SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Why is Soccer held to different standards?

After the incident with one of our players on the boys team, I posed the question to our Head Basketball coach. If a player on the court uses foul language and is heard by the official, what is the consequence? His response "A technical foul" Same question to Football, a 15yd unsportsman like penalty. So I guess my question, is soccer held to different standards? It's no wonder that 3/4 of the ejections in the state come from soccer. We have different consequences for the same infraction in contact related sports.

Honestly, myself as a player have to admit that I in occasion am guilty of dropping a few choice words during a game in frustration.

Thoughts?

I could not agree more. Although I do not condone the actions of the player, it is interesting that SCHSL views all sports equal when talking about suspensions but leaves the rules of the in game process (with small modifications) intact. The rules in soccer are in place to punish a frequent abuser of the rules. A match suspension is clearly set to punish the abuser. But the game is supposed to be constantly flowing, no stoppages.

So in American football, if billy bob drops the f-bomb the team is punished 15yds. Billy Bob still plays can drop plenty of f-bombs or other physical abuse and unless he fights with someone nothing happens... "it is the heat of the moment" what most football people would say...no different in soccer.

In Basketball you consistantly infringe on the rules you are sat down for the remainder of the game. You can still play the next game. Your team plays at full strength. Not so in soccer.

The one that bothers me the most is that the infringement is in the referees eyes. If johnny gets two yellows for fairly inoffensive acts he is done the next time he gets a red he sits out two weeks

What the league should have for soccer is the cumulative rule. track the offense and have the players who consistently infringe on the rules punished not the infrequent player.

As far as this situation is concerned, he should have been more intelligent than that.

You ever think we should bring basketball and American Footbal to higher standards...Maybe so many would not get in trouble with the law as our USC quarter backs do...

DB

our player who was ejected was a large part of the article written in the local paper. Should the infraction committed receive this much coverage? Would it happen in the other sports mentioned, or like you said do we hold our athletes to different standards? Is the SCHSL not teaching the same values to all of our athletes?

No, it should have not been written up the way it was. He is a kid. Way too much exposure for a High School KID!!!!!

some other states do follow an accumulation rule. i.e. six yellows = 1 game suspension.

As it is, the rules are the rules. They are procedures to recommend or promote change if you feel the desire.

I agree that the other sports should be elevated to the level that soccer players are held to. Or maybe to the level of golf where players are responsible for calling fouls on themselves.

One rule that is little known..at least by players. If the ball goes out of play, they should stop play. As a coach I teach players to keep playing until the whistle, as a ref, we can call the player that keeps on playing, and give the ball to the opposing team.
Let me add to my statement, the player should be calling the ball out, if it goes out, and indicate themselves who the ball belongs too. The ref should never have to interfere with a whistle!

Thanks for the clarification Coach P!

I don't agree with "the ref should NEVER have to interfere with a whistle." On an obvious ball that is well out of play, certainly they should stop play and get set for the restart. But on those close balls where the player is trying to save the ball right on the line, are they expected to call a ball themselves by an inch or two out of play? It's not always easy in the middle of a play to tell whether "the whole ball crossed the whole line." In close calls, one player may stop thinking the ball is out of play, while the other continues on, gets the ball, and never gets stopped. I teach my players to play it safe...on a close call, keep playing until someone stops you--your opponent most likely will.

As for the ref and the linesmen...on the close calls, raise a flag. Blow a whistle. It's not that much effort.

And don't ask them to start calling their own fouls...that ain't happening either.

Now, if by "out of play" you mean a foot or more out of play, I agree with you completely...nobody should have to stop them on the obvious.

I agree with you Coach Chass. I referee and feel that, as the referee, it is my responsibility to call the ball out of play unless it is obvious. The way to do this is blow the whistle. I have no problem with players "playing the whistle" if it is not clearly out of play.

A related issue that dbsandis may be referring to is the referee's objective to not get involved or call attention to himself unless it is necessary. This is the players' game. The referee should only assert himself when necessary for player protection or to make sure the laws of the game are inforced. In other words, if the ball is out of play but play continues, blow the whistle. But don't blow it for every obvious out of play situation.

Yes, The referee should know when to get involved and when not to get involved. Likewise the player's are also expected (but I know better, since they are taught to play the whistle) to make their own calls.

I think it would be great if the players WOULD always make their own calls. Honesty and sportsmanship are always appreciated. Still, these are high school students, in a high-intensity competitive environment; I just don't think they can be practically expected to always do so accurately. The real problem arises when a player from one team tries to make her own call and the players from the other team continue play; then, unless the officials are really on the ball, you have a serious disadvantage situation.

More than once on the field I've seen a player go for a save on the line, realize she didn't quite get the ball back in before it went out, and back off, only to have the other team take possession, continue play, and gain a scoring opportunity. If the linesman is obstructed from a clear view, sometimes the call is not made. In a sport where games are often decided by a single goal and a split second of hesitation, players and coaches simply can't afford to assume that everyone is going to see the ball the same way and stop playing. It just makes more sense on a non-obvious call to assume the ball is in and continue play than to assume everyone sees it as out and stop, risking a giveaway to the other team. Also, possession after the ball goes out often goes to the team that grabs the ball first for the throw-in--regardles of who it really went out on--unless the officials are quick to make a correction. A lot of times, in a clash, the players honestly don't KNOW who touched the ball last.

The officials are the only truly objective, unbiased, and non-adrenaline-addled people on the field; I think it's perfectly reasonable for the players to rely on them to make the calls that aren't glaringly obvious so that nobody gets an advantage from differing player interpretations on the field. I know as a coach, I'd feel much more comfortable with the officials erring slightly on the side of control than depending on players in pitched competition to make their own fair, accurate, and unbiased calls that could potentially change the outcome of the match.