• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Ref Watch ..... Fleetwood H

Forums New posts
londonblue said:
I don't really think that will stop time wasting as most time wasting is added on anyway. Time wasting is often about disrupting play, and stopping the opposing team's momentum. That will probably be worse because the players can argue that it doesn't matter how long they take because the clock has stopped.
Click to expand...

Graham Westley used to do that regularly, even had nominated players and would signal them to go down and then waste 5 minutes. Did it to us in injury time at 0-0 at their place a couple of seasons back, as we were on top and going for the win.

We totally lost out momentum and from the restart they managed to con the officials for that penalty.....Luckily for us Bentley saved it.
 
Jay_SUFC said:
I with you on that one - which isn't even a rule; handball has to be intentional, yet I would say 9 times of of 10, handballs that are given are not intentional
Click to expand...

Here’s my take.]I suspect even the dimmest of footballers will rarely intentionally try to handle inside the box.Unless the ref is sure the action was intentional he/she should give the defender the benefit of the doubt.I have to smile when I see some defenders try to block the ball with their hands behind their back for fear of ‘handling’ (an unnatural position if ever I saw one) – as opposed to a natural position of hands to one side which is a necessity to retain proper balance. And you’re right, it isn’t in the rules – or,if it is, it shouldn’t be.Rant over.
 
One example of "unnatural position" - it's a bit far fetched but just as an example. A defensive wall 20 yards out - the defenders put their arms straight up to make the wall taller. The ball strikes an arm from the free kick. The defender didn't intentionally handle the ball as it struck him but he was intentionally making himself bigger, as it were.

As said before, handball has to be intentional - but I recall somewhere in the laws about gaining an advantage even if not intentional - but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. I can imagine a furore if (say) a shot was kicked off the line, onto a post and then struck the same defender on the arm and bounced clear yet no penalty kick. Intentional? No, but gained an advantage? Yes.
 
I refereed a youth game few weeks back. The ball struck a kid on the hand from fairly close range, it prevented a through ball for the oppo and rebounded to a team-mate, therefore setting them up on the attack. Gave the handball, explained it was 'accidental, but beneficial'. There were no protests. Correct decision Mick ?
 
RobM said:
- but I recall somewhere in the laws about gaining an advantage even if not intentional - but I'm happy to be proven wrong on that. I can imagine a furore if (say) a shot was kicked off the line, onto a post and then struck the same defender on the arm and bounced clear yet no penalty kick. Intentional? No, but gained an advantage? Yes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, handball has always had to be deliberate. "Gaining an advantage" has never come in to it. Perhaps it should ?
 
jaffa1 said:
I refereed a youth game few weeks back. The ball struck a kid on the hand from fairly close range, it prevented a through ball for the oppo and rebounded to a team-mate, therefore setting them up on the attack. Gave the handball, explained it was 'accidental, but beneficial'. There were no protests. Correct decision Mick ?
Click to expand...

No very wrong !

Mind you, there's a lot to be said for decisions that everyone is happy with. :winking:
 
jaffa1 said:
I refereed a youth game few weeks back.
Click to expand...

I got a call to referee a school match. The Home team came on to the pitch in yellow shirts, blues shorts. The away team came onto the pitch in yellow shirts, blue shorts! No bibs or anything but we all agreed that one shade of yellow was just a tad lighter than the other (maybe washed more!) - and that we should play so as not to disappoint the kids. It must have been difficult for them as well.
 
jaffa1 said:
I refereed a youth game few weeks back. The ball struck a kid on the hand from fairly close range, it prevented a through ball for the oppo and rebounded to a team-mate, therefore setting them up on the attack. Gave the handball, explained it was 'accidental, but beneficial'. There were no protests. Correct decision Mick ?
Click to expand...

That's exactly how the handball rule should be used (yes I know its not at the moment). Unless your hands are inside the line of your body and protecting your vitals (your choice what you value most) then its handball...stopping a shot, cross or jumping with a hand in the air to put the oppo striker off of his header etc....All should be a pen and then there would be no did he mean it or not grey area.
 
RobM said:
I got a call to referee a school match. The Home team came on to the pitch in yellow shirts, blues shorts. The away team came onto the pitch in yellow shirts, blue shorts! No bibs or anything but we all agreed that one shade of yellow was just a tad lighter than the other (maybe washed more!) - and that we should play so as not to disappoint the kids. It must have been difficult for them as well.
Click to expand...

Did you not suggest 'skins'....Or is that a child protection issue in the modern world.
 
rigsby said:
That's exactly how the handball rule should be used (yes I know its not at the moment). Unless your hands are inside the line of your body and protecting your vitals (your choice what you value most) then its handball...stopping a shot, cross or jumping with a hand in the air to put the oppo striker off of his header etc....All should be a pen and then there would be no did he mean it or not grey area.
Click to expand...

I agree - the problem with the rule at the moment is it is open for interpretation (and I thought the idea of rules was to make things clear!!) which in turn leads to inconsistency
 
Jay_SUFC said:
I agree - the problem with the rule at the moment is it is open for interpretation (and I thought the idea of rules was to make things clear!!) which in turn leads to inconsistency
Click to expand...

Not only that, full backs slide to cut out a cross with a deliberate arm in the air or like Portsmouth away when their lad save a certain goal by sticking an arm out, just enough. No red and a missed pen was worth it....Who knows we could be 10th instead of everyone almost wishing relegation on us.
 
RobM said:
I got a call to referee a school match. The Home team came on to the pitch in yellow shirts, blues shorts. The away team came onto the pitch in yellow shirts, blue shorts! No bibs or anything but we all agreed that one shade of yellow was just a tad lighter than the other (maybe washed more!) - and that we should play so as not to disappoint the kids. It must have been difficult for them as well.
Click to expand...
Making one team turn their shirts inside out,would normally help a lot in this situation.
 
Mick said:
Really ?

Current Law 12 wording:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area,
commits any of the following offences:
• controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds before releasing it

If they were minded to remove it, it would need to be replaced with something similar.
Click to expand...

I am retired now, so no longer get the pleasure of Law changes so info was second hand.

Though it did come from someone who still refs at a higher level than we made :o

I was told that is was replaced with something along the lines of "in the opinion of the referee the goalkeeper is intentionally timewasting". It might of course be some sort of FA / PL directive of how to apply the law rather than the law itself.
 
rigsby said:
Not only that, full backs slide to cut out a cross with a deliberate arm in the air or like Portsmouth away when their lad save a certain goal by sticking an arm out, just enough. No red and a missed pen was worth it....Who knows we could be 10th instead of everyone almost wishing relegation on us.
Click to expand...

I still think the only criterion is that the Ref has to be sure (as in criminal jury cases) of intent. OK there will be times when the Ref gets it wrong - but I would wager overall they would be outweighed by the number of times they get wrong under the current interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services

Zone Advertisers MFF2

Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship


Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top