December 24, 2016

Referee Advent Calendar - Door 24: Christmas Laws of the Game Quiz - Reindeer FC vs Snowmen United with Santa Claus as the Referee (Solved)

Reindeer FC are meeting their rivals of Snowmen United in the decisive final of this year's Christmas Cup. The tournament's Referee Committee, headed by the notoriously demanding Chief Officer called 'Krampus', has selected 'Santa Claus' of the USA to officiate the game. He is accompanied by his assistant referees called 'Knecht Ruprecht' from Germany and 'Zwarte Piet' of the Netherlands. Conspiracy theories have been raised before the game as Santa Claus is believed to be affiliated to the reindeers, but this did not influence Krampus' appointment.


Under very cold (below 0°C) and windy circumstances, a tough task is waiting for them. Fortunately, the reindeers and snowmen are playing quite fairly and behave themselves for most of the time. After nothing relevant happens in the first half, the game has to be interrupted twice for a longer time in the second half:


At first, one of the reindeers' players is unsportingly stopped by snowman no. 10, therefore slips on the icy ground, loses his balance, falls and finds his long legs being terribly knotted together. Santa Claus issues the first yellow card of the match, which is accepted by the offending snowman. The reindeer has to receive medical treatment. Luckily, the doctors manage to "de-knot" his legs after around 20 seconds. Santa Claus informs himself about the reindeer's condition and permits him to stay on the field of play. The snowmen cannot understand that. (1)

Some minutes later then, a snowman heavily collides with the reindeers' goalkeeper and therefore loses his carrot serving him as a nose. He can immediately re-adjust it thanks to the support of his doctors, though, but suspects another conspiracy as Santa Claus obviously deems the collision as no foul and allows play to flow and even asks him to leave the field of play. "Why the hell does he have to go if the reindeer was allowed to stay?", he asks himself and suspects that the proclaimed bias in favour of the reindeers is turning out to be true. (2)

These are the only relevant interruptions for a long time, but you can easily feel the growing temperature in the stadium: Play is proceeding and moving towards the 90th minute. Here and there, there are small signs of an increasing level of hostility on the pitch, and Santa Claus reminds all players to stay cool. Otherwise the field of play and the snowmen would melt. The snowmen agree that this would be rather disadvantageous and turn calmer in the following minutes.

The 90th minute has come, the score still is 0:0. 3 minutes of added time. The reindeers start a last brave attack. And indeed they manage to play themselves through the snowmen's defensive wall and then, yes, their attacker Rudolph gets the ball and is free in front of the goalkeeping snowman. While being in the motion to pull off a shot on or even into the goal inside the penalty area, snowman no. 10 makes a risky sliding tackle. He actually wants to play the ball, and the offence is not reckless in itself, but he unfortunately comes a part of a second too late. Santa Claus is immediately pointing to the spot, awards a penalty kick and sends the Snowman no. 10 off with a Red Card. Completely frustrated, he leaves the field of play. He believes he has played the ball first. (3)

90+1'. Rudolph knows the principle that the player fouled should not take the penalty kick by himself, but he does not care much about such superstition. But how to be sure? Well, he could make the goalkeeping snowman move into the wrong corner by feinting a bit. Shortly after Santa Claus' whistle, he runs up and, shortly before reaching the ball, delays his shooting movement, waits until the goalkeeping snowman is in the wrong corner and then shoots the ball into the other one. 1:0 for the reindeers, everybody believes. Santa Claus strongly blows his whistle, though, and disallows the goal. He says that feinting is not permitted as penalty kicks and gives an indirect free-kick for the snowmen - Rudolph does not trust his eyes, strongly protests, but is cautioned for dissent then and stops to protest as a consequence. A 2nd Yellow Card would not be great: He might be needed in extra-time. (4)

90+2'. The subsequent indirect free-kick is taken by the snowmen's goalkeeper himself. The long, high pass is anticipated by snowman no. 11, one of their forwards, who is standing in the opponent's half and is in an offside position at the moment of the pass. Due to the heavy headwind, no. 11 recognizes that he will have to run towards the ball in order to reach it. For this purpose, he sprints back into the direction of his own team's goalkeeper and heads the ball approximately 15 metres inside his own team's half. Zwarte Piet, the AR2, is nonetheless raising his flag for offside. The reindeers are preparing for a free-kick at the point where the snowman's attacker no. 11 headed the ball. The snowmen lose their nerves. How can this be offside? "I was offside, Santa, how can they have a free-kick in our own half?!", one of them shouts. "This does not matter, go away!", Santa replies. (5)

90+3'. "Last action!", Santa Claus yells. The free-kick gained from the offside offence is the last chance for the superior team, the reindeers, to score. It is taken from 35m away from the goal. All remaining 9 snowmen and their goalkeeper are in their own penalty area now to defend the approaching free-kick. Rudolph, responsible for all set pieces, takes it. The ball is getting higher and higher, moving and moving more towards the goal - many players jump for it, try to reach and head it, but nobody manages to touch the ball. Completely irritated and surprised, the goalkeeping snowman is too late and does not manage to save the ball - in fact, he does not even manage to touch it wih his limb-arms either. GOAL FOR THE REINDEERS! 1:0! (6)

Santa Claus does not even re-start play after that as it has been the last attack. He blows for full time. The reindeers have won. The refereeing trio is coming together. Knecht Ruprecht - the assistant referee 1 on the snowmen's half - tells Santa Claus: "Hey mate, I raised my rod, but you did not see it! Snowman no. 5 must get a Red Card. He has picked up some snow, formed a big snowball and thrown it towards Rudolph, who is now a red-nosed reindeer! It happened in your back, shortly before you whistled for the end of the game. It was deliberate and out of frustration. Give him red!" Santa Claus thinks about it and says: "Thanks, Ruprecht. But we may not do that! I am going to tell you later why, let's leave the field first." (7)

Entering the dressing room, a furious Krampus is already waiting for them. "Whate dide you doe?!", he asks - or rather shouts - with his usual Southern dialect. "What was wrong?", Santa asks...

inspired by Daniele Curcio (Tournaments Abroad)


Challenging game as it seems. But what did Santa Claus do wrongly? And what was right?
Be Krampus and analyze the match and all 7 decisions (from (1) to (7)), assess whether they are right or wrong and, if wrong, what would have been correct (ignore Law 4 in your consideration ;)).

Under all winners - this means getting all 7 decisions correct - we raffle a small package with some refereeing equipment goodies from RefsworldUK including disciplinary cards, a sweatband and a Fox40 whistle ensuring that you are well equipped in 2017.

You have time until 26 December, 23:59 CET. Good luck and ...

... Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all of you!


Solutions:

(1): Correct decision. Since the Laws of the Game revision, players who receive medical treatment on the field of play as a result of a physical offence for which the opponent is cautioned or sent off (e.g. reckless tackle or serious foul play) may stay on the field of play. This, however, requires that the treatment is done quickly! Most associations allow 20-25 seconds here. For this reason, Santa Claus decided correctly.

(2): Correct decision. As the injury was not resulting from a physical offence punishable by a yellow or red card, but just from a collision, the player has to leave the field of play. If the goalkeeper had required medical treatment, too, this would be different, as in this case both players would be allowed to stay on the field of play in order to not produce a disadvantage to one of the teams (goalkeepers may always stay on the field after receiving medical treatment).

(3): Incorrect decision. Although No. 10 denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the text makes clear that he has at least genuinely tried to play the ball. In such a case, the laws want us to only issue a yellow card since July 2016. As No. 10 is already cautioned, he should have been sent off with a 2nd yellow card instead of a red card.

(4): Incorrect decision. It depends on how you read the text, we allow two ways of interpreting the situation. If you have understood the run-up to be already completed at the moment of the feinting, then it is an offence punishable by an indirect free-kick to the opponents and a yellow card for the attacker (Santa Claus did not do that!). If you have understood the run-up not to be completed at the moment of the feinting, then the goal would be valid, as feinting in the run-up is deemed as being part of football.

(5): Correct decision. Law 11 clearly states (since the revision): “If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it is in the player’s own half of the field of play.” – so the decision by Santa Claus and AR2 Zwarte Piet are totally correct. It depends on where No. 11 interfered. Not where he originally stood.

(6): Incorrect decision. A punishable offside position results in an indirect free-kick. As the free-kick taken by Rudolph is touched by nobody before crossing the goalline, it directly entered the goal. Therefore, the goal may not be allowed and play has to be re-started with a goal-kick!

(7): Correct decision. In general, red cards may be only issued after the final whistle for offences which occur a) after the final whistle and b) as long as the referee is on the field of play. The offence reported by AR1 Knecht Ruprecht however occurred before the final whistle. In such cases, referees must not issue a red card anymore. Their decision in terms of disciplinary sanction and re-started cannot be changed. However, according to the IFAB, they should report the incident in the match report. 


Name Points
Emil 7,0
Jack 7,0
Alberto 6,0
Dimitris 6,0
George 6,0
Laszlo Sipos 6,0
Philipp S 6,0
RikB 6,0
Robert 6,0
Ronald 6,0
Ref Al 5,5
solracedasuos 5,5
Frikandel98 5,0
Loïc L 5,0
Maktsola 5,0
Ref_1707 5,0
Soham_M 5,0
RefereeFromAustria 4,5
RJ 3,0



26 Comments:

  1. Are they wearing shinpads and shoes? If not, don't start the game! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bu yeni yılda hedeflerinize ulaşmanıza yardımcı olmak amacıyla özel kredi sunuyor.
      Biz kredi teklifinde konusunda uzmanlaşmış bir özel kurum vardır. Bizim kredi hızlı ve güvenilir yoktur. Biz en 3.000 € € 7,000,000 düşük faiz işçiler için % 2 ve işsiz insanlar için % 3 arasında değişen kredi vermek. Bize gerçek ihtiyaç maddelerinin bir acil kredi e-posta yoluyla ulaşın: globalfinance989@gmail.com veya numara Whatsapp: + 33644662481 (biricik elde edilebilir için Whatsapp).
      Anlayışınız için teşekkür ederiz.

      Delete
  2. Did you guys see Cakir's big mistake?How can Elite referee make a mistake like that?!??!

    https://streamable.com/e5nvz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've just wanted to post link here. Cakir waited for several seconds before he blew his whistle (you can't see that on this video, but you can on link below - starting at 01.40min), probably was assisted by AR1, but mistake is incredible anyway. You cannot rely on your AR when he is 25 meters away and there was a mass in PK area, so he couldn't be sure about this decision.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD-XPSoYFcc

      Delete
    2. Well, I expected 'more' after reading your comments. It is a clear mistake (which should not happen), but it is not the big scandal you want to see here. For Cakir it is difficult to judge it for 100%, so I can understand why he trusted the AR with a better visual angle. Seeing the player's protests, the AR was not the only with this (wrong) awareness. Please don't understand me wrong: It is a clear (!) mistake, but I would be careful with statements like 'How can Elite referee make a mistake like that?!??!' - as you see, there is a way to do. ;)

      Delete
    3. Other than it's a huge mistake here is one thought.

      All you can see in full speed as a ref is that it touches a white arm. And there were about 5-6 white people in that situation. Had the goal keeper worn long sleeves than this wouldn't have happened. Something for FIFA to think about.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Glitzo, simply a mistake that can happen.
      The words you used are not so much appropriate, it looked like you just wanted to attack Cakir! This is what a neutral reader can deduce.
      For an "accurate" work, I think you should list all mistakes made in national leagues by Elite referees :)

      Delete
    5. Good point, victor. On the other hand you could then argue that only one of them wore gloves :)

      I agree with my prespeakers. Huge huge mistake (I wonder whether this falls under "decisions based on facts / perception" or whether the team at disadvantage would have chances to lodge a complaint). But shit happens. Though I have to admit I believe that the reactions would have been different if the same had been done by a certain Norwegian Elite referee...

      Delete
    6. Bu yeni yılda hedeflerinize ulaşmanıza yardımcı olmak amacıyla özel kredi sunuyor.
      Biz kredi teklifinde konusunda uzmanlaşmış bir özel kurum vardır. Bizim kredi hızlı ve güvenilir yoktur. Biz en 3.000 € € 7,000,000 düşük faiz işçiler için % 2 ve işsiz insanlar için % 3 arasında değişen kredi vermek. Bize gerçek ihtiyaç maddelerinin bir acil kredi e-posta yoluyla ulaşın: globalfinance989@gmail.com veya numara Whatsapp: + 33644662481 (biricik elde edilebilir için Whatsapp).
      Anlayışınız için teşekkür ederiz.

      Delete
  3. What a goal in Manchester United - Sunderland by Mikhitarian but what a missed offside by assistant referee as well...

    ReplyDelete
  4. IFFHS "world referee" ranking:
    1. Clattenburg
    2. Rizzoli
    3. Kassai
    4. Eriksson
    5. Cakir, Kuipers
    7. Brych
    8. Atkinson
    9. Skomina
    10. Pitana
    11. Ricci
    12. Velasco
    13. Grisha
    14. Diedhiou, Ramos
    16. Hategan
    17. Karasev, Turpin, Marciniak, Collum
    21. Sato, Mazic

    I think, the list speaks for itself once again, especially below place 3.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Women:
      1. Kulcsar
      2. Monzul, Steinhaus
      4. Chenard
      5. Larsson
      6. Albon
      7. Hussein
      8. Stäubli
      9. Frappart
      10. Miranda
      11. Lengwe, Venegas, Umpierrez, Ri, Vitulano
      16. Zadinova
      17. Jacewicz
      18. Mitsi
      19. Gani
      20. Keighley

      Delete
    2. I can accept the first 3 names of course, but please, Marciniak listed as 17...

      Delete
    3. To be honest, I think that great parts of this list are complete nonsense. How can you rank Mazic below Collum and Turpin? I don't want to say that they are bad referees, but Mazic achieved much more than this two. But this is only one example. And of course, Marciniak listed below so many other referees who showed many mistakes and lacknesses in their matches (Velasco, Atkinson, Cakir at EURO, Eriksson sometimes....) is a bad joke.

      Can anybody explain to me who makes this ranking? Perhaps then I understand some rankings;)

      Delete
    4. As far as I know, around 200 journalists from different nations. And we all know that they are competent about refereeing. ;)

      Delete
  5. Can you discuss the answers of these 7 situations now as the competition is closed now?? Can we have a discussion on the correctness of the 7 decisions now?? 🙂

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you'll find the solutions in the course of today in this post.

      Delete
  6. Awww, one mistake... :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bu yeni yılda hedeflerinize ulaşmanıza yardımcı olmak amacıyla özel kredi sunuyor.
      Biz kredi teklifinde konusunda uzmanlaşmış bir özel kurum vardır. Bizim kredi hızlı ve güvenilir yoktur. Biz en 3.000 € € 7,000,000 düşük faiz işçiler için % 2 ve işsiz insanlar için % 3 arasında değişen kredi vermek. Bize gerçek ihtiyaç maddelerinin bir acil kredi e-posta yoluyla ulaşın: globalfinance989@gmail.com veya numara Whatsapp: + 33644662481 (biricik elde edilebilir için Whatsapp).
      Anlayışınız için teşekkür ederiz.

      Delete
    2. Bu yeni yılda hedeflerinize ulaşmanıza yardımcı olmak amacıyla özel kredi sunuyor.
      Biz kredi teklifinde konusunda uzmanlaşmış bir özel kurum vardır. Bizim kredi hızlı ve güvenilir yoktur. Biz en 3.000 € € 7,000,000 düşük faiz işçiler için % 2 ve işsiz insanlar için % 3 arasında değişen kredi vermek. Bize gerçek ihtiyaç maddelerinin bir acil kredi e-posta yoluyla ulaşın: globalfinance989@gmail.com veya numara Whatsapp: + 33644662481 (biricik elde edilebilir için Whatsapp).
      Anlayışınız için teşekkür ederiz.

      Delete
  7. LOL

    I read #2 as ball still being in play. No need to ask player to leave field while ball is still in play (assuming player can be treated on touchline while doctor stays off). If play is subsequently stopped and further treatment is required, player leaves of course.

    #7 -- IMO, your solution is incorrect. Santa did not make an incorrect decision or an error. He simply did not see something and received new information after the final whistle for an event that happened prior to the whistle. There is no reason not to show a red card to player. The LOTG do not specifically forbid it. In fact, the spirit of the LOTG would expect Santa to show the card. A careful read of Law 5 "Disciplinary Action" implies that a card should be shown here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my impression too, when I read the rule. But there is no possibility to correspondend about the final decision of the judges. ;)

      Delete
    2. The solution for #7 is based on what the IFAB told the German football association DFB for exactly this kind of scenario. It seems as if the IFAB deems not taking any decision (even if something was not seen at all) as being a decision in itself. And this decision cannot be changed if the match has ended. We can argue whether that makes sense, but that's what the IFAB obviously wants.

      As for #2 - check what is written above: "After nothing relevant happens in the first half, the game has to be interrupted twice (!) for a longer time in the second half: ..."
      So the ball was not in play.

      Delete
    3. #2: Your wording in #2 "allows play to flow" contradicts the statement preceding #1 and #2 that you quoted. Clearly, if play is stopped, player is ordered to leave pitch if treatment is required.

      #7: Nice of IFAB to share that with GFA and not anyone else. Considering common sense applied in many other aspects of LOTG, this one appears to contradict common sense and the purpose of a red card (a visual display of an act that requires a sending off).

      Many years ago, I had a similar situation. RC offence with seconds to go in tied match just outside PA. Victim's team had 100% obvious goal scoring opportunity and I gave advantage. Keeper made unbelievable save and parried ball to corner flag. Final whistle. Player shown red card.

      Not showing red card (and only reporting) would have led to a lot of confusion for an obvious offence seen by more than one person.

      The card is simply a visual explanation of the referee's decision and showing it certainly contradicts nothing in the LOTG. Why IFAB would not want it shown and why IFAB would communicate this to only one Association befuddles me.

      Delete
    4. On #2: "Allows play to flow" was understood properly by almost all participants as this concerns the decision of the referee (offensive foul, defensive foul, no foul/play-on). But I understand that it should have been written clearer.

      On #7: Nice that you made these experiences and I also agree with what you said, but we are not discussing the most sensible solution in the context of this quiz game. But the one which is either prescribed by the LotG or wanted by the institution making the laws.

      Delete
  8. Bu yeni yılda hedeflerinize ulaşmanıza yardımcı olmak amacıyla özel kredi sunuyor.
    Biz kredi teklifinde konusunda uzmanlaşmış bir özel kurum vardır. Bizim kredi hızlı ve güvenilir yoktur. Biz en 3.000 € € 7,000,000 düşük faiz işçiler için % 2 ve işsiz insanlar için % 3 arasında değişen kredi vermek. Bize gerçek ihtiyaç maddelerinin bir acil kredi e-posta yoluyla ulaşın: globalfinance989@gmail.com veya numara Whatsapp: + 33644662481 (biricik elde edilebilir için Whatsapp).
    Anlayışınız için teşekkür ederiz.

    ReplyDelete

Copyright © . The 3rd Team
Theme Template by BTDesigner · Powered by Blogger