Jump to content

Great Officiating Calls


Canesoverhere
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Funny stuff, but the explanation was that the ref had let the advantage play out, and it wound up resulting in the goal.

 

I don't blame the ref at all for showing a bit of emotion on this. Judging when to let the advantage play out must be one of the hardest things in all of sports refereeing (sp?). To me, his reaction was that the intent of the play out rule "worked". This makes up just a bit for all the screams, especially at high school and club level, refs receive for "missed" fouls. :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am missing something...where is the foul ? :unsure:

 

No, you are not missing the foul. It was before the clip started. That's why Cookevillesoccer said "the explanation ..." The foul occured more towards midfield, hence the challenge of letting the advantage play out even if a score was not immenent. BTW ... I had the same reaction to the clip as you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are not missing the foul. It was before the clip started. That's why Cookevillesoccer said "the explanation ..." The foul occured more towards midfield, hence the challenge of letting the advantage play out even if a score was not immenent. BTW ... I had the same reaction to the clip as you did.

Am I missing something? Where is the original post? Was it edited/removed? Sorry I have been in disposed of late, reffing and traveling and all. In general, I would let a foul go if the advantage can lead to a pretty good attack developing, even in the defensive third.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? Where is the original post? Was it edited/removed? Sorry I have been in disposed of late, reffing and traveling and all. In general, I would let a foul go if the advantage can lead to a pretty good attack developing, even in the defensive third.

 

No. You're not missing something. That is Canes attempt at humor in response to the other thread. Notice the period. He started this thread and is basically saying that he cannot recall or that there isn't any such thing as "great officiating calls."

Edited by feverpitch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You're not missing something. That is Canes attempt at humor in response to the other thread. Notice the period. He started this thread and is basically saying that he cannot recall or that there is any such thing as "great officiating calls."

 

I read one Canes post where he claimed that the expression "great officiating calls" is an oxymoron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a she. There are no great calls, or bad calls, just calls. Degree of agreement or disagreement is a matter of opinion, qualified or not.

Hate to burst your bubble, ref, but Canes might be a lot of things, but "he" is not a "she". I will respect his privacy (he and I talk "off line" a fair amount) and not reveal his super secret identity, though I did want to ruin his fun that he had at your expense thinking he fooled you into thinking he was a woman (since I also know who you are, but again, do not want to reveal your double secret squirrel identity).

 

Dang, that was a long sentence... glad I teach science and not English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to burst your bubble, ref, but Canes might be a lot of things, but "he" is not a "she". I will respect his privacy (he and I talk "off line" a fair amount) and not reveal his super secret identity, though I did want to ruin his fun that he had at your expense thinking he fooled you into thinking he was a woman (since I also know who you are, but again, do not want to reveal your double secret squirrel identity).

 

Dang, that was a long sentence... glad I teach science and not English.

Man, woman, either way "his" take on reffing and writing on the subject matter is way off base, my opinion. "He" didn't fool, but misled,and by his own words, said "he" is a "Mrs". So either "he" intended to mislead, which is unethical, or "he" is in fact, an alter ego. So maybe "he" has some internal demons to reconcile, regardless, the opinions "he" expressed are not from an officiating point of view, and thus not credible to me. Better to be thought of as fooled than the fool.

Edited by socref1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
  • Create New...