Watch the play, not just the ball!

[Grace T.]

Referees are not told to ignore fouls, but to call the ones that truly affect the game or are needed to be called for game management. If referees called every foul then the game would stop every 1-3 minutes. There are minor trifling fouls occurring about every couple of minutes. It would be ludicrous to call every foul and just piss off the players. I have seen more problems in games where referees call overly tight games compared to a loose game.

Agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but I always go back that the "trifling" concept is why soccer as a game is fundamentally broken right now. To start with their no transparency on this. The concept of trifling is not in the LoG but instead of the advice to referees (and IIRC it was missing from last year's manual entirely). So for a parent looking to get up to speed on what the rules of soccer are or why things are called the way they are, there's no guidance in the rules.

Then there's the wide disparity about what things are called "trifling" from referee to referee. For physical fouls there isn't really any guidance for when a careless foul interacts with the trifling one beyond "impacting' the game (which also curiously sets the test for protecting the game, not necessarily the player). For everything else, what's trifling: a throw in violation, a goalkeeper stepping a few inches outside the box on a punt, a goalkeeper stepping a few millimeters off the line (we saw that in the WWC), handballs? It leaves it to different refs to have different standards, which in the minds of observers sets things up as being capricious. Add to that maybe a ref calls the game tighter or looser depending on the tone, and you add to the problem (now the observers are wondering why you called it against Billy but not Johnny).

There are other reasons for the referee abuse. I'm not suggesting that this feature in the game is responsible for it entirely (though I do note that the problem is not just with us, but across the world since other countries are having issues too). But the fact that there isn't more guidance, and therefore game X may be fundamentally different from game Y, is in part one of the underlying causes (though not justification) of the spiraling side line behavior.

 

[baldref]

Agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but I always go back that the "trifling" concept is why soccer as a game is fundamentally broken right now. To start with their no transparency on this. The concept of trifling is not in the LoG but instead of the advice to referees (and IIRC it was missing from last year's manual entirely). So for a parent looking to get up to speed on what the rules of soccer are or why things are called the way they are, there's no guidance in the rules.

Then there's the wide disparity about what things are called "trifling" from referee to referee. For physical fouls there isn't really any guidance for when a careless foul interacts with the trifling one beyond "impacting' the game (which also curiously sets the test for protecting the game, not necessarily the player). For everything else, what's trifling: a throw in violation, a goalkeeper stepping a few inches outside the box on a punt, a goalkeeper stepping a few millimeters off the line (we saw that in the WWC), handballs? It leaves it to different refs to have different standards, which in the minds of observers sets things up as being capricious. Add to that maybe a ref calls the game tighter or looser depending on the tone, and you add to the problem (now the observers are wondering why you called it against Billy but not Johnny).

There are other reasons for the referee abuse. I'm not suggesting that this feature in the game is responsible for it entirely (though I do note that the problem is not just with us, but across the world since other countries are having issues too). But the fact that there isn't more guidance, and therefore game X may be fundamentally different from game Y, is in part one of the underlying causes (though not justification) of the spiraling side line behavior.

i don't agree. I see your point, and understand what you're getting across, but i think that's what makes this game so much more interesting and fun to officiate, and to watch. i don't agree that "trifling" is so obscure as to what it is that people can't understand or can't recognize it. sure it takes some experience and understanding. what if you penalize a keeper when they barely step over the 18 with no one around them making absolutely no impact on the game? does that make the game better or worse? i truly enjoyed the fact that i didn't have to call little pushes or an accidental trip if it didn't impact play. i always looked for reasons not to stop play unless it was absolutely warranted. fluidity, and the desire to keep going is allowed. i love it. just my opinion.....

 

[VegasParent]

[/QUOTE]I also agree with the question above about sport specialization and injury increases. The problem as I have heard it discussed is that they are playing WAY too much of one sport...[/QUOTE]

I find it hard to believe that most of the injuries are because of specialization. The top soccer players in the world didn't switch sports every season. Messi didn't go from soccer, to basketball to baseball every few months. He's probably only been kicking a ball since he could walk. That's probably true of every kid in countries where soccer is the biggest sport.

 

[espola]

There are some compatible sports, such as soccer and bassketball, soccer and middle-distance running (up to 5k or so), soccer and jumping events, soccer and short swimming events. Not so compatible are soccer and baseball/sofball (ok for bench players, I guess) and football with anything.

 

[dad4]

I find it hard to believe that most of the injuries are because of specialization. The top soccer players in the world didn't switch sports every season. Messi didn't go from soccer, to basketball to baseball every few months. He's probably only been kicking a ball since he could walk. That's probably true of every kid in countries where soccer is the biggest sport.

If you look only at the success stories like Messi, then you explicitly ignore everyone who had a career ending injury. It is called survivorship bias- if you look only at survivors, then nothing appears risky.

As an extreme example, among world class soccer players, none of them suffered a career ending injury during high school. This does not mean that no one in the world suffers a career ending injury during high school. It just means I chose to ignore early injuries when I limited myself to talking about top soccer players.

You have to define the set of interest before you know who got hurt. For example, among all flight 1 U12 girls, were there more or fewer knee injuries among those who also swim at least one mile per week?

I have not seen many studies like that, but the few I have seen indicate that diversification is protective, if you choose a sport with a different type of motion. Adding a similar sport, like lacrosse, is harmful. Adding a different sport, like swimming, is helpful.

 

[watfly]

Agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly, but I always go back that the "trifling" concept is why soccer as a game is fundamentally broken right now. To start with their no transparency on this. The concept of trifling is not in the LoG but instead of the advice to referees (and IIRC it was missing from last year's manual entirely). So for a parent looking to get up to speed on what the rules of soccer are or why things are called the way they are, there's no guidance in the rules.

Then there's the wide disparity about what things are called "trifling" from referee to referee. For physical fouls there isn't really any guidance for when a careless foul interacts with the trifling one beyond "impacting' the game (which also curiously sets the test for protecting the game, not necessarily the player). For everything else, what's trifling: a throw in violation, a goalkeeper stepping a few inches outside the box on a punt, a goalkeeper stepping a few millimeters off the line (we saw that in the WWC), handballs? It leaves it to different refs to have different standards, which in the minds of observers sets things up as being capricious. Add to that maybe a ref calls the game tighter or looser depending on the tone, and you add to the problem (now the observers are wondering why you called it against Billy but not Johnny).

There are other reasons for the referee abuse. I'm not suggesting that this feature in the game is responsible for it entirely (though I do note that the problem is not just with us, but across the world since other countries are having issues too). But the fact that there isn't more guidance, and therefore game X may be fundamentally different from game Y, is in part one of the underlying causes (though not justification) of the spiraling side line behavior.

I agree with your sentiment and I used to feel the same way but that's not the reality of soccer. Law 12 is primarily subjective, and to call it a law is a misnomer, it's really more of a guideline(s) or suggestion(s). I don't believe this is a result of the concept of "trifling" but the concept of "game management" (and the unquestioned authority given to a single ref). Although game management isn't in the LOTG either, you hear the refs on this forum and pro refs use this term to justify calling or not calling a foul. This is why you will never find consistency of calls among refs, or even from the same ref within in a game (see Webb video below). Consistency is not mentioned in the LOTG and is not an intent of the LOTG. Mark Clattenburg said the following regarding consistency:

"The best referees, he believes, make their decisions based on context and balance. This explains why there can never be "consistency" in the way football is refereed. It is the courage to apply the laws with empathy, says Clattenburg, that distinguishes top officials from those on the next rung on the ladder."

In this video Howard Webb describes why the same foul later in the game is a yellow card and earlier in the game the foul is not a yellow card. (Spoiler alert the reason is game management)

There is no mechanism, nor any apparent desire, for consistency in how the "laws" of soccer are applied. Just look at how different leagues want their refs to interpret certain laws or how UEFA gives guidance on how the laws should be applied for certain tournaments (ie WWC). This lack of consistency is really magnified when you consider that no other sport (at least that I'm aware of) gives this much authority to a single official. Particularly for a high paced game with 22 players played on over an acre.

The frustration for fans of the game due to the lack of of consistency is understandable.

 

[Grace T.]

The frustration for fans of the game due to the lack of of consistency is understandable.

I love this word you use: "frustration". You hit the nail on the head. Frustration, in turn, while it doesn't excuse the bad behavior, certainly is a down stream cause of it.

i truly enjoyed the fact that i didn't have to call little pushes or an accidental trip if it didn't impact play. i always looked for reasons not to stop play unless it was absolutely warranted. fluidity, and the desire to keep going is allowed. i love it. just my opinion.....

It's not the ends of the bell curve which are problematic, it's the line drawing for when those ends of the bell curve become an actual foul. I'm not advocating for calling every little foul. But to fix the game you need more transparency and consistency in guidance (which could be different for AYSO, than club soccer, than the WWC). Otherwise you are going to keep getting incidents like happened at the WWC.

 

[timbuck]

The problem is that Americans are used to the way fouls are called in other sports.
Basketball- Ref will call a foul for a handcheck on a defender that has very little impact on the offensive player. Or will call a foul away from the ball that has zero impact on a team's ability to score a basket in that moment. Or a call for stepping over the halfline (over and back) that doesn't really impact the play. But those are the rules and you'd never hear anyone say "well, he just stepped over the midcourt line by a few inches, so let the game be played."
Football - We see holding called on offensive lineman where it has zero impact on the offensive team to move the ball. Or we see pass interference called when it didn't impact the play.

In soccer you have parents (and coaches) screaming for an offside call inside the 18, when your keeper made the save and has the ball in her hands. I'd personally rather play out of my keeper's hands than take a free kick 17 yards away from the goal. Or you have people screaming "handball" for a defender 30 yards from goal, while their attacking player controls the ball and is in behind the defense with a 1v1 against the keeper.

 

[TangoCity]

The problem is the 'game management' is poor for too many referees. Leading to an extremely rough, chippy, dirty whatever you want to call it game with too much retaliation. That part is on the ref. I get all the other stuff -- advantage, trifling, playing through fouls, not wanting to slow down the game.

 

[Grace T.]

The problem is that Americans are used to the way fouls are called in other sports.
Basketball- Ref will call a foul for a handcheck on a defender that has very little impact on the offensive player. Or will call a foul away from the ball that has zero impact on a team's ability to score a basket in that moment. Or a call for stepping over the halfline (over and back) that doesn't really impact the play. But those are the rules and you'd never hear anyone say "well, he just stepped over the midcourt line by a few inches, so let the game be played."
Football - We see holding called on offensive lineman where it has zero impact on the offensive team to move the ball. Or we see pass interference called when it didn't impact the play.

In soccer you have parents (and coaches) screaming for an offside call inside the 18, when your keeper made the save and has the ball in her hands. I'd personally rather play out of my keeper's hands than take a free kick 17 yards away from the goal. Or you have people screaming "handball" for a defender 30 yards from goal, while their attacking player controls the ball and is in behind the defense with a 1v1 against the keeper.

I agree this is why American in particular are annoyed by the game (and one of the reasons why professionally it has never caught on in the United States to the extent the other big 3 have). Great observation. But it's also been a problem outside of the rest of the world. In Latin America referee abuse is practically part of the game, and from my relatives in Spain and my son's pen pal in England, there are similar issues in those countries that understand the game better than we do.

The problem is the 'game management' is poor for too many referees. Leading to an extremely rough, chippy, dirty whatever you want to call it game with too much retaliation. That part is on the ref. I get all the other stuff -- advantage, trifling, playing through fouls, not wanting to slow down the game.

It requires a special person to be a good referee (given the fluidity in the rules). They have to have a personality confident enough to make the tough calls (instead of avoiding them), with good judgement and a good understanding of social dynamics to keep the game under control, yet not tyrannical or foul tempered. And that's besides having a firm understanding of the Laws, experience which is only built up by calling the game and making mistakes, having a good vision (that's where I always fall flat), being physically fit, and caring. They also have to be mentally strong enough to handle the tough set of circumstances (winning take all coaches, combative parents, teenaged hormones, a large field, a fast moving ball and ambiguous rules) they are handed. I have great admiration for those that are able to do it and be good CRs, because they have a very unique talent set, and we aren't paying them enough to attract such good talent (we shouldn't be surprised by a lot of the bad we get, particularly at the lower levels, as a result).

In one game my son played in a few weeks back we had a really great referee that knew how to manage the game, both avoiding calling every foul but also counting the ones that mattered both for game speed and game tone. I made a point afterwards of introducing myself and told him as a sometimes baby ref, I admired his style, even if the parents at both ends were chipping. They had some reason to chip: he called the handball rule the old way...but otherwise a great ref.

 

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

It requires a special person to be a good referee (given the fluidity in the rules). They have to have a personality confident enough to make the tough calls (instead of avoiding them), with good judgement and a good understanding of social dynamics to keep the game under control, yet not tyrannical or foul tempered. And that's besides having a firm understanding of the Laws, experience which is only built up by calling the game and making mistakes, having a good vision (that's where I always fall flat), being physically fit, and caring. They also have to be mentally strong enough to handle the tough set of circumstances (winning take all coaches, combative parents, teenaged hormones, a large field, a fast moving ball and ambiguous rules) they are handed. I have great admiration for those that are able to do it and be good CRs, because they have a very unique talent set, and we aren't paying them enough to attract such good talent (we shouldn't be surprised by a lot of the bad we get, particularly at the lower levels, as a result).

If only most people realized how hard it is to be a referee! You put it all in that paragraph.

 

[baldref]

I agree this is why American in particular are annoyed by the game (and one of the reasons why professionally it has never caught on in the United States to the extent the other big 3 have). Great observation. But it's also been a problem outside of the rest of the world. In Latin America referee abuse is practically part of the game, and from my relatives in Spain and my son's pen pal in England, there are similar issues in those countries that understand the game better than we do.



It requires a special person to be a good referee (given the fluidity in the rules). They have to have a personality confident enough to make the tough calls (instead of avoiding them), with good judgement and a good understanding of social dynamics to keep the game under control, yet not tyrannical or foul tempered. And that's besides having a firm understanding of the Laws, experience which is only built up by calling the game and making mistakes, having a good vision (that's where I always fall flat), being physically fit, and caring. They also have to be mentally strong enough to handle the tough set of circumstances (winning take all coaches, combative parents, teenaged hormones, a large field, a fast moving ball and ambiguous rules) they are handed. I have great admiration for those that are able to do it and be good CRs, because they have a very unique talent set, and we aren't paying them enough to attract such good talent (we shouldn't be surprised by a lot of the bad we get, particularly at the lower levels, as a result).

In one game my son played in a few weeks back we had a really great referee that knew how to manage the game, both avoiding calling every foul but also counting the ones that mattered both for game speed and game tone. I made a point afterwards of introducing myself and told him as a sometimes baby ref, I admired his style, even if the parents at both ends were chipping. They had some reason to chip: he called the handball rule the old way...but otherwise a great ref.

I loved doing it and miss it a lot. There are plenty of referees that get games they shouldn't have. But Michael Oliver is usually busy, and the pool here is dwindling fast. So unfortunately, that's going to be the norm in an over saturated market. And just because you have a referee that isn't as competent as you'd like, doesn't mean he/she is responsible for player injuries. The only option of not having that less than competent referee is not having that game be played.

 

[Grace T.]

I loved doing it and miss it a lot. There are plenty of referees that get games they shouldn't have. But Michael Oliver is usually busy, and the pool here is dwindling fast. So unfortunately, that's going to be the norm in an over saturated market. And just because you have a referee that isn't as competent as you'd like, doesn't mean he/she is responsible for player injuries. The only option of not having that less than competent referee is not having that game be played.

There are 2 other options: pay em more or force the parents to do it. In the first case, it makes soccer less accessible to those working class kids. In the later case, you get what you pay for.

You can have your soccer developmental, competitive or accessible (pick 2).

 

[Surfref]

If only most people realized how hard it is to be a referee! You put it all in that paragraph.

For me the mental part of being a referee is much more tiring and difficult than the physical aspect. I don’t think that most people realize the degree of the mental aspect of refereeing. Of course, a referee has to know the LOTG, how to implement them and recognize infractions. A referee has to also know how to read the game. By this I mean, recognize the formations the teams are playing and how they modify it throughout the game. Recognize the individual player’s strengths, weaknesses and playing characteristics. Keep track of the “bad actors” (players that may cause problems) and recognize the players that could help the referee control the game and those bad actors. Manage the coaches. Many coaches spend the first 5-10 minutes trying to see what the referee will allow them to get away with. Recognizing the coach’s game management style and how it affects the play of the players. Referees have to track the players that commit the fouls and are fouled and try to manage them in a way that will reduce the likelihood of further fouls or retaliation. Then you throw in all of the noise from the sidelines and how it affects the play of the players.

All of that makes me mentally tired. I can physically work 4 games with two as 90 minute centers in a day and still feel physically able to work a fifth game. Where I get tired is mentally. That is why I quickly address parents that yell at me, so it takes away one mental process. I also will firmly address coaches early in a game in an effort to get them coaching their team and not me.

 

[CopaMundial]

Oh Jesus, what a bunch of horsesh#t. Here is what probably happened....team lost their DA game, a DA player got hurt, so some dad is pissed and goes on an online forum to tag all DA refs as lazy ball watchers. Reality....referees are not and cannot predict a foul until it happens. Referee guidance for DA is to allow players to play through fouls and allow the game to flow while only calling the fouls that really need to be called for game management. The majority of DA refs are Grade 5/6 or very experienced Grade 7/8. These are referees that know their jobs and do not “ball watch except.” A lot of the DA games also have a referee assessor watching the games (parents would usually have no idea who the assessor is). Referees hate to see any player get injured. So until you have refereed at least 500 (High school age/adult) games as a center, you have no credibility when it comes to evaluating referees. Just watch the game and cheer r for your kid.

I really like you Surfref and have a lot of respect, but you made a lot of assumptions in your response. But thank you for clarifying that DA referee guidance is that game management is priority. I wasn't talking about letting players playing through a foul due to an advantage situation. I was referring to fouls occurring off the ball or late and CR missing it, not on purpose, as he/she is continuing with the game, but AR sees and doesn't raise a flag. I assumed that is why we have AR's, not just to call offside. But maybe my assumptions are wrong. What is the DA referee guidance for AR's calling fouls? Someone mentioned that some CR's don't like their AR calling fouls. Is that up to the CR? The AR role and player safety was my original concern.

Next time you are going to quote me, try being accurate. I never used the word "lazy" or said "all" DA refs. Those are your words, not mine.

 

[watfly]

I really like you Surfref and have a lot of respect, but you made a lot of assumptions in your response. But thank you for clarifying that DA referee guidance is that game management is priority. I wasn't talking about letting players playing through a foul due to an advantage situation. I was referring to fouls occurring off the ball or late and CR missing it, not on purpose, as he/she is continuing with the game, but AR sees and doesn't raise a flag. I assumed that is why we have AR's, not just to call offside. But maybe my assumptions are wrong. What is the DA referee guidance for AR's calling fouls? Someone mentioned that some CR's don't like their AR calling fouls. Is that up to the CR? The AR role and player safety was my original concern.

Next time you are going to quote me, try being accurate. I never used the word "lazy" or said "all" DA refs. Those are your words, not mine.

From what I've seen it depends on the CR regarding how much foul input the CR will allow from the AR. In one of those very rare instances were I genuinely thought player safety was at risk the AR agreed that the game was out of control but because of "ref protocol" he wasn't allowed to communicate that belief to the CR. I've heard the "ref protocol" excuse a few times.

 

[dad4]

it completely depends on the CR.

I have had some who explicitly ask for help seeing what they can’t see. Others seem to take it as a personal affront if you signal a foul. Or misinterpret your foul signal as though it were offside.

I am not sure what I should do as an AR if the game is getting unsafe but the center wants to call it loose and thinks he has it under control.

maybe surfref or baldref has thoughts on it. definitely happens, though.

 

[baldref]

talk about it before the game, so that you have a plan and an understanding of what to do. and you can always call the center over and discuss it, privately at a stoppage in play. now, if the center is not accommodating, then you're basically stuck doing what he/she asks. and if he/she makes a mess of things, or treats you in a way you don't think is professional, have a chat with the assignor the next day.

 

[Surfref]

I really like you Surfref and have a lot of respect, but you made a lot of assumptions in your response. But thank you for clarifying that DA referee guidance is that game management is priority. I wasn't talking about letting players playing through a foul due to an advantage situation. I was referring to fouls occurring off the ball or late and CR missing it, not on purpose, as he/she is continuing with the game, but AR sees and doesn't raise a flag. I assumed that is why we have AR's, not just to call offside. But maybe my assumptions are wrong. What is the DA referee guidance for AR's calling fouls? Someone mentioned that some CR's don't like their AR calling fouls. Is that up to the CR? The AR role and player safety was my original concern.

Next time you are going to quote me, try being accurate. I never used the word "lazy" or said "all" DA refs. Those are your words, not mine.

Most DA games have referees that use wireless communications and talk to each other in real time and the spectators never hear anything. I have worked with one or two referees that do not take input or even look at their ARs. They are not the norm and I try to avoid working with them. The majority of the DA refs are the best you can get in SoCal.

 

[Surfref]

it completely depends on the CR.

I have had some who explicitly ask for help seeing what they can’t see. Others seem to take it as a personal affront if you signal a foul. Or misinterpret your foul signal as though it were offside.

I am not sure what I should do as an AR if the game is getting unsafe but the center wants to call it loose and thinks he has it under control.

maybe surfref or baldref has thoughts on it. definitely happens, though.

A good pregame talk is essential in reducing in-game referee crew problems. My instructions to my ARs is, “If you see a foul, look at me and see if I could have seen it, if you think I didn’t see it and there is no advantage, ask yourself if it is something I would have called, if you go through all of those questions then it is your decision to make the call. Don’t get upset if I wave you down, which will usually only happen if there is an advantage. I am okay with you calling a PK, but make sure it is something I did not see and would call.” I worked with a Grade 15 Emeritus a couple years as a center and he told me(AR) and the Grade 4 AR not to call any fouls. The Grade 15 was a self-centered a-hole and the game was a cluster-f. He is on my Blocked list.

If the CR is screwing up, the ARs can assist by calling a couple fouls and talking to the CR at halftime and hope they are receptive to the feedback.