h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_1.html

Rather than pick through the ill-informed 606 blog, I thought we could manage our own version.

I quote: "A player scythes down an opponent, two-footed, over the top - a definitive red card offence. However, the ball bounces kindly for the other team and they have an excellent chance of scoring. You allow play to continue, making a mental note to send the player off next time there is a break in play. The goal opportunity is denied by a miracle one-handed save by the goalkeeper. A team-mate instantly kicks the ball upfield to the player, who should have been sent off. He is played onside by the player he hacked down and he goes on to score."

My view: Incorrect not to stop play for a serious foul and red card offence. The referee should blow up as soon as he realises his mistake (after the goal is scored if necessary), send off offending player and re-start with a direct free-kick to the other team from the place of the offence. If the referee awards the goal he should immediately be removed from the officiating list. Unless the victimized side is Sheffield United or Leeds, in which case it's OK.

B

I have to say I think you've got this one spot on, B. That's exactly what I think he should do

Including the bit about Sheffield United or Leeds?

B

Of course

The referee should blow as soon as the home side fail to develop the advantage he envisioned, if he is playing the advantage rule. However I don't think the advantage rule should be applied in this case, because the original incident constitutes 'serious foul play' and thus the advantage rule cannot be applied.

>Unless the victimized side is Sheffield United<

Creep

Ooh...didn't realise this was a daily thing.

Today's is a toughie, I think:

"A defender is off the pitch receiving treatment and you have clearly told him to remain on the sideline until you signal for him to return. Spain are on the attack and Fernando Torres receives the ball outside the penalty area, runs through the defence, rounds the goalkeeper and taps the ball towards the empty net. As he turns to celebrate his goal the defender who was off the field receiving treatment sprints back on to the pitch without waiting for your signal to invite him on and performs a last-ditch goalline clearance."

My view (may be dead wrong): red card for the defender, for illegally denying a goalscoring opportunity. Then - penalty or drop-ball? My view is that while the player is not legally on the field of play, he is still legally part of the match, so penalty to be awarded, but I could probably understand the reasons behind a drop-ball. If the manager had run on and cleared it, it would have been a drop ball, yes?

B

Assuming the last-ditch goalline clearance isn't a handball... then I think it must be an indirect free-kick as it's an obstruction, rather than outside interference (which would be true if the manager did it) which results in a drop-ball. Obviously a handball would mean a penalty. I'm not sure where the free-kick should be taken from though. I agree that the defender should be sent off; again, I'm not sure. There might even be something in the rules for the ref to use his discretion to award a goal.

Interesting answer to yesterday's scenario as well - I wasn't aware of the "three second rule" that seems to exist according to Keith Hackett.

Casting the old noggin back to when I did my ref course, I understand that entering the field of play without permission is an automatic yellow card. Plus you would probably have to give another yellow for unsporting behvior so the player owuld be off, and an indirect free kick.

I think it might be the 'Hackett 3 Second Rule'.

So your punishment for the offending player would be just a yellow card for illegally re-entering the field of play, yes?

It's not allowed to punish a player twice for the same offence, but could it be argued that you can yellow card him once for ir-etfop and then again for dissent? Remember you told him specifically not to come back on.

B

I think you can probably argue that the defender has denied a goalscoring opportunity illegally, which would be an automatic red card, or as FB says, you could also say that he's committed two offences which both warrant a yellow card, which is a red in everyone's book (except possibly Graham Poll's book... ).

Never read Post 9 actually - simulpost.

B

I'm sure you could send off the defender for illegally preventing a clear goalscoring opportunity, and I think you'd have to restart the game with a dropped as no offence for which a penalty can be awarded has been committed.

I've just been trying to find this question on BBC Football but couldn't see it. Was a real referee's opinion given?

Yes it was answered (and there was a newer, even more bizarre scenario):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/euro2008/2008/06/you_are_the_ref_3.html

Keith Hackett's answer is a yellow card for the defender (for entering field of play illegally) and an indirect free-kick from where he touched the ball. I think that's probably a direct application of the law but if it is then I think the law should be changed to apply directly to this situation, and give the defender an automatic red card, since he has illegally denied the attacking team a goal (not even a goalscoring opportunity).

The head tennis a yellow card for both players for ungentlemanly conduct, and an indirect free kick to the opposition.

I'd say the defender and keeper are doing nothing wrong, like players who hog the ball by the corner flag. However, the attacker could just stand between the two of them and play "piggy in the middle", in the same way that you can stand in front of a goalkeeper preparing to kick the ball clear- you can't knock it out of his hands, but you can pressure him and try to intercept his pass.

Back again today...

"A Czech Republic midfielder misjudges a pass back to his centre-half. An opposition forward, spotting his chance, races in to challenge. The quick-thinking centre-half, feints to play the ball, but without touching it, he allows it to pass through his legs to his goalkeeper, who had sensed the danger and had run to the edge of the penalty box and then picks up the ball. Because the centre-half never touched the ball, the forward immediately claims it is a backpass to the goalkeeper. He screams for a free-kick to be awarded."

I say no free-kick. It has to be an intentional backpass to the goalkeeper's hands, which wasn't the case.

B

I would say it is an intentional back-pass though; not by the midfielder but by the defender - despite having not touched the ball, he is intending it to go back to the keeper. The wording is a bit strange though - if the centre-back had touched the ball, it would quite obviously be a backpass. And what exactly does "misjudges a pass back" mean, anyway? I assume from the wording that the forward would have reached the ball had the defender not been there?

I think this is similar to the decision that would have to be made if a forward allowed the ball to deliberately pass through his legs when in an offside position to another forward in an onside position... surely in this instance he would be given offside?

... oh, and I ought to have said, I wonder whether the ref & linesman in the Netherlands vs Italy game knew about the law which provided them with an excuse for their decision? If they did then fair play to them! It's a bit of a strange law to say the least though!

i must have missed the strange law. care to explain?