A new low in football officiating...

[LaxtonLad]

Again, as I've said above, the problem is probably more with the rule rather than the referee, but what is football if it's not an emotional game? Who defines what "over-celebrating" is? Nobody had even heard of the term 20-30 years ago. For example, is it not understandable that if a team scores a last minute equaliser in high pressure game, the celebration may be greater and more extravagant than if they scored at another time in a perhaps less significant game? Of course officials should be able to take circumstances into account. What do we want? A game played by robots?

You can’t have a rule with the caveat of what a particular referee thinks is emotional and what is not, can you imagine the uproar if he lets one player do it saying “He’s emotional because his boss has just died” and five minutes later books another because “He’s got nothing to be emotional about”. Fans want referees to be consistent, not pitying one side over another for emotional reasons.

[jackal2]

You can’t have a rule with the caveat of what a particular referee thinks is emotional and what is not, can you imagine the uproar if he lets one player do it saying “He’s emotional because his boss has just died” and five minutes later books another because “He’s got nothing to be emotional about”. Fans want referees to be consistent, not pitying one side over another for emotional reasons.

It used to be said that players/fans want referees to be consistent within games, so they can at least deduce whether a referee's style is strict or lenient. In truth, current referees cannot even achieve that level of consistency, let alone achieve a uniform level of officiating across all games. The footballing authorities bring in all these prescriptive laws to try to achieve this and turn refs into virtual robots, but it will never work because of human frailties, individual personalities and some rank poor training to boot.

Today, if Lee Probert had chosen to turn a blind eye to Leicester's celebration, I doubt that even Neil Warnock (the harshest of all critics of referees) would have complained, especially given his comments at the press conference prior to the game. There are, very occasionally, situations which arise where the normal rules are not appropriate and a level of discretion is needed, and today was one.

[kill_the_drum]

Leicester’s manager has applauded the ref for being professional.
That pretty much sums it up!

[jackal2]

Leicester’s manager has applauded the ref for being professional.
That pretty much sums it up!

More likely it sums up that Leicester got the result anyway and Puel diplomatically decided not to make an issue of it.

I notice Lee Probert managed to apply the letter of the law to book Demarai Gray for removing his shirt to reveal a tribute, but completely missed an obvious handball and sending off earlier in the game.

Still, who cares about referees getting the real footballing decisions right when they can rigorously apply pointless laws the authorities make up for fun?

The powers that be in football today wouldn't know what professionalism was if it ran up and bit them on the a*se. They're at best a bunch of buffoons, and at worst a gang of liars and leeches, from the top of FIFA downwards.

[kill_the_drum]

More likely it sums up that Leicester got the result anyway and Puel diplomatically decided not to make an issue of it.

I notice Lee Probert managed to apply the letter of the law to book Demarai Gray for removing his shirt to reveal a tribute, but completely missed an obvious handball and sending off earlier in the game.

Still, who cares about referees getting the real footballing decisions right when they can rigorously apply pointless laws the authorities make up for fun?

The powers that be in football today wouldn't know what professionalism was if it ran up and bit them on the a*se. They're at best a bunch of buffoons, and at worst a gang of liars and leeches, from the top of FIFA downwards.

I’m struggling to see what your issue is? Is it with the rule or the fact the ref applied it? You seem to be swinging between the two!
Leicester, Cardiff and the ref all had a job to do yesterday, and they did it.
You can’t gift a team a potential advantage because something emotional has happened off the pitch. Where do you draw the line with that?
The fact the ref may have got a decision wrong earlier in the game has no relevance whatsoever.

[i961pie]

More likely it sums up that Leicester got the result anyway and Puel diplomatically decided not to make an issue of it.

I notice Lee Probert managed to apply the letter of the law to book Demarai Gray for removing his shirt to reveal a tribute, but completely missed an obvious handball and sending off earlier in the game.

Still, who cares about referees getting the real footballing decisions right when they can rigorously apply pointless laws the authorities make up for fun?

The powers that be in football today wouldn't know what professionalism was if it ran up and bit them on the a*se. They're at best a bunch of buffoons, and at worst a gang of liars and leeches, from the top of FIFA downwards.

Looks like you are on your own with this one, the Leicester manager told his players before the game to be professional and so expected the ref to be the same.

[irishpete]

jackal2,your sounding like AH & his issues with speeding. The rules are the rules.Yes,it's a stupid law,that should not be even in the game, but came in due to Players who at the end of the day most couldn't give 2 fecks who they play for as long as they get plenty of £££s.

[Notts78]

Just seen this on MoTD. In the immediate moment Gray whips his top off, the referee was in the background, and you can see in his face what that moment meant, I don’t think he wanted to do it, but had to.

[jackal2]

I’m struggling to see what your issue is? Is it with the rule or the fact the ref applied it? You seem to be swinging between the two!
Leicester, Cardiff and the ref all had a job to do yesterday, and they did it.
You can’t gift a team a potential advantage because something emotional has happened off the pitch. Where do you draw the line with that?
The fact the ref may have got a decision wrong earlier in the game has no relevance whatsoever.

Ultimately, my issue is with the rule.

As I've said above, I don't know why so many players feel compelled to remove their shirts during a celebration, but for whatever reason it seems to be a reflex celebration for some in the emotion of the moment, and as far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the actual laws of our land to say you cannot remove your shirt (especially if you still have a vest on underneath! ).

So, first of all, why should football authorities even be able to enforce "laws" which have no relevance to the actual game and effectively impinge upon individual freedom of expression? If a player removes his shirt to reveal an offensive message or makes an offensive gesture then yes, that can be loosely interpreted as offending decency in a public place and detrimental to the game, so it would be worth a booking.

But that was certainly not the case here. Demarai Gray removed his shirt to reveal a heartfelt tribute to the deceased Leicester Chairman which I'm sure reflected the feelings of most if not all in the stadium and the wider football community. In no way, shape or form can his action be deemed to be offensive or "bringing the game into disrepute", so what purpose is the rule serving? If it cannot allow for discretion in a circumstance such as this, then the 'law' is clearly an ass.

And by the way, if you want to find significant and true examples of "bringing the game of football into disrepute", on a frequent basis, then look no further than the organisation that introduced this 'mandatory ruling' in the first place: FIFA. They have been proven in the past to be both incompetent and corrupt, so who are they are they or their national satellites to make any such laws or judgements?

Was Lee Probert being "professional" by applying the rule? Technically, yes he was, though as I've said above, the explanation that you were "just following orders" or "just applying the law" is not always an adequate defence (particularly at War Crimes Tribunals!)

I can empathise that the referee probably did feel he was in an impossible situation and desperately didn't want to book the player, so I concentrate most of my ire on the authorities who put him in that situation. However, I do find it ironic that Mr Probert managed to rigorously apply a pointless rule which actually has no relevance to football, whilst failing to identify the most obvious infringement of a rule that actually is relevant to football, namely a handling offence in the area which should have resulted in a penalty and a sending off. If we're talking about professionalism, fairness and protecting the best interests and integrity of the game, which decision was more important one to get right?

If nothing else, it demonstrates that referees are being asked to concentrate on the wrong priorities. The football authorities need to spend less time creating new rules and regulations that are irrelevant to the game, and focus instead on ensuring that their referees are sufficiently competent to get the genuine, relevant footballing decisions right. They could actually help those referees by giving them a degree of discretion around the interpretation of non-essential issues such as what is or is not deemed to be "over-celebrating", a phrase I don't even recall existing when I started watching football. Instead of asking refs to apply some sort of abstract one-size-fits-all rule, simply ask them to be consistent for both sides within the game itself.

If the aim of all these rigid and superfluous laws is to create an army of refereeing robots who deliver consistency throughout entire seasons or tournaments, it fails anyway. One glance at the statistics for referees in this or any other recent season will quickly tell you that there are still strict referees and lenient referees, just as there always have been, because no amount of law-making will ever completely iron out the human interpretation factor. All the football authorities have actually achieved is to make their referees' job even harder, and in certain circumstances oblige them to make fools of themselves.

[dam617]

Ultimately, my issue is with the rule.

As I've said above, I don't know why so many players feel compelled to remove their shirts during a celebration, but for whatever reason it seems to be a reflex celebration for some in the emotion of the moment, and as far as I'm aware, there is nothing in the actual laws of our land to say you cannot remove your shirt (especially if you still have a vest on underneath! ).

So, first of all, why should football authorities even be able to enforce "laws" which have no relevance to the actual game and effectively impinge upon individual freedom of expression? If a player removes his shirt to reveal an offensive message or makes an offensive gesture then yes, that can be loosely interpreted as offending decency in a public place and detrimental to the game, so it would be worth a booking.

But that was certainly not the case here. Demarai Gray removed his shirt to reveal a heartfelt tribute to the deceased Leicester Chairman which I'm sure reflected the feelings of most if not all in the stadium and the wider football community. In no way, shape or form can his action be deemed to be offensive or "bringing the game into disrepute", so what purpose is the rule serving? If it cannot allow for discretion in a circumstance such as this, then the 'law' is clearly an ass.

And by the way, if you want to find significant and true examples of "bringing the game of football into disrepute", on a frequent basis, then look no further than the organisation that introduced this 'mandatory ruling' in the first place: FIFA. They have been proven in the past to be both incompetent and corrupt, so who are they are they or their national satellites to make any such laws or judgements?

Was Lee Probert being "professional" by applying the rule? Technically, yes he was, though as I've said above, the explanation that you were "just following orders" or "just applying the law" is not always an adequate defence (particularly at War Crimes Tribunals!)

I can empathise that the referee probably did feel he was in an impossible situation and desperately didn't want to book the player, so I concentrate most of my ire on the authorities who put him in that situation. However, I do find it ironic that Mr Probert managed to rigorously apply a pointless rule which actually has no relevance to football, whilst failing to identify the most obvious infringement of a rule that actually is relevant to football, namely a handling offence in the area which should have resulted in a penalty and a sending off. If we're talking about professionalism, fairness and protecting the best interests and integrity of the game, which decision was more important one to get right?

If nothing else, it demonstrates that referees are being asked to concentrate on the wrong priorities. The football authorities need to spend less time creating new rules and regulations that are irrelevant to the game, and focus instead on ensuring that their referees are sufficiently competent to get the genuine, relevant footballing decisions right. They could actually help those referees by giving them a degree of discretion around the interpretation of non-essential issues such as what is or is not deemed to be "over-celebrating", a phrase I don't even recall existing when I started watching football. Instead of asking refs to apply some sort of abstract one-size-fits-all rule, simply ask them to be consistent for both sides within the game itself.

If the aim of all these rigid and superfluous laws is to create an army of refereeing robots who deliver consistency throughout entire seasons or tournaments, it fails anyway. One glance at the statistics for referees in this or any other recent season will quickly tell you that there are still strict referees and lenient referees, just as there always have been, because no amount of law-making will ever completely iron out the human interpretation factor. All the football authorities have actually achieved is to make their referees' job even harder, and in certain circumstances oblige them to make fools of themselves.

It's got nothing to do with robots, it's got everything to do with preventing players from wearing undershirts with 'provocative' statements written on them.
In today's Trigger Happy environment you can't be too careful - I remember a player lifting his shirt with 'Free Tibet' on it and a team-mate stood alongside him and revealed 'with every purchase' on his.
Caused a riot.