Ref Watch ....... Stevenage A Play-off

[OldBlueLady]

I saw it on TV and it looked like McLaughlin's thigh (I thought it was him) caught him across the face, not intentional but just didn't get out the way in time and running at speed. He was lying down for about a minute and was hardly rolling around screaming in pain.

Clearly looked much worse on TV than it did in real life then! Huge amount of cat calling from our supporters and pointing out what a wuss he was compared to what had just gone on.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

Clearly looked much worse on TV than it did in real life then! Huge amount of cat calling from our supporters and pointing out what a wuss he was compared to what had just gone on.

No, it looked like nothing on TV too -maybe the faintest brush of thigh against cheek and I think McLaughlin was trying to avoid him too.

 

[chapperzUK]

Maybe it was just me then. Just saying it was harsh calling it embarrassing when concussion issues are never simple or black and white. In the Man Ure game, Luke Shaw got what looked like a small (and what looked like accidental) elbow to the face and 10 minutes later he was on the floor looking dazed and had to come off.

 

[Fish]

Yes,he didn't get anything badly wrong and was in control throughout,but I have to disagree with you,K. abut the cards.He gave most of them(there were 7)for ordinary run-of-the-mill fouls,usually only the first or second offence by the player concerned.There seemed to be a strong possibility that this could happen twice to the same player which could have ruined the game,as their team would probably have sat back and defended with ten men.

You need to also consider the impact of the foul on the flow and/or shape of the game at that point. A foul that prevents a promising attack, however innocuous looking, deserves a yellow card. Not because it's dangerous, but because it's cynical and spoiling the game.

Nothing irritates me more than the "it's only his first foul". I don't give a ****, it's irrelevant. Has the player not been watching the game he's been playing in up to that point? Referees use whistle tone, body language, facial expressions and verbal communication to tell players when things need piping down. Not to mention yellow cards to other players. All players should heed ALL of those signs and not be surprised when, if they commit the same sort of foul that the ref has just given a yelllow for, or given a final warning about, they then get a yellow card.

If you buy the "it's only my first foul" argument, that means effectively the ref is allowing 22 fouls spoiling the game before he decides to do anything about it. As a paying spectator, I would want my money back because I pay to watch football, not to watch people cheating by illegally preventing skillful, attacking play.

 

[A Century United]

You need to also consider the impact of the foul on the flow and/or shape of the game at that point. A foul that prevents a promising attack, however innocuous looking, deserves a yellow card. Not because it's dangerous, but because it's cynical and spoiling the game.....

As a paying spectator, I would want my money back because I pay to watch football, not to watch people cheating by illegally preventing skillful, attacking play.

Which is why a "Sin Bin" system needs to be implemented sooner rather than later - a yellow card, especially late in the season, late in the game, is no punishment or deterrent.

 

[Mick]

If you buy the "it's only my first foul" argument, that means effectively the ref is allowing 22 fouls spoiling the game before he decides to do anything about it. As a paying spectator, I would want my money back because I pay to watch football, not to watch people cheating by illegally preventing skillful, attacking play.

Conversely, I want to see 22 players fully committed to their game, not holding back because they've already received an unnecessary yellow card for a soft foul.

 

[Fish]

Conversely, I want to see 22 players fully committed to their game, not holding back because they've already received an unnecessary yellow card for a soft foul.

If holding back is the difference between a skillful, accurate tackle and carelessly wiping out a player and a promising attack, then that's absolutely what I want to see.

I can appreciate a well executed tackle just as much as a mazy dribble and goal or a 35 yard net buster. You can be committed without spoiling the good skill of others.

Tackling is just as much as skill as taking a free kick and hitting the postage stamp.

Most players are experienced and skillful enough to know the difference. When players take someone out, it's either deliberate, or they knew that if they got their tackle wrong, they'd take the man anyway. Either scenario spoils the game. And then there's the regular fouls that seem to go unmanaged by most refs:
- shirt pulling
- wrestling
- jumping on other players' shoulders
- charging down and leaving studs in after the ball's been cleared
...all of which get decried as "soft" yellows. They are absolutely deserved yellow cards, because they are designed to prevent positive, skillful play by the opposition - trying to gain an advantage by foul means.

Plus there's the "it's too early for a yellow" bollocks. Either it's a yellow or it's not, no matter whether it's the first or the 91st minute.