where did this cool site come from?.. and why did noone tell me

USSF's interpretation has a problem in that the offense occurred prior to the ball being across the goal line, so why is it a goal kick?

FIFA's interpretation has a problem in that the IFK is taken from the goal area, when the offense almost certainly occurred well before the ball got to the goal area.

Which wrong answer do you want to give on the test?

 

FIFA's. It's their test.

 

Except most associations don't come up with their own, they roll with whatever FIFA does or doesn't say.

What major country, besides the US, felt the need to make up their own version of the I&G book?

 

Many. England for one. But, so far as I know, none are as in depth as the ATR -- the one in England is much shorter. And much of the ATR is not USSF created, but USSF collected from prior FIFA guidance to put it all in one place. The US is also unique in its overall soccer culture -- I would bet we have far more new referees who have not grown up with the game; part of the role of the ATR, I believe, is to help bridge the gap in the development.

 

I agree with the Dead Man Walking (@sl - love that avatar dude) that the ATR is very in depth. It also comprises of (as you pointed out) of info derived from many memos issued by FIFA/IFAB. In that sense it is the most complete. The only bad thing is that most associations do not release they own versions of ATR and so the perception is often that ATR represents only interpretations applicable in US, when in fact it is a collection of memorandums from FIFA/IFAB that we all shall adhere to. Sadly, this argument will never end unless FIFA comes up with their own, revamped version that is much more in depth.

 

Rafal Wlazlo - I found an interesting blog post from your site: http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/72-refs-don’t-make-laws-–-they-apply-them

Some might wonder, is this referee bashing or constructive criticism? I think it's more the later - at a level as high as the MLS, you've got to send off a player for DOGSO, regardless of the score.

 

Mike, the article simply highlights a "moment of truth" that the referee did not live up to. This should be shown as a lesson for all referees and explained that taking the easy way out is not an option when refereeing, no matter the level of the game or the referee. The referee screwed up because he didn't want to make an unpopular call. Unacceptable.

 

Really?!? We don't know that from what is here. Did the ref say that is why he didn't call it?!?

From the clip it appears he was well behind the play. He well could have thought the ball was far enough ahead of the attacker at the time of the foul that the goal scoring opportunity was not obvious. Being wrong is not evidence that the reason he erred is that he didn't want to make an unpopular call. It's bad enough when announcers leap to these unfounded moral judgments -- far worse when referees do, especially those who claim they are trying to educate other referees.

 

SL: You are plain wrong.
1. The referee is at the spot of foul exactly 3 seconds after the player is taken down (feel free to re-watch the clip) so he was not "well behind the play" as you suggest.
2. (Our take on this):

Given that he is MLS referee it is beyond dispute that he knows the Laws of the Game (and otherwise he had a good game). But that's precisely the reason why I was disappointed with his decision not to send off the offending player. You would expect referees on that level not make these kinds of mistakes. Mr. Stoica is a better referee than that and should have sent the player off.

We all make mistakes. And it is possible, as you point out, that his mistake might have been caused by his uncertainty(not likely since LOTGs are pretty clear) or because he was out of position and did not see it clearly (more plausible but still not good). But these explanations still don't make his decision to only caution the offending player right. Only by highlighting these kinds of decisions, by dissecting them in detail, by looking for all explanations, we all will be able to learn from them.

Referees are (or should be) thick-skinned and able to handle criticism, learn from it and use it to become even better at their craft.

 

Thank you for highlighting the section that caught my eye.

How is your statement of "he didn't want to make an unpopular call" in any way "looking for all explanations?"

 

You are catching "the words" now instead of the entire content of the blog and its meaning. The blog was not written by me, but our contributing writer - World Cup Referee Coach & Mentor and former professional referee, but (as I assume) you already know, I fully agree with his harsh statements.

 

What thoughtful analysis. Thank you.

A fit referee can travel a good distance in 3 seconds. The clip does not show us where he was -- how far away or what angle. Both of which are critical if you want to try to get inside his head.

non sequitur . . . has nothing to do with whether the LOTG are clear, but with what he saw and percieveed. Unlike you, I am far more willing to imagine that a top level referee percieved something in a different way than we do on the replay than to jump to the immediate conclusion that he got to where he was by being a coward.

Who said it was right? I sure didn't. The only thing I took issue with was your condescending and conclusory assumption that the only explanation was he lacked the courage to make the call.

I'm all for dissection and learning. But what part of writing "The referee screwed up because he didn't want to make an unpopular call." is dissecting in detail or looking for all explanation? How about: none of it. It is a facile statement with no evidence to support it that maligns the courage of a MLS referee who has probably worked longer and harder at his craft than any of us who post here.

Analytic criticism is useful. Your posting here, however, was more akin to a radio talk show yahoo making assumptions. But to portray yourself s trying to improve officiating while making conclusory slams on the courage of a referee and acccusing him of taking the wasy way out without adequate basis is entirely inappropriate.

With that, I'm done with this conversation.

 

Dr. Errow Sweeney had even harsher things to say in the email to me earlier that I was able to quote here: http://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.p...o-by-the-referee-shows-his-lack-of-confidence

 

Like I said before - you are plain wrong.

The referee made a lousy call (AKA "unpopular call) due to its timing (90+ minute) and the game being already decided by score of 3-0.

I call it how I see it. We all did it at some point and this was a good opportunity to address it, in the way it was presented.

 

Relax MassRef, my site definitely doesn't need to feed off yours (I mean whoever owns it, because you are just a moderator ) and that was definitely not my intention.

This topic has been dead for a while and I only replied to posts made by others, just like I am doing so right now in response to your unnecessary $0.02.

Now, in regards to Dr. Errol Sweeney - yes, he was a World Cup Referee Coach and Mentor, not World Cup Referee, Coach and Mentor.

If you have a hard time comprehending the meaning of that it is rather you in need of some GED classes, rather than rendering your "judgement" about Dr. Errol's [ emphasis added] signature being misleading

In closing, don't get confused and over your head with bigsoccer.com because what your site offers (pure entertainment) is not even close to what our website has to offer!

I have grown SoccerRefereeUSA in a year to where it took your founders probably 5, so relax and let's not argue because few years from now you might be working for SoccerRefereeUSA and we don't want any awkward moments, do we?

 

Where's the unrep button?

 

At first you quoted HIS blog signature, not my typo! LOL

Anyway, I am not sure what wages you receive, but I will gladly match it just to be entertained by you on my website.
Judging by your close-mildness I am guessing it is it payable in "Won" or "Yuan" currency?

How do i block the moderator here ??

 

damn, Kim Jong MassRef you are really itching to close it.

Since on this forum it's not up to people, you can do as you wish - I have seen this before on "your" forum where you close threads, block people for no reason (not talking about me) and operate like a North Korean internet.

 

This is a user with two previously banned iterations, so no worries there at all.