My first DOGSO...classic.

[Wahoos1]

Great ball sent between the defenders to speeding forward who jukes and beats the keeper and is tripped from behind by a desperate fullback at the PK spot in front of open goal with no one else even close. AR waving flag furiously as I hit the whistle and then puts flag between legs to signal PK as I point to the mark. I trot over and say "DOGSO?" to which he replies "textbook."

So I had to fight myself, because it had to be a Send off, but I did not want to give it to....a crying little 15 year old girl who was trying to help up the girl she just fouled. Her tears turned to sobs and...I...felt...like...a jerk....!

Yes, doing the job. But who else has had qualms or fought personal feelings about a mandatory sendoff?

[macheath]

(snip)...
Yes, doing the job. But who else has had qualms or fought personal feelings about a mandatory sendoff?

Everybody has. So you don't wave the card around or beat up on the player, but you still have to enforce the law on a clear call like this one. You did the right thing; you can talk to the player, and briefly explain that, although you realize she's sorry for the foul, the laws of the game require you to send her off in this situation.

[USSF REF]

People learn by experience. So you have to give the right decision. Try not to let personal feelings get in the way, that will surely cause you BIG problems - while it's hard, it's best to try and keep out personal feelings about players or other "mitigating" circumstances when it comes to a textbook sending off. I would have to say that 15 year old girls rise above the age where you could convincingly "sell" a yellow because the player was too young to send-off.


When I first read the title for this thread, I thought you were writting a children's book.:p

[USSF REF]

Also lets talk technique...

You had yourself, clearly witnessed a send-off offense. You see the AR waving the flag so you go to confrence with him to be sure he isn't calling some other foul prior to the send-off which would get everyone (including you) off the hook. He verbally informs you that indeed you both have the same thing.

I would like to suggest that perhaps in this case the use of some sort of silent signal to confirm this information. Then if there is a problem the AR can use body language to suggest you need to chat or that he is in disagreement with you decision.

What if when you looked at the AR and he tapped his back pocket, that would tell you exactly what you needed to know. The defender had to go off, and then it "sells" an obvious decision, that much more because you didn't have to go over and discuss the red card before you gave it. It makes you appear fully confident in the decision. Plus it saves that awkward moment before the send-off that seemingly everyone (that know the laws) knows is coming.

That could help in the future, maybe, but your style is your own and you have to do with what you're comfortable doing.

[Hattrix]

Seems to me that if it requires a word with the AR, it might not be so "obvious." An easier sell if it's just from the center, not the whole officiating team.

[campton]

Seems to me that if it requires a word with the AR, it might not be so "obvious." An easier sell if it's just from the center, not the whole officiating team.



Keep in mind that it is the first DOGSo that he has called. I myself have still not called one. nor have i had anything close to it. I think if its close to meeting the 4 D's of DOGSO i would deffinately confer with my AR to make sure i dont send off the wrong player or to be too harsh.

[blech]

Seems to me that if it requires a word with the AR, it might not be so "obvious." An easier sell if it's just from the center, not the whole officiating team.

Easier sell, yes. But nothing wrong with getting confirmation of "obvious" or listening to your AR if you've realized that you were going to blow the call, i.e., you had forgotten that dogso required the red. It's great to use mechanics that sell the call, but ultimately more important to get it right. If you don't need the conversation, all the better, but if you do, then take it, and then don't hesitate to show the red if that's the "right" call.

As noted above, it's probably understandable for a first dogso that there would be a desire to get a confirmation. To the extent this shows lack of confidence or that he is otherwise unsure, you're correct in stating that it's an easier sell without the conversation (or that it would have been better if they had mechanics discussed in advance that allowed them to confirm silently without an actual conversation). But, still good that he got it right. And it will be easier the next time (i.e., the second time), whenever that should occur.

On the initial subject of personal feelings about it, I had a similar situation on my first dogso. It was not tactical, but more just clumsy, and none of the players understood the dogso law. Believe it or not, both coaches appreciated it, and used it as a learning experience. You're not always going to get that reaction, obviously, but especially by u16 it seems to me that learning should be occurring by showing the card, not by explaining that there is a rule that I ought to show red but I'm going to let you off this time. The kids will remember it better if it's done right, and it ultimately is selling out other refs if you don't do it (imagine how the two coaches in my game would have felt if the exact same play happens the next week and it isn't called). Also, whether truly tactical or simply clumsy, I personally buy into the notion that the game will be better if goal scoring opporunities are not prevented by these kinds of fouls. So, in terms of personal feelings, it may be somewhat easier to deal with the crying defender if you're thinking about the greater good, but maybe that doesn't work for you. Bottom line is that the defender should get over this game fairly quickly, and her teammates and her opponents hopefully won't do the same thing in future games.

[macheath]

Seems to me that if it requires a word with the AR, it might not be so "obvious." An easier sell if it's just from the center, not the whole officiating team.

In the situation as described, AR had the flag up and was waving. At that point, center needs to go talk with the AR--should be part of your basic mechanics when the flag goes up on a foul, especially a DOGSO. If you make the DOGSO call without consultation, then everyone can see that the AR has the flag up and you didn't talk with her. And at least some people may speculate that the AR had a different opinion (as many will not know what the flag means). In a more competitive match, or on a tougher, less obvious call, leaving the AR hanging could create a big game management problem. So go have a brief word--look confident, talk quickly with the AR, give a nice affirmative nod ("right, that's what I saw too"), and off you go. Don't wave down an AR flag in this situation without at least a brief conversation.

[refereejoe]

The AR and referee should confer during the pregame to determine silent signals for confirming direction, cautions, and send-offs. That way the referee can blow the whistle, the AR waves his flag, both can confirm the direction of the restart, and both can confirm a send-off without requiring any conference at all.

At that point, center needs to go talk with the AR--should be part of your basic mechanics when the flag goes up on a foul, especially a DOGSO.Chatting with an AR for every wave of the flag should not be a basic mechanic for anyone. The AR should be waving his flag for every foul that occurs in his quadrant, period, even if he is just doing so to mimic the referee. Chatting should be very rare in general, reserved only for those incidents that require communication outside anything standard or silent signals can indicate.

[ref47]

the ar should not be waiving the flag on every foul the ref calls in the ar's area. the ar should only be signaling when s/he believes that the ref did not or could not see the foul. then, and only then should the ar raise the flag.

guide: fouls observed by referee
lead ar
responds to eye contact by the ref requesting assistance regarding location of the foul ...

fouls not seen by referee but indicated by lead ar
lead ar
determines that the infringement was not or could not be seen by the ref ...
signals with the flag raised in the hand appropriate for the restart direction ...

as much as we emphasize teamwork, the outstanding instructions (above) give the ref primary responsibility and expect the ar to make calls only when the ref could not have seen them.

[refereejoe]

Do any higher level game and the instruction is for the referee and lead AR to mimic each other on calls made within the ARs quadrant, regardless of who makes the call initially.

I have no idea if that instruction is documented anywhere, but I've yet to run into any league higher than youth where this is not the case. I ask for this in youth games as well, but the ARs are typically not experienced enough to remember to mimic my calls. No biggie, though.

[ref47]

i believe you are taking a past memo too far. the june 5, 2006 memo instructed the ar to mimic the cr's touchline calls in the cr's area. (can't find the memo on the ussf site.) and that is all it suggested. it did not require the cr to mimic the ar's touchline calls in the ar's area and did not suggest any other need to duplicate calls.

now, as a practical suggestion, i was taught that i should mimic any calls that the ar made that raised concern from the teams. but, not vice versa.

you don't see the ar's in mls mimicing the ref's calls on most fouls.

if ussf wanted it as you describe, it should be in the guide.
if you have a ussf doc on this, i"ll be happy to amend my ways.

[refereejoe]

ref47, poor English and grammar aside, your post is practically nonsensical. The AR should mimic the referee on calls in the referee's quadrant? The AR is so far away, his mirroring the referee adds nothing! The referee should not mimic a call by the AR in the AR's quadrant? How else is he supposed to make the call then?

The ARs in MLS nearly always mirror the referee for calls the referee makes in their quadrant. I've run lines for both Brian Hall and Ricardo Valenzuela, was assessed as an AR by Tomas Bombadilla, and received this advice from Chris Strickland, who was my partner in our instructor training classes. All four of these past and present FIFA referees either requested or instructed that the AR mirror the referee on all calls in his quadrant. I've also run a number of lines for state and national referees being assessed, and it has come up as a point of instruction in the majority of those games.

Granted I have no idea your own experience level, ref47, but you probably don't want to argue with me on this one.

[ref47]

joe, you know what you know. me, i only know what i read from ussf. here is a recent response from ja's column, ask a ref.

"This is an excellent question, as similar problems arise frequently because referees do not give thorough instructions and ARs do not ask enough questions in the pregame conference. The Federation teaches that the AR should never flag for any infringement where it is obvious that the referee can see what happened. If this particular procedure had been discussed in the pregame conference, as it should have been, then the referee would have known that something else had happened. As you describe your signal, the referee would have recognized that an offside occurred before the ball was deflected out of play by the defender. In point of fact, the referee should have known the AR was signaling an offside, because he raised the flag straight up first. If the AR had been signaling "just" a goal kick, the AR would have signaled this by pointing the flag straight out immediately -- pointing it straight up and then, after eye contact, pointing toward the goal area for a goal kick would have been correct only if the ball had indeed left the field for a goal kick and then been played back onto the field. "

doesn't it state - the fed teaches that the ar should never flag for an infringement where it is obvious that the ref can see what happened.

isn't that clear? let the cr make calls unless he cannot see the call to be made. it doesn't say, let him make his call and they duplicate it. it says keep the flag down.

so, i guess you "big boys" play by your own rules.

[ref47]

found the memo on the pro site.



Memorandum

To: Chair, State Referee Committee, State Referee Administrators, State Youth Referee Administrators, State Directors of Instruction, State Directors of Assessment, National Referees, National Instructors, National Assessors
From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Re: Assistant Referee Mechanics

Date: June 5 , 2006

The sport of soccer evolves through innovations in team strategies and tactics and advancements in player skills. This occurs at all levels but often starts at the most competitive matches and gradually filters downward, eventually reaching youth and recreational play. The skills, capabilities, mechanics, and procedures used by referees must evolve as well. This is why deliberate experiments as well as gradual trends in referee mechanics are monitored closely to identify modifications that have proved successful.

US Soccer’s Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials is the official source of advice on the proper standard mechanics to use in matches conducted in this country under the Laws of the Game. Based on developing trends in high level national and international matches, the following change in procedure should be given immediate consideration.

The referee retains primary responsibility for announcing decisions regarding the throw-in, goal kick, and corner kick restarts when the ball leaves the field across the portion of the touchline (throw-in) or goal line (goal kick or corner kick) not given to the assistant referee (what is commonly termed the referee’s end of the touchline or the referee’s side of the goal line).
However, hereafter, the assistant referee should also provide a confirming flag signal after the referee has clearly signaled the restart decision.
Nothing in this modified procedure alters the need for the assistant referee to provide a signal (if possible) when the referee makes eye contact to ask for assistance. Similarly, nothing has changed regarding the assistant referee signaling when the ball has entirely left the field but returned and is still being played (flag straight up, changing to the appropriate signal once eye contact is made with the referee).
The purpose of this change is, among other things, to provide an additional emphasis and visual confirmation for the restart which might be more easily seen by players, team officials, and spectators. The next published version of the Guide will reflect this change.

.

[refereejoe]

The referee retains primary responsibility for announcing decisions regarding the throw-in, goal kick, and corner kick restarts when the ball leaves the field across the portion of the touchline (throw-in) or goal line (goal kick or corner kick) not given to the assistant referee (what is commonly termed the referee’s end of the touchline or the referee’s side of the goal line).

However, hereafter, the assistant referee should also provide a confirming flag signal after the referee has clearly signaled the restart decision.

ref47, I think I understand your confusion. The Jim Allen response you cite discusses when an AR sees an infraction that occurs before the referee stops play for some other reason. In these instances, the AR is instructed to signal for the infraction and maintain that signal until confirmation is received by the referee. The AR is not supposed to mirror the referee in these instances, because then the referee would have no way of knowing that the infraction occurred beforehand.

However, as is clearly stated in the memo you posted, the AR is to mirror the referee for any other call made by the referee within his quadrant as a means of confirmation and visualizing the team aspect of refereeing. Although this memo only mentions doing so when the ball goes into touch, it is common in any higher level match to extend this and include fouls as well. It isn't part of the official procedure to do so (it isn't always practical), but it certainly is a good idea when possible and the AR is capable.

[loghyr]

So I had to fight myself, because it had to be a Send off, but I did not want to give it to....a crying little 15 year old girl who was trying to help up the girl she just fouled. Her tears turned to sobs and...I...felt...like...a jerk....!

Yes, doing the job. But who else has had qualms or fought personal feelings about a mandatory sendoff?

From 16-25, my wife would get out of speeding tickets by letting the floodgates open. At first it was involuntary due to the stress.

The first time she got out of a ticket when we were dating, she confessed it was becoming harder to turn the faucets on. But she did get out of it and she was smiling later.

And it is stress, not a gender thing - I've seen U10 boys cry when they got yellow cards. Hmm, in one case, it was a boys vs girls team and I'm not convinced the kid would have gotten the card either if he had been a girl or if the team they were playing was also boys.

And I've seen a U10 girl who could stop on a dime, bend over, and make the boy behind her fall over her. Then the tears would start and the foul was awarded. Against girls, she never got the call.

Straying, but the point is that you need to be consistent and not be swayed by personal feelings.

[Wahoos1]

The AR and referee should confer during the pregame to determine silent signals for confirming direction, cautions, and send-offs. That way the referee can blow the whistle, the AR waves his flag, both can confirm the direction of the restart, and both can confirm a send-off without requiring any conference at all.

Chatting with an AR for every wave of the flag should not be a basic mechanic for anyone. The AR should be waving his flag for every foul that occurs in his quadrant, period, even if he is just doing so to mimic the referee. Chatting should be very rare in general, reserved only for those incidents that require communication outside anything standard or silent signals can indicate.

This was your usual tournament type of thing where the AR comes running from another game as the teams are coming on the field while we fight the oncoming night skies in late fall.

Usually I request the flag held down between the legs, but the time was fighting us all weekend. A tourny with 5 minutes between games, 5 minute halfs and requiring refs to turn in game cards to the officials tent every game.

[macheath]

refereejoe says:

Chatting with an AR for every wave of the flag should not be a basic mechanic for anyone. The AR should be waving his flag for every foul that occurs in his quadrant, period, even if he is just doing so to mimic the referee. Chatting should be very rare in general, reserved only for those incidents that require communication outside anything standard or silent signals can indicate.

I agree with this, up to a point. But characterizing consultation among members of the referee team as "chatting" potentially trivializes the situation we were given. This is a DOGSO, which is a big deal, and the AR has the flag up and is waving it. Agreed, it also should have been figured out before the match what the communication between AR and CR should be, but as Wahoo pointed out, sometimes you don't get to do that before a match, or sometimes ARs forget.

So, in this specific situation, a DOGSO call where the AR is signalling, a short, professional consultation between AR and CR (not a loose "chat") would be a sensible thing to do, IMHO. Waving the flag down with no visible consultation with the AR could give you game management issues, compared to the brief consultation I recommended. And then you would be sure that the AR wasn't waving the flag for some other foul or problem that occured before the DOGSO.

[ref47]

if the ar "waives his flag for every foul that occurs in his quadrant," the ar will be doing a number of incorrect things.

he will make the cr think that he is just mimicing the cr's call, when he really is signaling that he saw a prior violation of the law that should have stopped play.

he will not have applied the advantage that the cr would have applied had the cr seen the violation.

he will not have considered the violation as possibly trifling as the cr would have had the cr seen the violation.

he will not have followed the outstanding instructions from the guide and position papers.