DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48332--------------------------------------------------
Re: Josh Smith/Craig Taylor - Manchester United Youth v
Nottingham Forest Youth Final
DIR By: Leggy
Date: May 15, 2022, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=3697.msg48272#msg48272
date=1652522906]
> [quote author=thesensibleone link=topic=3697.msg48259#msg48259
date=1652482162]
> In refereeing you are taught only to give penalties that you
are 100% sure of and in a position to give. Which both Josh
Smith and Craig Taylor never was also if it was Dogso outside
then it's Dogso inside, if the interpretation is that he meant
to do it and not accidental. But either way there is no
defending the error of the KMI.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think you can "defend" the KMI - it might have been the speed
of play, the position of the referee (too central? no width?),
a blocked view, etc.
What cannot be done is deny that it was a KMI.
[/quote]
Didn't see it so cannot comment on the specific incident.
However, if the referee makes a factual and demonstrable error
in say, awarding a penalty kick when the foul play happened
outside the penalty area, then indeed it is a KMI but I question
whether such an error may be properly "defended". It may
certainly be explained by referring to speed of play, referee's
position, blocked view or plain old fashioned incompetence but
not, I think, defended. What is more open to debate is the
referee's culpability. If the view was blocked that incurs far
less culpability then poor positioning. With the case of a
blocked view then the culpability debate moves on to the
communication and team work between referee and AR.
[/quote]
You are, of course, correct. Poor word choice on my part:
"Explained" is much more appropriate.
#Post#: 48343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Josh Smith/Craig Taylor - Manchester United Youth v
Nottingham Forest Youth Final
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: May 15, 2022, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=Whistleblower link=topic=3697.msg48274#msg48274
date=1652526902]
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=3697.msg48272#msg48272
date=1652522906]
> [quote author=thesensibleone link=topic=3697.msg48259#msg48259
date=1652482162]
> In refereeing you are taught only to give penalties that you
are 100% sure of and in a position to give. Which both Josh
Smith and Craig Taylor never was also if it was Dogso outside
then it's Dogso inside, if the interpretation is that he meant
to do it and not accidental. But either way there is no
defending the error of the KMI.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think you can "defend" the KMI - it might have been the speed
of play, the position of the referee (too central? no width?),
a blocked view, etc.
What cannot be done is deny that it was a KMI.
[/quote]
Didn't see it so cannot comment on the specific incident.
However, if the referee makes a factual and demonstrable error
in say, awarding a penalty kick when the foul play happened
outside the penalty area, then indeed it is a KMI but I question
whether such an error may be properly "defended". It may
certainly be explained by referring to speed of play, referee's
position, blocked view or plain old fashioned incompetence but
not, I think, defended. What is more open to debate is the
referee's culpability. If the view was blocked that incurs far
less culpability then poor positioning. With the case of a
blocked view then the culpability debate moves on to the
communication and team work between referee and AR.
[/quote]
You are, of course, correct. Poor word choice on my part:
"Explained" is much more appropriate.
[/quote]
Thank you for your gracious response. Defend is an interesting
word; I have, on occasions, been required to defend people whose
conduct might reasonably be described as indefensible ! I think
a proper distinction can be made between defending an individual
and defending an incident or decision. If something is proved
beyond all doubt, by hard and concrete evidence, to be wrong
then the fact of the matter is clear. Perhaps where defending
comes in is in seeking to reduce the culpability of the
individual by offering appropriate mitigating circumstances.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page