play
The location and number of defenders"

Now I would say that this incident ticks all the boxes in denying a goal scoring opportunity.

Thanks TB, appreciate your opinion.

FWIW i think this thread is a good idea, because often a source of frustration is simply not understanding why a rule has been applied in a certain way. You can at least give a ref's viewpoint on why it may have been applied that way, however you are not, lets say, underpressure from outside sources, to toe any party lines.

On the other point about where the foul ends - whats your take on that?

[Pride Of The Clyde]

Jambo Stu, on 08 March 2010 - 02:34, said:

This is quite correct, it is where the foul ends. See Manchester City penalty against Manchester United in the first leg of their semi final. Fabio clearly fouled Bellamy outside the box and continued inside, hence the penalty was given. The yellow card would have been issued for deliberatley tripping an opponent. I haven't seen the issue though to comment further.

So if a player was pulling an opponents shirt in the box and continued to do so outside the box a freekick would be awarded and not a penalty?

[craigkillie]

Pride Of The Clyde, on 08 March 2010 - 17:14, said:

So if a player was pulling an opponents shirt in the box and continued to do so outside the box a freekick would be awarded and not a penalty?

No, as soon as the referee saw a foul committed inside the area he would award a penalty.

When it happens in the other direction, the referee can essentially be considered to be playing an advantage from the initial foul, and then awarding a penalty when the foul continued to occur inside the area.

[tartanboy]

BLF, on 08 March 2010 - 15:21, said:

Thanks TB, appreciate your opinion.

FWIW i think this thread is a good idea, because often a source of frustration is simply not understanding why a rule has been applied in a certain way. You can at least give a ref's viewpoint on why it may have been applied that way, however you are not, lets say, underpressure from outside sources, to toe any party lines.

On the other point about where the foul ends - whats your take on that?

I can clear all this up guys.

This is from the FIFA rule book:

"If a player starts holding the attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick"

This would then mean that it is where the offence ends, thats where the free-kick or penalty would be given.