Coaching from the Sideline

[PVancouver]

A focus for US Soccer referees this year has been to curtail misbehavior by coaches and others in the technical areas.

Until recently, I had never realized how restrictive the Law was concerning coaching and from the sidelines.

Law 3, Decision 2 says
"A team official may convey tactical instructions to the players during the match and he must return to his position after giving these instructions."

I would take this to mean only one team official may convey tactical instructions, but the Additional Instructions, The Technical Area, clarifies that more than one team official may convey tactical instructions (but only one at a time):
"Only one person at a time is authorised to convey tactical instructions
and he must return to his position after giving these instructions."

While I am not sure anyone has a "position" in the technical to return to, I was amazed to see such severe restrictions on coaching players on the field.

Then I came across this Sir Stanley Lover article, which declares that "Officially, coaching 'from the boundary lines' continued to be banned until 1993 when, for the first time, a team coach was recognised in football law as an element in the game. The privilege of conveying tactical instructions appeared in IFAB Decision N°13, tacked on to Law 5, then moved to Law 3, Decision 2."

Was coaching from the sidelines really banned, or was it banned "officially" but allowed in practice, or was it just not mentioned in the Laws at all?

Are current coaches benefitting from a fairly recent change in the law that allows them to participate (beyond selecting substitutes, which themselves have only fairly recently come into the game), or is Lover exaggerating the restrictions on in game coaching that were applied in the past?

The balance sheet
After fifteen years of experience what is the balance sheet?
Is there any evidence of improved quality of play due to coaching during the game? If measurable is it enough to excuse the massive damage to football through constant abuses of the privilege?
It was surely never intended, nor foreseen, by proposers of the law change, that it would lead to excessive interference with flow of play; dissenting conduct inciting violent reactions and displays of egocentric histrionics, now accepted as norm and practised by coaches at all levels.

Has the game really deteriorated this much?

[gosellit]

The word "coach" cannot be found in the LOTG. It is mentioned once in the diagram "TAKING KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK" and twice in the "Technical Area" section.

[PVancouver]

Five Minutes With … Stanley Lover

Referee: What is the most significant rule change in the last 30 years? How or why is that important?

Lover: In a positive manner, two changes in 1992 and 1997 - keepers not being allowed to handle the ball when it is passed, or thrown, to them. That has eliminated a boring tactic and helped the rhythm of the game - there is more play to enjoy.

In a negative aspect, the 1993 change allowing coaches to direct tactics during play. In my view that's the worst change since the Laws were first codified in 1863. Officially, this privilege was intended 'To improve the quality of play' but, after 15 years who can claim it has achieved that goal? As one international coach said, "A coach only needs to convey occasional tactical instructions during play unless he is incompetent and has not established his ideas in training."

Visible coaches cause more harm to the game than players. I would gag them and do away with technical areas, which only serve as stages for maniacs.

I guess I found Lover's hot button.

[nsa]

I would take this to mean only one team official may convey tactical instructions, but the Additional Instructions, The Technical Area, clarifies that more than one team official may convey tactical instructions (but only one at a time):
"Only one person at a time is authorised to convey tactical instructions
and he must return to his position after giving these instructions."

While I am not sure anyone has a "position" in the technical to return to, I was amazed to see such severe restrictions on coaching players on the field.The "team official" should be seated on the bench, not jumping around the TA behaving as if a hot poker had been shoved up his ass.

Then I came across this Sir Stanley Lover article, which declares that "Officially, coaching 'from the boundary lines' continued to be banned until 1993 when, for the first time, a team coach was recognised in football law as an element in the game. The privilege of conveying tactical instructions appeared in IFAB Decision N°13, tacked on to Law 5, then moved to Law 3, Decision 2."

Was coaching from the sidelines really banned, or was it banned "officially" but allowed in practice, or was it just not mentioned in the Laws at all?Yes, coaching from the sidelines was generally banned. Coaches were recruited for their dour expressions and the ability to chain smoke the sponsor's brand of cig while seated at the end of the bench.


Are current coaches benefiting from a fairly recent change in the law that allows them to participate (beyond selecting substitutes, which themselves have only fairly recently come into the game), or is Lover exaggerating the restrictions on in game coaching that were applied in the past?

Has the game really deteriorated this much?The coaching from the sidelines today is much more about gaming the referee than it is about conveying tactical information.

As one international coach said, "A coach only needs to convey occasional tactical instructions during play unless he is incompetent and has not established his ideas in training."Beautiful.

[colins1993]

I'd like to know what FIFA's rationale was in initiating the technical area and all its subsequent bullcrap coming from the coaches. Their basketball-like questioning of most ref decisions degrades the quality of the game experience IMO.

[PVancouver]

The "team official" should be seated on the bench, not jumping around the TA behaving as if a hot poker had been shoved up his ass.

Yes, coaching from the sidelines was generally banned. Coaches were recruited for their dour expressions and the ability to chain smoke the sponsor's brand of cig while seated at the end of the bench.

The one picture of the technical area in the LOTG has the coach standing.

It is not clear if he is smoking a cigarette, but he certainly could be.

He does appear to have a dour expression on his face.

[Alberto]

The one picture of the technical area in the LOTG has the coach standing.

It is not clear if he is smoking a cigarette, but he certainly could be.

He does appear to have a dour expression on his face.


NSA is stating the obvious that back in the old days, coaches routinely smoked on the bench. No, strike that, they chained smoked like fiends on the bench. Name any big time coach from the 1970's or 80's and they were feverishly puffing away.

[Alberto]

I'd like to know what FIFA's rationale was in initiating the technical area and all its subsequent bullcrap coming from the coaches. Their basketball-like questioning of most ref decisions degrades the quality of the game experience IMO.

I have no problem with a technical area, just as long as the forward line is 1 yard in front of the benches.

[PVancouver]

What was up with that ridiculously long distance between the bench and the field in that Germany-Portugal match. Is it so the fans can get a closer look at the players' backs?

[Alberto]

You know this thread raises some very important points. It would make sense to move the team benches further apart and to move the boundary lines of the technical area away from the field of play. Most professional and international coaches use the technical area to accost the fourth official. The movement of the boundary or their elimination would limit the amount of gamesmanship and as was pointed out earlier, improve the game.

[jacoismyhero]

"A coach only needs to convey occasional tactical instructions during play unless he is incompetent and has not established his ideas in training."

Parents don't realize that they don't pay club fees for their kid to play games; they pay club fees for the training and education the kid receives during practices. The games are just a test, to see if the players retained the knowledge taught to them during the course of the period between games. Coaches preaching tactical information (aside from very precise, game-specific instruction) during the course of the game are, essentially, giving away answers to "the test."

[CalCard]

This was also a point of emphasis at the recently concluded USYSA Far West Regional Championships in Hawaii. There was quite a bit of re-enforcement of the 4th official duties and what is tolerable and not. A powerpoint was also included in our referee packet for pre-reading... more around 4th official duties as opposed to dealing/handling TA behavior and misconduct.

There were quite a number of coaches dismissed from matches... including one form the U19B championship.