|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
SoccerGirl, Excellent first post. That's a level of maturity that would solve a lot of problems on the field. You just have to exercise that same attitude toward other posters...right, wrong, or just plain goofy, don't get drawn into a less mature argument that detracts from your game! 
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 263
Corner Kick
|
|
Corner Kick
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 263 |
Ohhhh, you've missed a lot.
Or as Hobo would say, "uze mizzed a lott".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 3 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 263
Corner Kick
|
|
Corner Kick
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 263 |
Oops, sorry. That was intended for soccervol.
I don't think you've missed anything.
Or as Hobo would say- "ya ain't mizzed nuttin".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 824
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 824 |
Lol...this was some nice time killing reading while on business in Charlotte.....
If you are going to argue a point, at least get factual information to back up your side.....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67 |
Quote:
Arrgy...so, let me get this straight...you're saying that with you as a referee, the way we should look at it is, if you call it wrong in the first 10 minutes, call it wrong the same way near the half, and call it the same wrong way throughout the game, then that makes you right? I mean, I totally understand that every official looks at the game in a little bit different way, and it's the coaches' and players' responsibility to adjust to the way the game is being called...but that doesn't necessarily make the way the game is being called RIGHT. It's pretty stupid to keep driving into potholes you know are there when you can drive around them, too, but that doesn't mean it's not the highway department's responsibility to fix the holes as well.
Please, if you will, explain with a little more clarity what you mean by "a foul is not always a foul." My reading of it is, "a foul is only a foul if I choose to call it a foul."
Again, I understand and appreciate that every crew of officials will call a game slightly differently and that it is our job to adjust accordingly. I'll ask you to also understand and appreciate that if different officials call games in a dramatically different way, it is very confusing to the players who are trying to learn their limitations and abilities. Reasonably consistent officiating based on some universal standards isn't too much to ask for.
Your attitude seems to be very clear, though...the decision is all yours and those who don't understand that are uncivilized rabble. That's ok. Perhaps your wording was a bit ill-thought-out, and you're not as arrogant as you sound or as demeaning towards others as you come across.
I will say this, though...if that is your true attitude toward South Carolina soccer and little Suzy from "Dumpwater, South Carolina," then I would respectfully request that you stick to making your money in your other five states and refrain from taking assignments in my little Dumpwater.
We'd hate for you to become soiled among the unwashed masses, after all.
What do you mean by "calling it wrong?" Calling what wrong, exactly? How much force is necessary for a push in the back to become a foul? How far away from a players body does their arms have to be in order for a handball to be called? My favorite, how many steps away from where the ball went out can someone throw the ball back into play? These and others are the grey are questions that the referee should be consistant about.
These are the questions that coaches and fans can not answer, and get the most upset about in a game. The rule book says that the player will throw the ball in at the point at which it went out, it happens almost NEVER in a game and yet no one gets upset about it.
A foul is a foul only if it is acknowledged by the referee either by stopping play to address it or by allowing the play to continue and verbally acknowledge to the players to "play on."
Referees are given guidelines: "The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the
part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."
A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67
Throw In
|
|
Throw In
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 67 |
Quote:
Until there is a mercy rule in place, I would argue again that score, dominance, gender, size, skilled club players vs not so-skilled club players (not sure why you even made that point but whatever), etc in theory should not matter in a game for you the official.
Here is a major part of the problem. What fans and coaches do not understand is the following quote from the advice to Referees:
"The referee’s decision as to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players."
What is a foul, and what is a trifiling offense that should not be called, is to be determined by the skill level of the players. Whether you like it or not, that is what we as referees are told to do, and most good referees take that into consideration when doing a match.
To answer your question about the mercy rule, obviously you are not looking at it from the player point of you, only your own narrow view. What do you think those kids are thinking when the score is 10-0 at half time and the other team is embarassing them by playing keep away for 40 minutes? That isn't competition, that isn't a learning experience, that's being humiliated and no one wants to see that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Valid point...there is a lot of necessary subjectivity in officiating. Still, to use your example--I think we both agree that a push in the back is not considered legal contact according to the rules/laws of the game (depending on NFHS or FIFA rulebooks, respectively). How much force is necessary for a push in the back to become a foul? According to the rules, any amount should suffice, if the act is committed with intent...the relative strength exerted does not change the decision to commit the action.
The question is, then, how much force is necessary to make the difference between a foul that should be whistled and a foul that should fall under "let 'em play" to avoid "trifling" or taking advantage away from the team that is fouled but continues their attack nonetheless?
So back to what I mean by "calling it wrong," using your example.
Player A is dribbling down the sideline. Defender B, knowing she is beaten, pushes A from behind. A stumbles but retains possession and continues the attack. There is no whistle. I'd consider that calling it right--the illegal contact did not significantly affect the play of the game.
Player A is dribbling down the sideline. Defender B pushes her from behind, causing her to lose control of the ball, which goes out of bounds and is awarded to Team B. No whistle. In this case, the illegal contact caused a change of possession and an advantage for the team that committed it, but the referee decides that a little shove in the back is all part of the game..."rubbin's racin'", if I can quote Days of Thunder. I consider that "calling it wrong," not only because it creates a temporary advantage for the team committing the foul, but letting that kind of contact go, and CONSISTENTLY letting it go, as you advocate (I mean, if you didn't call it 5 minutes ago, you're not going to call it now, right?) usually results in encouraging players to try rougher and rougher play more and more often to see how much they can get away with.
So I'll respond to your question with a question in kind...how many times do you let a player commit a marginal infraction without feeling like they are testing you? How far do you let marginal behavior go before it degenerates into hazardous behavior? How many pushes in the back does a team have to commit before it becomes a pattern rather than an incident, and at what point do you break the precedent of not calling the first one and get control of the pattern?
What if you (perish the thought) actually make a mistake, either with a call or a no-call, realize the mistake was made, and then are faced with the same type of situation minutes later? Do you again make the same call or no-call, just because you did it a few minutes ago and even though you realized it may not have been the best one?
Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Not recognizing developing patterns and changes in the temperament of the game and adjusting your reactions to fit would seem to fall into that category.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 45
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 45 |
Chass, very good points to consider but only one correction. the Only time a referee is allowed to judge or imply "intent" is on a handling or handball call. At no other time is an official allowed to imply "intent" in a soccer match. I think that is where consistency in calls or lack of causes issues during matches.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2
Coach
|
|
Coach
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,256 Likes: 2 |
Good point, Craig...I used the wrong word. What I really meant was a deliberate push vs. perhaps stumbling and bumping someone in the course of play...much like the difference between an obviously deliberate trip and two players getting their feet tangled both going for the ball. I agree with your analysis.
I've got good news and bad news...
|
|
|
|
