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

With that attitude, you will never have a job with the USSF.

Welcome to the boards.

 

Funny and True.

 

I suspect the ATR verbiage came from the "we can't read minds" philosophy that drove the change from fouls being intentional to fouls being careless/reckless/excessive force. They tried to frame the offense solely in observable criteria. The problem with this type of provision is where to draw lines -- it is easy to see the blatant case and easy to see where it is obviously not deliberate (e.g., a deflection). But there is a whole lot of gray in between and in this case (as in many parts of the ATR) USSF has attempted to shrink the gray area; sometimes those attempts are successful, and sometimes not so much. I personally find this part of the ATR more useful in defining when there is not an offense (when it was the kneww or shin not the foot, when it was miskicked or misdirected, when it was merely deflected) then when it is an offense. Trifling and Law 18 are our friends with this one.

 

The triangle was developed as a guide to referees in an attempt to remove the requirement that the referee determine the intent of the kicker. It also emphasizes that the offense is committed by the goal keeper and not the kicker. As outdated as the ATR is, it is the standing policy until USSF develops some alternate channel to disseminate information down in the ranks. I welcome such a thing.

Ask a Referee website is gone.
Most of the directives have disappeared from the website (not that they were complete or well-organized in the first place).
For awhile there were the Week in Review videos. Very labor intense to produce and less than effective in communication of fine details.

All of these are now gone. We're reduced now to a National dropping bombs on us in the forums and our yearly re-certification course. It... is... sad.

 

JA's perspective:

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=3777

(Don't mind me, I'm off in a corner trying to figure out if I am a sophist or a false wizard . . . .)

 

Can someone reconcile these two then?
As I said, I'm willing to change here, but need to distinguish these incident descriptions.

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=2992

 

Well, since our quiz question brought such interest I would to bring another one. This one is from Law 14. As we all know Law 14 infringements are dealt with as follows;

1. If the infringement is committed by the kicking team then:
a. If ball goes into the net - we do a retake
b. If the ball doers not go into the net - Indirect Free Kick
2. If the infringement is committed by the defending team then:
a. If ball goes into the net - Goal
b. If the ball doers not go into the net - we do a retake
3. If both teams infringe on Law 14 - we do a retake

Exceptions written in ATR:

1. The exceptions to the above rules of decisions are:
   • If an attacker other than the identified kicker takes the penalty kick, play is restarted with an
     indirect free kick for the opposing team where the attacker illegally entered the penalty arc or penalty area, regardless of the outcome of any kick that may have been performed by this attacker.
   • If the kicker plays the ball backward (any direction other than forward), play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team at the penalty mark, regardless of any further play that may result from the kicker’s action.
     
     
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
     
     Here is where we received a huge number of inquiries from fellow officials in UK and all over Europe about questions dealing with those Law 14 exceptions - nobody wants to agree with those exceptions because they are not found anywhere else beyond the ATR, which is of course published by USSF. Now, we reached out to the federation and asked about this - USSF advised us that whatever is interpreted in ATR is done so only at the advice from IFAB/FIFA and thus is applicable in all countries which are member associations.
     It looks like the problem lays with the national federations not distributing the IFAB/FIFA provided memorandums/content uniformly and on time. Speaking from experience I find this to be accurate assessment of how things work.
     What do you think?
     
     
     

 

@ wguynes
look, I am not sure if it's the cold weather getting to you or you are just genuinely a grumpy person, but I am really having a hard time to comprehend your attitude toward me. Are you one of those referees that is simply unwilling to respect someone else's professional opinion or [God forbid] admit to being wrong?

Look, I have given you not only my personal opinion and interpretation, which by the way I am OK with you disputing, but I also gave you first hand account of what others said about the answer;
1. Herb Silva who is pretty much responsible for interpreting and releasing the memos we all read
2. New York SDI
3. FIFA Referee Mark Geiger

They all said that is the correct answer. Accept it or not, but there is really no reason for any hostility. It is only a simple LOTG discussion. It's going to be all right. I promise.

 

I think you're misreading wguynes. I think his frustration (which I share) is in the departure of sources -- the un-updated ATR, the loss of WiR, etc. It's not meant as disrespect to you, but you first appeared on this forum today -- and if you were making up conversations with the unnamed SDI, Herb and Mark, it would be far from the first time that happened on an internet forum.

Besides, he's just a sophist or a false wizard

 

It would probably be more helpful to start a separate thread to start a new disucssion. And maybe translate the Russian.

As I recall, the exception for the ball not going forward came directly from the IFAB Q&A, no?

 

Nothing except IFAB, the old Q&A (2006), Question 14.8:

 

My issue stopped being the interpretation itself many posts ago. No worries.

It's the method, or lack thereof, of communication with the lowest levels that is frustrating me at the moment. One of the problems is a growing one with the closure of previously available channels.

My USSF Instructors have directly contradicted your interpretation on multiple occasions. This very forum has hashed through this multiple times using the ATR as a reference arriving at the same conclusion. SOCREF-L too. The disconnect here is startling to say the least.

 

What I can safely say is that I will not be coaching the HS girls team that I just took over in this tactic since its at best a 50/50 chance of it being called.

 

In totally understand your frustration, however, if his sources are valid, Herb Silva is one of the main guys SDI's go to for answers, in other words, if your USSF instructors are under your SDI, then Herb wins. This easily could be a case of past USSF interpretations going to far and the new "USSF referee program" is pulling it back.

frustrating? Absolutely. Possible? We shall see over time I hope as the new folks complete the takeover and new communications paths are clarified

 

Gary, so where besides ATR can I find this being documented? I understand you have it on your site am I correct? Any other documentation I could use? Thanks.

 

I downloaded copies of many documents - various versions of the Laws, AtR, Q&A, memos - so I had them on my PC before they disappeared.

 

There is a bit of a confusing question on test 3 as well. It is about what the AR should do in case of a goal being scored with a player in an OS position who may have interfered but the AR is unsure. I always thought the guidance was to stand at attention with flag down and see what the referee has to say about it. The answer to the question on the site is to indicate goal by running up the line, with the explanation to err on the side of the attacker. A high percentage tend to agree with me. The language in the ATR doesn't say anything about making the run, but it does say something akin to tie goes to the runner with regard to the attacking side. Can someone straighten me out here?

 

The ATR 11.7 states: if an assistant referee is in any doubt as to whether a player is in an offside position or if a player in an offside position is actively involved in play, the assistant referee must decide in favor of the attacker and refrain from signaling offside. To phrase it slightly differently: When in doubt, keep the flag down and give the benefit of that doubt to the attacker.

I think this was actually from one of the National Tests..

 

Rafal....but that isn't what the answer says to do. The answer says to run up the line and give the goal. The ATR says not to raise the flag. That's a HUGE difference.

 

Since this is a goal scoring play, not raising the flag here means "goal", thus "run up the field" to signal for goal is the only correct action.

 

But, you have information that might be of benefit to the referee. By giving the goal, you have decided that the information isn't worth it?

 

You must decide whether it is interference or not on part of attacker. The ATR states "when in doubt-no offside" and the correct goal scoring procedure for an AR (like in this case) is only to sprint up the field so the referee knows it is a goal. That is our job as ARs. Now, if the referee asks for any opinion beyond that he will surely come to you, otherwise this would just invite unnecessary attention and drama from players and coaches.

 

But once you sprint, the referee thinks good goal, right?

 

Correct. The LOTG/ATR are very clear on this. If the AR is not sure/in doubt then there is no offside due to the benefit of doubt we must give to the attacker. Because of that - there can be no standing at attention as that is reserved specifically for other occasions, but rather we must give that benefit of doubt and just sprint up to indicate a good goal. (End then pray that the replay will not show otherwise).

 

I had a question about this as well....

Say that, as AR, you see an OS attacker, but you can't tell if they are blocking the vision of the keeper.... now what? I am not bound by the ATR, just LOTG. I am CERTAINLY either raising my flag, or standing at attention (what have you) until the R and I have a "chat"