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

There are two ways about it as the GtP allows supplemental signals that do not conflict with the procedures it establishes. I view this as such a signal; you do not. Those who I report to also use this signal. Until they tell me it's wrong and I can't use it, I will continue to use it. (Which amounts to maybe once a year at any rate.)

I agree the discussion can take place before kickoff. However, it won't happen. The AR has no way of contradicting the "good goal" signal he just gave to inform the referee he needs the discussion. A bad goal will be awarded.

But let's assume that somehow the AR has gotten the referee over and they determine there was an offside infringement. Now, the AR has already signaled "good goal" and the referee has already confirmed the goal by indicating a kick off as the restart. Now, the crew has to look incompetent and deal with the bad feelings generated by disallowing a previously allowed goal to get the call right.

I'll ask again: why does the USSF want this?

 

I've read the FA guidance -- IIRC I puled the FA version from the FA site. It's really nothing like the ATR -- it is a much, much less ambitous document.

The ATR, while admittedly imperfect (case in point, our discussion of the dribbling defender and the "pass back"), I still find it a great resource. But unless someone owns it to update -- and I know JA no longer does -- it will slide away relatively quickly in reliability. For example, it predates the revised understanding of advantage.

 

...As well as the "new" Dropped Ball rule and other LOTG amendments-I agree, but less than 2 years old is still fairly good. Let's just hope they keep updating it.

 

The full LOTG inclusive of the I&G has been on the USSF site for years -- they had the USSF print version without the I&G in one place on the site and the full version in another place.

I recently heard in response to an iquiry to USSF that the ATR will soon be back in print in its current form -- was not clear on if/when to expect a revision or a new document. Perhaps RW could check with his sources on what might transpire there?

 

"Why" is really irrelevant here, athough I find a great reasoning behind it. Point is that this is the ONLY approved signal and you are misinterpreting the "supplemental signals" clause when "inventing" a new procedure. Even though we are covered by the very same LOTG, we are governed by 2 different associations. If you were in U.S. I would surely reach out to your SDI to clarify this further, but in this case that would be rather fruitless. If however, you happen to ask any person of authority within your national association about this, please update us on their take on this.

 

I have a meeting with my SDI and other officials at the assessors clinic this weekend, so I will find out what is happening in regards to that.

 

And yet earlier in this thread we have big names interpreting another aspect of the LOTG/ATR and their opinion deviates from the norm and now that is how it should be. So since others suggesting an alternative are not big names (no offense intended, maybe they are big names and I don't know it), the answer is DO NOT DEVIATE. . .

 

Absolutely not true. The discussion earlier was about how we interpret part of Law 12. I stand behind what I claimed from the beginning - that Herb, Geiger and LOTG/ATR only reaffirm what I believe is clearly a corrcet answer to the question posted. I never said that their or my stand is any diffrent from what the LOTG are dictating. Furthermore, I argued that the LOTG, just like my sources are both in line on this. This might be your opinion, but clearly I do not agree with it.

Additionally - if Herb says that the correct answer is what he says it is, then that's that, as he is the person of authority on this in USSF. Simple as that. Unless the validity of what I'm relaying based on my conversation with him is questioned, the correct answer is what Herb says.

 

Rafal -- thanks for the info, looks like my understanding is indeed off. I'm a little shocked by this one and, quite frankly, pissed off. But not at you

The method of communication should hopefully improve within the org but right now I feel like it's a game of telephone. I am nearly retired but it used to annoy me to hear stuff at the RTS and have to be the one to pass it down to my state. I didn't mind doing that but I always thought it was a) unfair and b) subject to issues with misinterpretation.

Here I was almost regretting my decision to step away but no longer...

 

I have to agree with you 100%. That's why I just skip the middle men whenever I can and go straight to either Herb, Mark Geiger or Brian Hall for advise. Otherwise it all gets eventually lost in translation. And you are more than correct on the broken communication system, athough RTS lately have been more in line with USSF's general way of thinking.

 

First, I am in the USSF. I don't know or work with the SDI. I do work games with the DRA and district instructors. I talk to them because they talk to the SDI.

Second, I think why the USSF would demand a mechanic that will award undeserved goals very relevant to the conversation.

Third, the GtP specifically allows supplemental signals and doesn't provide an approved signal for this situation, imo.

So you say you have a great reason for allowing goals incorrectly. Let's hear it.

 

Most of us can't skip the middle men. The communication that gets to the grade 8s is the way the game is played for the vast majority in the US. The fact that what Mr. Silva and company say directly contradicts the instruction that grade 8s get on the passback issue shows a real problem.

 

Yet again, you are misinterpreting words. I dont have any reason to allow goals incorrectly. I actually take advantage of a lengthy pregame and follow the LOTG and its procedures to ensure I get it right to the best of my and my crew's ability. Tell me what state you are in and I will recah out to your SDI if you'll be willing to admit this is wrong, if your own SDI will say so. What do you say? Fair enough?

 

If that is what you have been told about the Law 12 discussion we had, then Yes it is a communication problem indeed. I have not had that issue in NY when I was grade 8.

 

Sorry to keep beating the horse...

Coming from a National CSA instructor, so I'm assuming this IS an approved mechanic, the call goes like this:
Instead of sprinting up the line, or just standing still, I raise my flag to say (this is how it was worded to me for ANY such weird call) "attention Mr. Referee, I have information for you." You do not signal anything else. You "wave" the R over and the two of you have your chat.... then the signals come, R points to the center and you run up the line.

Before you respond to this, check and see.... I'm sure this would be "approved" by Concacaf and hense USSF as well.

 

What does CSA stand for?

 

But that's the crux of the issue. Look, I have 24 direct reports at work. If I tell two of my team leads to spread a message that I need everyone to wear black ties tomorrow -- no mass email, just word of mouth -- depending on how that message travels, I likely will not have people wearing the same color ties tomorrow.

Not every state has a solid SDI. I have lived and refereed in states where the SDI comes out of a cave once a year to wine and dine the USSF Instructor that is sent for the recert clinic and then goes back to his grotto.

It's 2013... put messages like this up on a freakin' website. Tweet it or something for God's sake.

 

You are kidding me right?
Canadian Soccer Association

 

I get it. I probably have to agree with you too on your assessment, athough I haven't experienced much of it to that extent. I have personal conversations with some of them (USSF people of authority-let's call them that), not on twitter or facebook. It is entirely up to them to post it on either social media or in officially available document/memo. I hope you undersatnd.

 

Sorry, I only had one coffee so far and it's still morning in my book. Surprisingly I'm not writing in Polish...
Anyway, do you have something documented saying this procedure shall be followed in Canada when dealing with the situation we discussed?

 

Repeating incorrect phrases like "passback violation" is big part of the problem.
You can pass the ball to the keeper and it doesn't have to go backwards!
I know everyone here knows this but most fans don't and it is up to refs to use the correct terminology out on the pitch to help educate.

 

Yes, I know. Could you tell that post was d r i p p i n g with sarcasm?



And don't blame me, blame the tweet.

 

Understand, but next time please type in "sarcasm" font.
Nice use of the spacing for visual effect though.

 

Ok gents, I have to leave this LOTG debate for now - real jobs can be such a distraction
Try not to bring another question from the quizzes for now as I have a hard time keeping up lol.

 

Haha, yeah, I need that font. Are you talking about the left-slant italic? I kinda just figured people would get the sarcasm around the fake tweet. Sorry for spreading bad info!