RateTheRef

Quote from: John Treleven on Mon 03 May 2021 17:34

Sunday leisure and entertainment activities had long been constrained by successive Sunday Observance Acts which also prohibited the charging for admission to such events. One consequence of this was the introduction of "admission by programme" in order to circumvent the law. So if finding a programme for a Sunday fixture with a cover price considerably higher than expected for its time then this is the reason. It was also deemed in the religious areas of society unacceptable to partake in such activities on a Sunday, which was deemed a "day of rest". However amongst those that worked on Saturdays and supported their local teams later in the day Sundays became their day to play the game.

The Football Association long upheld the traditional view and did not officially recognise Sunday football, other than to place restrictions on it. Those that played or officiated in Sunday football were not allowed to participate in matches on other days of the week. Therefore many players and officials used false names when participating on a Sunday.

The F.A. gradually came around to reviewing the problems that this was causing , notably in the big cities where organised Sunday football was prevalent. In August 1939 it was proposed that they appoint a Sub-Committee to review the situation but war intervened and it was not until 24th September 1943 that the Committee members were actually appointed. One of these was Edward "Teddy" Eden, the F.A. Councillor for Birmingham, who was to spend the next 17 years persuading other F.A. Councillors to recognise Sunday football.

The majority opinion of the reviewing Committee was to ease the restrictions and allow Sunday play under certain conditions. These recommendations were put forward in October 1945 but those who opposed Sunday football had not been idle and had gathered sufficient support to have the initial proposals watered down and to be re-considered at the end of the season.

When re-considered in July 1946 these opponents won the day and so no changes were made, but resolutions continued to be made to the F.A. Council, without success, every year. The Council again shelved a decision in 1952 but Sunday football continued to grow and eventually in 1960 all restrictions were lifted. However the delay in reaching this decision had caused much bitterness amongst the players and officials of Sunday football.

Immediately set up was an Inter Cities Bowl competition held between the best Sunday clubs of Birmingham and London organised by the Secretaries of the Birmingham Festival League and the London Sportsman's Intermediate League. This was mistakenly referred to in some areas as the National Sunday Cup but it was intending to expand invitations to the clubs of Leicester, Leeds and Manchester when the F.A. Sunday Cup was launched.

The F.A. therefore needed to adopt, through its County Associations, a policy of slow assimilation, with the intent that the Sunday Leagues and Clubs would see the benefit of joining the F.A. fold, but there were still hard cores of resistance. Nevertheless the lifting of restrictions led to the spread of Sunday football to counties where it was previously unknown.

In 1964, with Teddy Eden now Chairman of the Committee responsible, the F.A. introduced a national competition to further encourage the spread of Sunday football. Due to the varying conditions under which it was played in different parts of the country the initial rules were based upon those of the F.A. County Youth Cup established 20 years before. County F.A.'s could enter a representative side drawn from their various clubs or nominate one of their clubs to represent them.

Sixteen counties entered with only London using a nominated club - Summerstown Athletic, near Wimbledon, and it was they that went on to win the inaugural competition. Teddy Eden, having seen the competition get successfully underway, died midway through the following season on 26th January 1966, aged 86, only two days after presiding at what was to be his final Sunday Football committee meeting.

Quite a few midweek afternoon leagues existed into the 1970s, such as the Manchester Wednesday League, the Liverpool Business Houses League and the Oxford Thursday League. The demise of half-day closing and factory closures caused by successive recessions generally saw such leagues fold.

There was a Thursday afternoon league in London as well (in the 1980s when I started refereeing).  A number of fire brigade teams and police teams participated - as well as works sides.  Plenty of "ringers" appeared as well.

I would be interested how Left Field knows Arthur Smith's initials were AWS if he was usually billed as AW, as indeed he is by Upton. Perhaps he is a relative or a good friend of Mr Smith or perhaps even the man himself; I do not know if Arthur Smith is still with us. Or perhaps there are match day programmes with his three initials given. Evidence is always a good thing even for those of us who often have been charged with picking holes in it.

Arthur ( Smith and Jones ) is a name making somewhat of a comeback. We have a very new addition called Arthur and I am pleased to say his parents have had the wisdom of giving him three forenames but the initials are AFS ( close but no cigar ! ! )

A search of the historical documents of the Referees' Association may provide evidence.  As Arthur Smith was - for some years - the RA's General Secretary - his name would have been appended to official documents from that time. 

I can offer no hard evidence, just a nagging memory of his initials - they stick in my head.  Other examples from the summer game that instantly spring to mind are P C R Tufnell (Philip Charles Roderick) and R G D Willis (Robert Gerard Dillon - with the last name self-added).

Quote from: edy on Mon 03 May 2021 09:13

05.05.2021, 21:00 CET
Stamford Bridge, London (ENG)
Chelsea FC (ENG) - Real Madrid CF (ESP)
Referee: Daniele Orsato (ITA)
Assistant Referee 1: Alessandro Giallatini (ITA)
Assistant Referee 2: Fabiano Preti (ITA)
Fourth Official: Davide Massa (ITA)
Video Assistant Referee: Massimiliano Irrati (ITA)
Assistant Video Assistant Referee: Marco Guida (ITA)
UEFA Referee Observer: Hugh Dallas (SCO)
UEFA Delegate: Thibault De Gendt (BEL)

Interesting

Local

I don't know about Smith, I was thinking of
A W S Jones ( Ormskirk ). First rate referee

By bad on A W S - I should have known better.

The referee I am thinking of was Mr Smith, from the West Midlands, football league referee whilst holding the post of General Secretary of the Referees' Association c1990s.   I thought he was a three initial chap, but could be (again) mistaken.

Any takers?

This has to be definitely Serious Foul Play or definitely DOGSO.  What it cannot be is a bit of both so that adds up to a red card. 

Painful that it was, I am not convinced on Serious Foul Play.  Just because the defender made a (horrendous) mistake that does not mean he cannot try and recover the ball.  He did nick the ball but then caught Vardy with his follow through.  Is there a difference from the case of the West Ham player who cleared the ball, caught the opponent, got a VAR inspired red card and then successfully appealed?

DOGSO is equally doubtful for me - the keeper was slight favourite.

Its a yellow for me - but arguable up to a red (unlike the West Ham one!).

Quote from: bruntyboy on Mon 26 Apr 2021 22:50

It's strange because normally it is the player who "follows through" in clearing the ball who ends up rolling around on the floor and getting a free kick after their foot/leg makes the merest contact with the opposing player attempting to block the clearance.

This is a very valid point. In old money “leaving a foot in” will often mean a yellow card for the player attempting to stop the clearance. Again, it’s subjective: is it merely an accidental collision, a careless challenge, a reckless act or excessive force? Not many fall into the excessive force category in my opinion and experience.

The appeal will be interesting. Who’s going to admit two Select Group referees got it wrong or will they, as with the Pickford assault, brush it under the carpet?

They cannot "brush it under the carpet" as they did with Pickford because - during the game - nothing happened.  In this case they are either going to have to support the match referee and the VAR or state that they got it wrong.  No hiding place.

For those who listen to Fighting Talk on Five Live, justifying this red card would make a very challenging "defend the indefensible"!!

In the 16th minute Reguilon made a blatant "professional" foul on Foden to stop him getting away from him, as clear a yellow card as you are likely to see.  Shortly after that De Bruyne decides that if this is the standard of refereeing he can flatten Son after the ball has gone without reprisal.  In the 28th minute Reguilon finally gets a yellow card for another rash challenge.  Surprised not to see the same indignation for Reguilon not receiving a yellow card for the challenge on Foden as for the Laporte challenges..

This is why the correct term for a Yellow Card is a caution.  Its a warning that a repeat offence will result in being dismissed from the field of play.  I do realise that I am old (in refereeing terms) and long retired, but we were taught - in refereeing school - that when cautioning a player to actually say to him that committing another cautionable offence will result in dismissal.

You would like to think that had both "stick on" cautions been correctly issued early in the game, the subsequent cautionable offences would not have taken place and the game would have been better for it.  Less stoppages = more football.  Sometimes a referee just needs to apply the Laws to make it a better game.

(Also in the appointments thread - feel free to edit!)

I'm just not so sure about no intent.  My initial reaction on seeing the replay was that there was a sort of extended and unnecessary second movement with the foot turned up and studs showing.  It didn't come as a complete surprise when VAR recommended Kavanagh to look at the monitor. If he took the view that the follow through was excessive and endangered an opponent, I can see a case for a RC.

Fully expect to be in a minority of one and advised to visit Specsavers.  My only plea is age!

Just to clarify. I'm not suggesting a RC was 100% correct, but I don't think the incident was as clear cut as posters so far have stated, and there's certainly a doubt in my mind as to whether the West Ham player was entirely innocent.

I suspect that, on watching a slow motion reply, one could appear to detect "a sort of extended and unnecessary second movement".  I believe, however, that the slow motion reply does not show what actually happened.  In full speed there is none and the short time makes none possible (see below)

The West Ham player got there ahead of the Chelsea player and played the ball some 60 yards up the right wing.  To kick the ball that far you have to "give it some welly" and that requires a follow through (think golf:  No follow through = no distance).

I would also question whether it was at all possible for the West Ham player to add in the second (intentional) movement.  What was the time gap between playing the ball and making contact with the Chelsea player's leg?  Remember that  - in athletics - runners are deemed to have "false started" if they move off the starting blocks within 0.1 second of the starting gun because the human mind / body cannot react that quickly.  TV uses 25 frames per second - there needed to have been 3 (or 2 at least) frames for the West Ham player to have even reacted, let alone do anything.  I don't think he could have intended to injure the Chelsea player even if he had wanted to.

Now, I realise that intent is not part of the Law (thanks, bmb!) and this comes under reckless play that endangers the safety of an opponent.  The angle of the players means that the West Ham player could not reasonably have foreseen what would have happened. 

Lastly, this is entirely different to the many situations we have seen where a player who is trying to tackle an opponent who already has the ball and commits serious foul play.  That player has a decision to take in whether to make the challenge or not and takes the consequences if he gets it wrong.  Yesterday, the West Ham player played the ball first and cleanly (look how far it went).  The Chelsea player tried to prevent that / close him down - and he has a responsibility to not endanger his own safety.  If the Chelsea player abandons that responsibility and puts himself in danger, the West Ham player should not be sanctioned.

All in all a nonsense decision that needed thinking through based on years of watching, playing and refereeing hundreds of games.  It did not need dozens of slow motion replays and a warped interpretation of Law.