Ref Watch .... Bristol Rovers

[Mick]

Last Friday's match saw us with a very experienced referee, the much (and unfairly, in my opinion) maligned Grant Hegley. Conditions were difficult and I think a less experienced and less capable official might well have finished up with a huge number of cards.

Well we have that less experienced official on Saturday when Craig Pawson from Sheffield makes his first appearance at Roots Hall in his second season as a Football League referee.

His progress appears to have been unexceptional, but as part of the Development Group of young officials who they hope have a decent future in the game, he has had a couple of Championship matches already this season.

He has refereed Southend twice before in away games, both last season. Firstly in the 2-2 draw at Tranmere when he sent off Laurent and one of theirs and cautioned 5 too. Overall he has refereed 32 matches, producing an average-ish 78 yellows and 4 reds. (So that's only two other reds in the other 31 matches).

The other match he officiated was the "dead" game at the end of last season at Oldham, which I understand was a slightly messy performance with at least one strange caution.

He had an excellent season for his last year in the Conference and was rewarded with the 2007/8 Conference play-off final at Wembley in front of 40,000 plus fans.

It is unusual for us to have referees from the North at Roots Hall, but the other officials are rather more local with Assistants Elliott Kaye from Hainault, Essex and Wes Linden from Middlesex. Gary Jerden, a regular visitor from Grays, is doing the 4th official stuff.

 

[Maldon Blues]

The refereeing performance in that game at Tranmere last season was dreadful.

Antony Kay committed five bookable offences and one straight red, yet recieved just one caution.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Last Friday's match saw us with a very experienced referee, the much (and unfairly, in my opinion) maligned Grant Hegley. Conditions were difficult and I think a less experienced and less capable official might well have finished up with a huge number of cards.

He might not have given out too many cards, which is always good to see, but he got the one major decision of the night horribly wrong....

 

[Mick]

He might not have given out too many cards, which is always good to see, but he got the one major decision of the night horribly wrong....

Debateable and certainly not clear cut enough to be "horribly wrong". I am not convinced that the ball was in Mildenhall's full control. Merely having two hands touching the ball is not enough and is one of the myths associated with football Laws.

I'd guess most of the people baying at Hegley wouldn't have had much of a problem if it had happed at the other end. Such is football.

 

[Rayleigh boy]

saw a bit of league one footy on Sky last night - the ref ruined that game as well - nevcer a pen

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Debateable and certainly not clear cut enough to be "horribly wrong". I am not convinced that the ball was in Mildenhall's full control. Merely having two hands touching the ball is not enough and is one of the myths associated with football Laws.

Ok maybe not horribly wrong, just wrong :). I think Mildy had both hands on it, and it was on the ground.

I'd guess most of the people baying at Hegley wouldn't have had much of a problem if it had happed at the other end. Such is football.

Oh for definite. It was one of those ones where 99 times out of 100 the ref gives a foul, and if it had been in our favour we would probably have all laughed at the stupidity of it and thanked our good fortune.

 

[BoyWonder2]

saw a bit of league one footy on Sky last night - the ref ruined that game as well - nevcer a pen

You sure? The keeper brought him down, definate penalty for me. Only thing is maybe Goodson was covering, so not technically last man, but did deny a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Debateable and certainly not clear cut enough to be "horribly wrong". I am not convinced that the ball was in Mildenhall's full control. Merely having two hands touching the ball is not enough and is one of the myths associated with football Laws.

I'd guess most of the people baying at Hegley wouldn't have had much of a problem if it had happed at the other end. Such is football.

I was waiting for you to opine on this issue, Mick - since I'm not sure what the laws state about this.

Out of interest, does football have a "benefit of the doubt" rule in the same way that cricket does - e.g. if an umpire is unsure on appeal whether a catch has carried, then the batsman should always get the benefit of the doubt (i.e. be declared not out)?

From the East Greens, where I had a pretty good view of the incident, I would certainly agree that there was some doubt whether Mildenhall had full control of the ball - although whether anyone had control of the ball at any stage that evening, given the weather, is a matter for conjecture. The thing I found most perplexing about the 'goal', however, was that there appeared to be an abdication of responsibility on the part of the officials.

The ref looked at the linesman, who in turn looked absolutely clueless as to whether the goal should be given or not; to be fair, the lino was probably unsighted, so may not have been in a position to take a view. Since it was down to the ref and since by that stage the Saints players were celebrating as if they'd scored, the ref appeared to "go with the flow" and allow the goal to stand. There didn't appear to be any firm decision making going on - at no point did the ref go and speak to the captain to explain his decision, for instance, or to demonstrate with a simple signal the basis on which he'd reached it.

Frustrating, but there you go.

Matt

 

[The General]

Never ever a goal. Could tell at the time from the lofty view of the back row of the East Blacks! Seeing it on TV convinced me of that and even the way the goalscorer "cheekily" celebrated just goes to emphasise that point.

Kev

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Debateable and certainly not clear cut enough to be "horribly wrong". I am not convinced that the ball was in Mildenhall's full control. Merely having two hands touching the ball is not enough and is one of the myths associated with football Laws.

I'd guess most of the people baying at Hegley wouldn't have had much of a problem if it had happed at the other end. Such is football.

You say that he considered the conditions, by not producing numerous cards but I would say he did not always consider the conditions, for allowing that goal to stand.

From my view point in the East Blacks, Mildey had full control of the ball and the only reason it slipped through was down to how wet the conditions were.

I would add that his positioning at the time of the goal was not great and why we had the comedic proceedings when neither official was sure of what had happened. I am guessing the Europa League official style may have helped in this circumstance.

 

[Mick]

I was waiting for you to opine on this issue, Mick - since I'm not sure what the laws state about this.

Out of interest, does football have a "benefit of the doubt" rule in the same way that cricket does - e.g. if an umpire is unsure on appeal whether a catch has carried, then the batsman should always get the benefit of the doubt (i.e. be declared not out)?

From the East Greens, where I had a pretty good view of the incident, I would certainly agree that there was some doubt whether Mildenhall had full control of the ball - although whether anyone had control of the ball at any stage that evening, given the weather, is a matter for conjecture. The thing I found most perplexing about the 'goal', however, was that there appeared to be an abdication of responsibility on the part of the officials.

The ref looked at the linesman, who in turn looked absolutely clueless as to whether the goal should be given or not; to be fair, the lino was probably unsighted, so may not have been in a position to take a view. Since it was down to the ref and since by that stage the Saints players were celebrating as if they'd scored, the ref appeared to "go with the flow" and allow the goal to stand. There didn't appear to be any firm decision making going on - at no point did the ref go and speak to the captain to explain his decision, for instance, or to demonstrate with a simple signal the basis on which he'd reached it.

Frustrating, but there you go.

Matt

The Laws provide little assistance. What the referee has to determine is did the goalscorer do anything wrong? Was it dangerous? Certainly not. Did he play the ball and not the player? Definately.

I agree with you that Mildenhall did not clearly have the ball in his complete control.

The referee gave a goal, presumably as he saw no reason to disallow it. Possibly due to the strength of Southend's objections, he went over to the AR to make sure there was no other incident he had missed, quickly determined there wasn't and confirmed the goal. The really interesting question is why he had to do this as officials are now fitted with communications equipment. He probably wanted to be seen to be consulting, merely than just doing it quickly and privately. It also prevents the uninformed in the crowd ranting that he didn't even speak to the AR.

PS There is no benefit of the doubt rule, although decades ago there used to be a view of if in doubt give it to the defence. If anything it's gone the other way with ARs seemingly encouraged to give any benefit of any doubt to the attacker on offsides.

 

[Shrimper51]

The Laws provide little assistance. What the referee has to determine is did the goalscorer do anything wrong? Was it dangerous? Certainly not. Did he play the ball and not the player? Definately.

I agree with you that Mildenhall did not clearly have the ball in his complete control.

Watching from the family stand, which probably gives one of the best views, Mildenhall had complete control over the ball, with both hands on top of the ball holding it stationary "in play". He couldn't bring the ball to his chest or body to pick it up as he was over the goal line and would obviously have given a goal away "a la Nikki Bull". You often see goalkeepers with the ball outstretched and their body out of play, you seldom see a player kick the ball out of their hands and on the odd occasion when it does happen a free kick is nearly always given. 99 times out of a 100? Possibly 999 times out of a 1,000. Watch the immediate reaction of both set of players, none of them think it's going to stand.

 

[Mick]

Watching from the family stand, which probably gives one of the best views, Mildenhall had complete control over the ball, with both hands on top of the ball holding it stationary "in play". He couldn't bring the ball to his chest or body to pick it up as he was over the goal line and would obviously have given a goal away "a la Nikki Bull". You often see goalkeepers with the ball outstretched and their body out of play, you seldom see a player kick the ball out of their hands and on the odd occasion when it does happen a free kick is nearly always given. 99 times out of a 100? Possibly 999 times out of a 1,000. Watch the immediate reaction of both set of players, none of them think it's going to stand.

Two hands on top of the ball is hardly complete control. Show me the part of the Laws that say that you can't play the ball in those circumstances.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

Two hands on top of the ball is hardly complete control. Show me the part of the Laws that say that you can't play the ball in those circumstances.

Wouldn't it be construed as dangerous play though, if the attacker tried to play the ball in that situation.

Interesting debtae though, this is why Refwatch is always thread of the week in my eyes....

 

[Shrimper51]

Two hands on top of the ball is hardly complete control. Show me the part of the Laws that say that you can't play the ball in those circumstances.

On top of a stationary ball, yes I'd say complete control. As an experienced referee, would you give a goal under those circumstances? If all referees were to allow that, you'd have a lot more injuries to goalkeepers...

 

[mattytheshrimper]

more than likely another ref to screw us over. the one against southampton done his bit.

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

Two hands on top of the ball is hardly complete control. Show me the part of the Laws that say that you can't play the ball in those circumstances.

Two hands on the ball is not full control ?? well he can hardly have 3 can he !!!

For me (one of the "uninformed" masses) it was a clear case of kicking the ball out of the keepers hands a thus a foul

Asking the muppet lino in front of the Family Stand was pointless because he was utterly inept, and the 3rd suchlike this season

 

[Mick]

Two hands on the ball is not full control ?? well he can hardly have 3 can he !!!

For me (one of the "uninformed" masses) it was a clear case of kicking the ball out of the keepers hands a thus a foul

Asking the muppet lino in front of the Family Stand was pointless because he was utterly inept, and the 3rd suchlike this season

.. or rather from under the keepers hands. Until someone shows me where, in the Laws or associated guidelines, it says you cannot kick a ball because the goalkeeper has his hands on it, with outstretched arms, I am prepared to give the referee the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

But where do you draw the line Mick ??

Say for example, a keeper came out to collect a ball near the edge of his area, but slid so that his body was out of the area, but the ball was still in the area, and the only way he could keep it there was with outstretched hands on top of the ball, would it be OK for an attacker to then play the ball ?

 

[McNasty]

In true wiggy form I blame the keeper for his bad positioning. If he was lying along the goal-line with his body behind the ball whilst having both hands gripping the ball firmly the Saints player would not have been able to kick the ball over the line. Blame Mildy.