You Make the Call video (youth)

[Wreave]

Okay, since I've obviously learned nothing in my time here about not teeing myself up to get abused, I'd like for ya'll to review a video I've just created on a single, controversial play. This was originally posted by a parent on a local soccer site I help moderate. The parent was kind enough to provide me with the full-quality video, which I have edited, slowed down, added commentary, etc. It's now a 2+ minute video that I intend to use in AYSO Intermediate Referee classes.

We had a lot of fun discussing it on my local board, but all we had was the 10-second clip. I think this version, with some slow-motion replays, really helps see the events.

It's really more for discussion of positioning, foul recognition, and ITOOTR than for the purpose of having a single correct answer, but I do have one that I believe is right. Of course, so do all of you. And yes, I also know what was called on the field - will share both after feedback from the peanut gallery.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZrLnuMyDl3U

[blind_clown]

Thoughts: get rid of the text and let the instructor say it or at least show the clip multiple times before it comes up; background music is annoying; obviously no solution, but the angle is horrible, the hip check isn't that clear if you want it to be a foul, maybe a different incident could be used; do you have releases for filming the minors

[DerbyRam54]

I think this is a great little video for instructional purposes. One thing I noticed was that the initial push by blue outside the box led me to focus on the upper body contact to the point where that dominated what my mind was registering.
I watched it several times trying to work out what you'd see from other vantage points, since the ref wouldn't get the camera angle view. How obvious would the white player's actions be from behind, from the side and so on.
Anyway, while I think all these points to ponder are more useful than the call I'd make, I'll go with a DFK to white for the initial push by blue. Didn't look trifling to me.

[Englishref]

For me it's a penalty to the whites, plus the compulsory RC for DOGSO.

[blind_clown]

Major blunder:
"What about the contact outside the penalty area? Was it deliberate?"

Only DFK offense that deliberate is a consideration on is handling.

[USSF REF]

27 Variations on Jeopardy, played on a harpsichord? I don't know Wreave -- it's a little distracting. I understand why you used it though. I think these sort of things are better with no music to allow for concentration. Leave the game sound in though.

I don't think all the still frames help out, espcially displayed like you have done there.

You show the clip normally then evaluate the second part before you evaluate the first part. That seems counter-intuitive. I think to teach newer referees presenting the first foul can lead to a good discussion as to why you might or might not blow the whistle right away. Are you waiting to see about advantage or did you not think it was a foul? Clearly, it's a blatent push but it's leading to something, that right there is a good discussion for the class.

If you have Final Cut pro you could theoretically crop into the foul for the times when you replay the image over and over.

The scrolling text at the end is a little fast.

Also you never considered the choice of "no call" I'm not saying it's right, but it is a choice that a referee might make, possibly that could get into a good discussion about courage to call the fouls.

What did the referee in this game do?

[Wreave]

Major blunder:
"What about the contact outside the penalty area? Was it deliberate?"

Only DFK offense that deliberate is a consideration on is handling.

"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 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 spectators."
(Former International F.A. Board Decision 8 to Law V, now considered an integral element of the "Spirit of the Game.")

[USSF REF]

Thoughts: get rid of the text and let the instructor say it or at least show the clip multiple times before it comes up; background music is annoying; obviously no solution, but the angle is horrible, the hip check isn't that clear if you want it to be a foul, maybe a different incident could be used; do you have releases for filming the minors

The vidographer would only require model releases from these kids and their parents, if the videographer or Wreave were going to use this videograph for the purpose of personal profit. In this case, these are individuals on a public grounds and have no expectation of privacy/ protection from photography.

In an educational setting, particularly this would be considered a fair use anyway, so the photographed parties would have no claim on the grounds that their likeness was stolen anyway.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

I would have given the penalty. Meh.

[BentwoodBlue]

Like others have said, there should be a option of No Call. I know of several people what wouldn't call a thing.
Now for interpretation. I think that your saying a PK call is wrong is well... wrong. I don't believe in right and wrong calls. All I care about when evaluating a referee is, was it the right call given the positioning of the referee crew. I would certainly ask what they saw. If his resoning is within the Laws and his positioning is good he is never wrong.
Take a closer look at the hip check. What his white doing? Have a look at his body language. It looks to me that he over ran the ball and is correcting to make a play at it.
The way I see it is both players are playing the ball and not each other.

My first instinct was to call a penalty when I saw in real time. But with the video evidence I think keeping the whistle out of my mouth is the better option. Both players seemed to be playing the ball which led to them stumbling over each other. Which, would be the most unpopular opinion on the pitch and probably in this forum.

[nylaw5]

I echo the thoughts about adjusting the video, however if you are pausing after each clip and asking for discourse, it will suit your purpose...maybe sans music.

My opinion......no call....were there fouls? Sure. I think the attacker went down because he put himself off balance by reaching back to try and get a touch on the ball. Did the attacker foul blue and vice-versa, I think so. Either way a penalty there is very very soft. I might accept a foul going out, but the keeper collects the ball and I don't feel there was enough there to warrant stopping the game.

I would definitly mention in the instructional section that the referee should not have been walking up the field when the counter attack begin. He was out of position, and in this case it was preventable.

[nylaw5]

By the way.....thanks for throwing this clip out there....maybe we can start a "clip of the week" or something similar.

[blind_clown]

"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 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 spectators."
(Former International F.A. Board Decision 8 to Law V, now considered an integral element of the "Spirit of the Game.")
If the trip is accidental, he was trying to get the ball but accidentally got the player, accidentally ran into the guy at full speed and leveled him, did a bicycle kick inches from a guy's face without knowing he was there, it is still a foul. This clause means don't call the stupid shit. It doesn't mean judge what the player meant to do. If that's what you meant, it's poor word choice. Especially given a class at that level will still equate deliberate with intentional. Remember, when that decision was written, we were still to judge intent and deliberate/intentional were the same. That's no longer what it means and that will be a source of confusion.

[Wreave]

Good feedback so far. Here are my thoughts:

1. Change the still photos on the hip check. I will try to find a way to do them full screen, one at a time, instead of in the six-panel shot. I think the hip check is important - it's very hard to see at full speed, especially the first few times when all you see is the defender pushing the attacker down in the PA. This is what shows to me that the PK is the wrong option.

2. Hmmm. Lots of negative feedback on the music. I thought it was kind of funny. And yes, it's intended to be distracting!

3. Continuing in the vein of starting at the end and working backwards, I'd like to clip out the portion of the beginning of the video that shows the ref on the wrong side of midfield, walking. That would be good to put at the end. POSITIONING AND HUSTLE.

4. Add "no call" as an option to consider, though since there's an audible whistle in the game, that makes it harder to consider. However, while discussing this on my local board, a couple folks did say that's what they would have done. It's certainly worth discussion.

5. Add YC and RC options. EnglishRef, I don't know about on your side of the pond, but here in USSF land, even if the push by the blue defender was the only foul, the four Ds weren't met and that would not be DOGSO. YC, sure. RC, no. But I like putting it in there for discussion purposes, food for thought.

[Wreave]

If the trip is accidental, he was trying to get the ball but accidentally got the player, accidentally ran into the guy at full speed and leveled him, did a bicycle kick inches from a guy's face without knowing he was there, it is still a foul. This clause means don't call the stupid shit. It doesn't mean judge what the player meant to do. If that's what you meant, it's poor word choice. Especially given a class at that level will still equate deliberate with intentional. Remember, when that decision was written, we were still to judge intent and deliberate/intentional were the same. That's no longer what it means and that will be a source of confusion.

In this class, we discuss the IFAB decision. I chose the word "deliberate" not only deliberately, but intentionally. If you read any of my other posts, you know I do not equate "deliberate" with "intentional". However, you stated that handling was the only foul for which "deliberate" was a relevant standard, and I disagree. Of the changes I'll be making to the video based on constructive feedback from the other users, removing the word "deliberate" isn't one of them.

It's my hope that this thread doesn't get hijacked on this discussion. It's an interesting video. A) do you have any feedback, B) what do you think is the right call?

[blind_clown]

In this class, we discuss the IFAB decision. I chose the word "deliberate" not only deliberately, but intentionally. If you read any of my other posts, you know I do not equate "deliberate" with "intentional". However, you stated that handling was the only foul for which "deliberate" was a relevant standard, and I disagree. Of the changes I'll be making to the video based on constructive feedback from the other users, removing the word "deliberate" isn't one of them.

It's my hope that this thread doesn't get hijacked on this discussion. It's an interesting video. A) do you have any feedback, B) what do you think is the right call?


A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

trips or attempts to trip an opponent

jumps at an opponent

charges an opponent

strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

pushes an opponent
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player
commits any of the following four offences:

tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball
holds an opponent
spits at an opponent
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

You are misapplying a word from a statement that has changed meaning. If other fouls were called by the same standard as deliberate handling (only place deliberate is in the book) an accidental kick or trip would not be called as a careless foul. If deliberate applied in the sense you are using it, accidental handling which resulted in a gained advantage would be called. In other words, accidental trips are called, but accidental handling is not. The word deliberate is inserted to make that distinction.

The clause in its new meaning is a good thing to go over, but you will only be causing problems for the Law 12 section when judging deliberate handling and deliberate [other offenses] are two entirely different things. There's a reason the current instruction focuses on not calling trifling/doubtful offenses rather than not calling those that are not deliberate. I can tell you like to pull old laws, but aren't well studied in the why and the meaning. The word deliberate was inserted at a time when intent was judged. Had that clause been rewritten instead of copied, trifling/doubtful would have been used instead.

[blind_clown]

5. Add YC and RC options. EnglishRef, I don't know about on your side of the pond, but here in USSF land, even if the push by the blue defender was the only foul, the four Ds weren't met and that would not be DOGSO. YC, sure. RC, no. But I like putting it in there for discussion purposes, food for thought.

Don't judge solely based on 4 Ds. It is only a guideline. I'm assuming it's the last challenge (forearm into attacker in PA) that's in question for the send off. Attacker is attempting to gain the ball, and if he is able to win it, he has position on the defender and a one on one with the goalkeeper. The defender prevents him from making the play by pushing him away. If this had been a quick, high skilled attacker against a slow, low skilled defender you would have had an OGSO as the ball would have been on the attacker's foot.

The instant the attacker gets the ball (if he does) he's got one man to beat, 18 yards from goal, ball at his feet, and is moving towards the goal.

The key to this is that the defender left the ball to meet the attacker, otherwise it was within easy reach. However, since this is rec, if it's the 300 pounder getting his 50% playing time at forward, ITOOTR he's not getting to that ball and being able to do anything with it.

I also kind of like where the ref is at the start for a blue attack, but his speed of movement suggests he was there by luck as he should be there or a little wider and quickly turning back from going to the wing in anticipation of the attack.

[USSF REF]

2. Hmmm. Lots of negative feedback on the music. I thought it was kind of funny. And yes, it's intended to be distracting!


I don't see how distraction helps you in a classroom setting. You're conveying information, make it simple, clarify your data don't confuse it.

It also doesn't feel right with this piece.

[AlsoRan]

Had I been the referee, it would have been DFK to white outside the PA. The first push outside the PA appears to be much more than shoulder to shoulder contact. Blue defender's arms are well away from his body, and white attacker is thrown off balance. If that kind of push is tolerated as trifling, things will only escalate. I attribute the hip check to an awkward attempt to recover from the push, but it is after the original foul.

[Fleck]

Id give it a no call also. The pushing was mutual.