Reserve GK runs onto pitch to make save

Yep. I fell on my sword, you might have missed that post. I'm 90% with you on not everything needs to be written down. My only point is that if a question is asked and the authority answering it gets all lawyery by referring to a document that gives (or used to give) the answer, then it should be available to any referee (hard copy or online).

 

DOGSO F , DOGSO H - bullcrap guys, it's just DOGSO - doesn't matter why, if it fits the requirements, it is just DOGSO

 

I don't think I saw this August 2011 JA snippet cited anywhere in the discussion above. Apologies if I missed it.

SUBSTITUTE ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT GOAL (REDUX)

 

I never thought I was bookish but if it isn't written down how do we learn them? A new referee starting today is expected to know the laws from an 11 hour course (speaking from US perspective as thats all that is required)? I have learned a ton from this site, the JA site, and by refereeing with experienced referees and understand that is a good way to learn - but what happens if you experienced guys aren't around as much? And word of mouth isn't 100% reliable especially over time. You could referee years (or forever is some cases) and not come across some of the scenario's covered here, and if they never come up how would you learn what to do if you didn't read about it? To make the assumption that everyone should know the laws because "we" do doesn't make sense to me.

 

My feeling is you do the best you can. A new referee WILL make mistakes and should learn from them. It would be best to learn in U8 or U10 but this (IMHO) is where the parent's are the hardest to deal with. The players don't know the rules and aren't looking to "bend" the rules or making tactical fouls looking to gain an advantage... for the most part. I found that the content in my Basic referee class was enough to make my head burst just getting my first badge. My Intermediate class made me realize I should have taken it earlier. It also made me realize I needed to read the ATR and GTP, and come here.

If you are coming hear and reading, you have the required thirst for knowledge. Like you said, some situations you will never have, others you will have in your first game. In example, we have had lots of opinions about "PK in extended time" and several chimed in that they had ref'd hundreds or thousands of games without a PK offense close enough to the end of the period to require extended time. For me.. it was my first U12 game. The defender went up for the ball with his hands just outside the GA with less than 8 seconds on the clock. For all I know, he was the GK in the previous game but it was a PK right before half-time and I had to extend the half (in a no-time added tournament) to do it.

 

Once the keeper is outside his penalty area, he/she no longer has any special privileges and is treated the same as the other field players, so, handling the ball outside the PA by the keeper could very much so be a DOGSO-H, and a DIRECT free kick, as deliberate handling is a DFK violation.
Saw a situation where keeper accidentally grabbed ball outside PA, whistle blows for FK and the rather disheveled keeper drops the ball right in front of an alert attacker who immediately sets ball down and takes the FK right to keeper who instinctively catches it while still outside PA, ball would have gone in goal otherwise, so DOGSO-H for the unlucky keep, restart with FK.

 

Mods, please ban this user immediately, and permanently. How dare he pick such an awesome account name, and now I can't ever use it.

 

No, Please don't, just discovered this site and it is one of the few outlets where I can discuss intricacies of soccer laws where the other people don't start rolling their eyes when ever the subject comes up. My wife for one, would be very pleased if you allow me to continue!
You can use my account name, I'll change mine to some other phrase that is constantly yelled at me while out on the pitch, such as, "Handball", or "Seriously?".

 

That is my point - you read the ATR and GTP - if these things are not written down you can't read them. I completely understand and agree that there is no substitute for refereeing in a game, making mistakes, and working with other referees but this stuff has to be written down and kept up to date.

 

And most of it is -- the ATR tried to capture most of what didn't get preserved in the I&G but a few things were left out, apparently because they were seena as unlikely or obvious, hard to say. But the authors of the ATR believe the old Q&A still gives the correct answers (except where there have been changes by IFAB). Perahps the next iteration of the ATR will capture some of those. (Though there seems to be no certainty as to when the ATR will be updated at this point, as it has falled off it's annual schedule, the long time lead editor is no longer involved, and nothing has been announced.)

 

The issue is that the ATR is quoted as gospel rather than advice and its presence often prevents good referees from thinking critically and applying this advice to situations that do not fit "the book". I often see the ATR used to stifle debate rather then as a starting point for analysis. For me, I think the most important thing a referee needs is to understand that the 60 or so page book we get each year says more by omission than it says in print. You think about what you see each game, consider variations, filter the information you have, and then run through a decision making process when you see something. What did you see? Was the ball in play? Is there misconduct? If so, what is it? Given this, how do I restart, etc? I don't feel like you need to remember a section of the ATR to get something right. You should know it to pass a written test, but that's another animal altogether. For just about everything you might come across, answering those and maybe a few other questions is enough to get you to the right decision.

 

Well put -- knowledge can be a hurdle to understtanding . . .
The most important word in the ATR is Fingerspitzengefühl.

 

Now THAT would be the MOST awesome account name!

 

I was responding (initially) to the post about nothing being written. I don't care what it's called (ATR, I&G, LOTG, Q&A, This happens do that...) but it needs to be written and updated. If there was ever a need for clarifications to the LOTG in the past the people that addressed the questions or compiled the advice or instructions or guidelines felt they had good reason to do so and then for years update same.

I agree there is no way to document every what if because as soon as it is thought complete something else will happen on the pitch not explicitly covered. So, if the intent is to go strictly back to the LOTG and then hope we consistently apply the correct solution in every case, well and good. I don't see that having any prayer of working well. Even here with the very experienced and knowledgeable contributors we have pages and pages of one thread about a certain incident and how to handle it or correctly restart etc and that is WITH the extra documents mentioned. If we go by what the LOTG say by omission then we are firmly on individual interpretation. Best case this is made with years of experience and thorough knowledge of the laws, most likely it will be made by a referee with a few years experience or maybe one in their first season and if its an "odd" occurrence then the likelihood of it being correct is slim, and even less likely to be consistent.

Will having it all written prevent this? Obviously not as it is mostly written now and we don't always get it right but at least there is a much better chance for those of us that want to - to read, study, and learn what is right -to apply it consistently through our matches and maybe teach a few the right way as we go.

 

and that still wouldn't cover everything.

 

Sorry I did mis-interpret

I said this as well (not the thousands of pages part).