PVancouver
20 Jun 2008, 12:13 PM
Referee Week In Review (http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_12_2008.htm)
Week 12 – ending June 15, 2008
Video Clip 4: New England at Houston (53:03)
In this clip, a player enters the match at halftime. Then, in a span of 34 minutes is involved in three questionable plays – two of which are potentially cautionable on their own. After the first foul, at 53:05, the referee exhibits his displeasure with the player’s actions. Approximately six minutes later, the same player goes in for an aerial challenge that the referee determines is fair. But, remember, the referee’s mental databank needs to register the players involved in hard challenges. Finally, some 34 minutes after the initial hard challenge, the player commits another careless (even potentially reckless on its own) foul from behind where there is no opportunity to play the ball. At this point, the referee must be able to recognize that the player is persistently infringing the Laws of the Game and caution him.
Eddie Robinson is called for two fouls over the span of 34 minutes, and Andy Geiger is getting chastised for not calling Persistent Infringement? A bit severe. Surely the NRO does not want its referees to think they must call PI on players for their second foul over a span of over half an hour. Of course, it is Eddie Robinson. The league should pass a special rule that he must enter every game with one caution already. Or maybe, he should just be given a strict warning as soon as he steps on the field. This would take care of some of the preliminaries ;) .
Video Clip 7: Colorado at Toronto (28:12)
A caution is required in this situation given, amongst other criteria, the danger facing the attacker. The defender has no regard for the safety of the opponent as he initiates a reckless upper body challenge. This challenge is similar to others provided in prior “Referee Week In Reviews” in which cautions were required. Keys to identification: the proximity to the sign boards and cement pavement (increases the likelihood of injury), the speed at which the body charge is initiated, the extension of the forearm to make contact, the “lining up” of the player by the defender just prior to the foul and the fact that if the defender does not foul the attacker, the attacker and the ball will be behind him headed to goal. Hence, a foul and caution is required as the defender’s action has to be considered as breaking down a promising attack. Note, the AR can also provide assistance to the referee if he has electronic flags and has a good view of the situation as contact is made. By beeping the referee, the AR would be sending a signal that he has seen a foul. The AR can also provide a “silent signal” that the foul is worthy of a caution by patting his breast pocket indicating his opinion that the foul involves misconduct.
Well, I’ve always wondered what the material was in Toronto that caused players to slip hard into the signboards. Cement? This doesn’t seem to me to be a very safe material to have within a few feet of an MLS field. And why do signboards need to be so damn close to the field? Take a look at Video Clip 8, and then tell me why the touchline signboards need to that close to the field.
“The speed at which the body charge is initiated” was not great.
“The fact that if the defender does not foul the attacker, the attacker and the ball will be behind him headed to goal.” Jarrod Smith is going to out run Marvell Wynne to the ball? I doubt it.
“Hence, a foul and caution is required as the defender’s action has to be considered as breaking down a promising attack.” No, I suspect Wynne believed he was applying a fair shoulder-to-shoulder charge to Smith. He did so to prevent Smith from keeping the ball in play, as it was about to roll into touch off the foot of Smith. To call this a tactical foul on Wynne’s part to deny attacking play is quite a stretch. Wynne could have forced the ball out with a slide tackle but he would have likely given up possession in doing so (just as he would with a tactical foul). And the play would not have been any safer for Smith.
The charge appears much worse in the second angle than the angle the CR had. Note that Smith does not actually hit the signboard with much force. (Unfortunately for Wynne, despite the hard charge, Smith was still able to get a foot on the ball and keep it in play. Carver will probably give him demerits for that.)
Jarrod Smith does hit the pavement pretty hard. Can some explain to me why this hard pavement is there, so close to the field? Canada and MLS should get a red cards for this. What if Smith’s head hit this pavement. I shudder to think. The issues of this pavement, and of signboards being so close to the field of play all around the league, need to be seriously addressed if MLS actually is concerned about the safety of players.
Video Clip 9: Colorado at Toronto (24:05)
This clip presents a case in which a handling is called that will result in a free kick being taken just over 18 yards from goal in the danger zone. The goalkeeper attempts to gather a ball but mishandles it and it skirts out to the top of the penalty area. The referee, in this clip, awards the attacking team with a free kick as he judges that the goalkeeper handled the ball outside the penalty area boundary line. A caution is also issued to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior. The foul call then leads to a dangerous free kick and potential encroachment.
In reviewing the tape, it is not clear that there is a handling offense. It is certainly not clear enough to award a free kick approximately 18 yards from goal. To make such a call, the referee and/or AR must be certain and positioned so as to have a clear view of the offense (position of the ball relative to the penalty area line at the exact time contact is made with the goalkeeper’s hands). The resulting yellow card would also have been avoided.
Key learning points:
· Ball on the line
According to Law 1 – The Field of Play, the “lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.” Given this, the ball will be considered to be inside the penalty area if any part of the ball is crossing the plane of the boundary line. Consequently, the goalkeeper may legally handle the ball as long as any part of the ball is crossing the penalty area line whether on the ground or in the air.
· Goalkeeper position
The position of the goalkeeper’s body plays no role in determining the handling offense. The position of the ball relative to the penalty area markings when it is touched by the goalkeeper’s hands is the determining factor in deciding if a handling offence occurred. The goalkeeper’s entire body can be outside the penalty area. A handling offense occurs at the time the goalkeeper’s hand(s) contact the ball while the ball is fully outside the penalty area boundary line.
· The referee must be better positioned
To make the call, the referee is not strategically positioned to have a clear view of where the ball was when it was touched by the goalkeeper’s hand(s). A wider and closer view would make the decision more convincing. Watch at 24:10 on the game clock as the referee stops his run to the penalty area (possibly anticipating that the goalkeeper will cleanly control the ball which does not occur) causing him to be further from the decision.
· AR involvement
The official best positioned to make a determination as to whether the ball was handled outside the penalty area is the AR. But, like the referee, the AR must be certain of the handling offense before intervening. If the AR intervenes it should be with a raised flag with a slight wiggle.
· The free kick
It is difficult to ascertain whether players break from the wall prior to the first movement of the ball on the free kick. If the referee is of the opinion the players moved forward and within ten yards of the ball prior to the first pass, the referee would be justified in awarding a retake of the free kick for encroachment.
I agree that a caution was very harsh.
I am in the camp that a goalkeeper should not be able to touch the ball with his hands outside of the penalty area (I would artificially extend this area to include the area immediately behind the penalty area), even if the ball itself is on the line.
Using this as a basis for judgment, Preston Burpo clearly handled the ball outside the penalty area.
The LOTG say it is a foul if a player “handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)”. It is apparently the goalkeeper that has to be within his own penalty area, not the ball. The Advice to Referees does not provide any additional clarification.
Suppose a field player handled a ball that was on the line at the top of the penalty area. Should a penalty kick be awarded? I would say yes if the player’s hand was above the line or inside the penalty area when he touched the ball. I would say no if the player’s hand was outside the penalty area when he touched the ball. Why should it be any different for a goalkeeper? The location of the handling should be based on where the player actually handles the ball, not whether the ball itself is or is not “in” the penalty area.
Week 12 – ending June 15, 2008
Video Clip 4: New England at Houston (53:03)
In this clip, a player enters the match at halftime. Then, in a span of 34 minutes is involved in three questionable plays – two of which are potentially cautionable on their own. After the first foul, at 53:05, the referee exhibits his displeasure with the player’s actions. Approximately six minutes later, the same player goes in for an aerial challenge that the referee determines is fair. But, remember, the referee’s mental databank needs to register the players involved in hard challenges. Finally, some 34 minutes after the initial hard challenge, the player commits another careless (even potentially reckless on its own) foul from behind where there is no opportunity to play the ball. At this point, the referee must be able to recognize that the player is persistently infringing the Laws of the Game and caution him.
Eddie Robinson is called for two fouls over the span of 34 minutes, and Andy Geiger is getting chastised for not calling Persistent Infringement? A bit severe. Surely the NRO does not want its referees to think they must call PI on players for their second foul over a span of over half an hour. Of course, it is Eddie Robinson. The league should pass a special rule that he must enter every game with one caution already. Or maybe, he should just be given a strict warning as soon as he steps on the field. This would take care of some of the preliminaries ;) .
Video Clip 7: Colorado at Toronto (28:12)
A caution is required in this situation given, amongst other criteria, the danger facing the attacker. The defender has no regard for the safety of the opponent as he initiates a reckless upper body challenge. This challenge is similar to others provided in prior “Referee Week In Reviews” in which cautions were required. Keys to identification: the proximity to the sign boards and cement pavement (increases the likelihood of injury), the speed at which the body charge is initiated, the extension of the forearm to make contact, the “lining up” of the player by the defender just prior to the foul and the fact that if the defender does not foul the attacker, the attacker and the ball will be behind him headed to goal. Hence, a foul and caution is required as the defender’s action has to be considered as breaking down a promising attack. Note, the AR can also provide assistance to the referee if he has electronic flags and has a good view of the situation as contact is made. By beeping the referee, the AR would be sending a signal that he has seen a foul. The AR can also provide a “silent signal” that the foul is worthy of a caution by patting his breast pocket indicating his opinion that the foul involves misconduct.
Well, I’ve always wondered what the material was in Toronto that caused players to slip hard into the signboards. Cement? This doesn’t seem to me to be a very safe material to have within a few feet of an MLS field. And why do signboards need to be so damn close to the field? Take a look at Video Clip 8, and then tell me why the touchline signboards need to that close to the field.
“The speed at which the body charge is initiated” was not great.
“The fact that if the defender does not foul the attacker, the attacker and the ball will be behind him headed to goal.” Jarrod Smith is going to out run Marvell Wynne to the ball? I doubt it.
“Hence, a foul and caution is required as the defender’s action has to be considered as breaking down a promising attack.” No, I suspect Wynne believed he was applying a fair shoulder-to-shoulder charge to Smith. He did so to prevent Smith from keeping the ball in play, as it was about to roll into touch off the foot of Smith. To call this a tactical foul on Wynne’s part to deny attacking play is quite a stretch. Wynne could have forced the ball out with a slide tackle but he would have likely given up possession in doing so (just as he would with a tactical foul). And the play would not have been any safer for Smith.
The charge appears much worse in the second angle than the angle the CR had. Note that Smith does not actually hit the signboard with much force. (Unfortunately for Wynne, despite the hard charge, Smith was still able to get a foot on the ball and keep it in play. Carver will probably give him demerits for that.)
Jarrod Smith does hit the pavement pretty hard. Can some explain to me why this hard pavement is there, so close to the field? Canada and MLS should get a red cards for this. What if Smith’s head hit this pavement. I shudder to think. The issues of this pavement, and of signboards being so close to the field of play all around the league, need to be seriously addressed if MLS actually is concerned about the safety of players.
Video Clip 9: Colorado at Toronto (24:05)
This clip presents a case in which a handling is called that will result in a free kick being taken just over 18 yards from goal in the danger zone. The goalkeeper attempts to gather a ball but mishandles it and it skirts out to the top of the penalty area. The referee, in this clip, awards the attacking team with a free kick as he judges that the goalkeeper handled the ball outside the penalty area boundary line. A caution is also issued to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior. The foul call then leads to a dangerous free kick and potential encroachment.
In reviewing the tape, it is not clear that there is a handling offense. It is certainly not clear enough to award a free kick approximately 18 yards from goal. To make such a call, the referee and/or AR must be certain and positioned so as to have a clear view of the offense (position of the ball relative to the penalty area line at the exact time contact is made with the goalkeeper’s hands). The resulting yellow card would also have been avoided.
Key learning points:
· Ball on the line
According to Law 1 – The Field of Play, the “lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.” Given this, the ball will be considered to be inside the penalty area if any part of the ball is crossing the plane of the boundary line. Consequently, the goalkeeper may legally handle the ball as long as any part of the ball is crossing the penalty area line whether on the ground or in the air.
· Goalkeeper position
The position of the goalkeeper’s body plays no role in determining the handling offense. The position of the ball relative to the penalty area markings when it is touched by the goalkeeper’s hands is the determining factor in deciding if a handling offence occurred. The goalkeeper’s entire body can be outside the penalty area. A handling offense occurs at the time the goalkeeper’s hand(s) contact the ball while the ball is fully outside the penalty area boundary line.
· The referee must be better positioned
To make the call, the referee is not strategically positioned to have a clear view of where the ball was when it was touched by the goalkeeper’s hand(s). A wider and closer view would make the decision more convincing. Watch at 24:10 on the game clock as the referee stops his run to the penalty area (possibly anticipating that the goalkeeper will cleanly control the ball which does not occur) causing him to be further from the decision.
· AR involvement
The official best positioned to make a determination as to whether the ball was handled outside the penalty area is the AR. But, like the referee, the AR must be certain of the handling offense before intervening. If the AR intervenes it should be with a raised flag with a slight wiggle.
· The free kick
It is difficult to ascertain whether players break from the wall prior to the first movement of the ball on the free kick. If the referee is of the opinion the players moved forward and within ten yards of the ball prior to the first pass, the referee would be justified in awarding a retake of the free kick for encroachment.
I agree that a caution was very harsh.
I am in the camp that a goalkeeper should not be able to touch the ball with his hands outside of the penalty area (I would artificially extend this area to include the area immediately behind the penalty area), even if the ball itself is on the line.
Using this as a basis for judgment, Preston Burpo clearly handled the ball outside the penalty area.
The LOTG say it is a foul if a player “handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)”. It is apparently the goalkeeper that has to be within his own penalty area, not the ball. The Advice to Referees does not provide any additional clarification.
Suppose a field player handled a ball that was on the line at the top of the penalty area. Should a penalty kick be awarded? I would say yes if the player’s hand was above the line or inside the penalty area when he touched the ball. I would say no if the player’s hand was outside the penalty area when he touched the ball. Why should it be any different for a goalkeeper? The location of the handling should be based on where the player actually handles the ball, not whether the ball itself is or is not “in” the penalty area.