AM, although there is some validity to your point, you grossly oversimplify the role of the referee. No two situations are alike, and our opinion is a factor in judging not only what facts we have observed, but also in applying the laws both in terms of fouls and misconduct. There should be no hair-trigger responses in our officiating - everything must be done in the context of that particular game situation. You also do nothing to bolster your credibility when you attack the character of other posters. By presuming to know the personality and mindset of the referee based upon his actions on the pitch or his statements on this board, you make the same mistake that Keith does when he constantly lectures us about the "overly officious referee". Let's stick to the game and leave personality assessments out of it.
For the Good of the Game You are right pk and my statements to Keith are not statements to his person but to him in a professional capacity. I expect referees to understand what they are seeing and call the game per the LOTG. I believe when a ref is worried about how calling the LOTG will affect the flow of the game then his is inclined to only call fouls near the center circle. I believe when a ref is worried about the appearance of the call in the game then he has become part of the game. I think that referees should assign blame to the players when the game does not flow well. The simple answer to the problem of affecting the flow of the game is to state, “Well if they would stop fooling around then the game will flow.” I consider it perfectly acceptable for a referee to walk up to a particular player and say something to the effect of, “If you can’t play this game without the little ankle taps and shirt grabbing then you will go.” Then if ten minutes later the player sees his second yellow then it is the PLAYER”S fault, not the ref’s, for interrupting the flow of the game. I think of Berhalter in the USA v. Germany game as a good example of a player that needed to be told to play soccer rather than grab-ass. I think referees should be confident in calling the LOTG and not worry very much about flow. Referees need not only stand up for safety but also for the interests of the game. The motto is "For the Good of the Game." not "What is safe for the players." This distinction between "tactical fouls" and other fouls should not be a consideration. For instance one could say that denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity is a tactical foul. No one gets hurt right? Yet, it is not a yellow card offense. The referee is not permitted to explain, "Well his team was down 3-0 and I don't think it's going to affect the outcome very much so he only gets a yellow." No. It is a red card offense regardless of circumstances. So it is with shirt pulling. It is not the referee's discretion to say, "Well that did not affect the game very much." No. It is foul play and per the LOTG and for the good of the game, it should be treated as such.
Oh and advantage has nothing to do with whether a foul occured or not. It has to do with whether the fould will be called or not. A good "play on" is all I want sometimes. Sometimes I like a "Play on but you are bordering on persitent #4" Eventually I want to see that yellow card come out.
Re: For the Good of the Game Does anyone have a clue what sport this person is talking about or why he or she is posting to a soccer referee discussion board? Futher, why does this person appear to be making personal attacks against a soccer referee (though in Keith's case it is almost understandable, but still unacceptable), when his or her own statements make it obvious they have no practical understanding of either the game of soccer or the role of the official? Finally, what ever happened to PVancouver who used to post in a similar manner (minus the personal attacks) until he finally bit the bullet and actually took the entry level course? Would it not be interesting to see how is views have changed after taking the course and finding out what the Laws really are? Sherman
I'm a former level 8 and have no idea about the history of this forum. I have been disapointed with the poor refereeing in NCAA matches and after the UCLA v Standford game came to this forum and found a poster pushing the ideas that lead to it. My comments are not meant to attack an individual person. My comments are meant to state that the professionalism of referees is in doubt if they think that the LOTG gives them the discretion to decide if shirt grabbing is or is not foul play. I think that, in general, many ref's think that they are paid to only protect the players. That is not true. They are also there to protect the game. Shirt grabbing is an excellent example of how the game itself is hurt but referees don't want to call it because no one got hurt or it was 'tactical'. If the topic were jewelry then I might be on the side of those that say, "So what." Thin necklaces don't concern me. They do not affect the game. Shirt grabbing does. I think referees should keep in mind what the game of soccer is supposed to be.
I think you should keep in mind that most of us have been doing much higher level matches than a former entry-level referee for more than 10 years. We're not naive youth referees around here, most are state class 2 and 1; quite a few national candidates, and even some nationals. As a soccer fan you should also know that if a referee misses some calls in a game, that's tough. Shirt grabbing was certainly NOT a major issue in the NCAA tournament. Let me guess though -- your playing ability never progressed farther than your refereeing ability. The position you take in your posts sounds like you've never played any kind of competitive soccer at all, much less officiate it.
Three questions Statesman - I have already stated that my comments to Keith were not meant towards him as a person. Then I see the comment that I don't know what I'm talking about because either I've never played or at best never refereed. Now that I have stated something about my past, you say that I don't know what I'm talking about because I was only a level 8, entry level, ref. At what level does the qualification of the poster have to be in order for you to answer a serious post? This is not "ref bashing." It is a statement that too often referees make a distinction in fouls between tactical and technical. There is no distinction in the LOTG. It is a statement that too often referees take responsibility for "the flow" of the game when in fact the players are responsible for their behavior. So to bring this discussion back to something above board, 1) Under what circumstance is shirt grabbing not a foul? What are the disinctions you use? 2) If a player has grabbed a shirt (to the point?) and the ref talks to him, what should the response of the ref be if the player grabs the shirt in the same manner that warranted the talking to? At what point does foul play become persistent? 3) Are not tactical fouls, fouls?
Attack Minded, all questions are welcome on our forum and I accept you did not mean your comments regarding Keith as being of a personal nature. Regarding your comments and questions, the key component has to do with applying advantage, since the beauty of the game is in it's flow. That said, there are clearly circumstances for game management purposes when the experienced referee will play advantage, but caution say for persistent infrigement or a tactical foul after the next stoppage in play. Also for match control purposes we may whistle a foul and caution or speak to a player to keep the game under control. Look there is no clear cut rule. All matches are different and have their own set of variables. Some times you need to tighten up the match because players are nervous, or getting out of control. Therefore, match conditions will affect your decisions on the pitch. For example we are taught to allow play to continue and not whistle trifling offenses. We should look to apply advantage. It's an individual decision left up to the referee to manage the match based upon his experience and style. That's one of the beauties of the game. I also feel that players catch on pretty quickly and make adjustments to the referees style, particularly at the older youth and adult level. In the youth game protection of the players is paramount. In men's matches, adult matches and higher level older youth (u-16 and up) we have greater latitude. The bottom line is we are there to apply the LOTG and to insure fairness for the enjoyment of the game by the players. It's their game.
Re: Three questions Let me preface this by noting that grade is not the issue. I am an 8 and proud of it, but I started officiating about 32 years ago and I work at all youth, HS, and adult rec. levels. At my age there is no advatage to upgrading. The issue with your posts is that you are misinformed and trying to push each point based upon an invalid premis. Permit me to illustrate: The premis that shirt grabbing is by definition a foul is wrong. Shirt grabbing is NOT A FOUL. This has been stated serveral times previously in this thread. HOLDING IS THE FOUL. This means that if a player grabs an opponent's shirt and impedes his ability to play the ball, then they have committed the foul of holding, and if not trifling, then I will signal this foul by either whistling to stop and restart play, or if the restart would be of greater advantage to the offender, to signal "APO" Advantage Play On, and allow play to continue for 2-3 seconds to determine it the advantage materializes and if not signal the restart at the point of the original infraction. What distinctions do we use? As stated before, we observe, if doubtful, about 60-70% of the time, we do nothing because there was no foul. If a foul, but trifling about half the fouls or 15% of the time, we still do nothing, but maybe caution at the next stoppage, though unlikely. If a foul and not trifling then we will either blow our whistle aoubt 5% of the time, or signal advantage, about 10% of the time. Since shirt grabbing is such a pitifully ineffective manner of holding an opponent, rarely do we excercise our right to the DFK after signaling advantage. Though grabbing a shirt is not by itself a foul, again, as mentioned earlier in this thread, it can be condsidered misconduct, UB, Unsporting behavior, even if it does not rise to the level of a foul, or is trifling shirt grabbing can be cautionable behavior. Like deja vue all over again, let me repeat and rephrase what has also been stated before. Most of the time the shirt grabbing is not a foul, and once we let play continue, even though we could go back and caution the player, a lot of us don't, preferring to give them a few choice words. Particularly early in the game, I would prefer to use my cards for someting more serious, like rough tackles, than someting silly like shirt grabbing. This said, once warned, a player who is stupid enough, after getting a break the first time, to tempt fate a second time, is going to get booked, but it is not for persistent infringment but straight misconduct. Yes, a tactical foul is a foul. Tactical fouls are unsporting behavor or serious foul play. It is a tactical foul when a player commits an offense to try to use the stoppage to their advantage. When beaten by an attacker, defenders often grab the attacker's shirt as a tactical foul, hoping that the referee will be so clueless as to blow their whistle, which is far preferable to allow the attacker to continue on to the goal. A wise referee will not let his whistle become the unwitting ally of the defender, and will let play continue. Possibly saying a word, or applying advantage, but not usually doing more, but again this depends on the game. It is cautionable, but it is not a manditory caution. Deliberate handling to deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity is also a tactical foul. Here, you kinda sortra have to stop play and send off the perpetrator. All of these issues are covered in the Laws and the Advice which you can read if you go to http:www.ussoccer.com
Thank you for the considerate response whipple. I agree that mearly grabbing a shirt in and of itself is not a foul. Sometimes we grab a shirt just to know where an opponent is and if he is trying to break away. Fine. I don't like to bring the topic of advantage into the discussion other than to say, "It shouldn't be called if advantage applies." I am also glad to see how you view tactical fouls. I think that they are in fact a detriment to the game and am disapointed when some referees view calling the game as just "outs and blood". I like it when a ref shows the card in a casual manner and the player just nods so both acknowlege the point that yes it was unsporting and sometimes collecting a yellow card is part of the game. It shows a proffesionalism in both the player and the referee.
Come on, statesman. This was out of line. Whether he was right, wrong or just naive, this kind of attack is what we generally DON'T see here on the referee board. Let's keep it that way. Given the most recent posts from whipple and AM, I think he has gotten the point.
Shirt Pulling Hi Guys, interesting discussion: In the UK, Referees are taught using this simple explanation: A player who holds an opponent's shirt should be given a strong warning by the Referee. A player who holds and then tugs or pulls an opponent's shirt, causing that opponent to falter or fall to the ground - should be cautioned by the Referee. Football (Soccer) is a close-contact sport, and although strictly speaking, holding is an offence in Law – a certain amount of leniency is applied if the player who is being held, manages to break free without detriment to his progress. Whether or not a direct free kick is awarded, depends simply on whether the Referee allows advantage or not. www.corshamref.net
I have not read through the entire thread, so my apologies if I'm repeating information here. I would refer everyone who reads these boards to Jim Allen's **outstanding** web page, "Ask a Soccer Referee" at http://www.drix.net/jim/ for all officiating questions. As his site states, Jim's answers to technical questions are coordinated and approved by USSF. From Jim Allen's web site, I quote: WHAT IS HOLDING? Your question: There are four fouls which the referee needs not to evaluate how they were committed, but merely IF the act occurred. One of these fouls is holding. The LOTG state that a player is to be penalized if he/she "holds an opponent." The ATR goes slightly further, defining it to be, among other things, "stretching the arms out to prevent an opponent from moving past or around." My question is this: which definition of holding are the writers of the LOTG using? I had always assumed they were using the standard definition "to have or keep in the hand; grasp" as in holding in American football. After reading the ATR passage 12.7, perhaps the def. "to keep at a distance; repel using the arm" is more appropriate. Is "holding a player off" using one elbow held out from the body while running alongside an opponent an automatic foul? Is any contact (not included trifling offenses) of the extended arm considered a holding foul? USSF answer (November 22, 2002): For the benefit of everyone, let's insert Section 12.7 of the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game:" 12.7 HOLDING Holding an opponent includes the act of stretching the arms out to prevent an opponent from moving past or around. A player who blatantly holds onto and pulls his opponent¹s clothing to play the ball or to gain possession of the ball should be cautioned and shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior. And, if we look a little farther down in the Advice, to the definition of charging, we will find that "It is a violation of Law 12 to perform an otherwise fair charge against an opponent who is already being fairly charged by another player. Such an action is at minimum a careless challenge. It is also holding and is commonly referred to as a 'sandwich.'" Holding may be defined as any contact that illegally prevents an opponent from moving away from the holder. It may be done with the hands, arms (including elbows), legs or feet, and the body. END QUOTE Per USSF's Advice to Officals, as stated above, "A player who blatantly holds onto and pulls his opponent¹s clothing to play the ball or to gain possession of the ball should be cautioned and shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior."
MIB, if you can't take the time to read the thread, don't bother posting. Most of us know about Jim's web site and most, if not all, of what you have posted has been covered.
Shirt Grabbing One of the problems we face in going through the entire gamut of "no offense' to whistle is that of perception. In order to keep control of the game the players should perceive that the referee is calling things fairly and consistently. Particularly in younger leagues the players consider a "shirt pull" a "shirt pull" whether on not they are actually retarded in their progress. I tend to be a tad harder on this foul than most of the posters above, because I see it as one of the few times when you are 100% sure that it is an intentional action and that the offender knows that it is unsporting. Coming down firmly on this early can make for a cleaner and faster game. Jim
Re: Shirt Grabbing Jim, With all due respect, do you, for the sake of consistency and player's perception, or misconception, apply this same principle to handling? How about charging? Would it not be better if we as referees consitently applied the Laws as instructed, at all levels, and would this not be of greater service to the game and to the players? Is this not even more important at the younger levels? If you observe a player guilty of misconduct by virtue of grabbing an opponents shirt, but without fouling that opponent, why not say something like "Blue 6, I'll be back to you" and then, at the next stoppage, make a very public display of warning or cautining the player and announce loudly that shrit grabbing will not be tolerated. Would this not only be more effetive, but also prefereable to implying that by calling it a foul, that shirt grabbing is part of the game? Your approach touches on an issue that we all sympathize with, but what we must all learn to get past. These are the things we do that work for us in a particualr game, or at a certain level, but which cause problems not only for the next referee who has these players, but for the players themselves as they develop and become more competitive. Sherman
Re: Re: Shirt Grabbing I totally agree with whipple. Use common sense and apply the Laws within each game as they fit.
Shirt-Grabbing Sherman said: "If you observe a player guilty of misconduct by virtue of grabbing an opponents shirt, but without fouling that opponent, why not say something like "Blue 6, I'll be back to you" and then, at the next stoppage, make a very public display of warning or cautining the player and announce loudly that shrit grabbing will not be tolerated. Would this not only be more effetive, but also prefereable to implying that by calling it a foul, that shirt grabbing is part of the game?" Sherman, Thanks for a very wise post. I don't think we really differ since when I said I would come down harder on shirt-grabbing I didn't mean to imply that I would whistle a foul if there was no impeding - I simply meant that I would make sure that the players knew that this was not acceptable behavior and your method is an excellent way to do that. I don't think that your reference to using the same approach on other fouls is really on point. There is no "continuum" in a handling violation - either it was ball to hand or hand to ball and you don't have to look to see what affect the action had on another player - also, if it is not a foul then there was no unsporting or improper conduct at all. In our shirt grabbing discussion we start from the position that the defender has committed an intentional unsporting act that violates the spirit of the game - all we are arguing about is what we are going to do about it. Finally, your point about creating problems for other referees or the players deserves comment. One of my original referee instructors/assessors in the Great Tar Heel State always made the team taking a DFK ask for the 10 yards. I don't - I make sure that the defenders understand that in this game they will give ten yards, they will do so quickly, and they will do so without lots of ceremonial kicks delaying and stalling the momentum of the game. Do I care that the players might have been misled by other refs like my NC friend? No. Do I caution the first encroacher to show them that I am running this game? No. I use the many forms of control available to make sure the teams understand how I am going to call the game and if they get a whistle or a card it is because they refuse to comply. Its my job as a referee to make clear early on in a game by my voice, my tone, my whistle, and my demeanor how the game will be called and then it is the player's job to play to that level. Please - no flames about judicial arrogance. I am not saying that it is "my game" or that I come across as pompous and "officious" to the players. I joke, laugh, and compliment as appropriate, but the soccer ref's tolerance for certain behavior is just like an umps strike zone - it will always be somewhat different than anyone else's and the players have to adjust to it. My agenda is a clean, fast, and whistle-free game and my opinion is that defining your parameters early in the game greatly reduces the necessity for intervention later. Let the flames begin! Jim