Contact above the shoulders

[refmedic]

I have gone back and read the last few weeks in review regarding contact above the shoulders. I have also reread the ones from last year. Does anyone else think that USSF has backed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off it's initial, almost zero tolerance for any contact above the shoulders policy? Some of the examples from this season that have gone unpunished, or only sanctioned with a caution are challenges for which the referee would have been openly chastized for under-punishing last year. While I still maintain that any contact with an elbow or forearm to the face or head of an opponent is excessive, I understand that handling all of these situations that way is impossible, and not in the best interest of the game, and the players will hate it (not a good reason not to do it).

I might be wrong, but the change in tone seems to jump off the page at me.

[PVancouver]

Could you at least list which WIR we should be comparing?

[boylanj64]

Completely agree refmedic - when I saw the NY-KC challenge live, I was shocked Kennedy didn't go red - player was clearly bleeding, and it seemed to meet all the FIRE criteria USSF set out. They've definitely backed off somewhat in their interpretation of what is excessive force.

[PVancouver]

Harkes said there was blood, but I didn't see any. Conrad clearly did take a hard knock and his nose did get a little red.

[d|hogan]

. . . it seemed to meet all the FIRE criteria USSF set out.

FIRE criteria? Explain plz? :o

[code1390]

FIRE criteria? Explain plz? :o

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_9961476.html

http://www.csraref.org/images/pdf/USSF/Contact_Above_Shoulder_2009.pdf

[PVancouver]

it seemed to meet all the FIRE criteria USSF set out.

USSF doesn't make this clear, but I believe only one of the four criteria need be met for it to be a red card.


Frustration.
Intimidation.
Retaliation (payback).
Establish Territory or Space.


For me Establish Territory or Space isn't completely clear, as this has often been used as a defense of a players actions, not a claim that a more serious foul has been committed.

Of these four items, he is most guilty of the fourth, and possibly guilty of the second. Actually, it is very difficult to distinguish between the two. However, intimidation sounds a lot worse than establishing territory or space.

The WIR claims "The challenge by the attacker (white jersey) is one whereby the player leads with the forearm to protect the space for him to play the ball (using it as a tool)." "Protecting the space" sure sounds a lot like "establishing space" to me.

Mitigating factors were:

It was Matthew Mbuta's match in 2009, after playing only 86 minutes in 2008. He is hardly an MLS vet.

New York had already been playing a man down since the 3rd minute. Despite this, New York was down only one goal. It would be stupid to jeopardize the possibliity of tying the game with an unsporting red card.

The pace of the game was very slow. A substitution had just occurred, and a long free kick from the goalkeeper was taking place. It wasn't like things were getting out of hand.

However, clearly this was a yellow card foul, and since Mbuta had not already been carded, there was little reason to not give him one for this.

"Also, consider that the attacker does not swing his arm back into the opponent (this would increase the severity and the force)."

He did swing his arm back but, it slow motion, it can be seen that he did appear to arrest this backward movement just before making contact with Conrad. (I am not sure how Kennedy could have determined this.) Had he not, Conrad would have been more seriously hurt, and a red card might have been in order.

[refmedic]

It seems as though, even though they still refer to the F-I-R-E principle, that they have pretty much moved away from it. It looks like they have gone to more of an arm as a tool vs. as a weapon guideline. That seems more manageable than the way it was last season, where pretty much any contact was send-off worthy.

[refmedic]

I'm watching the Barca/Real Madrid game on Gol TV, and in the 23rd minute, Abbidal (Barca) elbowed Robben (RM). It was at midfield, in front of the benches. It was also off the ball, and the elbow was definitely used as a weapon. I think the only referee who saw it was the 4th, because it took a second to get play stopped and then the 4th was visible signaling to the referee. I was certain that Barca was going to be playing with 10 men for the next 68 minutes, but out came the yellow. I was floored. THe interesting thing, though, was that everyone on the field accepted it. If the referee had gone with a red, it would have ruined the match. Considering how we talk about these things in the USA, it was an interesting set of circumstances.

[PVancouver]

If the referee had gone with a red, it would have ruined the match.

If a red card was well deserved, the yellow card ruined the match, IMO.

[d|hogan]

If a red card was well deserved, the yellow card ruined the match, IMO.

Agreed. I know it's all about the referee's interpretation, but I see absolutely no room for violent conduct or serious foul play on the pitch, EVER! I have definitely sent off my fair share of players for these misconducts, and after the first time they were shown the red, every team that witnessed it (both those playing and those watching/ waiting for their match) cleaned up their behavior for the rest of the year.

We can't be lax about these things. Ultimately, the safety of the players is our priority, and allowing these atrocious fouls to go unpunished not only ignores that charge, but also takes away from the enjoyment of the match for players and spectators alike! Nobody likes a bloodbath. If we wanted to watch people beat the hell out of each other, we'd turn on the UFC or boxing!

Thanks for the clarification earlier btw. That helps a ton. I'm still trying to catch up on all the latest USSF/ FIFA law and conduct updates...

[refmedic]

If a red card was well deserved, the yellow card ruined the match, IMO.

I'm not arguing that he should not have been sent off. I'm just stating that in this match, with these players, and under these circumstances, the players expected and accepted the yellow. If the referee had given the red in this game for that, he would have lost the game. That's just my feeling from watching things transpire. I thought that my description of the foul would have been sufficuent to get the point across that I thought the red should have been given, but if it didn't, the I think the red should have been given.

[socfan60]

I have definitely sent off my fair share of players for these misconducts, and after the first time they were shown the red, every team that witnessed it (both those playing and those watching/ waiting for their match) cleaned up their behavior for the rest of the year.



How could you possibly know that? I realize I may be making an assumption but these statements and the implied approach to officiating behind them make me nervous- Call the game (lower case) as well as you can for that game itself. When we start making calls with an eye towards influencing "the Game" (upper case) problems ensue.

[d|hogan]

How could you possibly know that? I realize I may be making an assumption but these statements and the implied approach to officiating behind them make me nervous- Call the game (lower case) as well as you can for that game itself. When we start making calls with an eye towards influencing "the Game" (upper case) problems ensue.

That's true. I can't know for sure, and I agree completely with your second statement! What I'm saying is that in Intramurals (not club - I haven't been doing many of those due to time constraints), it gets ugly, and players keep getting worse if fouls aren't called (which they often aren't). On our campus though, if you play footy, you hear about other team's matches, and when an official sends someone off deservingly, everyone hears about it. Thus, players are a bit more cautious in their behavior from there out until a referee gets lax again.

I definitely don't try to influence the Game. However, calls made in a game I'm officiating impact others just because of the word of mouth of players in that match that dirty play is not tolerated and certain officials aren't afraid to deal with it properly.

Trust me, I don't go out there with the intention to send players off or change how future teams play. Each match is a new match and I treat it as such - no predetermined outcomes, no expected fouls, no intended result. I call it when it happens, and because every team talks to each other (or at least players from each team do), word gets out that violent conduct and serious foul play aren't tolerated and, generally, play in future matches cleans up a bit.

I realize I'm trying a bit too hard to defend myself. :p I just want to make it clear that I don't try to influence the entire sport of footy with my calls.

Cheers!

[socfan60]

Fair enough and we are all definitely influenced by the calls (and non-calls) of other referees! Keep it up!

[PVancouver]

I'm not arguing that he should not have been sent off. I'm just stating that in this match, with these players, and under these circumstances, the players expected and accepted the yellow. If the referee had given the red in this game for that, he would have lost the game. That's just my feeling from watching things transpire. I thought that my description of the foul would have been sufficuent to get the point across that I thought the red should have been given, but if it didn't, the I think the red should have been given.

Some fouls are borderline fouls that could go yellow or red, so the players should accept either.

I don't understand how you can say that the foul was a clear red ("elbow...used as a weapon", "was certain that Barca was going to be playing with 10 men", "I was floored") but that the players accepted the yellow and would have only accepted a yellow. This makes no sense to me.

If they accepted a yellow, maybe it is because either few of them saw it (it was off the ball), or because they saw the play differently than you did.

[boylanj64]

Some fouls are borderline fouls that could go yellow or red, so the players should accept either.

I don't understand how you can say that the foul was a clear red ("elbow...used as a weapon", "was certain that Barca was going to be playing with 10 men", "I was floored") but that the players accepted the yellow and would have only accepted a yellow. This makes no sense to me.

If they accepted a yellow, maybe it is because either few of them saw it (it was off the ball), or because they saw the play differently than you did.

Or because what is a red under USSF interpretations is not a red in la liga?

[MassachusettsRef]

Or because what is a red under USSF interpretations is not a red in la liga?Highly doubtful on that one. La Liga refs are renowned for being quite liberal with the little plastic.

I think the answer is much simpler, and goes to the heart of this entire debate--what are "clear reds" for referees under the latest instructions are not seen as such by the majority of players, yet.

[TheRefIsBlind]

here's a variation from a state cup game a week ago. (i was reffing on another field and watching the game during a break)
the setup - U15G, close game, physical but fair. 10 minutes in, attacker turns aggressively on ball, leads with elbow, hitting defender on the cheek. profuse bleeding. player leaves not to return. coach later said she required stitches.
no foul was called. players from both teams agreed it was unintentional and a true accident.
but ... it was above the shoulders and violent. game temperature remained manageable but even so, i wonder if a caution was warranted.
interested in any and all thoughts.

[MassachusettsRef]

here's a variation from a state cup game a week ago. (i was reffing on another field and watching the game during a break)
the setup - U15G, close game, physical but fair. 10 minutes in, attacker turns aggressively on ball, leads with elbow, hitting defender on the cheek. profuse bleeding. player leaves not to return. coach later said she required stitches.
no foul was called. players from both teams agreed it was unintentional and a true accident.
but ... it was above the shoulders and violent. game temperature remained manageable but even so, i wonder if a caution was warranted.
interested in any and all thoughts.A definite "you had to be there" but, at minimum I would think there needs to be a foul because that certainly is "careless striking" at best. Could it rise all the way to a red card? Absolutely. From the description as is, it sounds like an incident where USSF would lean in that direction.