You are the Ref

[Mango Chow!]

I think it's a goal in the first case. Yuh cud look at it as the ref being at fault for placing himself in harm's way. And like touches say, if the ball deflects off the ref and goes in, it's a goal, so i think this should count as well.

The second scenario is a hard luck. Suck it up and play ball.

    Yuh say is de ref fault, eh? ..... yuh rel heartless, dred.  Is not like de player jes' run een to de ref.  De man actually shove 'im to de grong.  Dat cyah be right.  I sorry fuh dem referee when you playin' sah. 

[trinikev]

I think it's a goal in the first case. Yuh cud look at it as the ref being at fault for placing himself in harm's way. And like touches say, if the ball deflects off the ref and goes in, it's a goal, so i think this should count as well.

The second scenario is a hard luck. Suck it up and play ball.

    Yuh say is de ref fault, eh? ..... yuh rel heartless, dred.  Is not like de player jes' run een to de ref.  De man actually shove 'im to de grong.  Dat cyah be right.  I sorry fuh dem referee when you playin' sah. 

Hahaha i hear wha yuh sayin.......i just didn't read it as the player deliberately holding the ref and flinging him down like a rag doll.....if that's the case, then i see ur point. I just interpreted it more as the player kinda run thru him trying to get to the ball

[trinikev]

After reading it again, i agree, no goal. "He deliberately pushes you out of the way to get to the ball and knocks you to the groundin the process" I now notice the "deliberately" in there. Thaht would constitute violent conduct against an official, so is no goal PLUS a red card to the offending player. He could possibly get a 3 match ban for that too.

[dinho]

Here's a double-headed You Are The Ref question:

Question number 11

Part A: A player sees a goalscoring opportunity, but you - the referee - are unfortunately in the way. He deliberately pushes you out of the way to get to the ball and knocks you to the ground in the process.

He puts the ball in the net but the defence claim they stopped when they saw you on the floor. You didn't see the goal as you were on your backside and your linesman is unsighted and not in a position to rule.

What would you do in this siuation?

This question was inspired by a suggestion from fearlessJon_Taylor. Here is his original submission:

Hi Mr Hackett

Thanks for answering all of the questions asked, the answers have been very helpful. Here's my conundrum:

Part B:

It's 1-0 to Spain against Russia in the last few minutes, with the game swinging end-to-end. Russia have a corner which is cleared but passed back to Arshavin who looks certain to score, unfortunately the referee accidentally elbows him in the face knocking him off balance. The Russia players surround you, complaining that you have denied them a goal.

What do you do?

Keith's Hackett's answer

Part A: In normal circumstances, if a referee has not seen whether a goal has been scored or not he will ask his assistants, especially the one nearest the goal.

If they are unable to confirm a goal has been scored, the referee cannot award a goal.

In this question, the player has deliberately pushed the referee out of the way. Players must not put their hands on any of the officials. They must show respect.

A deliberate push on the referee would be taken as an assault. The player is shown a red card and sent off. The game is restarted with an indirect free-kick from where he pushed the referee to the ground.


Part B: This is a difficult predicament for the referee and fortunately you do not have to show a red card to yourself.

You are protected in law by effectively being part of the field of play and this incident is an accident, in the same way that if a shot on goal was clearly going wide strikes the referee and enters the goal.

This would count as a goal.

I can remember some years ago Rotherham referee John Key giving a clear and firm signal to indicate a throw in and in doing so struck a player on the face and knocked him to the ground. The player, whilst receiving treatment, received an apology from John and both ended up smiling.

[trinikev]

Thanks omar 

[Touches]

I find Hackett give we two bullshit answers dey

Esp the second...so is a goal or not?

Maybe I illiterate.

But when giving answers using two examples without a definite conclusion especially subjective topics like this ent good enough.

Must be my comprehension bad yes...but wha he really saying here

You are protected in law by effectively being part of the field of play and this incident is an accident, in the same way that if a shot on goal was clearly going wide strikes the referee and enters the goal.

This would count as a goal....So this short sentence confirming the shot on goal story above not so? At least this is what I gathered, so by extension if the ball ent go in the goal is no goal...correct is right.

I can remember some years ago Rotherham referee John Key giving a clear and firm signal to indicate a throw in and in doing so struck a player on the face and knocked him to the ground. The player, whilst receiving treatment, received an apology from John and both ended up smiling.

[trinikev]

I didn't see anything wrong with the first answer........he said a goal cannot be awarded, and the player deliberately pushing the ref will get a red card.

Yuh right about the 2nd question tho, he never explicitly gave an answer. I think the implication is that it was an accident, so hard luck and just play on

[elan]

Part B: This is a difficult predicament for the referee and fortunately you do not have to show a red card to yourself.

You are protected in law by effectively being part of the field of play and this incident is an accident, in the same way that if a shot on goal was clearly going wide strikes the referee and enters the goal.

This would count as a goal.

I can remember some years ago Rotherham referee John Key giving a clear and firm signal to indicate a throw in and in doing so struck a player on the face and knocked him to the ground. The player, whilst receiving treatment, received an apology from John and both ended up smiling.

Just like I said, players have to learn to navigate the referee as part of training.

[dinho]

I find Hackett give we two bullshit answers dey

Esp the second...so is a goal or not?

Maybe I illiterate.

But when giving answers using two examples without a definite conclusion especially subjective topics like this ent good enough.

Must be my comprehension bad yes...but wha he really saying here

You are protected in law by effectively being part of the field of play and this incident is an accident, in the same way that if a shot on goal was clearly going wide strikes the referee and enters the goal.

This would count as a goal....So this short sentence confirming the shot on goal story above not so? At least this is what I gathered, so by extension if the ball ent go in the goal is no goal...correct is right.

I can remember some years ago Rotherham referee John Key giving a clear and firm signal to indicate a throw in and in doing so struck a player on the face and knocked him to the ground. The player, whilst receiving treatment, received an apology from John and both ended up smiling.

yes i agree, it was a shitty answer for the second one.. i had to read it like 3 times before posting.

to make it worse, in the original link they bold the "This would count as a goal" part which has nothing to do with the actual scenario the way i read it.

Well i got the first one wrong and the second one right..

de streak had to end at some point.

[Touches]

Question

It is the final of Euro 2008. You are the ref and your assistant referee is having a TERRIBLE game.

Every time the ball is played forward in his half he flags for offside. He makes two or three decisions that you can clearly see are wrong and you overrule him, allowing play to continue.

At half-time you are fortunate enough to see footage of several clear goalscoring opportunities that were ruled out by your assistant. You have a word with him and he assures you he is fit and well and, from where he was standing, the players appeared to be clearly offside.

In the second half the scenario is reversed - the assistant's flag stays down for 20 minutes and a goal is scored when the player looked offside to you, but you couldn't be sure.

After overruling the assistant for the second time on a CLEAR decision, you are faced with the possibility he may be getting these decisions wrong, not by accident but on purpose.

You have stopped play for offside. The managers and the players of both teams are understandably angry, but not doing anything that warrants action from you.

One team is asking for the assistant to be removed, the other is berating you for constantly overruling him.

What would you do?





Question

It is the dying seconds of a game and the away team are desperately hanging on to a 1-0 lead when they concede a corner.

A defender is standing on the goalline inside the post. From the corner a forward blasts the ball at goal and it hits the defender full in the chest and knocks him backwards off his feet.

The rebound goes straight back to the forward who volleys it back in, but the defender on the goalline stops his fall by grabbing on to the post. By holding on to the woodwork he is able to prevent his fall and put out his leg to make another goalline clearance, preventing a certain goal.

The forward insists the defender has gained an unfair advantage by using the post to stop him falling on his back and preventing the ball from going in the net.

The captain confronts the referee and says: "Sort it out ref. It you swing on the crossbar and head the ball out it's a card - give him a yellow!"

The manager is even more furious and argues that he has denied an obvious goalscoring chance. He calls for the referee to punish the player with a red card and give a penalty for an infringement in the box.

What would you do?

[FF]

Papayo!!!

They save de best for last!

Here goes:
1. The linesman is called the referee's assistant for a reason. The referee always have the final say and can overrule the linesman at anytime... continue to call it at your discretion... and if the linesman in your opinion cannot reasonably perform his job... then replace him with the 4th official.

2. It seem that the player make a reflex action to stay up... it was not a pre-meditated move to gain an advantage therefore that play is an acceptable one.
... but I never even think bout that swinging on the post one to butt out a ball up in the vees... so i eh sure nah...

[fishs]

Papayo!!!

They save de best for last!

Here goes:
1. The linesman is called the referee's assistant for a reason. The referee always have the final say and can overrule the linesman at anytime... continue to call it at your discretion... and if the linesman in your opinion cannot reasonably perform his job... then replace him with the 4th official.

2. It seem that the player make a reflex action to stay up... it was not a pre-meditated move to gain an advantage therefore that play is an acceptable one.
... but I never even think bout that swinging on the post one to butt out a ball up in the vees... so i eh sure nah...

For 1. I would  say the ref have no choice but to battle on for the rest of the game with the assistant and then report him to the referrees committee.

For 2. As you say is self preservation , so is like ah man taking a bang and it heading straight for yuh face , you will reflexively use yuh hand for protection.
Again is the ref call but I would say no foul or no card offence.

[Touches]

Answers...

Keith Hackett's answer

This is another good question but not possible in the Premier League because the officials do not have access to replayed television footage of the first half in their dressing rooms.

However, if this was the case and the referee believes his assistant referee was affecting his overall performance and the result of the game, then he would dispense with his services.

The referee would not abandon the game. At Euro 2008 each game has a fifth official and it is likely he would take over running the line.

In this scenario in the Premier League the fourth official would probably replace the assistant referee, with the problem then being who would take over the fourth official's duties.

It would be unwise to ask the assistant to assume the fourth official role because then he could attract unnecessary comments and/or abuse from the dug-outs.

The referee would have created another problem which could have been avoided. So it would be wiser if he dispenses with the assistant completely.

There's often a qualified referee in the crowd who could take over the fourth official's duties, or the assessor if present, or even a willing volunteer.

I can remember a First Division game in September 1972 between Arsenal and Liverpool that ended in a goalless draw when there was no fourth official and TV pundit Jimmy Hill ran the line.

After the game the referee would write a report and let the governing body controlling the game (Uefa in the case of Euro 2008) decide what action to take depending on what was in the report.

The governing body would decide whether to allow the result to stand or order the game to be replayed. There might also be other measures which they may wish to take.

The assistant would be immediately withdrawn from any further appointments until the investigation is complete. If there was any suspicion of corruption then the matter would be investigated by the police.

If found guilty the official's career would be over.

If the referee had the problem with a club assistant referee on a park pitch - some club assistants are too biased - then he would dispense with his services and ask the club for another assistant.

If there wasn't one available, the referee would officiate from a position that would keep him close enough to that particular touchline to see if the ball goes out of play.

Also, the referee would have to be in a position to be able to judge offside when required. He would need to do a lot of running!


Answer for #13

Keith Hackett's answer

There is no offence here. The defender has done nothing wrong in using the goal post to regain his balance. No law has been broken, no offence has been committed. The decision is PLAY ON.

It would be the same decision if the player held on to a team-mate to prevent falling - it is not a free-kick.

If, however, the defender had used the crossbar to get off the ground, thus gaining extra height in clearing the ball, then this is considered to be unsporting behaviour for which he would be given a yellow card and you would restart play with an indirect free-kick.

It would be the same decision if the defender had used a team-mate to get off the ground, gaining extra height in order to clear the ball: a yellow card and an indirect free-kick.

In this particular scenario I would not dismiss for the Denial of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity because the criteria of DOGSO has not been fulfilled.

Interestingly, if the defender standing on the goalline inside the posts, had used an opponent to get off the ground, he would be holding the opponent down. The decision would be a penalty kick for the holding offence, and a yellow card. He can only be given a red card in such a situation if he had deliberately handled the ball to prevent the opposing team a goal. Maybe the law needs changing in this respect.

I would completely ignore the shouts of the manager from off the field and concentrate solely on continuing to referee the game.

This was the final one in our special edition of You Are The Ref. Thank you very much for all your contributions over the past few weeks. We hope you have enjoyed playing You Are The Ref on the BBC.

[trinikev]

Thanks Touches 

[Tallman]

[spideybuff]

Hmm...number #2 i will say is handball cause the keeper hands will cross the line in order to get the ball back in.

The next two real hard tho. My guesses are:

1) The team remains as 11 v 11 and the player alone is punished with a ban for the next game
2) Is a hard luck, but the ball didn't go over the line so the goal hadda stand. Is the same as if the ball hit the corner flag and come back in.

My guesses...

[doc]

1. The player is sanctioned
2. no hand ball
3. no goal

[dinho]

1. Substituted player gets sent off and down the tunnel but the team remain with 11 men. Similiar to sending a coach or a substitute off who are not in the game.

2. No handball. The whole ball didnt cross the line in the first place.

3. Hmmm hard one. I would say if the injured player was struck by the ball unintentionally then that is goal because it would be the same as if the ball hit the corner flag or linesman and didnt go out of play. However if it was intentionally redirected then it should be a free kick and a caution for the injured player.

[Touches]

1) Substituted player is sent off...11 men remain on the field
2) Play On...the whole ball has to cross the line. ( as ref you could play chupid and say you ent see it)
3) Goal stands...if the play was not stopped immediately as the ball hit the player standing outside. The linesman woulda say if it went out or not and flagged. Further, ball does hit corner flag and stay in...is a good goal. (plus the ref could say he ent see that it went out)

I real interested in answer #3

[kicker]

1- 11v11 - player was subsitituted.  That's the point of subbing a player on a card- preventing yourself from being reduced to 10.

2- No hand ball

3- Goal can't stand.  A player off the field waiting to come back in is can't be considered part of the play.  The ball should be called dead if it strikes him.

[WestCoast]

1- 11v11 - player was subsitituted.  That's the point of subbing a player on a card- preventing yourself from being reduced to 10.

2- No hand ball (ball has to be completly over the line)

3- Goal can't stand.  A player off the field waiting to come back in is can't be considered part of the play.  The ball should be called dead if it strikes him. (In fact geh he ah yellow for illegaly being back on the field   )

Totally concur

[Touches]

Answers

Keith Hackett's official answers:

1) You would not reduce the team to 10 men. The referee would request the substituted player to leave the technical area and report him to the authorities. Mark O'Boyle wins the shirt for this question.

2) The goalkeeper has made contact with the ball outside the penalty area, so you would award a direct free-kick. Keith Hackett: This is similar to a defender inside the penalty area tripping an opponent outside the area. The point of contact, and hence the free-kick, is outside the area. The referee also has to ensure that in committing this offence the goalkeeper has not denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. If he has, then a red card would also be given. If the referee deemed it an act of unsporting behaviour, a yellow card would be shown. Thanks to Mark McGill for the question.

3) No, you do not give the goal. If you judged that this was an accident and not a deliberate act, restart play with a drop ball from where the contact occurred on the touchline. Keith Hackett: If however the player had stepped on to the field before a signal and the ball had struck him, he would be cautioned; and you would restart the game with an indirect free-kick Thanks to Sid Ward for the question.

[Touches]

[Touches]

[Touches]

Forumites a new You are the ref comes out on tues and fri...it is on guardian.co.uk. Cut and paste it nah if I sticking.

1) Yes why not

2)Yellow card for the keeper ungentlemanly/unsporting conduct

3) Cards for both players...yellow /red for attacker...red for goalkeeper


a) Talk to him, drop ball restart

b) a corner or goalkick depending on who boot the ball.

c) Goal stands

[elan]

1.
a- No
b- Yellow
c- Yellow for Attacker? Red for the GK and restart with the free kick for the defending team.

2.
a- Book him, send him off to remove the shirt and restart from where the ball is. If it was in play at the time drop ball.

b- No goal. Yellow for improper use of equipment.
c- Goal. Get medic to administer smelling salt.

[Touches]

Keith Hackett's official answers:




1) No. Only the referee can officiate and apply the laws of the game. The captain does not decide how you referee the game and therefore his request would be denied. Keith Hackett: I would also suggest that he gets on with playing the game and leaves the business of officiating to you. Thanks to Russell Berrisford for the question.

2) Dismiss the goalkeeper. He has clearly committed a serious offence from which his team have benefited and, given the circumstances, his actions have denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, so he must be shown the red card. Have the defending team choose someone to take over in goal and re-start play with an indirect free kick at the point inside the penalty area where he dropped his shorts. Mathew Page wins the shirt for this question.

3) Again you must dismiss the goalkeeper. However, as with the previous circumstances a team must have a goalkeeper and so, before restarting play, another player needs to go in goal and put on a distinguishing coloured jersey. Otherwise the game would have to be abandoned. Having blown for the initial offence on the goalkeeper you would restart play with a direct free kick to the defending team. Thanks to Phil Reid for the question.

[WestCoast]

1) give the shooter a red card if he does not shoot when you blow your whistle.
2) do nothing
3) again, do nothing

[spideybuff]

1) Book the striker for time wasting and talk to the keeper. If he still refuses to kick and they both continue dancing, book him again and send him off. Penalty can be taken by someone else at this point.

2)He can't prove the opposing keeper did it in the first half. If the keeper is doing it in the second half and it is pointed out by the ref, he is booked.

3)Once he is allowed on the field with the headgear in the first place, the goal is legal.

[FF]

1) Book the striker for time wasting and talk to the keeper. If he still refuses to kick and they both continue dancing, book him again and send him off. Penalty can be taken by someone else at this point.

2)He can't prove the opposing keeper did it in the first half. If the keeper is doing it in the second half and it is pointed out by the ref, he is booked.

3)Once he is allowed on the field with the headgear in the first place, the goal is legal.

2) But ent keepers doing that for years... I and all used to do that in all kinda jokey sweat