A trivial thing that annoys me (annually) is the inane banter, that emanates from Sky Sports News, regarding the ‘biggest spenders league’ in the Summer transfer window .
Heard one hyper-active presenter on Sky tell us that a record £650M+ will be spent on transfers this time in the Premiership alone!
They whip themselves into a transfer frenzy every year.
Their league table of Europes BIGGEST spenders has Liverpool 3rd with £101M and Chelsea 4th with £84M ...WOW...staggering...unbelievable.
I guess it does make for more ‘glamorous’ viewing than if they published a league table of the ‘net’ outlay; in which case Liverpools spending is +£35M and Chelsea’s is -£2M .........at the moment anyway.
However, the ‘net’ spending will still be a mightily impressive circa. £400M which gives an indication of the increasing ‘cash’ sloshing around in the Premier League.
I’d like to see a concurrent ‘net spending’ league table as well as the headline-grabbing ‘gross spending’ league table;........do Sky ever do that?.....if they do I can’t recall ever seeing it.
People suggesting changes to rules and processes in football that have worked without any issues since the dawn of time, just because it'd be "something different".
People suggesting changes to rules and processes in football that have worked without any issues since the dawn of time, just because it'd be "something different".
Also the scrap-happy crew that we had during the World Cup.
0-0 draw? No problem, let's scrap the whole round!
Also the scrap-happy crew that we had during the World Cup.
0-0 draw? No problem, let's scrap the whole round!
There was also somebody who said that, if the game is level at 90mins, both teams should be eliminated (which would mean Brazil would still be world champions - despite that 7-1 v Germany - because the three World Cup Finals since 2002 have been level after normal time).
Some stuff that annoy me:
-> Half-and-half scarves.
-> Music when the teams come out and when the home team score.
-> Fans who go on about their team being top of the league after either (a) one or two games or (b) their game was played before the rest (a Norwich fan I have on Facebook posted "TOTL at Portman Road" after their game on Saturday - which started at 12.15pm).
My personal pet hate in the game is kicking the ball out to stop the game when a player goes down "injured", often denying the opposition a promising attacking position. The other team will then "sportingly" give the ball back......by booting it down the other end of the field.
If I were a manager I would tell the opposition manager, before kick off, that my players are under instruction not to stop the game for an injury and we don't expect them to do it for us. If the ref stops the game, fair enough. If he doesn't, then we play on. If the opposition did kick the ball out for us, we would not give them the ball back. We would keep possession and attempt to score.
No quarter asked, None given.
A couple of seasons ago I was watching a match in the local park where such an incident occurred. A player "went to ground", rolling around in agony. All his mates started waving their arms about, telling the opponent in possession to kick the ball out for a throw in. He didn't. He crossed it into the centre where his team mate scored.
The defending teams manager on the touchline was furious and started to rant at the scoring team's manager "You're supposed to put the ball out of play when somebody's injured".
"We did" he retorted. "We stuck it in the net. That's out of play".
One of my pet hates is when defenders shepherd the ball out of play, obstructing the attacker by blocking, pushing and shoving, and making no attempt to play the ball.
Why isn't this a foul?
I also don't like to see that once the whistle blows for an offside, any offence committed after this is completely ignored.
For example, attacker is through what looks like 1 on 1 with the keeper. The keeper rushes out, misses the ball and clatters the attacker, scythes him down, red card.
But wait, the ref notices the Lino has his flag up for offside. So the fact that a red card foul has been committed is ignored, and play restarts with a free kick.
One of my pet hates is when defenders shepherd the ball out of play, obstructing the attacker by blocking, pushing and shoving, and making no attempt to play the ball.
Why isn't this a foul?
I also don't like to see that once the whistle blows for an offside, any offence committed after this is completely ignored.
For example, attacker is through what looks like 1 on 1 with the keeper. The keeper rushes out, misses the ball and clatters the attacker, scythes him down, red card.
But wait, the ref notices the Lino has his flag up for offside. So the fact that a red card foul has been committed is ignored, and play restarts with a free kick.
Your first scenario:
A player is under no obligation to play the ball at any time. He is allowed to "cover" the ball by placing himself between it and an opponent provided he is, in the opinion of the officials "within playing distance".
When I refereed, I considered playing distance to be one yard. So, if the ball is going out and a defender tracks the ball within a yard of it, he is perfectly entitled to shepherd it out of play.
If the defender simply blocks an opponent from a distance then any physical contact would constitute a foul.
Your second scenario:
If the referee stops the game for offside, then the play is stopped and anything that happens while the ball is dead cannot affect the game. A player who commits an offence while the ball is dead can, however, be yellow or red carded as the referee deems appropriate.
The correct manner of restarting the game for offside (which is a "technical offence", not covered by law 12 (fouls and misconduct)) is an indirect free kick to the defending team. Any foul play or violent conduct that occurs while the ball is dead does not attract a free kick to the attacking team.
Your third scenario is a bit more of a grey area because the way you write it, play was still in progress when the goalkeeper committed his foul. The referee would be within his rights to find in favour of the attacking team.
However, the convention of the game is that, although play was still in progress, the game had not been stopped due to the delay in time between the Assistant Referee signalling the offside and the referee blowing his whistle. It has been a long running practice for the laws of the game to be interpreted that, in effect, an Assistant Referee's flag for offside is the same as a referees whistle so the offside takes priority.
I happen to disagree with that. I always took the view that only the whistle stops the game, not the flag, but I am in a minority on that one.
He orgasmed over a Chelsea goal, so that's not really true.
Yes he did but that still doesn't change the fact he gets excited about every goal Manchester Utd score and that annoys me and last time I checked I'm allowed to be annoyed by things I choose to be annoyed about ;-):D
Telling you you're wrong isn't telling you to shut up. Last time I checked.
I NEVER in my first post if you read it again said that he only does it for Manchester utd goal I just said it annoys me he does it for Manchester utd goals - how is that proving me wrong!!?
Thanks, - very interesting to get a refs perspective.
Are the refs getting it wrong on scenario 3?
In my opinion, I would say that the interpretation being used as to when the play is actually stopped is wrong.
In defence of my (former) colleagues though, it is fair to say that this interpretation has been around for a very long time and is pretty much an accepted facet of the game.
The conflict here is over what is the more serious offence. When I refereed, there was a clause in Law 12 that stated "Where two or more incidents occur simultaneously the referee shall penalise the more serious offence." My take on that was that a foul was more serious than a technical offence therefore if the game was still live when an attacking player was offside and an onside defender committed a foul, then both incidents were simultaneous and it was the foul that should be penalised. But as I said before, I was in the minority on that one.
What many fans don't know is that County Refereeing Associations all over England hold monthly meetings where officials get together and discuss all aspects of the game. These meetings thrash out all sorts of issues and a consensus of how to proceed is arrived upon. This is not only a way of raising awareness of trends in the game and deciding what to do about them, but it makes for consistent refereeing across the board.
We do try, you know.
But football is played by footballers and, whatever referees do, players will attempt to find ways of getting round the laws and their interpretations. Referees are always playing catch-up with the latest trend in getting-round-the-rules that are bred into players by coaches.
My old catch phrase used to be: "Football is a simple game, only made difficult by the people who play it."
As a PS to your previous post, and going back to your first scenario where the defender is shepherding the ball out of play, I didn't mention that the attacking player isn't powerless to do anything about this. He is allowed to shoulder charge the defender and if he did this and bundled him out of the way, I'd be OK with that.
A player may legitimately charge an opponent shoulder to shoulder if the ball is within playing distance of both players. If the defender is allowed to cover the ball in playing distance, then the attacker is allowed to charge him. Fair play to the attacker, I say.
I'd like to see this happen and I'd hope that referees would allow it.
-players claiming 'our ball' at a throw in when it's totally obvious that it's not their throw.
- the long throw, with ball being wiped under player's shirt etc
- Wenger's coat.
My personal pet hate in the game is kicking the ball out to stop the game when a player goes down "injured", often denying the opposition a promising attacking position. The other team will then "sportingly" give the ball back......by booting it down the other end of the field.
If I were a manager I would tell the opposition manager, before kick off, that my players are under instruction not to stop the game for an injury and we don't expect them to do it for us. If the ref stops the game, fair enough. If he doesn't, then we play on. If the opposition did kick the ball out for us, we would not give them the ball back. We would keep possession and attempt to score.
No quarter asked, None given.
A couple of seasons ago I was watching a match in the local park where such an incident occurred. A player "went to ground", rolling around in agony. All his mates started waving their arms about, telling the opponent in possession to kick the ball out for a throw in. He didn't. He crossed it into the centre where his team mate scored.
The defending teams manager on the touchline was furious and started to rant at the scoring team's manager "You're supposed to put the ball out of play when somebody's injured".
"We did" he retorted. "We stuck it in the net. That's out of play".
Brilliant reply.
Totally agree with this.
Never used to get this nonsense happening in the past - even though the game was generally played in a much more sporting manner in those days.
Players being made to shake hands with the opposition players before the game is another pointless, meaningless gesture. What exaxttly is the point of wishing the opposition the best if you then try ad cheat them out of something, five minutes later??
Players dossing about for a throw in. The closet player should take the throw in and there should be a time limit like the goal keeper has when he's holding it.
All this one player picks it up and thinks no wait e can take it and he throws it back it's an annoyance for me
- Animated advertising screens around the touchline.
- The fact that foreigners can watch all our PL games live and we can't - not even via PPV (though I'm very grateful for the streams)
- buffering and foreign commentaries on streams (!)
Players dossing about for a throw in. The closet player should take the throw in and there should be a time limit like the goal keeper has when he's holding it.
All this one player picks it up and thinks no wait e can take it and he throws it back it's an annoyance for me
I thought there was a rule brought in not so long ago where this was seen as timewasting and should be penalised? I've never seen it enforced though.
Whilst their very existence annoys me, somebody at Milton Keynes Dons said that it was silly of us to say that they'll never fill their stadium, because they've done that tonight with the glory hunters there because they're playing Man United.
I'm willing to bet that at least 22,000 of the MK Dons "fans" won't be there when they play Crawley on Saturday.
Players dossing about for a throw in. The closet player should take the throw in and there should be a time limit like the goal keeper has when he's holding it.
All this one player picks it up and thinks no wait e can take it and he throws it back it's an annoyance for me
The rule that the keeper has 6 seconds to release the ball was abandoned years ago!
The rule that the keeper has 6 seconds to release the ball was abandoned years ago!
I'm sorry to contradict you once again, Blue, but I'm afraid if you look in the FIFA Interpretations of the Laws of Football, you will find number 116 which says:
Offences committed by goalkeepers
A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands for more
than six seconds.
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball:
• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body)
• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand
• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air
As a matter of interest, there are 130 such articles, covering all 17 Laws, which referees are required to know off by heart, and act upon in an instant should any one of them occur at any time in any game.
Of course, referees are permitted some latitude on this interpretation. Is the goalie being prevented from getting the ball back into play by an opponent standing in front of him...? Is he being impeded in any other way..? Is he really wasting time or merely looking for a team mate to play the ball to.? Cut the goalie a little slack here.
In any case, the six second rule has never been a part of the laws.... it is an interpretation of one aspect of Law 12 which deals with fouls and misconduct.
It's pretty complex. I'll explain if you want me to or you can take my word for it. I suggest the latter.
Comments
Heard one hyper-active presenter on Sky tell us that a record £650M+ will be spent on transfers this time in the Premiership alone!
They whip themselves into a transfer frenzy every year.
Their league table of Europes BIGGEST spenders has Liverpool 3rd with £101M and Chelsea 4th with £84M ...WOW...staggering...unbelievable.
I guess it does make for more ‘glamorous’ viewing than if they published a league table of the ‘net’ outlay; in which case Liverpools spending is +£35M and Chelsea’s is -£2M .........at the moment anyway.
However, the ‘net’ spending will still be a mightily impressive circa. £400M which gives an indication of the increasing ‘cash’ sloshing around in the Premier League.
I’d like to see a concurrent ‘net spending’ league table as well as the headline-grabbing ‘gross spending’ league table;........do Sky ever do that?.....if they do I can’t recall ever seeing it.
Also the scrap-happy crew that we had during the World Cup.
0-0 draw? No problem, let's scrap the whole round!
There was also somebody who said that, if the game is level at 90mins, both teams should be eliminated (which would mean Brazil would still be world champions - despite that 7-1 v Germany - because the three World Cup Finals since 2002 have been level after normal time).
Some stuff that annoy me:
-> Half-and-half scarves.
-> Music when the teams come out and when the home team score.
-> Fans who go on about their team being top of the league after either (a) one or two games or (b) their game was played before the rest (a Norwich fan I have on Facebook posted "TOTL at Portman Road" after their game on Saturday - which started at 12.15pm).
If I were a manager I would tell the opposition manager, before kick off, that my players are under instruction not to stop the game for an injury and we don't expect them to do it for us. If the ref stops the game, fair enough. If he doesn't, then we play on. If the opposition did kick the ball out for us, we would not give them the ball back. We would keep possession and attempt to score.
No quarter asked, None given.
A couple of seasons ago I was watching a match in the local park where such an incident occurred. A player "went to ground", rolling around in agony. All his mates started waving their arms about, telling the opponent in possession to kick the ball out for a throw in. He didn't. He crossed it into the centre where his team mate scored.
The defending teams manager on the touchline was furious and started to rant at the scoring team's manager "You're supposed to put the ball out of play when somebody's injured".
"We did" he retorted. "We stuck it in the net. That's out of play".
Brilliant reply.
Why isn't this a foul?
I also don't like to see that once the whistle blows for an offside, any offence committed after this is completely ignored.
For example, attacker is through what looks like 1 on 1 with the keeper. The keeper rushes out, misses the ball and clatters the attacker, scythes him down, red card.
But wait, the ref notices the Lino has his flag up for offside. So the fact that a red card foul has been committed is ignored, and play restarts with a free kick.
Your first scenario:
A player is under no obligation to play the ball at any time. He is allowed to "cover" the ball by placing himself between it and an opponent provided he is, in the opinion of the officials "within playing distance".
When I refereed, I considered playing distance to be one yard. So, if the ball is going out and a defender tracks the ball within a yard of it, he is perfectly entitled to shepherd it out of play.
If the defender simply blocks an opponent from a distance then any physical contact would constitute a foul.
Your second scenario:
If the referee stops the game for offside, then the play is stopped and anything that happens while the ball is dead cannot affect the game. A player who commits an offence while the ball is dead can, however, be yellow or red carded as the referee deems appropriate.
The correct manner of restarting the game for offside (which is a "technical offence", not covered by law 12 (fouls and misconduct)) is an indirect free kick to the defending team. Any foul play or violent conduct that occurs while the ball is dead does not attract a free kick to the attacking team.
Your third scenario is a bit more of a grey area because the way you write it, play was still in progress when the goalkeeper committed his foul. The referee would be within his rights to find in favour of the attacking team.
However, the convention of the game is that, although play was still in progress, the game had not been stopped due to the delay in time between the Assistant Referee signalling the offside and the referee blowing his whistle. It has been a long running practice for the laws of the game to be interpreted that, in effect, an Assistant Referee's flag for offside is the same as a referees whistle so the offside takes priority.
I happen to disagree with that. I always took the view that only the whistle stops the game, not the flag, but I am in a minority on that one.
I hope that answers your questions.
Are the refs getting it wrong on scenario 3?
Yes he did but that still doesn't change the fact he gets excited about every goal Manchester Utd score and that annoys me and last time I checked I'm allowed to be annoyed by things I choose to be annoyed about ;-):D
I NEVER in my first post if you read it again said that he only does it for Manchester utd goal I just said it annoys me he does it for Manchester utd goals - how is that proving me wrong!!?
In my opinion, I would say that the interpretation being used as to when the play is actually stopped is wrong.
In defence of my (former) colleagues though, it is fair to say that this interpretation has been around for a very long time and is pretty much an accepted facet of the game.
The conflict here is over what is the more serious offence. When I refereed, there was a clause in Law 12 that stated "Where two or more incidents occur simultaneously the referee shall penalise the more serious offence." My take on that was that a foul was more serious than a technical offence therefore if the game was still live when an attacking player was offside and an onside defender committed a foul, then both incidents were simultaneous and it was the foul that should be penalised. But as I said before, I was in the minority on that one.
What many fans don't know is that County Refereeing Associations all over England hold monthly meetings where officials get together and discuss all aspects of the game. These meetings thrash out all sorts of issues and a consensus of how to proceed is arrived upon. This is not only a way of raising awareness of trends in the game and deciding what to do about them, but it makes for consistent refereeing across the board.
We do try, you know.
But football is played by footballers and, whatever referees do, players will attempt to find ways of getting round the laws and their interpretations. Referees are always playing catch-up with the latest trend in getting-round-the-rules that are bred into players by coaches.
My old catch phrase used to be: "Football is a simple game, only made difficult by the people who play it."
As a PS to your previous post, and going back to your first scenario where the defender is shepherding the ball out of play, I didn't mention that the attacking player isn't powerless to do anything about this. He is allowed to shoulder charge the defender and if he did this and bundled him out of the way, I'd be OK with that.
A player may legitimately charge an opponent shoulder to shoulder if the ball is within playing distance of both players. If the defender is allowed to cover the ball in playing distance, then the attacker is allowed to charge him. Fair play to the attacker, I say.
I'd like to see this happen and I'd hope that referees would allow it.
- the long throw, with ball being wiped under player's shirt etc
- Wenger's coat.
Totally agree with this.
Never used to get this nonsense happening in the past - even though the game was generally played in a much more sporting manner in those days.
Players being made to shake hands with the opposition players before the game is another pointless, meaningless gesture. What exaxttly is the point of wishing the opposition the best if you then try ad cheat them out of something, five minutes later??
All this one player picks it up and thinks no wait e can take it and he throws it back it's an annoyance for me
- The fact that foreigners can watch all our PL games live and we can't - not even via PPV (though I'm very grateful for the streams)
- buffering and foreign commentaries on streams (!)
I thought there was a rule brought in not so long ago where this was seen as timewasting and should be penalised? I've never seen it enforced though.
I'm willing to bet that at least 22,000 of the MK Dons "fans" won't be there when they play Crawley on Saturday.
The rule that the keeper has 6 seconds to release the ball was abandoned years ago!
I'm sorry to contradict you once again, Blue, but I'm afraid if you look in the FIFA Interpretations of the Laws of Football, you will find number 116 which says:
Offences committed by goalkeepers
A goalkeeper is not permitted to keep control of the ball in his hands for more
than six seconds.
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball:
• while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface
(e.g. ground, own body)
• while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand
• while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air
As a matter of interest, there are 130 such articles, covering all 17 Laws, which referees are required to know off by heart, and act upon in an instant should any one of them occur at any time in any game.
Of course, referees are permitted some latitude on this interpretation. Is the goalie being prevented from getting the ball back into play by an opponent standing in front of him...? Is he being impeded in any other way..? Is he really wasting time or merely looking for a team mate to play the ball to.? Cut the goalie a little slack here.
In any case, the six second rule has never been a part of the laws.... it is an interpretation of one aspect of Law 12 which deals with fouls and misconduct.
It's pretty complex. I'll explain if you want me to or you can take my word for it. I suggest the latter.