|
Post by oldfart on Apr 21, 2013 21:34:55 GMT 10
Had 2 baulking incidents in round 1 (u16-2) and round 2 (SL/R) both similar i.e. attacker about to take a shot, defender about half a metre away, too far to make a tackle, so yells Hahhh! at attacker hoping to put them off. Both these I awarded IDFK and yellow for unsporting behaviour. What I found interesting is that both players were completely mystified as to why they had incurred a foul. Is this one of those things that players are getting away with, so everyone starts to think it is fair game?
|
|
pj
50 Posts + Member
Off the beaten track
Posts: 72
|
Post by pj on Apr 22, 2013 14:28:34 GMT 10
It has also been misinterpreted by some of our peers. How often do you here players say "You can't call mine". This is because some refs (and I've had them ref games that I coach) have applied calling mine as an infrigement and give an IDK. The one I had issues with only gave the IDK and no card. Very frustrating.
I would have done as you did, IDK and YC for USB. Well done applying the Law. Bet they only did it once per game. They do learn ... :-)
|
|
|
Post by fatdev33l on Apr 22, 2013 15:17:02 GMT 10
Totally agree. We also quite often see this while a penalty kick is been taken and no action taken against the offender.
Well done on 1) getting the decision 100% correct and 2)having the courage to take the action rather than do what many others would have and just ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by JD on Apr 22, 2013 18:14:31 GMT 10
I think I seem to notice it more often these days. I think what has happened in the past is the quiet word, rather than a caution for unsporting conduct straight away.
There is a mandatory MUST caution for verbally distracting an opponent in the interpretations. The issue I find is, does the player who yells out hahhh, actually verbally distract the opposition player?
In most cases I think the answer is no, because it is not too loud, the player still has a shot or passes anyway. So, in fact, they were not verbally distracted.
In this case, I think it definitely requires at least a quiet word to the player to warn them because if they do it twice, you will deem it to be verbally distracting.
If it did verbally distract them, then, a caution is required.it certainly should not be ignored. The referee must deal with it I feel, if they hear it.
|
|
|
Post by JD on Apr 22, 2013 18:22:04 GMT 10
Pj, in relation to the mine call, we have the unwritten idea that it also verbally distracts.
It verbally distracts if the defender is close, but if they are not close, then it would probably be ok. The mine call is distracting because it puts the defender off, if it does put them off, and then they may not play it thinking the player that called out was on their team.
That is my spin on the mine call, sometimes it is ok, sometimes it is not. I am very helpful aren't I...!!! Where is the fence....oh, there it is...under me!!!
|
|
|
Post by 1 on Apr 22, 2013 18:52:47 GMT 10
I find that 90% of the mine calls are communication between two players of the same team. There may be an opponent nearby but the two team-mates are the ones who can get to the ball first.
|
|
pj
50 Posts + Member
Off the beaten track
Posts: 72
|
Post by pj on Apr 23, 2013 7:28:38 GMT 10
I find that 90% of the mine calls are communication between two players of the same team. There may be an opponent nearby but the two team-mates are the ones who can get to the ball first. These are my thoughts as well. For me to pull calling 'mine' as distracting, the opponent has to pull out of the challenge (as if it was his team mate calling). Anything less and its play on. JD, I hear what you're saying but the problem with the 'unwritten law' is that many refs get it wrong and all this does is fuel the myth that it is a foul. Also, if younger refs see the pinning as a foul, they may adopt it themselves. For me it has to be REALLY obvious that the intent was to deceive. Anything less is play on.
|
|
|
Post by fatdev33l on Apr 23, 2013 13:08:16 GMT 10
The other thing they often call is leave it (especially common with goal keepers). This to me is similar as to PJ's comment, many call a IDFK even if no one is verbally distracted by the call. Unfortunately though this is one of the LOTG where intepretation plays a large part.
|
|
|
Post by 1 on Apr 24, 2013 20:41:39 GMT 10
I find that 90% of the mine calls are communication between two players of the same team. There may be an opponent nearby but the two team-mates are the ones who can get to the ball first. These are my thoughts as well. For me to pull calling 'mine' as distracting, the opponent has to pull out of the challenge (as if it was his team mate calling). Anything less and its play on. JD, I hear what you're saying but the problem with the 'unwritten law' is that many refs get it wrong and all this does is fuel the myth that it is a foul. Also, if younger refs see the pinning as a foul, they may adopt it themselves. For me it has to be REALLY obvious that the intent was to deceive. Anything less is play on. I have a slight technical issue with your last statement of intent . The law doesn't actually require intent. What it requires though is for the opponent to be distracted which leaves a higher responsibility on the player calling mine to make sure he does not distract an opponent no matter who it was intended for. Consider the scenario of two opposing players challenging for the ball. A team-mate of one of them also comes in and says "mine mine" genuinely intended and directed at his own team mate. The opponent not seeing who it is that made the call pulls out of the challenge genuinely thinking it was directed at him by his own team-mate. Harsh as it may be, this is a caution and and IDFK for me.
|
|
pj
50 Posts + Member
Off the beaten track
Posts: 72
|
Post by pj on Apr 26, 2013 14:07:51 GMT 10
These are my thoughts as well. For me to pull calling 'mine' as distracting, the opponent has to pull out of the challenge (as if it was his team mate calling). Anything less and its play on. JD, I hear what you're saying but the problem with the 'unwritten law' is that many refs get it wrong and all this does is fuel the myth that it is a foul. Also, if younger refs see the pinning as a foul, they may adopt it themselves. For me it has to be REALLY obvious that the intent was to deceive. Anything less is play on. I have a slight technical issue with your last statement of intent . The law doesn't actually require intent. What it requires though is for the opponent to be distracted which leaves a higher responsibility on the player calling mine to make sure he does not distract an opponent no matter who it was intended for. Consider the scenario of two opposing players challenging for the ball. A team-mate of one of them also comes in and says "mine mine" genuinely intended and directed at his own team mate. The opponent not seeing who it is that made the call pulls out of the challenge genuinely thinking it was directed at him by his own team-mate. Harsh as it may be, this is a caution and and IDFK for me. What you are saying is correct, the Law does not look at intent and in the scenario you've described, the correct action is to caution and IDK against the caller. However, for a younger/newer referee to understand this discussion, intent is an important component for most situations. In the scenarios discussed above we were always looking at an opponent coming in to intentionally distract. If they were intending to distract, IDK and YC. If they didn't mean to, but ended up distracting (as you say by the opponent pulling out of the challenge for an apparent team mate), YC and IDK. The important thing is this discussion, IMHO, is that the call of "mine" or "leave it" is in itself NOT a breach of the Laws of the Game or unsporting behaviour. It is an issue if the call distracts or attempts to distract the opponent. Anything else, play on.
|
|