• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Refereeing question

Another one for Frank here:

Three times in the last year or so I've seen an incident where a ball has been bouncing high in the penalty area, the defender has tried to clear it, the attacker has got there first, got his head to it and the defender has nearly booted his head off.

In Wolves vs Aston Villa and Newcastle vs Chelsea, a goal kick was given and no further action was taken. Both Frimpong and Ba had to go off injured as a result of the challenge.

In Liverpool vs Wigan the referee awarded a penalty after Skrtel clattered Maloney (I think) in the gob. Wigan scored it and won the game.

What is the correct course of action? I have read a lot of Chelsea fans saying that Coloccini should have been red carded yesterday.
 
I have not seen the Coloccini incident, but if a players' foot is high, then an indirect free kick should be awarded.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/newcastle-3-chelsea-2-motd-2/

2 minutes in on that link.
Click to expand...

To me that's a penalty and possibly a red. (Denying a clear scoring opportunity? IMO he's about to head it straight at goal before he gets his face kicked in). The commentator says "Dangerous play?". It can't be dangerous play because he's actually made contact with Ba.

Dangerous play would be for a high foot where you don't actually make contact with the opponent and it'd be an indirect free kick.
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I have not seen the Coloccini incident, but if a players' foot is high, then an indirect free kick should be awarded.
Click to expand...

Another thing I wonder about is late tackles inside the penalty area,why isn't it a penalty when the player happens to get a shot or pass away inside the area when outside it's a free kick every time?

I'm guessing it's because there would be too many penalties then,probably 2-3 every game but surely a penalty is a penalty and has to be given?
 
A penal offence is the same whether inside or outside the penalty area, or should be.
 
Another question for Frank...

Do you not feel that there seems to be a very arbitrary line between a foul and a yellow card?
ESPECIALLY if a player is already on a yellow, it seems like the very next foul triggers the red!
Quite often the smallest offence if a player already has a yellow leads to an early bath!

I think that there's almost no line between a yellow and a red if you've already got a yellow.

What have you got to say to that then Frank?
 
Wolf Hunting said:
Another question for Frank...

Do you not feel that there seems to be a very arbitrary line between a foul and a yellow card?
ESPECIALLY if a player is already on a yellow, it seems like the very next foul triggers the red!
Quite often the smallest offence if a player already has a yellow leads to an early bath!
Click to expand...

I'd say the opposite - players get away with murder when they're on a yellow as refs are reticent to send players off. For example Olsson at the end of our game vs Blackburn, a yellow card all day long but he got away with it because he'd been booked. Which is wrong. It's irrelevant what punishments you've racked up previously, if you commit a yellow card offence then you should be booked. If that happens to be your second yellow then tough.
 
Yes, but that's my argument.
You get a foul, then you get a serious foul - which is then given a yellow..
Or sometimes a series of niggling fouls which have resulted in a word in their ear from the ref then the next (stupid) one and he gets a yellow.

So when he has a yellow, it seems the next little foul results in a red, rather than another series of fouls which should then be given another yellow then a red.
 
I don't think it is your argument!

I'd say the cumulative effect of fouls required for a second yellow is generally far more than for the initial booking. You're saying it's the other way round and I disagree.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
I don't think it is your argument!

I'd say the cumulative effect of fouls required for a second yellow is generally far more than for the initial booking. You're saying it's the other way round and I disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't mind you disagreeing Dan... I was addressing the question to Frank!
 
I think one of the problems now is that almost every foul can be punished by a yellow card. And once a player is on a yellow card, it is all too easy for him to be sent off. The answer to the question probably lies somewhere between what you and Dan have said. Some referees do tend to be lenient if a player is on a yellow card, while others apply the letter of the law. Really referees should be trying to keep 22 players on the pitch, which is why it is sometimes beneficial if a yellow card is not shown too early. Though if it is warranted, then the referee has to act according to the laws of the game.
 
Last night a goalkeeper was jumped on by a fan in the Gillingham game. Stewards ran on and wrestled the fan to the ground and then, after standing over the struggling fan for a short time, maybe three seconds, the Keeper (angrily) kicked the ball down the pitch into the opponents half but it didn't go out of play. THE REFEREE THEN CAUTIONED THE KEEPER FOR TIME WASTING!! The two stewards and the fan were still on the ground in the penalty area. Why the hell did the referee caution the keeper and shouldn't the referee of stopped the game while the fan was restrained and awarded a drop ball? Frank?
 
I did not see it Darlo, but I wonder whether the goalkeeper said something to the referee, and then kicked the ball away in anger. Either way it was a strange decision to caution him. And yes, the game should have been stopped. After cautioning the keeper, how did the referee re-start play?
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I did not see it Darlo, but I wonder whether the goalkeeper said something to the referee, and then kicked the ball away in anger. Either way it was a strange decision to caution him. And yes, the game should have been stopped. After cautioning the keeper, how did the referee re-start play?
Click to expand...

They didn't show it as I saw what happened on Sky Sports News and I have just checked and he was actually setting up for a goal kick.
The keeper was about to take a goal kick when he was jumped on. The Ref had taken his position midfield. He was heading back slowly when the keeper kicked the ball. Maybe the action of kicking the ball gave the referee cause but surely common sense should of taken over. Better the keeper kicks the ball in anger than the fan. (see link)
http://footballburp.com/updates/video-gillingham-fan-attacks-wycombe-goalkeeper-jordan-archer/
 
FrankMunro-371 said:
I did not see it Darlo, but I wonder whether the goalkeeper said something to the referee, and then kicked the ball away in anger. Either way it was a strange decision to caution him. And yes, the game should have been stopped. After cautioning the keeper, how did the referee re-start play?
Click to expand...

Better watch that ref closely on Saturday. Roger East is reffing the Wolves v Leeds game at Molineux!
 
Another bottle job from Halsey today. McManaman goes in high and late on Haidara who has to be stretchered off. Clear red card, yet Halsey doesn't even give a free kick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kenny
Wanted: Mods
Replies
14
Views
391
Paddingtonwolf
Paddingtonwolf
Tony Towner
Why do you live where you do / Why do you support Wolves?
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
4K
t3ch
t3ch
G
Chelsea Tickets
Replies
8
Views
706
pagey
pagey
KiwiWolf61
Top 20 Wolves Goals: 1990s (1989/90-1998/99)
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
2K
sycophantia
S
Butters
Horse racing
Replies
8
Views
675
Butters
Butters
Back
Top