Question on Dissent

[fiddlestick]

Is there a specific law stating that a 'keeper cannont leave the area to dissent?

[Tame Lion]

Originally posted by fiddlestick
Is there a specific law stating that a 'keeper cannont leave the area to dissent?
No. The words in LOTG are "shows dissent by word or action." The above is an action frequently interpretted to be dissent.

[whipple]

Originally posted by fiddlestick
Is there a specific law stating that a 'keeper cannont leave the area to dissent?

As Tame Lion has said, this is not in the Laws of the Game. It is, however a rule that some High School soccer associations have adopted, further, it is a standard or basis of judgement that some referees have applied to indicate if a keeper has gone too far with questioning a call and as a means of quelling dissent.

I had a situation a few years ago when, after awarding a PK, the keeper refused to return to her line and ended up having to be cautioned for delaying the restart of play, I did not caution her for dissent, though I probably should have. This was a high school match and the coach argued that it could not be delaying since time stops in HS for a PK.

[GoatBoy]

The USSF's "7 Cautionable + 7 Sending-off Offenses" guidance states that cautionable dissent includes:

"If playing as a goalkeeper, leaves the penalty area (not beckoned by the referee) to engage an official in debate regarding a decision."

[fiddlestick]

tx fellas.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by GoatBoy
The USSF's "7 Cautionable + 7 Sending-off Offenses" guidance states that cautionable dissent includes:

"If playing as a goalkeeper, leaves the penalty area (not beckoned by the referee) to engage an official in debate regarding a decision."
Thank you for taking the time to actually look this up before making an incorrect answer.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
Thank you for taking the time to actually look this up before making an incorrect answer.

Grey,

Actually, Tame Lion did give a correct answer. The Laws of the Game contain no specific prohibition against the goalkeeper leaving the penalty area while questioning a call or that in leaving they have become guilty of misconduct.

The 7+7 are not laws, but guidelines from USSF to assist referees in judging misconduct and contain the following proviso:


The actions listed above assist in defining the scope of the basis for a caution and can provide a useful guide in identifying the specific behavior which the Laws of the Game consider unacceptable. It is critical, however, for Referees to distinguish between those relatively few actions for which a caution is mandated by the Laws of the Game and the remaining actions for which a caution is discretionary.

In other words, it does not mean that a keeper may not leave the penalty area to question a call, nor does it mean that a keeper is free to dissent if they remain in their PA, but that should a keeper leave the area, it may be an indication that they have crossed the line... or not, depending on the game.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by whipple
Grey,

Actually, Tame Lion did give a correct answer. The Laws of the Game contain no specific prohibition against the goalkeeper leaving the penalty area while questioning a call or that in leaving they have become guilty of misconduct.

The 7+7 are not laws, but guidelines from USSF to assist referees in judging misconduct and contain the following proviso:



In other words, it does not mean that a keeper may not leave the penalty area to question a call, nor does it mean that a keeper is free to dissent if they remain in their PA, but that should a keeper leave the area, it may be an indication that they have crossed the line... or not, depending on the game. Wow! Sure glad I dont have to follow the ATR and can do my own thing! Sure makes it easier on me! We are covering old ground here but what the heck why not..........The ATR is "the official USSF interpretation of the LOTG" now we can all go off and do our own thing and leave the players guessing OR we can all at least marginally try to call the game in a similar way. As a player I HATED the lack of consistancy among reffs with some guys being attila the hun and some being Mr. Rogers.......I like the ATR.......most of the time and so does the USSF or they wouldnt have written and published it.

[whipple]

Grey,

Let me draw your attention to a article by Bob Evans at: http://www.massref.net/msrc_v81.htm

What you are missing here is a fundamental aspect of the both the spirit, and the history of the game. This is that we as referees are to do the Least that is necessary to control the game. To quote Bob Evans: "The great beauty of IBD 8 is its applicability to every game we will ever see, and the important thing is to do the least, L--E--A--S--T, that's necessary."

The Advice to Referees is just that, advice. The 7+7 are guidelines written to give referees a basis for judging misconduct. Yes they help provide consistency or standards, but they are not rules or laws, nor do they purport to be so. A referee who would attempt to follow these as though they were some absolute set of rules would be in serious trouble. We count on referees to apply common sense and judgement.

Noone is saying to ignore the advice and position papers, but rather that you must learn to use them as a basis to make effective decisions. But you must not blindly follow them or confuse that which is an interpretaton or advice with that which is a Law of the game.

It is my hope that you are simply playing the devils advocate here, because if you were to actually go out and conduct a match in the manner you espouse, you probaly are not having much fun, and I guarantee any player you would unfairly penalize isn't having much fun either.

Sherman

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by whipple
Grey,

Let me draw your attention to a article by Bob Evans at: http://www.massref.net/msrc_v81.htm

What you are missing here is a fundamental aspect of the both the spirit, and the history of the game. This is that we as referees are to do the Least that is necessary to control the game. To quote Bob Evans: "The great beauty of IBD 8 is its applicability to every game we will ever see, and the important thing is to do the least, L--E--A--S--T, that's necessary." We dont HAVE to handle these things firmly and you may want to do the least you can so that everyone likes you but you are doing a disservice to the game. Sure you can get by with just a whistle (or nothing)but you arent controling the game and ensuring fairness and in the big picture you are shirking your responsibility to all of the players and reffs who will have to deal with the problems you refuse to.

The problem is when YOUR least differs signifigantly from MY least. That is when players get frustrated. If a keeper knows that you will caution him if he leaves his penalty area to dissent, there is no drama. He isnt angry when you do what you are supposed to do. The problems come when players EXPECT that you will do what the LOTG and the ATR say and you do not. This is most prevelent in the tackling from behind and the Deliberate fouls to stop an OGSO.

Originally posted by whipple

The Advice to Referees is just that, advice. The 7+7 are guidelines written to give referees a basis for judging misconduct. Yes they help provide consistency or standards, but they are not rules or laws, nor do they purport to be so. A referee who would attempt to follow these as though they were some absolute set of rules would be in serious trouble. We count on referees to apply common sense and judgement. I have worked in places where referees used the ATR and where they didnt. The players like it much better when you do because they know what to expect. Why would they publish and teach the ATR if USSF had no intent for you to use it? I find most of the people who resist its use are the much older reffs who dont like the changes that have been made and dont want to change the way they reff. If you dont want to live by the rules then please do something that is consistant with that value.........like coaching. :)

Originally posted by whipple

Noone is saying to ignore the advice and position papers, but rather that you must learn to use them as a basis to make effective decisions. But you must not blindly follow them or confuse that which is an interpretaton or advice with that which is a Law of the game. Nobody said anything about blindly following them but they were written by an experienced group of officials who set policy that you must abide by if you wear a USSF patch.

Originally posted by whipple

It is my hope that you are simply playing the devils advocate here, because if you were to actually go out and conduct a match in the manner you espouse, you probaly are not having much fun, and I guarantee any player you would unfairly penalize isn't having much fun either.

Sherman I wouldnt play the devils advocate. It would waste both of our time. By the way I have a blast.....and both the players and coaches ask for me over and over in USSF as well as NFHS play so I must be doing something right. They like the known enitity instead of the cowboys that wing it from week to week. They like the tough game control so that the focus isnt on foul play but on skill. They like that I protec the skille players and enforce the rules. It sure as h**l isnt because I look so good in yellow. :)

[Claymore]

I've heard this referred to as the "Meola" rule.

As stated before, you have to use common sense when applying this rule - it's not an "automatic" caution.

[whistleblowerusa]

Originally posted by Claymore
I've heard this referred to as the "Meola" rule.

As stated before, you have to use common sense when applying this rule - it's not an "automatic" caution.
This is not a common sense thing at all. It is a caution, period. Think about it. the goal keeper, just as Meola does, comes from the penalty area where he plays all game to confront you as the Referee. Very deliberate dissent. Not just a heat of the moment thing. It must be dealt with with a caution.
And Grey, the ATR is a great pubication, but it is only a guide that is not perfect (in fact a new version is on it's way). There are many many other papers and material which USSF instructs with.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by whistleblowerusa
This is not a common sense thing at all. It is a caution, period. Think about it. the goal keeper, just as Meola does, comes from the penalty area where he plays all game to confront you as the Referee. Very deliberate dissent. Not just a heat of the moment thing. It must be dealt with with a caution.
And Grey, the ATR is a great pubication, but it is only a guide that is not perfect (in fact a new version is on it's way). There are many many other papers and material which USSF instructs with. Isnt it against the law to agree AND disagree in the same post?? :)
You must like this ATR ruling as you defend it so well. You should post here more often....even if you mistakenly disagree with me on occasion.

[whistleblowerusa]

Originally posted by Greyhnd00
Isnt it against the law to agree AND disagree in the same post?? :)
You must like this ATR ruling as you defend it so well. You should post here more often....even if you mistakenly disagree with me on occasion.
I only defend what I have be instructed to do and is correct.
Been very busy instructing and training.
It's nice to agree with you Grey!