Another Jim Allen gem

Discussion in 'Referee' started by IllinoisRef, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why do we always have to have this ATR vs LOTG argument? I am not picking on you specifically for this as many times I see people trying this tactic to defend an opinion (probably even myself once or twice if I looked). For the sake of cementing that whistling is not aloud I will quote the I&G, which carries the same force of law as the LOTG as they are part of the same thing. "acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game" or "verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart" taken from the Cautions for Unsporting Behavior. pg 117

    I am not sure I am reinterpreting anything by saying whistling is a verbal distraction, I think this falls under common sense, unless like I said you are using ridiculously strict interpretation. For the sake of the writers of the law, I believe they meant anything using ones own body to create an audible distraction falls under this category. Are you going to allow whistling using the fingers because you don't see it as verbal, but not if someone has managed to replicate a whistle sound with their voice? Makes not sense.

    Regardless of either part of that I can certainly say I would consider whistling to get someone to stop playing to be acting in a manner which shows lack of respect of the game.

    We have to use interpretations to referee because the LOTG don't give specifics about pretty much anything. If we went with just the straight laws then we would have no idea what they meant by USB or SFP or VC. None of those things are defined in writing within the original LOTG.

    Yes and here is why I draw a line as the two things you described being different. Making any noises, communication or otherwise to the opponents is not part of the game. You need not communicate with them and they need not listen to you. (due to language barriers it may even be impossible)

    Running around, over or near a ball is specifically part of the game. So is kicking it, however hard to put it into play. The law and common sense doesn't say anything about having to let your opponent know when or how you plan to put the ball into play. It is their responsibility to understand and see through your tactics. The corner kick "trick" play could be used at any free kick the only reason it is used more often on corners is because the kick generally takes place farther from opponents so it is more effective. Be it anywhere on the field this play is simply something the opponents need be aware of and ready for.
     
  2. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Interesting too that the I&G does not include the ATR's "When a member of the defending team" preface to the verbal distraction point. So USSF had to go to the trouble to add it. What do you suppose they had in mind when they did that?
     
  3. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Noticed that too. No for sure reason I can give but I can speculate it deals with the American mentality of absolutes in sports, i.e absolute time in HS soccer and there is always an "attacking" team and "defending" team.
     
  4. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    While I'm generally a defnder of the ATR, I really think this is just a bit of careless drafting where the writer was envisioning a particular type of event and distinguishing between the two teams -- not thinking of how else it might come up.

    In any event, USB is a broad category, and the I&G and ATR give examples -- they are not exhaustive lists that one must fit into to satisfy the referee's opinion that something constitutes USB.
     
  5. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Mar 9, 2005
    MN, USA
    I view the ATR as USSF's way of codifying a lot of that "spirit of the game" stuff that would all be second nature to us if we were gentlemen (and gentle-women) on the field. It also keeps in front of us the old IFAB decisions that got dropped in the Great Rewrite of 1997. As it states in the introduction, "The Advice to Referees is specifically intended to give USSF referees, assistant referees and fourth officials a reliable compilation of those international and national guidelines remaining in force, as modified or updated."

    To me, in this instance, the ATR specifies "defenders" for us newbies (and nit-pickers!) in the USA. The I&G doesn't because it assumes that we would know that attackers are allowed more latitude. Haven't we been told to encourage attacking soccer? Even is onside now, keep the flag down if we're unsure of offside, wait and see, yellows for "professional" fouls, DOGSO, feinting on the run-up to a PK, etc. None of these were addressed, or the Law, when I started refereeing.
     
  6. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    That doesn't mean you're always allowed to run around any way you like, or kick the ball (or in the general direction of the ball) without due regard to what is happening in the game. Clearly, there are times when running near the ball is not allowed, and kicking the ball in certain circumstances (e.g., when the keeper has possession) could get you ejected from the game. I don't see what difference it makes that running and kicking is officially part of the game (actually, running isn't even part of the game—there's nothing in the laws that prevents you from walking, or for that matter somersaulting down the field so long as you don't do it in a dangerous manner) but making sounds isn't. Actually, I would argue that, under the principle of the exception proving the rule, stating that verbal communication that attempts to distract the opponent is prohibited implies that verbal communication that is not intended to distract the opponent is expressly permitted as part of the game.

    Agreed, but that's a different matter. I think it's one thing to deceive your opponents about what your plan is for restarting play. I think it's quite another to deceive your opponents about whether the ball actually is in play or not.
     
  7. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You are pointing out a difference here when there isn't one. Lightly tapping the ball so only someone paying attention will notice the ball in play is a way to restart play. Its not the kicking teams fault if the defenders chose to ignore the ball, in fact it is downright stupid. The trick play is a risk for both teams, if the attacking team tries it and the second player dribbles away an the ref didn't see the first touch, they lose the ball. If the ref does see it and then the defenders charge in the attackers can't now say they didn't mean it and want the defenders pushed back. More and more I think you personally find offense with this play rather than seeing something wrong on a basis of the law.
     
  8. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    Yes, I've said that from the beginning. I don't see anything wrong with the play as it currently stands, according to my interpretation of the LOTG. If a team tried it in my game, I would likely handle it exactly the same way you would—not cooperating or condoning it, but not prohibiting it or attempting to spoil the surprise either. I just think it's a dirty play, and it should be explicitly deemed unsportsmanlike behavior by whichever governing body is in the business of explicitly deeming such things. But until that day comes the most I can do is grumble about how ungentlemanly I find the whole business. :D
     
  9. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can live with this. I won't say I like the play, but I don't dislike it either. I just go with it and make sure everyone is held to the same standard when I see it. Perhaps one day this will cost England another World Cup and then you will have your wish and it will be outlawed. :p
     
  10. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    That's quite an interesting issue tbh as there is a need to be able to determine who is (or isn't) a "defender" for the offside law too but the LotG does not offer any help in making that determination.
     
  11. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    Hate to be picky but I don't think so, reminds me of this unusual scenario.
    Situation...
    both teams have a player that is in OSP, lets say GK punts the ball but it accidentally smacks (deflects) a close by attacker in the head, flies up in the air towards midfield.
    Both OSP players run toward the ball as it starts coming down.
    In this case both OSP players (one from each team) are inneligible to participate or interfere with play.
    That is because the "attacker" and "defender" does not matter with concerns to OS.
    If your teammate is in OS position, he/she will be OS if they play the ball or interfere after it is last touched by a teammate - period.
     
  12. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Perhaps because the word "defender" does not appear in Law 11 . . .
     
  13. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    How can BOTH teams have a player in an offside position?
     
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    That's not hard at all. 18 players are standing on the half way line. Both GKs are in their PAs. And a player from each team is in the attacking half of the field. Permutations abound.

    Realistic that the 2 OSP players would be the ones going for the ball? Well, that's a whol 'nother story . . . but not one that has stopped hypothetical scenarios around here in the past, either . . .
     
  15. Yale

    Yale Member

    Nov 26, 2012
    Depends on where the ball is...
     
  16. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    How can you be in an offside position if the opposing team has possession of the ball?
     
  17. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    a player is in an offside position if:
    he is nearer to his opponents' goal then both the ball and the 2nd last opponent.
    Remember it is not an offense in itself to be in an offside position. Only after your teammate touches the ball does any decision of infringement come into play.
     
  18. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    I understand that mr ru...I don't need a primer on the offside law. Nonetheless, how can you be in an offside position if there's absolutely ZERO possibility of you being offside? I'm not talking about splitting hairs with a technical definition of offside, I'm talking about actually being in a position where its possible to be called offside. I suppose technically its a possibility...just like its possible I could walk outside my house and get struck by lightning.
     
  19. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    No, you're wrong here. Only players from the goalkeepers side who punted the ball can be offside, for he is the one who last played it. Deflection isn't tantamount to having played the ball.
     
  20. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    There is a reason that the idea of attacker/defender is intentionally left out of law 11.
    If, you are in OSP, you cannot play the ball or interfere w/play after your teammate last TOUCHES the ball.
    Your teammate does NOT have to possess the ball in order to change your eligibilty status, he only need touch the ball.
    If, for example, you are in OSP and ball deflects off your teammate, then until the status is reset, you are ineligible.
     
  21. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    No sir, you're wrong. It has to be a controlled play. Deflections do not count. Happened to me in a US Opne Cup state semi final game two years ago as ar2.
     
  22. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    From the LOTG:
    A player in OSP is only penalized if, at the moment the ball TOUCHES or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
    interfering w/ play or
    interfering w/ opponent or
    gaining an advantage by being in that position
     
  23. aek chicago

    aek chicago Member

    Sep 17, 2004
    Ok, now I see what you did. You're taking the absolutely impossible scenario where an attacker who's near the opposing goalkeeper gets smacked in the head with a punt and HIS teammate, as well as a teammate of the goalkeeper coming from a position in the OTHER half of the field, are both contesting the ball. is that what you're saying? the way you wrote it was very confusing.
     
  24. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    You allowed a player in OSP to play the ball or interfere with play after the ball deflected off his teammate??! Sounds like a big game, hope you didn't allow a goal on that one.
     
  25. R.U. Kiddingme

    Nov 30, 2012
    iowa
    Sorry, this forum is moving quickly and I'm typing perhaps a bit too fast!
     

Share This Page