|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ARF
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
1
« on: Today at 01:28 pm »
In contrast to the previous week's officials, County badges were sadly deficient.
This is an odd one I find - and by that I mean... I always wear my county badge on FA competitions and county cup matches, but I know I am meant to purely from being told. I have never seen it written down. I think there are lots of officials out there who have never been told and thus don't know that it is the correct protocol to do so.
Regulation 11(d) of The FA's Referee Regulations (p.487 of the latest version of the 25/26 FA Handbook): Match Officials officiating in FA Competition matches are required to wear the FIFA or Football Association
badge (where awarded) or the badge of their Affiliated Association. No other competition badge
should be worn.
2
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 12:11 »
I have to say that Dermot and the officials on this match are correct. When the ball is clearly going into the goal and has been stopped by the arm the correct decision is penalty + a sanction (as we know red card for deliberate, yellow card for non-deliberate).
UEFA have clarified that this is in line with their interpretation in the latest UEFA RAP. Specifically they highlight this interpretation in clip C32 from Croatia v Czechia where in the 70th minute, Tomas Holes blocks a shot on the goal line, however the ball hits his arm which despite being in a natural position, prevents the ball entering the goal. The official explanation from UEFA is "As the defender's arm actually prevents the goal, this must be considered a handball offence. However, the defender should only be cautioned, as the action is deemed to be a non-deliberate handball offence."
While we may not like it, ultimately what does football expect here? Personally I suggest football expects that justifiable position or not, that we can't accept that a player can use their arm to prevent a goal being scored
With respect, as per the LotG you are incorrect, as is whoever at UEFA signed off on on the latest RAP. What any of us like or dislike is irrelevant - the Laws are clear that this is not an offence.
3
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 11:06 »
On sky sports ref watch Mr gallagher says the handball law changed.
Quote:
DERMOT SAYS: "The law was changed in August 2024. It was felt that if a player stops the ball accidentally with his hand from going in the goal, it isn't about handball, it's about stoping a goal. That's the difference, it's a dfferent part of the law.
"When you look at this incident from behind the goal, it is quite clear it is going in the goal. There is no doubt whatsoever it's going to be a goal. The goalkeeper is out."
Unquote:
I know I'm repeating myself a little from the other thread, but it's very frustrating that an ex-top flight referee who is now paid to explain things from a refereeing point of view to viewers who don't know the Laws, can invent/misunderstand parts of the LotG so badly here. And that goes double for the active SG1 match officials on the field and in the VAR booth yesterday.
4
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 10:55 »
I get that misreadings/misunderstandings of the LotG happen, but Dermot really needs to be doing his homework and fact-checking himself before he goes on air stating false information. And it's especially concerning that two SG1 referees (one being FIFA list) have both failed to correctly understand/apply the Laws here.
The ONLY situations where accidentally touching the ball with the hand/arm is automatically an offence is when a player scores directly from it, or scores immediately after the touch. The fact the ball was otherwise going in the goal is completely irrelevant. No-one who understands the game and the LotG would reasonably deem the player's arm to be making him unnaturally bigger here, and no-one for a moment thinks that it's a deliberate handball. There is no offence here.
5
« on: Mon 26 Jan 2026 00:25 »
What makes you say the Crystal Palace intervention was incorrect?
The Laws of the Game.
6
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 22:34 »
It’s never a penalty but if it is surely it’s a red card?
As it's been given for a non-deliberate handball offence, and would otherwise be DOGSO, it's a caution. But I agree that it's not a handling offence in the first place.
7
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 20:57 »
I've seen two photos on social media which look like the ball touches his arm, but can't find a decent clip - does anyone have a link?
What Do you mean by it looks like? Are you sure ie conclusive if not the goal has to stand. Tierney in var correct in my view.
I mean that in the photos it appears to be touching his arm. As I have not yet seen a video clip of it, it's difficult to say whether said photos are painting an accurate picture or not.
8
« on: Sun 25 Jan 2026 18:22 »
I've seen two photos on social media which look like the ball touches his arm, but can't find a decent clip - does anyone have a link?
9
« on: Mon 19 Jan 2026 00:58 »
Do we know if Barnet appeal the red card is there a chance the suspension gets transferred to Kanu or is it a guaranteed overturn? You can hear the crowd react to something off camera when Kizzi is back in position so it’s not him. Looks like O’Connor has been hung out to dry by his 4th unfortunately
Assuming the referee has shown the red for the second incident, I would presume there would be two claims submitted - one for mistaken identity, and one for wrongful dismissal (and possibly a third for excessive punishment too, in case the wrongful dismissal claim is unsuccessful).
10
« on: Sat 10 Jan 2026 19:14 »
Referee Pawson hang your head in shame !! You’re going through the emotions now this season … it’s sad to see.
47th minute Tottenham player advancing through the centre, dragged back by Bundia, and no yellow shown !! Referee Pawson you’re literally taking up a spot now in SG1, your looking like a man just blowing a whistle and earning his money, there don’t seem any pride in what you’re doing
You'd be slightly more credible if you even managed to identify the correct offender - it was Tielemans. Add to that the attacker was barely out of their own defensive third, had just fallen over while attempting to control the ball, and had another defender five yards away to beat before you could consider the foul to be preventing a promising attack.
11
« on: Fri 09 Jan 2026 12:00 »
The appeal has been rejected
Glad to see the wrongful dismissal claim hasn't been upheld, I'd have been concerned had it been overturned. Though I must admit I had half-expected to see the suspension reduced.
13
« on: Mon 29 Dec 2025 12:53 »
I watched the whole game between Crystal Palace and Tottenham yesterday and saw several instances of long throws taken by attackers in their opponent's half being foul throws (feet placement), none of which were detected or penalised. Two questions arise in my mind.
1. Why are ARs evidently not watching for foul throws and raising their flag? Is it down to Referee instructions before the game or "game management" by PGMOL perhaps ("ignore them unless a goal is scored")? One foul long throw by a Palace player was so glaringly obvious with the player's front foot entirely on the pitch, I can't see how it was missed.
2. Luckily, a goal did not result from any of the throws but had that happened, is it within VAR's remit to check the legality of a throw immediately prior to a goal being scored?
When you say feet placement, do you just mean where feet are past the touchline, or do you also mean feet leaving the ground? If the former, and the Palace throw-in you highlight was the only one where the entire foot was past the touchline, then that would have been the only 'foul' throw missed! As for the second question, I believe it should be within VAR's remit, as it would be an offence by the attacking team in the build-up to the goal.
14
« on: Tue 23 Dec 2025 10:46 »
I too am intrigued by this. I can't understand how anyone who has never blown a whistle could have run the line hundreds of times at semi-pro level. Unless we are having step 5/6 leagues accepting L7 assistant referees that never actually refereed a game of football.
Steps 5 and 6 definitely don't count as semi-pro anyway 
15
« on: Sun 21 Dec 2025 13:08 »
I'm a little bemused with the number of comments that Romero's second caution should have been a straight red for violent conduct. The mentality that 'any force whatsoever when not challenging for the ball is automatically excessive' is a thing of the past - or the additional paragraph in the LotG regarding negligible/non-negligible force when deliberately striking the head/face wouldn't be necessary.
A player showing dissent is still a caution though, whether the decision is ultimately right or wrong. I don't think players should be excused for their lack of self-discipline just because they disagree with a decision.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 21
|
Home
Search
Contact
Login
Register
Show Posts