The laws of the game

[ScouseFox]

The referee's opinion was wrong.

[Fenland-Fox]

The referee's opinion was wrong.

As I have clearly stated I feel the same. But at the end of the day, who was in the middle when it happened? You? No.

Only one way you can change that. Get yourself up the ranks and reffing on The Football League. Simples.

[Fenland-Fox]

Double post. Sorry.

[Dylan]

All I ask is one question DB11...

Why did he not ****ing book Wes Morgan after our 1st? Surely the scoreline doesn't matter, so delaying the restart of play is delaying the restart of play... so surely it would've taken longer to get the ball from the stands than from 10 yards away from the centre circle.

[Donut]

Im probably going to make myself unpopular saying this and im certainly in the minority:

Kasper certainly WASNT throwing the ball back to the half way line there. He was hurling it as far away from the Forest players as he could to delay the restart of the game.

I liken this incident to Van Persie in the Nou Camp. No one can tell me hid didnt hear a whistle there, because had there been no whistle, he certainly wouldnt have lashed at the ball with his weaker foot from the edge of the area.

In the same way, Kasper was calculated in his actions

[Dylan]

Im probably going to make myself unpopular saying this and im certainly in the minority:

Kasper certainly WASNT throwing the ball back to the half way line there. He was hurling it as far away from the Forest players as he could to delay the restart of the game.

I liken this incident to Van Persie in the Nou Camp. No one can tell me hid didnt hear a whistle there, because had there been no whistle, he certainly wouldnt have lashed at the ball with his weaker foot from the edge of the area.

In the same way, Kasper was calculated in his actions

BUT, if this was a yellow (which is debatable), then surely Morgan's after our 1st was a definitely yellow as he booted it into the stands?

[Donut]

I would also like to add my personal gripes about the laws are:-

1) Players taking upon themselves every time there is a man down to kick the ball out of play. I am sure a pressure relieving mechanism that is done deliberately is to go down in a pressure situation like defending a corner etc, knowing there is a strong chance the ball will be put out of play.

2) Linesmen not flagging forwards offside until they touch the ball. I understand the principle of not flagging a player who isnt active....but why wait till an active player makes a touch?

[Donut]

BUT, if this was a yellow (which is debatable), then surely Morgan's after our 1st was a definitely yellow as he booted it into the stands?

Should have been booked. There has to be consistency of actions, whether that be nothing or total clampdown, decisions have to be consistent

[Dylan]

Should have been booked. There has to be consistency of actions, whether that be nothing or total clampdown, decisions have to be consistent

Exactly, the point I'm trying to make. Either both booked or none. After not booking Morgan, he should never have booked Schmeichel.

[marbelladave]

Personally I can live with the laws of the game, even the less than ideal ones outlined above.

What I find very hard to live with is the fact that a game of football, played out by 20+ committed professionals can be decided by the whim of a referee, perhaps desperate to be noticed.

We see it time and time again, poor or marginal descisions completely changing the course of the game, quite often simply on the opinion of the referee. The referee's performance is now so crucial that teams set out, from the beginning of the game, to influence him in every decision that he makes, diving, faking injury, surrounding him, demanding yellow or red cards are now every bit as important as trying to score a goal.

The referee in now the decisive person on the field, teams win games by managing to influence him to a greater extent than the opposition can, a ridiculous situation.

This is an imbalance that has to be addressed, we need to minimise the influence a referee has on the game, not as the current trend has it, to increase it by making more and more offences punishable by a yellow or red card.

Personally I think the answer is simple, we need to finf a way to referee the game so that they are settled by the footbaling actions of the players not the biased and often perverse opinions of the referee.

[shen]

Referee's have always been decisive. Football has just got an increasing profile attracting the attention to referees. The rules are to blame a lot of the time. The reason ref's can make so many controversial decisions is because the rules are ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation. If rules were very clear then everything could be solved by having refs assisted by video technology IMO.

[marbelladave]

Referee's have always been decisive. Football has just got an increasing profile attracting the attention to referees. The rules are to blame a lot of the time. The reason ref's can make so many controversial decisions is because the rules are ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation. If rules were very clear then everything could be solved by having refs assisted by video technology IMO.

No you are missing the point.

The referees will always make decisive decisions and many of them are in ambiguous situations and as you put it "open to subjective interpretation".

What we need to do is simple, we have to minimise the effect these discisions have on the course of the game.

On saturday Schmeical was sent off for two relatively minor 'technical' offences, he did not foul let alone injure anyone, even assuming that the referee was right in penalising these offences, were they really serious enough to change the whole course of an important game?

Frankly I think the answer is a clear no, if players are not sent off for such offences, then opposition players will not, as they do now, try and pressure the referee and games will not turn on such minor matters.

If the referee really believes the offenses are serious then they can be addressed after the game with the player getting banned, subject to review. Players who genuinely behave badly would find themselves missing lots of games, in time the manager would come to realise that such players are a liability and such bad behaviour would become self defeating.

[shen]

If the referee really believes the offenses are serious then they can be addressed after the game with the player getting banned, subject to review. Players who genuinely behave badly would find themselves missing lots of games, in time the manager would come to realise that such players are a liability and such bad behaviour would become self defeating.

The counter argument would be that unsporting actions would then detriment the team it was done against as well. Post-match punishment would only help their next opponents while the team that was a victim of such actions would not enjoy the benefit of it. Hence, I suppose why the current system is in place: get sent off for unsporting behaviour and dissent and get an extra suspension after that.

Instead of your suggestion, refs should clamp down on protests, players waving imaginary cards, feigning injury etc etc. The Joey Barton's would soon get their act together if they got a red card each match...

[philce]

Im probably going to make myself unpopular saying this and im certainly in the minority:

Kasper certainly WASNT throwing the ball back to the half way line there. He was hurling it as far away from the Forest players as he could to delay the restart of the game.

I liken this incident to Van Persie in the Nou Camp. No one can tell me hid didnt hear a whistle there, because had there been no whistle, he certainly wouldnt have lashed at the ball with his weaker foot from the edge of the area.

In the same way, Kasper was calculated in his actions

I think he threw it more in frustration that they scored, if he wanted to waste time then he'd kick it out of the ground.

How many Ipswich players were booked when they hoofed the ball out of P'boro's ground on Sat? (and the ball did go out of the gound!)

[El Sieffsi]

Well no, because Kasper prevented the Forest players from retrieving the ball

WHAT?????..why would Forest players be retrieving the ball??..surely it's OUR kick off after conceding a goal??

Anyone who can see and has an IQ knows it wasn't a penalty..and as for KS being sent off??..beyond a joke..absolutely no consistency from yet ANOTHER p!sspoor "ref"..we lost a 2 goal lead because of the ref..yes we wasn't playing as good in the 2nd half,but does ANYONE actually believe Forest were going to score 2 goals in the last 11 minutes playing 11 v 11??..I for 1 don't...THE BEAUTIFUL GAME WEARS AN UGLY MASK..AND AN ALL BLACK KIT!!

[philce]

WHAT?????..why would Forest players be retrieving the ball??..surely it's OUR kick off after conceding a goal??

Anyone who can see and has an IQ knows it wasn't a penalty..and as for KS being sent off??..beyond a joke..absolutely no consistency from yet ANOTHER p!sspoor "ref"..we lost a 2 goal lead because of the ref..yes we wasn't playing as good in the 2nd half,but does ANYONE actually believe Forest were going to score 2 goals in the last 11 minutes playing 11 v 11??..I for 1 don't...THE BEAUTIFUL GAME WEARS AN UGLY MASK..AND AN ALL BLACK KIT!!

If we played the 2nd half like the first then it wouldnt have happened.

Sven needs to understand that we cant just sit on leads, even 2-0!

[stockyfox]

In an earlier reply to this thread (#25), I quoted in detail the actual wording relating not only to the rules re handling the ball in the area but also the official view how referees should interpret the rules.

I contend that the referee's decision to award a penalty cannot be fully justified by making a clear reference to any part of that wording.

By the same token, I fail to understand his justification in issuing a yellow card.

Irrespective of the pros and cons of the issue, the referee is obliged to show the player a yellow or red card. He did not make it clear to Schmeichel that he too had been booked.

Finally, he was totally out of order in showing Schmeichel the second yellow (and then the red card) because it is clearly and unequivically stated that the goalkeeper CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ANY HANDLING OFFENCE OR ANY MISCONDUCT WITH REGARD TO HANDLING THE BALL, inside his own area.

As such, in my opinion, the referee's incompetence in failing to administer the rules fairly and impartially should now be fully investigated by the FA.

[Fenland-Fox]

Finally, he was totally out of order in showing Schmeichel the second yellow (and then the red card) because it is clearly and unequivically stated that the goalkeeper CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ANY HANDLING OFFENCE OR ANY MISCONDUCT WITH REGARD TO HANDLING THE BALL, inside his own area.

That is stated for hand ball offences, and when the ball is in play.

The ball was clearly not in play at the time. Therefore the whole idea of not being punished for handling is null. Effectively that could have been any of our players. Now by your statement that should suggest that they should be booked for deliberate hand ball as they were not the goalkeeper.

The reason he received his card was for delaying the restart of play. He could have done that as easily by kicking the ball out. It would still have been a caution.

And yes Morgan could have been booked for kicking the ball away. But the ref, may not have been looking at him then. Consistency would be nice, but there are lots of other factors around that decide each decision made by a referee.

Look at Howard Webb at the weekend. He didn't give the penalty and send off Larson because he couldn't see the incident from his angle.He wasn't going to guess and make the wrong decision. You wouldn't guess at such a big decision in your line of work would you? I'm sure now if you ask Howard Webb he would undoubtedly agree that he got the decision wrong, but he did his job to the best he could in that circumstance. The same may go for our ref. He may look back now and say that he probably should have booked Morgan.

[marbelladave]

The counter argument would be that unsporting actions would then detriment the team it was done against as well. Post-match punishment would only help their next opponents while the team that was a victim of such actions would not enjoy the benefit of it. Hence, I suppose why the current system is in place: get sent off for unsporting behaviour and dissent and get an extra suspension after that.

Instead of your suggestion, refs should clamp down on protests, players waving imaginary cards, feigning injury etc etc. The Joey Barton's would soon get their act together if they got a red card each match...

Whilst what you say is undoubtably true on a game by game basis, the affect would be cumulative, so that players who routinely behave badly will get bans, possibly escalating for repeat offenders and sigificantly impacting on the number of games a player is eligable for.

With this system, 'the Joey Bartons' would get to play about a dozen games a season and his worth, both financial and to the team would depreciate rapidly. Managers would simply not take the risk.

This kind of system will benefit the more disciplined and better behaved teams every game as their opponents continuously lose players to suspension, and they do not. It may not perfect but better than having poor decisions twisting a game out of all proportion.

A further advantage is that it might reduce the 'gamesmanship' designed to get players carded or sent off, if there is, at the same time a crackdown on such 'gamesmanship', all the better.

I would also instigate a system where, after the game, the match officials get together and 'grade' the yellow cards, giving (say) 1 point for technical offences, up to 5 points for the most serious. The player has a 'rolling' points total over the last few (4 or 6 or 8 games, subject to debate) and if he goes over the set limit, he gets a ban. If it happens again the ban is increased, eventually players (and managers) will get the message.

Depending on the numbers actually set a basically honest player will pick up the odd card for miss-timed tackles etc but will rarely get close to his limit, players who consistently indulge in the more serious offences could find themselves running up enough points for a ban in a single game.

[stockyfox]

I appreciate what you are saying Fenland-fox but, having re-read Laws 11 and 12 and then the official guidelines on the interpretation of these, I have not found any reference whatsoever relating to rules not being applicable because the ball is deemed to be 'out of play' as opposed to being 'in play'.

Indeed, the heading given is 'Restart of play'. The wording is not ambiguous nor is it qualified in any way. It simply states that the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of.......any misconduct relating to handling the ball inside his area.

The operative words are 'any misconduct'. So precisely which rule or what wording did the referee interpret in such a way that justified giving him a second yellow?

Furthermore, the rules contain the word 'communicate' when a card is issued. In other words, the referee is obliged to communicate to the player that he has been cautioned. He did not communicate that decision to Schmeichel, he just held up the card.

Similarly, his judgement of the penalty is highly debatable in the context of both the rule itself and even more so when studying the guidelines and there again, I am at a loss to follow which rule Matt Mills contravened to justify his yellow card.

In general, the standard of refereeing these days is abysmal and that is entirely the fault of the FA who should be more rigourous and demanding. Time and time again, referees are criticised because they are adjudged to be inconsistent or incompetent.

And instead of noting the regular outcry of criticism, the FA bury their heads in the sand and give the referees the status of 'untouchables'. If anyone connected with a Club dares to utter any critical comment about the referee, then they are deemed to have brought the game into disrepute - full stop!

To my mind, there is no-one more guilty than the FA itself of bringing the game into disrepute.

[Fenland-Fox]

I have gone over the Laws and interpretations and hopefully this can clear it up.

Firstly this is the first paragraph of the interpretations of Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct:

"Basic requirements for a foul

The following conditions must be met for an offence to be considered a foul:

• it must be committed by a player

• it must occur on the field of play

• it must occur while the ball is in play"

This also states clearly why Kasper can be deemed to have delayed the restart of play:

"Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by tactics such as:

• taking a free kick from the wrong position with the sole intention of forcing

the referee to order a retake

• appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to one of his teammates

to take

• kicking the ball away or carrying it away with the hands after the referee

has stopped play

• excessively delaying the taking of a throw-in or free kick

• delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted

• provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee

has stopped play"

I believe this is the area in which you seem to have most grievance with. But if you read the last sentence of the paragraph it explains the correct actions of the referee.

"Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions

on handling the ball as any other player. Inside his own penalty area, the

goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick

or any misconduct related to handling the ball. He can, however, be guilty of

several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."

Then reviewing the requirements for an indirect free kick it shows that delaying the restart of play would fall underneath an offence to constitute an indirect free kick.

"An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of

the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which

play is stopped to caution or send off a player"

Admittedly within the Laws it can be hard to follow and even reading through there seems to be contradictions.

However I hope that some part of that shows that the referee was quite within his right to caution Kasper for delaying the restart of play.

[Guest Bilo]

In my opinion Liechtenstein is a bigger, more important country than the US and the Pope is absolutely, definitely a Jew.

Don't say I'm wrong because these are my opinions. And opinions can't be wrong.

[jamesmilner]

why do we moan about things that can happen to anyone , will happen to everyone , but when happens to us can only be a conspirancy ? we will get a penalty this year that in reality is not a penalty .a player will score for us when it should be disallowed we need to take the rough with the smooth like everyone else . how about holding on for grim life with ten men , the manager standing on the touchline helping with passionate advice, direction and urging us on ? not going to happen , sven is not that passionate about the game . as soon as we went down to ten men i knew theyd score . we need to see games out . early days but we need to win saturday , 11 points adrift after 5 games would be an absolute embarrassment after the talk ive seen on here and in the press . we need to walk the walk now and moaning about injustices just makes us look stupid .it wont change anything . we have 4 points from 4 games , moan about that ! good luck saturday lads ! what will be ,will be !

[DB11]

In my opinion Liechtenstein is a bigger, more important country than the US and the Pope is absolutely, definitely a Jew.

Don't say I'm wrong because these are my opinions. And opinions can't be wrong.

Your opinion can be disproved, thus making it wrong. How can you prove Matt Mills didn't intentionally handle the ball? It was up to the referee to decide if he did, so in his opinion he has, so a penalty was the correct decision based on what the referee thought had happened

[Guest Bilo]

Your opinion can be disproved, thus making it wrong. How can you prove Matt Mills didn't intentionally handle the ball? It was up to the referee to decide if he did, so in his opinion he has, so a penalty was the correct decision based on what the referee thought had happened

It's fairly obvious from the replays that Mills didn't intentionally handle the ball. I'm pretty sure that the fact he wasn't looking at the ball and was attempting to regain his balance would constitute proof of this if the replays are looked at properly. Handball can only be given if it is intentional, I daresay the only person who seriously believed it was intentional on that pitch was Jon Moss.