Two points for clarification from last nights game

[lifeintheslowlane]

Two points for clarification from last nights game:

1. Referee playing the advantage rule…

 

In the second half of last night’s game on two separate occasions, with Saints in an advanced attacking position a player was clearly fouled. The ref waved advantage, even though the foul had knocked the attacker off-balance and subsequently made the defensive clearing up of the threat much easier. Play was not pulled back…no advantage had been gained and Palace cleared the threat without conceding a free kick.

If the game is to be rid of diving at the slightest touch, players need to be rewarded for making the effort to stay on their feet by the reasonable enforcing of the advantage rule: If no advantage gained, play is brought back and restarted with a free-kick.

I have no sympathy for referees, they have made a rod for their own back…the rules exist and not implementing them make the likelihood of exaggerating contact even more likely.

 

2. Stopping play for an injured player…

A Palace player was injured in the run of play…ball cleared into our area and we set up an attack. Progressing well into the Palace half, play is halted for treatment to the injured player. On restart the ref gives the ball to us and we have to play it to Palace who set up their own attack and very nearly score, hitting the post.

WTF is going on…the ref halts our attack to treat the opposition’s player and we have to give the ball to them on the restart. That cannot be the correct interpretation of the rules.

[trousers]

2. Stopping play for an injured player…

A Palace player was injured in the run of play…ball cleared into our area and we set up an attack. Progressing well into the Palace half, play is halted for treatment to the injured player. On restart the ref gives the ball to us and we have to play it to Palace who set up their own attack and very nearly score, hitting the post.

WTF is going on…the ref halts our attack to treat the opposition’s player and we have to give the ball to them on the restart. That cannot be the correct interpretation of the rules.

 

Totally agree. Surely the ball should have been given back to Forster (at worst) given it was our possession that was interrupted. Bonkers rule if the referee was following agreed protocol.

[VectisSaint]

Totally agree. Surely the ball should have been given back to Forster (at worst) given it was our possession that was interrupted. Bonkers rule if the referee was following agreed protocol.

Agreed on this one, clearly it was nonsense to expect us to give the ball back to Palace in this case. Agreed also on the advantage.

 

To be fair though, Atkinson actually had a good game last night, one of the better referee performances seen this season (though that's not a great compliment). Given his abject performances of late it was good to see.

[Kingsland Codger]

Whilst I agree on the advantage, given our woeful record on scoring from free-kicks, I suspect allowing play to continue was the best benefit we received.

 

I would like at add one other matter; right at the end of the game, the ref blew up for a free kick to Palace, Mane fell to the ground with the ball and Delaney kicked him to get the ball back, for which Atkinson gave Delaney a yellow card. Call me old-fashioned, but doesn't kicking a player on the ground when play has been stopped merit a straight red card?

[Lazlo78]

Whilst I agree on the advantage, given our woeful record on scoring from free-kicks, I suspect allowing play to continue was the best benefit we received.

 

I would like at add one other matter; right at the end of the game, the ref blew up for a free kick to Palace, Mane fell to the ground with the ball and Delaney kicked him to get the ball back, for which Atkinson gave Delaney a yellow card. Call me old-fashioned, but doesn't kicking a player on the ground when play has been stopped merit a straight red card?

 

From memory, Delaney "merely" barged into Mané, causing him to fall. I didn't see a subsequent kick... Yellow seemed fair enough to me as Mané was also asking for trouble...

[Alanh]

I thought that the playing advantage decisions were correct and that it was us who squandered the opportunity. It's a judgement call so everyone is going to have a different opinion but I wouldn't criticize the ref for that one.

 

On the 'handing the ball back' incident, I also thought that we should have been given possession, either by taking it back to Forster, or by giving it to Palace, who then were instructed to pass it to us.

[scorchio21]

Completely agree with point 1, I'm sure when the advantage rule was first brought in, the advantage would last for about 5 seconds and the ref would bring it back for the free kick if the ball wasn't kept throughout that period. Nowadays, refs are still good at sticking out their arms so that everyone goes "ah he's playing the advantage, great refereeing" but then the arms immediately go down if the ball is lost and it's not brought back for a free kick. What's that about?

 

On the second point, I don't recall that but that clearly isn't how it's supposed to happen and I don't think that normally would happen. Maybe the Saints player involved had forgotten we'd had the ball when the play was stopped as he clearly shouldn't have given it to them.

[Pilchards]

The playing advantage rule should be given to us until we score.

Problem is which month does the ref give up

[angelman]

On the 2nd point, we should have played the ball back to Forster and started our attack again. I did think it a bit strange, but it seemed that no one from Palace wanted to "contest" the dropped ball, where they should have given it back to us.

[Sour Mash]

Two points for clarification from last nights game:

1. Referee playing the advantage rule…

 

In the second half of last night’s game on two separate occasions, with Saints in an advanced attacking position a player was clearly fouled. The ref waved advantage, even though the foul had knocked the attacker off-balance and subsequently made the defensive clearing up of the threat much easier. Play was not pulled back…no advantage had been gained and Palace cleared the threat without conceding a free kick.

If the game is to be rid of diving at the slightest touch, players need to be rewarded for making the effort to stay on their feet by the reasonable enforcing of the advantage rule: If no advantage gained, play is brought back and restarted with a free-kick.

I have no sympathy for referees, they have made a rod for their own back…the rules exist and not implementing them make the likelihood of exaggerating contact even more likely.

 

2. Stopping play for an injured player…

A Palace player was injured in the run of play…ball cleared into our area and we set up an attack. Progressing well into the Palace half, play is halted for treatment to the injured player. On restart the ref gives the ball to us and we have to play it to Palace who set up their own attack and very nearly score, hitting the post.

WTF is going on…the ref halts our attack to treat the opposition’s player and we have to give the ball to them on the restart. That cannot be the correct interpretation of the rules.

 

Agree on both those points. What has become ridiculous generally this season is teams kicking the ball out of play or the ref stopping the game just because a player staying down injured, even when its not life threatening or a head injury, it's now just used by teams to disrupt or slow down play at a time convenient for them.

[Bourne Valley Saint]

Who was the Saints player rolling around in supposed agony having lost the ball in their half (second half of game) and feigning injury until he realised the ref wasn't giving anything so eventually bounced back up? He looked a right knob. We're quick enough to moan about play acting, unsporting behaviour and time wasting from our opponents but we were guilty of all three last night.

[angelman]

Filip Djudjic (if that is how you spell it)

[Torres]

Absolutely agree on the second - I was screaming this at my TV at the time.

[Clunge]

I thought Zaha was lucky not to get sent off towards the end of the second half, clearly swung an arm at Bertrand's face in the box during a little exchange between the two

[Whitey Grandad]

Filip Djudjic (if that is how you spell it)

 

Flipping Diver I think it is

[Whitey Grandad]

Agreed on this one, clearly it was nonsense to expect us to give the ball back to Palace in this case. Agreed also on the advantage.

 

To be fair though, Atkinson actually had a good game last night, one of the better referee performances seen this season (though that's not a great compliment). Given his abject performances of late it was good to see.

 

I agree, Atkinson had a good game, especially as he refused to give them a penalty when Fonte took out Bolasie with a shoulder charge.

 

As for giving the ball back to them, Forster had launched the ball into their half and Atkinson blew when it was way up in the air so it can hardly be said to have been in our possession. Dropped balls in these circumstances are normally uncontested but I have always thought that the team whose player had received treatment conceded possession.

[sandwichsaint]

I thought Zaha was lucky not to get sent off towards the end of the second half, clearly swung an arm at Bertrand's face in the box during a little exchange between the two

 

Difficult one, a 'clear' red card under the laws of the game - but it was 'common sense' refereeing in the context of what had gone before in the game and the provocation/time wasting from Saints when they tried to delay their corner.

Edited 4 March, 2015 by sandwichsaint
typo!

[Saint_Ash]

Koeman went up to pards and asked why the red gave them the ball when it was in our possession, pards just shrugged.

[Wade Garrett]

Don't think we should put the ball out for an injured player. There's nothing wrong with them most of the time. We definitely shouldn't have given them the ball back last night. The ref can't enforce it if we don't.

[Whitey Grandad]

Don't think we should put the ball out for an injured player. There's nothing wrong with them most of the time. We definitely shouldn't have given them the ball back last night. The ref can't enforce it if we don't.

 

We didn't. The ref blew whilst the ball was way up in the air. Speroni later threw the ball out for Djuricic, who wasn't really injured and declined treatment.

[scotty]

Whilst I agree on the advantage, given our woeful record on scoring from free-kicks, I suspect allowing play to continue was the best benefit we received.

 

I would like at add one other matter; right at the end of the game, the ref blew up for a free kick to Palace, Mane fell to the ground with the ball and Delaney kicked him to get the ball back, for which Atkinson gave Delaney a yellow card. Call me old-fashioned, but doesn't kicking a player on the ground when play has been stopped merit a straight red card?

 

From memory, Delaney "merely" barged into Mané, causing him to fall. I didn't see a subsequent kick... Yellow seemed fair enough to me as Mané was also asking for trouble...

 

When I saw that, my immediate reaction was Delaney surely had to go. No excuse for that, it was a straight red offence.

[the saint in winchester]

1. Completely agree. Doesn't encourage the attacker to TRY to stay on his feet if he is going to be penalised if he can't do so after all.

2. That's just plain wrong. They should be giving the ball back to us as we lost out in the first place.

 

Let me raise another one that puzzles me.

Two players tussle for the ball, referee deems an infridgement committed and awards a foul. Player 1 scoops up the ball and immediately kicks it at the opposition player, within a second. Referee decides player 2 has not retreated 10 yards and yellow cards him! I say "how the f*** was player 2 supposed to have retreated 10 yards in a nano-second!" Different case if he is genuinely standing in the way to prevent the free kick, but in most cases he is trying to get out of the way and (1) a football up his jacksee, and (2) gets booked for it! You get me?

Edited 4 March, 2015 by the saint in winchester

[Whitey Grandad]

1. Completely agree. Doesn't encourage the attacker to TRY to stay on his feet if he is going to be penalised if he can't do so after all.

2. That's just plain wrong. They should be giving the ball back to us as we lost out in the first place.

 

Let me raise another one that puzzles me.

Two players tussle for the ball, referee deems an infridgement committed and awards a foul. Player 1 scoops up the ball and immediately kicks it at the opposition player, within a second. Referee decides player 2 has not retreated 10 yards and yellow cards him! I say "how the f*** was player 2 supposed to have retreated 10 yards in a nano-second!" Different case if he is genuinely standing in the way to prevent the free kick, but in most cases he is trying to get out of the way and (1) a football up his jacksee, and (2) gets booked for it! You get me?

 

2. The ball was way up in the air. True, Forster had just kicked it there but play was stopped for treatment to a Palace player. The referee cannot demand that the ball be given back to either side, this is by agreement between the players.

 

3. Modern referees will allow a player time to retreat. Only if they dawdle deliberately will they be booked, although I have seen this happen in the early days of the regulation.

[derry]

We could have refused and made the referee drop for a contested drop ball. I think it should be left to the referee to stop play and restart with a contested drop ball otherwise play on.

[lifeintheslowlane]

2. The ball was way up in the air. True, Forster had just kicked it there but play was stopped for treatment to a Palace player. The referee cannot demand that the ball be given back to either side, this is by agreement between the players.

 

Surely the game should be restarted by the ball being given back to the team in possession at the interruption to play. Anything else is a nonsense in my opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

Surely the game should be restarted by the ball being given back to the team in possession at the interruption to play. Anything else is a nonsense in my opinion.

 

I tend to agree but the Laws don't allow for this. In this instance nobody was in possession anyway.

[Golden Balls]

From what I remember Forster kicked it and Mane gained possession when the ref stopped play and Mane picked the ball up. Even if that wasn't the case and it was in the air, it should still go back to Forster to retake the kick. At no point was a Palace player anywhere near it so no justification to give the ball to them. If I was MS I'd have just passed the ball to one of our players.

[Whitey Grandad]

From what I remember Forster kicked it and Mane gained possession when the ref stopped play and Mane picked the ball up. Even if that wasn't the case and it was in the air, it should still go back to Forster to retake the kick. At no point was a Palace player anywhere near it so no justification to give the ball to them. If I was MS I'd have just passed the ball to one of our players.

 

No, the ball was in the air. Atkinson deliberately waited until it was, and the dropped ball has to be taken from where it was at the time that play was stopped. Having agreed an uncontested drop among the players there would have been hell to play if Morgan had done that.

[Sour Mash]

No, the ball was in the air. Atkinson deliberately waited until it was, and the dropped ball has to be taken from where it was at the time that play was stopped. Having agreed an uncontested drop among the players there would have been hell to play if Morgan had done that.

Why is the game even stopped in the first place? What is the law, or the interpretation of the law that dictates that needs to happen?

[Redslo]

No, the ball was in the air. Atkinson deliberately waited until it was, and the dropped ball has to be taken from where it was at the time that play was stopped. Having agreed an uncontested drop among the players there would have been hell to play if Morgan had done that.

 

The question is why did Southampton's players agree to give the ball to Palace. Either they felt that Palace was properly in possession or they felt that kicking it to them at the far end of the field was better than a contested drop in our end of the field or they made a mistake.

[Golden Balls]

No, the ball was in the air. Atkinson deliberately waited until it was, and the dropped ball has to be taken from where it was at the time that play was stopped. Having agreed an uncontested drop among the players there would have been hell to play if Morgan had done that.

 

That's not how I remember it. The real question is why the SFC player(s) agreed to give it back. Usually the ref tells the player what to do and the player agrees. I'm guessing by the out stretched arms from our players the ref insisted we concede possession.

 

Even if the ball was in the air, why does that make it their ball? Our player kicked it towards our other player.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why is the game even stopped in the first place? What is the law, or the interpretation of the law that dictates that needs to happen?

 

That's down to the referee. For head injuries the games is normally stopped immediately. If a player stays down for a long time then the referee will normally stop the game at an appropriate moment, in this case when the ball is twenty feet up in the air. The Palace defender was playing everybody inside and if the game goes on too long then an ugly situation can develop. I must say that I was surprised that the ball was given back to them.

[The9]

Two points for clarification from last nights game:

1. Referee playing the advantage rule…

 

In the second half of last night’s game on two separate occasions, with Saints in an advanced attacking position a player was clearly fouled. The ref waved advantage, even though the foul had knocked the attacker off-balance and subsequently made the defensive clearing up of the threat much easier. Play was not pulled back…no advantage had been gained and Palace cleared the threat without conceding a free kick.

If the game is to be rid of diving at the slightest touch, players need to be rewarded for making the effort to stay on their feet by the reasonable enforcing of the advantage rule: If no advantage gained, play is brought back and restarted with a free-kick.

I have no sympathy for referees, they have made a rod for their own back…the rules exist and not implementing them make the likelihood of exaggerating contact even more likely.

 

2. Stopping play for an injured player…

A Palace player was injured in the run of play…ball cleared into our area and we set up an attack. Progressing well into the Palace half, play is halted for treatment to the injured player. On restart the ref gives the ball to us and we have to play it to Palace who set up their own attack and very nearly score, hitting the post.

WTF is going on…the ref halts our attack to treat the opposition’s player and we have to give the ball to them on the restart. That cannot be the correct interpretation of the rules.

 

1. The advantage where Djurcic was on the floor was fine, but he definitely should have gonwe back and booked the Palace player later. The other one, I think Bertrand or Mane was going sideways and had to check back, definitely no advantage and should have given the foul.

 

2. Forster actually had the ball in his hands for one, the ref let him clear it, blew for the injury stoppage when it was in midfield and then we gave them the ball back, which was insane, as them putting it back to Forster would have put it exactly where it was when he should have blown.

[The9]

That's down to the referee. For head injuries the games is normally stopped immediately. If a player stays down for a long time then the referee will normally stop the game at an appropriate moment, in this case when the ball is twenty feet up in the air. The Palace defender was playing everybody inside and if the game goes on too long then an ugly situation can develop. I must say that I was surprised that the ball was given back to them.

 

Head injuries the ref is OBLIGED to stop the match immediately - that's another one multiple refs have been ignoring to our cost this season.

 

Oh, and to add to the moan-fest, I ran a timer on the 4 added minutes from the exact second the board went up, we played more than 10 extra seconds - the reason being? Because Martin Atkinson DIDN'T BOTHER TO CHECK HIS WATCH until the extra 10 seconds had ticked by. He checked when the ball went out and blew immediately, even though the ball was in a neutral area of the pitch dead on the 4 minutes.

 

Not as bad as the couple of times this season the ref has played nearly an additional minute when there have been minor stoppages in injury time, but still enough extra to have conceded a goal, when he should have blown right on the dot.

 

And yes, I know it's a "minimum" of 4 minutes, but he just didn't check.

[The9]

From the Laws: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf

 

"Advantage

The referee may play advantage whenever an infringement or offence occurs.

The referee should consider the following circumstances in deciding whether to

apply the advantage or stop play:

• the severity of the offence: if the infringement warrants an expulsion, the

referee must stop play and send off the player unless there is a subsequent

opportunity to score a goal

• the position where the offence was committed: the closer to the

opponent’s goal, the more effective it can be

• the chances of an immediate, promising attack

• the atmosphere of the match

The decision to penalise the original offence must be taken within a few

seconds.

If the offence warrants a caution, it must be issued at the next stoppage.

However, unless there is a clear advantage, it is recommended that the referee

stops play and cautions the player immediately. If the caution is NOT issued at

the next stoppage, it cannot be shown later."

 

Injured Players:

 

The referee must adhere to the following procedure when dealing with injured

players:

• play is allowed to continue until the ball is out of play if a player is, in the

opinion of the referee, only slightly injured

• play is stopped if, in the opinion of the referee, a player is seriously injured• after questioning the injured player, the referee may authorise one, or at

most two doctors, to enter the fi eld of play to assess the injury and arrange

the player’s safe and swift removal from the fi eld of play

• stretcher-bearers should only enter the fi eld of play with a stretcher

following a signal from the referee

• the referee must ensure an injured player is safely removed from the fi eld of

play

• a player is not allowed to receive treatment on the fi eld of play

• any player bleeding from a wound must leave the fi eld of play. He may not

return until the referee is satisfi ed that the bleeding has stopped. A player is

not permitted to wear clothing with blood on it

• as soon as the referee has authorised the doctors to enter the fi eld of play,

the player must leave the fi eld of play, either on a stretcher or on foot. If a

player does not comply, he must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour

• an injured player may only return to the fi eld of play after the match has

restarted

• when the ball is in play, an injured player must re-enter the fi eld of play

from the touch line. When the ball is out of play, the injured player may reenter

from any of the boundary lines

• irrespective of whether the ball is in play or not, only the referee is

authorised to allow an injured player to re-enter the fi eld of play

• the referee may give permission for an injured player to return to the fi eld

of play if an assistant referee or the fourth offi cial verifi es that the player is

ready

if play has not otherwise been stopped for another reason, or if an injury

suffered by a player is not the result of a breach of the Laws of the Game,

the referee must restart play with a dropped ball from the position of the

ball when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area,

in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the

goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was

stopped

• the referee must allow for the full amount of time lost through injury to be

played at the end of each period of play• once the referee has decided to issue a card to a player who is injured and

has to leave the fi eld of play for treatment, the referee must issue the card

before the player leaves the fi eld of play

Exceptions to this ruling are to be made only when:

• a goalkeeper is injured

• a goalkeeper and an outfi eld player have collided and need immediate

attention

• players from the same team have collided and need immediate attention

• a severe injury has occurred, e.g. swallowed tongue, concussion, broken leg

Edited 5 March, 2015 by The9

[Torres]

a player is not allowed to receive treatment on the field of play

 

How I wish this was enforced. The amount of time wasted in every game whilst a player is treated by the physio (often spuriously) is infuriating. If the player can walk, get him off the field straight away and let's get on with the game.

[Whitey Grandad]

Head injuries the ref is OBLIGED to stop the match immediately - that's another one multiple refs have been ignoring to our cost this season.

 

Oh, and to add to the moan-fest, I ran a timer on the 4 added minutes from the exact second the board went up, we played more than 10 extra seconds - the reason being? Because Martin Atkinson DIDN'T BOTHER TO CHECK HIS WATCH until the extra 10 seconds had ticked by. He checked when the ball went out and blew immediately, even though the ball was in a neutral area of the pitch dead on the 4 minutes.

 

Not as bad as the couple of times this season the ref has played nearly an additional minute when there have been minor stoppages in injury time, but still enough extra to have conceded a goal, when he should have blown right on the dot.

 

And yes, I know it's a "minimum" of 4 minutes, but he just didn't check.

 

Like you I always run my stopwatch during the game and I was watching Atkinson. He did look at his watch during the last period but maybe not at exactly the 4 minute mark but maybe he had a figure of 4 minutes 10 seconds in his head? There was definitely some timewasting during the added time. Referees are told not to blow their whistle to stop the game at a crucial moment, such as whilst a corner is being taken, unless the attaching team take so long that it is considered that they have missed their chance (Clive Thomas, was it?). The ref has to be fair to both teams in these circumstances.

[Redslo]

a player is not allowed to receive treatment on the field of play

 

How I wish this was enforced. The amount of time wasted in every game whilst a player is treated by the physio (often spuriously) is infuriating. If the player can walk, get him off the field straight away and let's get on with the game.

 

It can't be enforced because players will have to be medically stabilized before they can get up and leave the field. Can any referee really second guess whether the actions taken by the medical personnel are necessary?

[The9]

Like you I always run my stopwatch during the game and I was watching Atkinson. He did look at his watch during the last period but maybe not at exactly the 4 minute mark but maybe he had a figure of 4 minutes 10 seconds in his head? There was definitely some timewasting during the added time. Referees are told not to blow their whistle to stop the game at a crucial moment, such as whilst a corner is being taken, unless the attaching team take so long that it is considered that they have missed their chance (Clive Thomas, was it?). The ref has to be fair to both teams in these circumstances.

 

They're meant to blow up when the ball is in a neutral area of the pitch, I'd say the ball rolling out for a throw in is a perfect opportunity, but ten seconds earlier it was in midfield with nothing much happening.

[The9]

It can't be enforced because players will have to be medically stabilized before they can get up and leave the field. Can any referee really second guess whether the actions taken by the medical personnel are necessary?

 

Yeah, the problem with that is that refs aren't medical professionals and could leave themselves open to legal threat if they exacerbate an injury insisting someone leaves the pitch.

[Latheal]

Like you I always run my stopwatch during the game and I was watching Atkinson. He did look at his watch during the last period but maybe not at exactly the 4 minute mark but maybe he had a figure of 4 minutes 10 seconds in his head? There was definitely some timewasting during the added time. Referees are told not to blow their whistle to stop the game at a crucial moment, such as whilst a corner is being taken, unless the attaching team take so long that it is considered that they have missed their chance (Clive Thomas, was it?). The ref has to be fair to both teams in these circumstances.

 

Have never understood why there cannot be a public timer that stops when players are injured or when ball is out of play for six seconds. Something similar to Rugby. Easily implemented and gets rid of this issue.

[Whitey Grandad]

Have never understood why there cannot be a public timer that stops when players are injured or when ball is out of play for six seconds. Something similar to Rugby. Easily implemented and gets rid of this issue.

 

It's another complication and doesn't take into account the allowances made for time wasting.

[Latheal]

It's another complication and doesn't take into account the allowances made for time wasting.

 

Not sure I get what's complicated.

 

Ball in play, the timer ticks.

 

Ball out of play, timer stops. Isn't that what happens for the most part in Rugby?

[Whitey Grandad]

Not sure I get what's complicated.

 

Ball in play, the timer ticks.

 

Ball out of play, timer stops. Isn't that what happens for the most part in Rugby?

 

You have to pay somebody to control the timer. Added to that is that the referee is the sole arbiter of timing.

 

I don't see what's wrong with the present system.

[The9]

You have to pay somebody to control the timer. Added to that is that the referee is the sole arbiter of timing.

 

I don't see what's wrong with the present system.

 

Not only that, it would completely change the nature of the game by adding half an hour more playing time, and games would last about an hour longer to ensure that 90 minutes playing time actually happened.

 

TV companies wouldn't stand for it...

[cellone]

Not only that, it would completely change the nature of the game by adding half an hour more playing time, and games would last about an hour longer to ensure that 90 minutes playing time actually happened.

 

TV companies wouldn't stand for it...

 

Win Win then.