chopper Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 BUT he could have let it go. The observer would not have seen it, the other three officials would not have seen it. It simply wasn't a big deal. Anyone who justifies their actions by using the phrase, "rules is rules" is simply being awkward or belligerent. Now we are going on to a totally different bugbear of all football fans with regards anyone actually involved in the game - consistency. Everybody wants referees to be consistent. On this basis, it involves applying the Laws of the Game. Now, as a brief introduction to these 101, there are a number of Laws of the Game that involve facts, such as whether the ball is in or out of the field of play or whether the player is wearing a different coloured undergarment from the clothing of his team, and there some that are in the opinion of the referee, such as where there is an offence committed and whether that offence is worthy of a caution, an ordering off or no sanction at all. In this case, it is a matter of fact and all officials would be required to have requested the player to remove the undershorts and either replace them with items of the same colour as his club's kit or to not wear any at all. If the player in this instance is allowed on by the 4th official, subsequently to be asked by the referee to leave the field of play to remove the offending clothing then the observer would be very scathing and the manager would be going bananas on the sideline. I am not disagreeing that the rule is pretty pointless when it comes to shorts, however it is a very valid rule in respect of long sleeve tops under short sleeve kit and has been brought in to include shorts in order to be consistent with all kit rather than just shirts. Now, to end this discussion, your opinion as to the 4th official being awkward or belligerent is flawed and plain wrong as he is enforcing the Laws. I would like to see you describe the policeman that penalises a motorist for driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone with no traffic or pedestrians on the road (to give a comparable situation that you may find yourself in rather than one which you would have no experience of) as being "awkward" or "belligerent" when he is only doing his/her job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Now we are going on to a totally different bugbear of all football fans with regards anyone actually involved in the game - consistency. Everybody wants referees to be consistent. On this basis, it involves applying the Laws of the Game. Now, as a brief introduction to these 101, there are a number of Laws of the Game that involve facts, such as whether the ball is in or out of the field of play or whether the player is wearing a different coloured undergarment from the clothing of his team, and there some that are in the opinion of the referee, such as where there is an offence committed and whether that offence is worthy of a caution, an ordering off or no sanction at all. In this case, it is a matter of fact and all officials would be required to have requested the player to remove the undershorts and either replace them with items of the same colour as his club's kit or to not wear any at all. If the player in this instance is allowed on by the 4th official, subsequently to be asked by the referee to leave the field of play to remove the offending clothing then the observer would be very scathing and the manager would be going bananas on the sideline. I am not disagreeing that the rule is pretty pointless when it comes to shorts, however it is a very valid rule in respect of long sleeve tops under short sleeve kit and has been brought in to include shorts in order to be consistent with all kit rather than just shirts. Now, to end this discussion, your opinion as to the 4th official being awkward or belligerent is flawed and plain wrong as he is enforcing the Laws. I would like to see you describe the policeman that penalises a motorist for driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone with no traffic or pedestrians on the road (to give a comparable situation that you may find yourself in rather than one which you would have no experience of) as being "awkward" or "belligerent" when he is only doing his/her job. So in your opinion we should live our lives entirely by rules, even if that means ignoring common sense? That's alarming. Using you analogy... the speed limit on Perth's South Street is 30 mph. As an HGV licence holder and as an MSA licenced racing driver, I think that is too high and anyone caught breaking that during day time hours(particularly between The Royal and The Auld Hoose, should be charged. However, the same speed limit applies to the town end of the Dunkeld Road and I would disagree with a motorist travelling North of Asda at 35mph being charged as there are very few pedestrians crossing the road. The world has gone legal looney. We need match officials to use common sense. No rule book can ever be perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So in your opinion we should live our lives entirely by rules, even if that means ignoring common sense? Nope, I bellieve common sense should be applied where the governing body allows for common sense - ie in matters of opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sainteesean Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 What a load of ****ing shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Nope, I bellieve common sense should be applied where the governing body allows for common sense - ie in matters of opinion. Then surely you can see that if the under armour ain't showing, it's common sense to let the guy play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 What a load of ****ing shite. You going to Ibrox on Sunday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Then surely you can see that if the under armour ain't showing, it's common sense to let the guy play? Nope because it is a matter of fact in the Laws that does not allow for a decision"of the referee's opinion". Simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Nope because it is a matter of fact in the Laws that does not allow for a decision"of the referee's opinion". Simple really. Yes but the rule is an ass. Match officials (despite being overpaid:wink:) are very intelligent people. They should use their intellect to make a common sense decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sainteesean Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 You going to Ibrox on Sunday? Nope, are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Nope, are you? No, I'll be at McDiarmid supporting St Johnstone:laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 That's just a pile of words split into a handful of incoherent paragraphs. If you actually have a point, or an opinion, based on the game against Forfar, please let me know. That's peculiar. Most internet stalkers are less defensive than this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StDuncM Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yes but the rule is an ass. Match officials (despite being overpaid:wink:) are very intelligent people. They should use their intellect to make a common sense decision. Interesting that YOU should make this comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Interesting that YOU should make this comment. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 That's peculiar. Most internet stalkers are less defensive than this! So you don't have a point to make then. Bravo, neebur! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calypso Kid Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 So you don't have a point to make then. Bravo, neebur! Oh I think the point was fairly apparent. It just depends if you agree or not, quite obviously you don't. Bravo indeed, Walter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Yes but the rule is an ass. Match officials (despite being overpaid:wink:) are very intelligent people. They should use their intellect to make a common sense decision. You certainly don't know many if you think intelligence is high! The rule is an ass, as are other rules, however they are there and as an arbiter of the Laws on a football pitch the referee must enforce them. There is a lot of room for common sense where decisions are concerned that are "in the opinion of the referee", though I doubt you may remember that part of my earlier post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted April 28, 2010 Report Share Posted April 28, 2010 They are long shorts that can roll back down, then he will have to roll them back up when they do (if they do). The 4th official may have been a "jobsworth" and "overpaid" (that is totally incorrect however I wont go into that on the Forfar match thread) according to you but he was in fact doing everything correctly and young Reynolds (who will have already known this - as will the management team and other players) was the person in the wrong. However, in this one experience he will now know not to do it again. I should also point out if this was at an SPL ground then it would likely not have been talked about as it wouldn't have been noticed. Just because I like to win petty arguments... Stevie Reynolds wore dark blue under armour shorts against St Mirren who played in black! He made no effort to roll them up or hide them and the referee, who was the worst I have ever witnessed, did not make him get his cock out. Incidentally, there was a "suit" speaking to the officials at half time. Do you (Chopper) know if would have been an observer? If so, the referee will have seriously blotted his copybook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Just because I like to win petty arguments... Stevie Reynolds wore dark blue under armour shorts against St Mirren who played in black! He made no effort to roll them up or hide them and the referee, who was the worst I have ever witnessed, did not make him get his cock out. Incidentally, there was a "suit" speaking to the officials at half time. Do you (Chopper) know if would have been an observer? If so, the referee will have seriously blotted his copybook. You'd have been disappointed then 101 Did Saints have blue shorts on? On that basis, the referee may have let him away with it - especially with the fact it was an under 19 league match. I know it should be the same for all senior games, however if it is close then so be it at that level. The referee is one of the up and coming younger refs if it is the same one as on the SFA website. Wouldn't imagine the suit would have been an offical observer, however he may have been watching him as part of the development programme, or as one of the referee's colleagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Inspiration Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 You'd have been disappointed then 101 Did Saints have blue shorts on? On that basis, the referee may have let him away with it - especially with the fact it was an under 19 league match. I know it should be the same for all senior games, however if it is close then so be it at that level. The referee is one of the up and coming younger refs if it is the same one as on the SFA website. Wouldn't imagine the suit would have been an offical observer, however he may have been watching him as part of the development programme, or as one of the referee's colleagues. Was white shorts chopper. And if his performance in that game on tuesday fairly represents his skills and ability as a referee then theres no hope for him. Saying that, I suppose he'd fit in right well amongst the current top level refs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Was white shorts chopper. And if his performance in that game on tuesday fairly represents his skills and ability as a referee then theres no hope for him. Saying that, I suppose he'd fit in right well amongst the current top level refs Having never seen him referee or the game I couldn't comment. As for the shorts I would imagine he's taken the attitude of it being an under 19 game - though strictly incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 Having never seen him referee or the game I couldn't comment. As for the shorts I would imagine he's taken the attitude of it being an under 19 game - though strictly incorrect. Not sure if you've reffed these games before Chopper, but both our guys (Alec and Jocky) and their three coaches/physio actually gave up on the referee and were keeping scores of his errors. With hindsight it was quite amusing, but I didn't find it funny at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.