Referee Quiz

[cowshedphil]

http://www.glendalefc.myby.co.uk/idfl/quiz/

[uberman]

10/15

[Dunning1874]

7. The quiz was a steaming pile of shite, as some of the questions were vague and didn't give all the details required to answer properly, and some, like the last question, are open to interpretation from referee to referee, as the scenario sounds like a clear goalscoring opportunity but some may say no depending on defenders making it back, which wasn't made clear.

[Wug]

11/15. I've been booked for spitting before.

[mighty meadow]

http://www.glendalefc.myby.co.uk/idfl/quiz/

11/15

[Santana]

12/15. Who knew about the wind blowing in the goal from your direct free-kick was a corner?

[magoo82]

11/15

The wording of the questions was designed to trip people up though. If they'd shown clips of the situations they were describing then I would have got 15 tbh.

[Savage Henry]

I'm not convinced number 15 is correct. I got 11

[RedV]

I'm not convinced number 15 is correct. I got 11

Of course it's correct - there are any number of possible reasons why it's not necessarily a goal scoring opportunity and therefore a red card.

15/15 incidentally. I'm intrigued as to which particular questions people found ambiguous?

[David W]

I can't remember the first couple of questions but just about every answer after then was false

[Skyline Drifter]

12/15. Who knew about the wind blowing in the goal from your direct free-kick was a corner?

I did. Just as if a goal kick blows back into your own goal it's also a corner. In fact if you deliberately knock thew ball into your own net from a free kick it would be a corner too.

I'm not convinced number 15 is correct. I got 11

Likewise, see below.

Of course it's correct - there are any number of possible reasons why it's not necessarily a goal scoring opportunity and therefore a red card.

15/15 incidentally. I'm intrigued as to which particular questions people found ambiguous?

Depends how you interpret things. I think a number of them are a little ambiguous.

The first one "the assistant should indicate if he see a foul" I interpreted to mean "that the referee hasn't seen". I thought it was somewhat a given that he shouldn't indicate ones the referee HAS seen. So I put true. Because he should indicate fouls the referee hasn't seen. It's a poor question.

Likewise 13, "you are not offside if there is a defender on the goal-line" doesn't provide enough info to answer it properly because you need to know where the keeper is. I got it right because by then I'd worked out the way it was angling the questions but you cannot actually acnswer that question correctly because either is possible.

I also thought 14 was misleading "A player who has a blood wound should leave the field immediately". I took it that we were answering AS the referee and therefore the answer is Yes, he should. We all know that you aren't supposed to leave the field without permission. Really that question is tripping you up with language semantics, not failure to know the rules.

Finally, 15 - For me there isn't enough info to answer the question because, back to goal or not, if there's no-one within 40 yards it would be a "clear goalscoring chance". I know what the answer says and, if it's right that the rules say you have to be moving towards goal, then I genuinely wasn't aware of that. I'm away to check the referee rules though because I thought that was a commentator's urban myth rather like the "last man" nonsense. Are you aware that it says if you get it wrong that the player "must be heading towards goal" for it to be a sending off?

[Skyline Drifter]

Finally, 15 - For me there isn't enough info to answer the question because, back to goal or not, if there's no-one within 40 yards it would be a "clear goalscoring chance". I know what the answer says and, if it's right that the rules say you have to be moving towards goal, then I genuinely wasn't aware of that. I'm away to check the referee rules though because I thought that was a commentator's urban myth rather like the "last man" nonsense. Are you aware that it says if you get it wrong that the player "must be heading towards goal" for it to be a sending off?

Ok, having checked I stand corrected on that one. I wasn't actually aware that it's only considered a clear goalscoring chance if you are moving towards goal but that's what it says.

Seems a bit daft to me, in effect what it's saying is even if the striker and the goalkeeper are the only two players in the half, if the keeper trips the striker up whilst he's knocking the ball wide of him (and therefore temporarily towards the corner flag) then it's not denial of a goalscoring opportunity under the rules.

Anyway, you live and learn.

[ZCARS]

go to the sfa website and do

the referee quiz it is more informative

[RedV]

Ok, having checked I stand corrected on that one. I wasn't actually aware that it's only considered a clear goalscoring chance if you are moving towards goal but that's what it says.

Seems a bit daft to me, in effect what it's saying is even if the striker and the goalkeeper are the only two players in the half, if the keeper trips the striker up whilst he's knocking the ball wide of him (and therefore temporarily towards the corner flag) then it's not denial of a goalscoring opportunity under the rules.

Anyway, you live and learn.

The thing is though, the whole thing is obviously designed to dispel some of the commonly-held myths that football supporters cling to - hence the way it's all worded.

It's simply pointing out that many of the things fans (and players and managers, sadly enough) think should automatically apply are only applicable depending entirely on the circumstances. There are plenty of fans who think the keeper handling the ball outside the area is an automatic red card, for example. Or the abuse linesmen take week-in-week-out for not flagging for fouls that the ref has already seen - "did you no' see that one then, linesman" etc when he's actually not supposed to flag in those circumstances.

As for the end one, there are plenty of scenarios that could occur which would mean it's still not a goal-scoring opportunity - ten opposition players between him and the goal-line for example, or the incident happening at an impossible angle from goal.

[Guest The Phoenix]

15/15 incidentally. I'm intrigued as to which particular questions people found ambiguous?

I'm intrigued that you got 15/15

The questions weren't ambiguous but several lacked sufficient information to accurately assess the correct decision.

[RedV]

I'm intrigued that you got 15/15

The questions weren't ambiguous but several lacked sufficient information to accurately assess the correct decision.

Not quite - the entire point of the quiz, as far as I can see, was to demonstrate that many things people expect the ref to do are dependent on a set of circumstances they may not be taking into account. See above post.

[Savage Henry]

As for the end one, there are plenty of scenarios that could occur which would mean it's still not a goal-scoring opportunity - ten opposition players between him and the goal-line for example, or the incident happening at an impossible angle from goal.

The way to get 15 is by going for the answer most people would think to be right.

Equally, I still think number 15 is fundamentally wrong, in the basis that it would appear to be preventing a goal-scoring opportunity. The question doesn't state that it is or it isn't, but one could reasonably infer that it is.

[Skyline Drifter]

The thing is though, the whole thing is obviously designed to dispel some of the commonly-held myths that football supporters cling to - hence the way it's all worded.

It's simply pointing out that many of the things fans (and players and managers, sadly enough) think should automatically apply are only applicable depending entirely on the circumstances. There are plenty of fans who think the keeper handling the ball outside the area is an automatic red card, for example. Or the abuse linesmen take week-in-week-out for not flagging for fouls that the ref has already seen - "did you no' see that one then, linesman" etc when he's actually not supposed to flag in those circumstances.

As for the end one, there are plenty of scenarios that could occur which would mean it's still not a goal-scoring opportunity - ten opposition players between him and the goal-line for example, or the incident happening at an impossible angle from goal.

Maybe, and I accept I was wrong about the last one, but I still think the first three I mentioned are badly worded and could easily be read either way, which is what you asked (which ones are ambiguous?). I don't think there's any doubt the blood one is ambiguous for instance depending on whether you are answering it 'as the ref' (which is what I presumed) or 'as the player'.

Also, whilst I agree there are thousands of people who think a keeper handling outside the box is an automatic red card (nothing ambiguous about that question by the way and I got it correct), I can't say in 25 years of watching football home or away that I've often heard a linesman get gyp for not flagging fouls the referee has already seen.

Equally, I still think number 15 is fundamentally wrong, in the basis that it would appear to be preventing a goal-scoring opportunity. The question doesn't state that it is or it isn't, but one could reasonably infer that it is.

Well, no, having checked, you couldn't. Since the rules DO say you have to be moving towards goal then there's no scenario that it's a sending off (unless it was also violent conduct of course). It's certainly not a sending off under the 'denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity' provisions.

That's not to say it shouldn't be. I think that's a potentially daft clause to be honest. At it's most literal, if a striker is standing still in the six yard box and the ball comes toward him only for him to be poleaxed by a defneder before it gets to him then quite literally it's not a sending off as he's NOT moving towards goal at the time.

[Yoss]

Right, here's one that cropped up in the game I watched today:

Ball is running out towards the goal line, chased by forward and covering defender. The forward gets to it in time to get a touch, so the ball stays in play, but the momentum of both players takes them off the pitch and both finish on the ground. The forward is quickest to react, gets to his feet and looks all set to get back onto the field in time to get to the ball first, but before he can do so the defender brings him down. (Both players are still off the field when this happens.)

Decision?

[The Ginger Prince]

Right, here's one that cropped up in the game I watched today:

Ball is running out towards the goal line, chased by forward and covering defender. The forward gets to it in time to get a touch, so the ball stays in play, but the momentum of both players takes them off the pitch and both finish on the ground. The forward is quickest to react, gets to his feet and looks all set to get back onto the field in time to get to the ball first, but before he can do so the defender brings him down. (Both players are still off the field when this happens.)

Decision?

Play on.