Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,139
- Post Likes
- 2,155
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-who-put-it-out/2830275/
I understand the concept of C&O when it relates to an offence - a possible throw forward that is not C&O is play on, possible offside that is not C&O is play on ,etc.
But the author of the quote above has, I think, extended the concept beyond where it was meant to go. While the comment "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out" is accurate, it is equally accurate to say "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball while his foot was in touch".
And to characterise an official's judgement call as "a form of dishonesty" is just offensive.
The assistant referee did not have thew advantage of a slow-motion replay but it is always wise to use the principle of clear and obvious. It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out, because that did not happen. The second principle involved is the absolute ban on guessing. Guess and you get it right, you are lucky; guess and you get it wrong and you deserve censure. It is after all a form of dishonesty.
I understand the concept of C&O when it relates to an offence - a possible throw forward that is not C&O is play on, possible offside that is not C&O is play on ,etc.
But the author of the quote above has, I think, extended the concept beyond where it was meant to go. While the comment "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out" is accurate, it is equally accurate to say "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball while his foot was in touch".
And to characterise an official's judgement call as "a form of dishonesty" is just offensive.