I have to say if Pawlett is found guilty, he should be banned and fined with the rules immediately changed in Scotland so that in future, cheating to secure a material change to a game, results in points being awarded to the aggrieved party. That is the basic damages principle surely in Scot's Law? 

 

I have real sympathy with referees. They do not have eyes in the backs of their heads so often miss ''off the ball'' incidents. Equally, being at the wrong angle, can create a wrong impression. I really hope Pawlett is found guilty and then ideally be required by his employers - Aberdeen FC - to justify in public why he did what he did. 

 

Brown at Dundee was fully justified in my opinion of his criticism of the decision. If the compliance officer agrees that the referee was cheated alongside Dundee, then Brown could apologise to the referee and vice versa.

What i cant abide is McInnes defending him. Pawlett has done this on multiple occasions and the only difference on this occasion is the consequences of his actions, it relegated a football club. I hope he gets a banned, fined and the next time someone halfs him i hope its ignored, his reputation will fall before him. This kind of behavior is ruining the game. 

There are times when players go down too easily but where there is clearly contact.  In those cases it is genuinely difficult for referees to be sure whether it is a foul or not, far less whether it is simulation. Pawlett's dive was obvious and there can be no excuse for it.  The chances are that Dundee were doomed in any case, but that is not the point.  If we are to have games won on merit, then cheating in all its forms needs to be severely punished - not just in the game it occurs in but with a small points deduction on top.  If that was to happen the clubs would soon make sure their players played by the rules and the game would be a lot better for it

I don't think that matches can be re-refereed retrospectively and results altered.

 

However, I do think these cheats should be dealt with much more severely with a red card followed by an automatic one match ban or a two match ban if the attempt to cheat takes place in the opponent's penalty area. I f the perpetrator gets away with it during the match thus dishonestly affecting the outcome then these bans should be doubled and doubled again in the case of each repeat offence which in Pawlett's case would probably leave him sidelined until 2014.

 

I agree that McInnes attempting to defend the indefensible was just plain wrong. He would have gained much more respect and credibility by being honest or, if he couldn't bring himself to do that, to simply say nothing. For him to say that it looked like a legitimate penalty made him look like a fool and a hypocrite.

 

That said, I have a lot of sympathy for referees. I thought that both Ojamaa and our own Nick Ross went down under very little pressure on Saturday and, although there was maybe enough doubt not to book either for diving, I was certainly of the opinion there was enough doubt not to award a penalty in either case.

T here must be more input from those on the line, Assistant Referees.

Very often they are in much better positions to see what is going on yet most often they ignore what they see and deliberately keep quiet leaving the Referee with 'his decision made. Why? Are they scared they will upset the ref ? or feel they are not qualified to point something out to the ref? It only takes moments to discuss situations and most referees I'm sure would appreciate their input at difficult times to ensure the right call is made.

Yes honesty is sadly lacking in the game nowadays it seems to be all about money!!!

Of course it's wrong for MacInnes to defend Pawlett but he's hardly going to come out and berate his own player when he's just in the door. A lot of managers will defend their players to the hilt despite what the majority say. It's part of management to protect your team.

Of course it's wrong for MacInnes to defend Pawlett but he's hardly going to come out and berate his own player when he's just in the door. A lot of managers will defend their players to the hilt despite what the majority say. It's part of management to protect your team.

Like Stuart McCall?

I agree, McCall got it right and enhanced his credibiity. McInnes got it wrong and damaged his.

Surely a new manager would want to enforce to his players that these sort of shenanigans would play no part in his regime. All he has done is pave the way for his players to do it again. Epic fail for McInnes on this one if you ask me

bughtmaster, while you are correct in principle, I will tell you a story from my own refereeing experience.

I was assistant in an Austrian 5th tier match when the away goalie tackled a forward inside the area about 15 yards away from me, clearly playing the ball for a throw-in which I signalled. To everybody's surprise the main ref who was running on the other side of the pitch and had about 10 players between him and the action gave a penalty. I tried everything to show him that he was wrong, stayed on the sideline instead of going to the place the assistant has to stand at a penalty, waved the signal for throw-in and even tried to call him over, but he didn't even look at me despite several away players asking him to talk to me. Assistants cannot leave the sideline to run over to the main referee to tell them what they have seen, the walking has to be done the other way round, and with a good reason.

After the match, the supervisor came into our changing room and asked the ref what I had signalled in that penalty situtation. The answer was that he had been that sure of his decision that he hadn't been interested in my signalling.

 

Of course it's wrong for MacInnes to defend Pawlett but he's hardly going to come out and berate his own player when he's just in the door. A lot of managers will defend their players to the hilt despite what the majority say. It's part of management to protect your team.

Like Stuart McCall?

 

 

McCall, as far as I know, isn't just in the door at Motherwell. As I say, not all managers do it but a lot do. Even if it's just the classic "I didn't see it" or "I was too far away from the incident" line.

 

Surely a new manager would want to enforce to his players that these sort of shenanigans would play no part in his regime. All he has done is pave the way for his players to do it again. Epic fail for McInnes on this one if you ask me

 

Do you know for certain that McInnes hasn't spoken to Pawlett in a more suitable setting to let him know what he really thinks? i.e. away from the glare of the media

bughtmaster, while you are correct in principle, I will tell you a story from my own refereeing experience.

I was assistant in an Austrian 5th tier match when the away goalie tackled a forward inside the area about 15 yards away from me, clearly playing the ball for a throw-in which I signalled. To everybody's surprise the main ref who was running on the other side of the pitch and had about 10 players between him and the action gave a penalty. I tried everything to show him that he was wrong, stayed on the sideline instead of going to the place the assistant has to stand at a penalty, waved the signal for throw-in and even tried to call him over, but he didn't even look at me despite several away players asking him to talk to me. Assistants cannot leave the sideline to run over to the main referee to tell them what they have seen, the walking has to be done the other way round, and with a good reason.

After the match, the supervisor came into our changing room and asked the ref what I had signalled in that penalty situtation. The answer was that he had been that sure of his decision that he hadn't been interested in my signalling.

 

Basic rule for the referee is that he makes the decision and is guided by others (i.e. his assistants).

 

In this occasion however he should have spoken with you to understand what you had seen and thereafter re-affirm his decision or otherwise. In addition to the common sense aspect of this it also helps diffuse the situation to have officials conferring.

 

Higher level assistants are trained and should be briefed prior to the game that they should support the ref in the decision being made if they are overruled.

Thanks rainbow, I kind of suspected there would be cases like that where the '' I know best '' syndrome would play it's part. Something else to be looked at when the revolution starts!!

Maybe one day, possibly not in my lifetime, fairness and honesty will return to the game I sincerely hope so as diving and running into players to fake a foul is rife in the game as well as shirt pulling, elbowing and even punching whilst jumping to head the ball. 

Bye the way what happened to the old obstruction rule? that appears to have disappeared altogether.

Surely a new manager would want to enforce to his players that these sort of shenanigans would play no part in his regime. All he has done is pave the way for his players to do it again. Epic fail for McInnes on this one if you ask me

 

Do you know for certain that McInnes hasn't spoken to Pawlett in a more suitable setting to let him know what he really thinks? i.e. away from the glare of the media

 

 

Of course I don't know, I'm all for a manager protecting a player in the media when it is warranted but for him to back a player in public and berate him behind closed doors would be hugely hypocritical and in my opinion hugely unprofessional

I don't think it is at all. McInnes protects his player from all the flak he is getting but has a word with him away from the spotlight and tells him to cut it out. Some managers will berate their players in public others won't. They all have different styles and maybe this is how McInnes wants to work.

 

Anyway, I see Aberdeen have chosen not to appeal the decision to hand down a two match ban for Pawlett. Translation - we know he's guilty so we're going to fudge some line about an appeal being fruitless when in fact we know it's what he deserves.

I have to disagree with you RIG. It would have been fine if McInnes had stayed silent and then had a word with Pawlett in private although not as refreshing as being open and honest.

 

However, he actively backed the player when the whole world could see it was blatant cheating.

 

Anyway, I see Aberdeen have chosen not to appeal the decision to hand down a two match ban for Pawlett. Translation - we know he's guilty so we're going to fudge some line about an appeal being fruitless when in fact we know it's what he deserves.

Probably because an appeal could result in worse punishment bearing in mind its the second time the lads been cited by SFA for simulation. He was also yellow carded for diving in january.

I see John Brown has been cited for his comments about the ref.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22458139

 

 

Seems to me like there should be no case to answer. As the SFA have also cited Pawlett, and he appears to have accepted this, then it is means the SFA agree that he ref got it wrong so they are agreeing with Bomber, but still taking him to task for saying it.

 

The rule is written so that even if a manager is right (with SFA confirmation of the fact) about a ref, they are not allowed to say so.

Pawlett could have owned up, but didn't because he's a cheat. I know it's simplistic but he may have cost someone a job, be it the canteen lady or John Brown. I feel for Dundee fans. I think the goal should be chalked off and the punishment given. If it was an illegible player this would have bigger repercussions win, lose or draw. Ok, this is not a bureaucratic matter, but it is still potentially as damaging/unfair. If you cheat in an exam, it's null and void, so why not in a game?

I don't expect anyone / everyone to agree with me Kingsmills so no offence taken. If people did always agree with me the world would be a very miserable place!

 

As for Dundee, they have been relegated because of their consistently poor performances across the season, not because of one incident.

Edited May 9, 201313 yr by RiG

 

Higher level assistants are trained and should be briefed prior to the game that they should support the ref in the decision being made if they are overruled.

 

 

That's what I did in the end. When I saw that he wouldn't come over and the ball was taken to the spot I went to the place I was supposed to and watched he keeper during the penalty execution, refusing to talk to the team officials at the sideline about the situation.

For anyone that is interested, they can test their knowledge of the Laws of the Game here:

http://areferee.com/soccer.php

And can see the current laws on the FIFA website here:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf

I did both the 10 question and 20 question tests (several times) and I cannot believe how rusty I am! If I were to consider taking up refereeing again, in any capacity, I would need to pay attention in class. :-)

Funny what you learn with these things:

 

"Offside", states that there is no offside infringement if a player receives the ball directly from...

a. a goal kick

b. a corner kick

c. a throw in

d. all of the above

 

I got that one wrong!