mattie said:
I remember you mentioning upthread that you're likely to be behind play for a significant part of the game, in some cases quite a distance from the ball, and hence isn't it unlikely that you'll hear calls made by players to other players near the ball?
Depends how loud they are. I can hear some goalkeepers shouting from the other end of the pitch when I'm on the other goal line for a corner, and I know I've got a loud enough voice to bollock players from fifty yards away. I can't hear players whispering to each other or talking normally unless I'm breathing down their necks, but I can hear them *calling* (which implies to me a reasonably loud shout) from a good distance away.
In which case, aren't laws prohibiting deliberate misleading of an opposition player impractical to enforce? I appreciate that (in the event you're in the vicinity of the call) you're more likely to hear it than a player as you aren't trying to block out background noise, however it does depend upon you being in the vicinity.
Based on a faulty premise. See above.
Also, calls are specifically made with the intention of alerting someone, in the case I mentioned Sidwell fully intended Cureton to hear him, which Cureton demonstrably did.
If I'd been there in Beeby's place, I wouldn't have done anything because I'd have had no idea what the call actually meant (it's all very well for other people to say things after the fact, but if I made decisions on that basis then I'd just end up giving everything to whoever appealed first). I would, however, have pulled Sidwell as soon as possible and given him a bollocking along the lines of "I've got no idea what that thing you shouted means, but if I hear you do it again I'll be down on you like a ton of bricks".
I would also suggest that many decisions are influenced by player reaction, unfortunately I have only heard Billy Bowden (cricket umpire) speak on the matter, but he uses player reaction as a guiding factor in his decisions. Assuming this occurs in football, surely Cureton's reaction would have suggested to the referee (Richard Beeby, I assume) that an offence had occured? Whilst I appreciate that the referee can't actually call the offence, surely he could use it as a mitigating factor?
I don't ping free-kick offences based on player reactions. Nobody does.
Well, with the exception that when I'm on my own I don't give offside unless the defenders ask me for it, but that's a personal decision and if anyone from the County is reading this, I'm just joking.
But anyway. Where player reactions are useful is in when deciding whether something is a red card, yellow card, bollocking, or nothing at all. For example, a player who's committing several small fouls. I don't like cautioning people, so if one player makes a couple of little trips and that little shove and that little push and who's just made another little trip, and I think he needs some sort of warning, I look at how the opponents are reacting. If they haven't noticed, I'll use Law 18 and give him a bollocking. If they do start to notice, and they're starting to make their feelings known with that tackle, I'll give him a louder bollocking so the other team can hear me. If the other team have been complaining since his second foul, then I'll start applying a stricter interpretation of persistent infringement and will have bollocked him for the foul he did previously, and so he'll be up for the caution this time.
This also applies to a number of other things: for example, a player with a clean slate who commits a foul tackle from behind which I'm not sure is yellow or not. If it's the first such foul in the match, and/or the reaction from the opposition is not much, then I'll consider it careless and give the player a warning. If there's been other fouls like it before, and/or it causes a reaction from the other team, he goes in the book. Also, a player who during a dead ball gives a two-handed shove to the chest of an opponent. If nothing more happens because of it, caution for unsporting behaviour. If he kicks off a melee, then I upgrade it to violent conduct.
The fact still remains, however, that if I don't understand in the situation in question what's just happened fully, I can't give cards. My ideal response would be to give an indirect free-kick to the team who lost the ball because of the call and to bollock the player who called "I don't understand what you said, but I think I know what it means now so don't do it again", but I can't do that in case there's an assessor or other person who knows his way around the LOAF present.
I'm not a QPR or a Reading fan, however it seemed particularly harsh that Cureton was sent off when it was reasonably clear to many people that Sidwell was the instigator of the situation. This is almost a seperate issue, I dislike the idea that retaliation should be treated more harshly than the initial offence, especially when the reaction is inflamed by a lack of punishment for the initial offence.
Each offence is treated individually at the time. Unsporting behaviour is unsporting behaviour, and violent conduct (which is what Cureton resorted to) is violent conduct. You don't go taking the laws into your own hands. You accept the decision and get the fuck on with the game. If someone slaps you, you don't compound things by nutting him or spitting at him, you take a step back. It's not acceptable behaviour, and sliding the punishment for offences up and down depending on whether they were committed in retaliation would leave us having to think too much. I don't want to *have* to think too much about the why, just about the what. There's not the time to. Judges can think about the why, because they can take two weeks to. I have two seconds when I'm lucky.
(No, that's not a veiled criticism of offside, which everyone rattles on about being horribly complicated to apply, but when you actually get out on the line it's a piece of piss, and anyone who says otherwise is just a crap assistant).
