Should you call it if you dont see it

[whitehound]

Gents
Been away for awhile. Did you miss me? I have a question for you? Had a relatively high level instructor yesterday do a scenario where you watch a clip and critique what the reff did. In this scenario a DFK near the corner following a sendoff on a second caution(probably familiar to those of you who have been around. ANYWAY...on the cross that ball contacts an attackers hand. The reff doesn’t see it. Defenders do. Play continues and a goal is scored. Defending team goes ballistic and follows reff and AR around the field protesting. There is plenty to talk about regarding player management, referee teamwork and even the conduct of the police in the clip but the comment that got me was "if the reff would have called the handball in the first place this wouldn’t have happened". When this comment was made, I asked if the referee saw the deliberate handling. ANSWER:no. My next question, "did the assistant see the handling" ANSWER:No...but if everyone else saw it he should of just called the foul anyway and no one would have complained.
HERE IS MY PROBLEM: As a referee if you react to players protesting over something you didn’t see and make a call you aren’t sure about....the NEXT time something bad happens you can be SURE everyone will protest in an attempt to change your call. Players OFTER protest Wrongly in an attempt to influence the referee or simply by mistake. You cant as a referee allow the players to control the game. What do you think? Would YOU call a foul you didn’t see if one team was universally complaining? Do you think we foster the bad habit of players calling the game by doing so?

[Caesar]

I'd never call anything I or my assistants hadn't seen.

[IASocFan]

I'd never call anything I or my assistants hadn't seen.

I sometimes use evidence other than visual, but the screaming of the opponents is not conclusive evidence that something happened - particularly on offside calls. Also, remember that any ball that hits the opponents' arm or hand is intentional!

[falcon.7]

I was at this clinic as well.

Agreed - you cannot call something you did not see or hear (such as deflections). If we relied solely on player's honesty, referees would have no credibility, and Eric Wynalda would win. That is why we are trained as neutral observers and arbiters. IASocFan is spot on about offside/handling. If we trusted defenders, no goals would ever be scored!

Don't know if you caught it whitehound, but I'm pretty sure there was no kickoff. Somehow play simply restarted.

[whitehound]

I was at this clinic as well.

Agreed - you cannot call something you did not see or hear (such as deflections). If we relied solely on player's honesty, referees would have no credibility, and Eric Wynalda would win. That is why we are trained as neutral observers and arbiters. IASocFan is spot on about offside/handling. If we trusted defenders, no goals would ever be scored!

Don't know if you caught it whitehound, but I'm pretty sure there was no kickoff. Somehow play simply restarted.

Okay I dont feel as bad as I did yesterday. I swear everytime I go to one of those trainings I hear something that is in opposition to my training in years past. I really wish instructors would stick to more conventional topics and avoid throwing in dogma........I have to tell you I have seen more then one local referee in the mens leagues allow the players to push them around which is one of the many reasons that the mens leagues in CT are so out of control. The players expect to push the referees around and get their way. And we wonder why we cant get enough reffs to work the leagues.

[billf]

If I recall that clip correctly the emphasis should have been on positioning and awareness so you can see it, not on calling it because you're getting hammered by the defenders. You obviously cannot call something you did not see. As far as the dissent, there's certainly a lesson for managing it after the decision has been made.

[LoewenBoy]

I have to tell you I have seen more then one local referee in the mens leagues allow the players to push them around which is one of the many reasons that the mens leagues in CT are so out of control. The players expect to push the referees around and get their way. And we wonder why we cant get enough reffs to work the leagues.
Geesh, I thought TX was the only place that happened.:D Hence why I only do college and U16-19 competitive games. I let my Grade 5 level lapse when I moved to TX for that very reason (insane men's league matches). It is much safer to do select and college than those other leagues.

Case in point: January 2003. Just moved to TX from Germany. Was a state-level referee there for many years. Figured I would referee and play in TX in my "old age". I was playing in an over-30 match at a complex NE of Dallas. Game quite inconsequential. However, right in the middle of the second half about 15-20 players from the other field start running across our field (during play) headed for the parking lot. Then another 20-30 people do the same thing 15 seconds later, one of which was a referee. I grabbed his arm and asked him "what the hell are you doing? we have a game goint on!!" His response? "I just ejected a guy over of Field 5 and he went to his car to get his gun!" Our CR whistled the game and we all ran for our cars. Was my first and LAST game playing men's league football in Texas. After that, I just settled with my college and U19 games. :o I'm too young to die.

That said, I agree...you only call what you see, get a fast car and back it into the parking space ready to roll. :D

[bluedevils]

whitehound, that advice you heard doesn't sound quite right in my opinion. It almost seems to be coming from the 'make decisions with an eye toward what will bring less controversy on the referee' school of thought. I never attended that school.

On the other hand, I *have* seen a couple decisions where the referee seemed to make a decision based on 'smell' rather than 'sight.' Not sure what game it was, but I was watching an international friendly in person and one of our U.S. FIFAs called a foul. It looked to me like a caution, but the ref's body language indicated he felt it was a simple foul. As he approached the fallen player and surveyed the scene, I think he figured out that a caution was a good idea, based on the foul and based on the player reactions from both teams.

For my first few years refereeing, I simply would NOT call something if me or the AR hadn't seen it. Slowly, I have begun to soften that stance somewhat. If I have a really strong feeling something was a foul but I didn't see it, I have called a few of those because I felt it was the right thing to do, not because I thought it would relieve pressure on me or make things easier on me.

[USSF REF]

I just got back from the ODP Nationals in TX. The instructor there was Kermit Quinsberry, the FIFA AR.

We talked about situations like this. He made the case that there may be things that you didn't see, but many of the players and fans seem to be telling you that something happened, and not only that, but they tell you what happened.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but his opinion was if the pieces fall into place - if it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, it's a duck. There may be times where you can gather information from non neutral sources, you just have to be sure you can trust that info.

I was a 4th on a college D1 game last season and there was a confrontation near the ball. It was a tough call for the referee as several players had converged and screened the Referee's view. The AR and I had the similar issue. The next thing the Referee knew was one player had fallen and was bleeding from his nose and an opponent near the felled player was retreating from a small angry mob. The referee decided that this player who was now running away from vigilante justice most likely did something to be sent off. So, out came the red card. The mob stopped, no body questioned it.

All of us on the sideline couldn't tell what happened, the ejected player was asked by his coach what happened and he told the coach that he had "accidentally" elbowed the opponent's nose. Later we found out that the player did in fact elbow him, but considering the ball was out of play at the time we were able to also conclude that accidental really meant intentional in this case.

Sometimes you have to use your gut as a referee, but imagine the hell he would have had to pay if he sent the player off and there had been no such elbowing... it's always a risky decision.

[bluedevils]

Good story, but you need to use this approach sparingly especially when dealing with critical situations. I would NOT advise referees to be in the habit of doing this on a regular basis in their matches.

It takes a good deal of savvy/moxie/experience to have a feel for when, how, and whom you can trust when deciding to call something you and your ARs haven't seen.

[whitehound]

Good story, but you need to use this approach sparingly especially when dealing with critical situations. I would NOT advise referees to be in the habit of doing this on a regular basis in their matches.

It takes a good deal of savvy/moxie/experience to have a feel for when, how, and whom you can trust when deciding to call something you and your ARs haven't seen.
I would also point out that this is not a bleeding nose or a running away player but an appeal for deliberate handling....and we all know that 75% of these are complete BS. The instructor was also from TX. I wonder how many guys are doing things that make thier individual game easier to deal with but are in reality creating bigger problems for themselves and for the game by taking the easy way out........
-Sure call deliberate handling......its what the players want, right....dont even worry what the LOTG or ATR says.