Grizzlierbear
20 Sep 2002, 01:52 PM
First off a big thank you to Whipple and Statesman and others. This was an excellent exchange of ideas, thoughts and information. I remain awed by the depth, passion and content of the posts.
Many questions or situations I place on the board for input are a direct result of the very same situations. As a lower level official my sole intent is to give reason to some of the directives I am asked to inforce or teach. One of the leaders in the USSF once told me the sharing of wrong information does more harm to those that teach than any other form of communication. Opinions of a personal nature are great but only if they lead to solutions and accurate conclusions. So have we a solution that is as clear as we wish? Can we draw accurate conclusions here?
The know it all approach rarely wins anyone over even if they are correct. The fact that I am stubborn as all get out does tend to annoy certain parties but I never lay claim to perfection. The ability to agree for the good of the game and the people involved are generally the foundation for respect and acceptance. I always preface my ideas or solutions with a check your official source mention.
Often we talk apples and pears both fruit so the same family but still different. Yet there is a fruit known as the applepear perhaps we are eating off that tree?
Let me throw this at both of you, ;o) pun intended!
a throw-in taken by a defender that was short of the keeper so the thrower went to play it again but as he did, he played it to an attacker who was clean on goal. In this situation would you award the IFK or let the attacker try and score? Is that an option yes or no?
I assume Statesman if you allow play to continue there is no need to signal or shout, " Advantage Play On" but it would not do any harm if you did. But you are in fact applying LAW 5
allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time.
YET is this actually an offence against the opposing team? Or is it a violation of the laws? Are they the same thing?
I assume Whipple if you would allow play on there would be no APO signal but you would deem it as trifling? Not sure of doubtful as it is touched twice so a deliberate breech could be inferred?
The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of the referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of
temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of the spectators.
Originally posted by Statesman
Whipple, as I said I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on the subject itself. The only point I really take issue with is where you state these occurances described fall under the trifling and doubtful breaches decision (and Andyrey).
First off, when is offiside ever deliberate? In all my years of officiating I've never seen what could really be considered a deliberate offside infringement. Sometimes (at higher levels), the players accidentally find themselves offside but may get involved with play hoping the referee will not catch it. More often than not players become so involved with the action that they do not catch their own offside position until it is too late, or are completely unaware to begin with. According to IDB 8 the player must put himself offside deliberately, which we know is not accurate.
As far as a substitute illegally entering the pitch, this is not a trifling breach of the law either. He is not accidently stumbling out onto the field only to quickly realize his folly and return to the bench. He is indeed placing himself on the pitch as a deliberate attempt to stop play, draw the caution, but also gain a drop ball restart. In the original scenario, he even attempts to involve himself in the actual play by chasing down the attacker. The only reason play is not stopped is because doing so would be disadvantageous to the attacking team, as they have a clear shot on goal. This is why I state the decision to not stop play falls under the advantage clause, even if it is not part of the instructions for APO.
I suppose it might be beneficial to explain the reasoning behind APO itself, just to ensure we are on common ground in that respect. Do you know the reason why the ATR makes sure to state "Advantage, Play On!" refers specifically to Law 12? Because Law 12 are acts of violence (of varying levels of course, with different levels of discipline) or dangerous play from one player to another. There is the potential for injury, and is a direct attack. If the referee were to say nothing or give no indication he saw the foul, how would that affect his control of the match? The players would interpret the referee's non-call in either 1 of 2 ways: he simply missed the foul and is not paying attention, or he allows that type of play to commence. Either way, it leads to a loss of control and potential retaliation if the foul is not dealt with.
On the other hand, if the referee sees it would not be beneficial to stop play from the foul and INDICATES this to the players by giving a signal and shouting out (just in case the players don't see him) "ADVANTAGE, PLAY ON!" it lets the players know the referee did indeed see the foul, and under difference circumstances would indeed stop play. Subsequent shouting that a player is in the book will also let all involved be aware the referee will take care of the administrative requirements at the next stoppage (showing the card).
The APO clause included in the ATR is a tool for match control as advantage pertains to Law 12 infringements. This does not disqualify the advantage clause of Law 3 (5)? to be applied in other facets of the game. HOWEVER, it does mean that the signal and shouting of "Advantage, Play On!" is NOT required in any other instance where the advantage clause of Law 3 (5)? is indeed applied by the referee.
Statesman,
In trying to sum up my interpretation of your excellent logic.
ADVANTAGE is applied to all parts of the game if in the opinion of the referee the offended team is more likely to be hurt more if play was stopped?
The signalling of Advantage and calling out "Advantage Play On!" while meant for LAW 12 physical situations is not restricted just not neccessary in the situations I first described?
Would you consider this a universal acceptance or a USSF directive as per their advice ATR?
It is not uncommon for premiere league referees to fully signal advantage when an AR signals offside but the defence obtain possesion. Has anyone else witnessed this?
Is saying "Advantage!" (showing the signal sweep of arm(s) palm up) "Play On" acceptable only in a law 12 situation and no other? Can I get a yes or no on this?
Originally posted by Whipple
I do not dispute your point that it is a matter of that which can be said to be advantagerous or disadvantageous to the game, but that the use of the word "advantage" in this context, though not wrong, could be confusing to one who is not so well versed in the laws or experienced in their application.
Further, the Laws already cover every one of the contingencies you have lumped under your use of advantage, under doubtful, trifling, or Law 5 Clause 6 - stops, suspends or terminates ... at his discretion for infringements...
Less experineced refrees have a hard enough time properly applying advantage and the rest of the laws without being confused by overlapping the terminology or lumping it inappropriately. Worse, I encounter some very experineced people who carry whistles who have made a career of their own interpretations of the laws, and some have even built little empires to spread their home grown officiating errors to others in thier community, not only on their mistaken laws, but on mechnics etc. as well.
As an assignor for the higher level referes doing youth competition, I inherit a lot of these people. They have to be re-educated, and some are beyond my help. Let's not confuse them any more than we have to.[/B]
Whipple,
I totally agree with the premise of confusion. At all levels, even the USSF and CSA seminars I can find those that do as Whipple suggests, many with the best of intentions some totally convinced they are correct and thus spreads the misinformation. In this case are we at a fundemental difference or splitting hairs? Is there clarity here after reading through all the threads? Could a newer referee say with certainty OH I see clearly now?
In LAW 5 THe Referee
stops, suspends or terminates the match, at HIS DISCRESTION, for any infringements of the Laws. So I take it this discrestionary power allow us as referees to assume responsibility for taking the risks of not calling a law violation if that violation is trifling, or would have a defrimental effect on the team the infringement was not against.
Although advantagous it is not the same concept as ADVANTAGE PLAY ON! I hear you saying that applying advantage in the context of LAW 12 is not the same as allowing Play to Continue in other laws?
Many questions or situations I place on the board for input are a direct result of the very same situations. As a lower level official my sole intent is to give reason to some of the directives I am asked to inforce or teach. One of the leaders in the USSF once told me the sharing of wrong information does more harm to those that teach than any other form of communication. Opinions of a personal nature are great but only if they lead to solutions and accurate conclusions. So have we a solution that is as clear as we wish? Can we draw accurate conclusions here?
The know it all approach rarely wins anyone over even if they are correct. The fact that I am stubborn as all get out does tend to annoy certain parties but I never lay claim to perfection. The ability to agree for the good of the game and the people involved are generally the foundation for respect and acceptance. I always preface my ideas or solutions with a check your official source mention.
Often we talk apples and pears both fruit so the same family but still different. Yet there is a fruit known as the applepear perhaps we are eating off that tree?
Let me throw this at both of you, ;o) pun intended!
a throw-in taken by a defender that was short of the keeper so the thrower went to play it again but as he did, he played it to an attacker who was clean on goal. In this situation would you award the IFK or let the attacker try and score? Is that an option yes or no?
I assume Statesman if you allow play to continue there is no need to signal or shout, " Advantage Play On" but it would not do any harm if you did. But you are in fact applying LAW 5
allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time.
YET is this actually an offence against the opposing team? Or is it a violation of the laws? Are they the same thing?
I assume Whipple if you would allow play on there would be no APO signal but you would deem it as trifling? Not sure of doubtful as it is touched twice so a deliberate breech could be inferred?
The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of the referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of
temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of the spectators.
Originally posted by Statesman
Whipple, as I said I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on the subject itself. The only point I really take issue with is where you state these occurances described fall under the trifling and doubtful breaches decision (and Andyrey).
First off, when is offiside ever deliberate? In all my years of officiating I've never seen what could really be considered a deliberate offside infringement. Sometimes (at higher levels), the players accidentally find themselves offside but may get involved with play hoping the referee will not catch it. More often than not players become so involved with the action that they do not catch their own offside position until it is too late, or are completely unaware to begin with. According to IDB 8 the player must put himself offside deliberately, which we know is not accurate.
As far as a substitute illegally entering the pitch, this is not a trifling breach of the law either. He is not accidently stumbling out onto the field only to quickly realize his folly and return to the bench. He is indeed placing himself on the pitch as a deliberate attempt to stop play, draw the caution, but also gain a drop ball restart. In the original scenario, he even attempts to involve himself in the actual play by chasing down the attacker. The only reason play is not stopped is because doing so would be disadvantageous to the attacking team, as they have a clear shot on goal. This is why I state the decision to not stop play falls under the advantage clause, even if it is not part of the instructions for APO.
I suppose it might be beneficial to explain the reasoning behind APO itself, just to ensure we are on common ground in that respect. Do you know the reason why the ATR makes sure to state "Advantage, Play On!" refers specifically to Law 12? Because Law 12 are acts of violence (of varying levels of course, with different levels of discipline) or dangerous play from one player to another. There is the potential for injury, and is a direct attack. If the referee were to say nothing or give no indication he saw the foul, how would that affect his control of the match? The players would interpret the referee's non-call in either 1 of 2 ways: he simply missed the foul and is not paying attention, or he allows that type of play to commence. Either way, it leads to a loss of control and potential retaliation if the foul is not dealt with.
On the other hand, if the referee sees it would not be beneficial to stop play from the foul and INDICATES this to the players by giving a signal and shouting out (just in case the players don't see him) "ADVANTAGE, PLAY ON!" it lets the players know the referee did indeed see the foul, and under difference circumstances would indeed stop play. Subsequent shouting that a player is in the book will also let all involved be aware the referee will take care of the administrative requirements at the next stoppage (showing the card).
The APO clause included in the ATR is a tool for match control as advantage pertains to Law 12 infringements. This does not disqualify the advantage clause of Law 3 (5)? to be applied in other facets of the game. HOWEVER, it does mean that the signal and shouting of "Advantage, Play On!" is NOT required in any other instance where the advantage clause of Law 3 (5)? is indeed applied by the referee.
Statesman,
In trying to sum up my interpretation of your excellent logic.
ADVANTAGE is applied to all parts of the game if in the opinion of the referee the offended team is more likely to be hurt more if play was stopped?
The signalling of Advantage and calling out "Advantage Play On!" while meant for LAW 12 physical situations is not restricted just not neccessary in the situations I first described?
Would you consider this a universal acceptance or a USSF directive as per their advice ATR?
It is not uncommon for premiere league referees to fully signal advantage when an AR signals offside but the defence obtain possesion. Has anyone else witnessed this?
Is saying "Advantage!" (showing the signal sweep of arm(s) palm up) "Play On" acceptable only in a law 12 situation and no other? Can I get a yes or no on this?
Originally posted by Whipple
I do not dispute your point that it is a matter of that which can be said to be advantagerous or disadvantageous to the game, but that the use of the word "advantage" in this context, though not wrong, could be confusing to one who is not so well versed in the laws or experienced in their application.
Further, the Laws already cover every one of the contingencies you have lumped under your use of advantage, under doubtful, trifling, or Law 5 Clause 6 - stops, suspends or terminates ... at his discretion for infringements...
Less experineced refrees have a hard enough time properly applying advantage and the rest of the laws without being confused by overlapping the terminology or lumping it inappropriately. Worse, I encounter some very experineced people who carry whistles who have made a career of their own interpretations of the laws, and some have even built little empires to spread their home grown officiating errors to others in thier community, not only on their mistaken laws, but on mechnics etc. as well.
As an assignor for the higher level referes doing youth competition, I inherit a lot of these people. They have to be re-educated, and some are beyond my help. Let's not confuse them any more than we have to.[/B]
Whipple,
I totally agree with the premise of confusion. At all levels, even the USSF and CSA seminars I can find those that do as Whipple suggests, many with the best of intentions some totally convinced they are correct and thus spreads the misinformation. In this case are we at a fundemental difference or splitting hairs? Is there clarity here after reading through all the threads? Could a newer referee say with certainty OH I see clearly now?
In LAW 5 THe Referee
stops, suspends or terminates the match, at HIS DISCRESTION, for any infringements of the Laws. So I take it this discrestionary power allow us as referees to assume responsibility for taking the risks of not calling a law violation if that violation is trifling, or would have a defrimental effect on the team the infringement was not against.
Although advantagous it is not the same concept as ADVANTAGE PLAY ON! I hear you saying that applying advantage in the context of LAW 12 is not the same as allowing Play to Continue in other laws?