Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.3
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (January 2003, week 1)Back to main SOCREF-L pageJoin or leave SOCREF-LReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:   Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:26:25 -0500
Reply-To:   Jim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:   Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees <[log in to unmask]>
From:   Jim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:   Re: Ref screw up in 1-1-03 Liverpool vs. Newcastle
Comments:   To: "Wickham, Dennis" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Yesterday Dennis Wickham wrote: >In December, I posted a new answer on Jim Allen's site that I think directly >bears on the need for the League Officials to be able to exercise some >discretion on what discipline is just. > >In the question presented, the referee in the first half issued a caution to >number 2 in error. The caution should have been given to number 9. Play >was then restarted. At the half, when the AR questioned what 2 had done, >the referee realized the error. The USSF answer was that after play was >restarted the Referee could not make any changes: the caution to No. 2 >stood; and no caution could be given to no. 9. The answer identified that >this was contrary to another published statement, and that it would be >corrected in the next edition. > >Imagine if both players received a "second" caution in the second half: no >2 would be sent off but no. 9 would not. When the referee's game report >accurately described what happened, most League officials would likely >conclude that no further discipline was just as to no. 2 and would end up >arguing about what to do about no. 9. > >Of course, this is different than the original post, because the League >actions in my example are not "overruling" the judgment of the referee, but >acting consistently with the referee's judgment that the first caution to >no. 2 was in error. > >I can understand why, under Law 5, the USSF could conclude that the referee >cannot change the decision after play restarts. (Before the ruling, one >could argue whether the decision has been changed or simply the announcement >of the decision). But, if the referee cannot correct the error and the >league cannot correct the error, something is wrong.

And the answer on my site also said that the referee was to submit FULL DETAILS in the match report, didn't it? Dennis neglected to mention that. Most hearing boards are competent to read referee reports, or so I have heard.

QUOTE USSF answer (December 13, 2002): //first paragraph snipped; not relevant// No, once play has restarted the caution/yellow card to player 2 may not be revoked. Nor may the referee then card player 9. The caution issued to player 2 must stand. The referee must include a full report of the situation in the match report. UNQUOTE

Jim Allen


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SOCREF-L page

LISTSERV.URI.EDU CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager