Forum 'ender' - or 'extender'?

[OldAndNew]

This link provides SO much information, that it should either 'kill' this forum as a place to seek answers to LOTG, or will extend its life by creating all manner of arguments as to exactly what 'this' or 'that' means while we wait for further clarification and rewrites of LOTG language and USSF Interpretations that may / may not differ from FIFA postitions.

Anyway - or either way - it should provide enough material to keep everyone interested for a while:

http://www.thereflink.com/USSOCCER/index.html

[boylanj64]

A working link:

www.thereflink.com/USSOCCER/index.html

[o5iiawah]

we can always complain about coaches...this forum will live on :)

[Alberto]

There is no definitive action for every scenario possible during the course of a soccer match. This advice to referee's does not have FIFA or IFAB approval. It is the USSF Referee's Office interpretation. Be forewarned that there have been a number of differences of opinion between the USSF literature and FIFA.

As an instructional tool, it a good start, but like everything else each situation requires a referee with knowledge and experience to make decisions based on the match. You can't use a text book or a set of predetermined actions or edicts to show you how to manage a soccer match fairly and safely.

[nonya]

Whatever happened to the good old days, when the law book was 15 pages long and common sense prevailed....no USSF wants to micromanage every aspect of referee behavior.

My favorite:

" In the process of working to be proactive in managing players, referees must adjust their personality and game management to meet and exceed the intensity changes of the players on the field. "

Uh...duh! Like I needed USSF to tell me that?

What a waste of time.

[Alberto]

Whatever happened to the good old days, when the law book was 15 pages long and common sense prevailed....no USSF wants to micromanage every aspect of referee behavior.

My favorite:

" In the process of working to be proactive in managing players, referees must adjust their personality and game management to meet and exceed the intensity changes of the players on the field. "

Uh...duh! Like I needed USSF to tell me that?

What a waste of time.

I actually have a problem with that recommendation on adjusting our personality or game management to meet or exceed the intensity of the match. Yes, it is required, but you cannot expect a low key referee to somehow become more demonstrative in his whistling or calling fouls and with their interaction with players. You can't be Kevin Stott and the next minute Anders Frisk. I also think that we cannot bend too much beyond what our comfort level is with respect to sanctionable offenses. Just because the players are willing to play very physically does not mean we have to lower our threshold to that same level. Yes, we should allow more contact, but when a team gains an advantage from rough play we have to take action to keep the match fair.

[OldAndNew]

. . . there have been a number of differences of opinion between the USSF literature and FIFA.



Caveat emptor?

Sounds like a good thread to start - though from a practical aspect, unless we officiate games outside the US, we'll need to follow the USSF's opinions / interpretations (rather than FIFA's) if we (USSF refs) are to be 'on the same page' as each other.

[whistleblowerusa]

This link provides SO much information, that it should either 'kill' this forum as a place to seek answers to LOTG, or will extend its life by creating all manner of arguments as to exactly what 'this' or 'that' means while we wait for further clarification and rewrites of LOTG language and USSF Interpretations that may / may not differ from FIFA postitions.

Anyway - or either way - it should provide enough material to keep everyone interested for a while:

http://www.thereflink.com/USSOCCER/index.html


This is just the written stuff we are to dance to. Having a forum such as this and others on the web provide a way to iron out problems for those who can't dance well, those who dance too much and those who need to change the tune.
Without good discussion we will never have good changes when needed.

[Caesar]

There is no definitive action for every scenario possible during the course of a soccer match. This advice to referee's does not have FIFA or IFAB approval. It is the USSF Referee's Office interpretation. Be forewarned that there have been a number of differences of opinion between the USSF literature and FIFA.

As an instructional tool, it a good start, but like everything else each situation requires a referee with knowledge and experience to make decisions based on the match. You can't use a text book or a set of predetermined actions or edicts to show you how to manage a soccer match fairly and safely.
Damn straight.

Also, there are plenty of non-American referees on this forum. We don't give a tinker's curse what USSF says.

[OldAndNew]

. . . there are plenty of non-American referees on this forum. We don't give a tinker's curse what USSF says.

I agree that each should follow whatever guidance or interpretations (if any) that may be published or taught by their nation's referee programs. We, doing USSF games need to dance to that tune and you to yours.

But, anyone that summarily dismisses interpretations of other nation's programs may fail to be open to understanding why certain comments or positions are presented in such a global forum as this.

There may well be differences between FIFA, the FA (UK) and the Aussie FA, and others - just as there are differences between FIFA and USSF. It is, sometimes, because of those differences that FIFA meets annually to discuss and adopt proposal submitted by its member nations.

I'd like to see someone kick off a thread spotlighting each of those differences. I think we'll find there are very few contradictions, but perhaps just some different ways of looking at the same scenarios.

I don't propose to suggest that the USSF documents are the definitive answer to any (much less to all, issues) but there does seem to be more material made available to its officials than by other nations of FIFA itself.

I am disappointed that USSF elects NOT to put the INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF THE GAME AND GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES in its LOTG book book keeps its version of such valuable information in separate documents such as GTP and ATR - especially as the latter is not even available in a 'printable' download format - but can only be viewed on line or purchased in booklet form through USSOCCER.

[chrisrun]

I am dissappointed that USSF elects NOT to put the INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF THE GAME AND GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES in its LOTG book

They place it on their website, where you are free to download and print it:

http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/2008-2009%20LOTG%20Interpretation%20for%20Referees.pdf

[OldAndNew]

They place it on their website, where you are free to download and print it:

http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/2008-2009%20LOTG%20Interpretation%20for%20Referees.pdf


Yes - I know the Interpretation document is there - I said the ATR http:// (http://http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf)images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf (http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf) is not printable.

I have been viewing the Interpretation in FIFA's 2008/2009 LOTG http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf (http://http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf) for the past several months - long before some of the USSF Instructors even knew it existed there!

[Nesto]

Yes - I know the Interpretation document is there - I said the ATR http:// (http://http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf)images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf (http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advice%20Final%20Aug2007.pdf) is not printable.

I have been viewing the Interpretation in FIFA's 2008/2009 LOTG http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf (http://http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg_en_55753.pdf) for the past several months - long before some of the USSF Instructors even knew it existed there!

Does anyone know why the heck it's taking so long to put the 2008 ATR up this year? Last year USSF had it up by October IIRC.

[rippingood]

Caveat emptor?

Sounds like a good thread to start - though from a practical aspect, unless we officiate games outside the US, we'll need to follow the USSF's opinions / interpretations (rather than FIFA's) if we (USSF refs) are to be 'on the same page' as each other.

well, one should certainly hope that USSF does a better job with some of the comments and hence how one might interpret its statements.

Consider the following:
In the section "Handling (a.k.a. the “hand ball”)"

"The attacker is able to use his arm/hand to control the ball (bring the ball down) and gain an advantage by doing so. By “making himself bigger,” the attacker has gained an advantage over the defender resulting in his being able to get off a shot and score. Referees must consider that the advantage gained by the attacker so close to the goal is unfair and that the position of the arm contributes to the unfair advantage. "

There is certainly something useful to consider here. Hiowever, what is this nonsense about "advantage"? It's not advantage as is described in the LOTG so it is very sloppy in a technical sense. Perhaps it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I cring when I hear discussions about "unfair" advantage when they pertain to something other than offside and goalposts / goalkeepers.

Even if one considers a broader definition of advantage - that the action results in something beneficial for that player - that is also a poor description. As we all know, the issue is that handling should not be called just because it results in something favorable for the guilty party. (Women's World Cup a few times back, US vs Norway was it?) The advantage should only be with the opponent. If a player commits the foul of handling but the ball falls to the opponent - and it's advantageous for the opponents not to stop play - "advantage - play on".

Conversely, if the ball hits a player's hand (hand is in an acceptable playing position, ball played hand, etc) and it drops to his feet for a shot and goal, this should not be considered handling - this is one area where I often hear that this is an "unfair advantage". USSF is perpetuating this incorrect terminology by making tits statements.

The other issue about the location of the attacker being so close to goal is also misleading. Why should it matter where the foul takes place? If it is intentional and cannot be considered trifling or advantage for the opponent, make the call.

Now, in a conversation between two people, one may allow for phrases such as "hand ball", "unfair advantage", offsideS, and penalty "box" but certainly the USSF shouldn't participate in this (to be fair, the USSF memo never does use any of the above except for 'unfair advantage').

In that same section, there is a list of "critical signs" (in addition to 'making oneself bigger')
*****
<B>Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?” </B>- Is the arm or hand in a position that is not normal or natural for a player performing the task at hand.
<B>Hand to ball </B>- Referees must be ready to judge whether the player moved his arm to the ball thereby initiating the contact.
<B>Distance</B>- The further the distance from the defender to the location from which the opponent played the ball, the greater the likelihood of a handling offense.
<B>The result of the action </B>- In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s action. Did the player’s action (handling of the ball) deny a pass or shot on goal that would have otherwise been available to him?
*****
Consider "The result of the action".

First, I think the sentence is messed up. Should it not state "Did the player’s action (handling of the ball) deny a pass or shot on goal that would have otherwise been available to his <B>opponent </B>?" Let's say I am the player. Did my handling deny a pass that would have been available to me???

Second, how does the last one of the critical signs alter the call of none of the first three apply? Consider: The player's arm is in a natural position, the arm does not move toward the ball, the distance to where the ball was played was sufficiently close that it woudl not be considered handling. However, there is contact between ball and hand that denies a pass. How can this be handling?

Each of the others can stand on its own - hand was in an unnatural position but didn't move toward the ball and was very close to where the ball was played... handling. The last point seems more relevant to the issue of whether to caution, but that is not discussed there.

Based on the USSF comments above, one who is new to referring and reads these documents for instruction might believe that 'advantage' plays an important part in the foul of handling.

With all that said, i really like the use of videos to help present the concepts...

[OldAndNew]

well, one should certainly hope that USSF does a better job with some of the comments and hence how one might interpret its statements.

Consider the following:
In the section "Handling (a.k.a. the “hand ball”)"

"The attacker is able to use his arm/hand to control the ball (bring the ball down) and benefit gain an advantage by doing so. By “making himself bigger,” the attacker has gained a benefit an advantage over the defender resulting in his being able to get off a shot and score. Referees must consider that the benefit advantage gainedby the attacker so close to the goal is unfair and that the position of the arm contributes to the unfair benefit advantage. "

There is certainly something useful to consider here. Hiowever, what is this nonsense about "advantage"? It's not advantage as is described in the LOTG so it is very sloppy in a technical sense. Perhaps it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I cring when I hear discussions about "unfair" advantage when they pertain to something other than offside and goalposts / goalkeepers.

Simply stated, you are right. USSF sometimes unwisely chooses its words when trying to clarify things. Regarding 'handling', they would be best to avoid the word 'advantage' (except of course when alluding to the Law 5 provision). I have substitued 'benefit' as a suitable alternative to the word 'advantage' in those quotes above. Eliminates the confusion that USSF otherwise creates, I think.

Even if one considers a broader definition of advantage - that the action results in something beneficial for that player - that is also a poor description. As we all know, the issue is that handling should not be called just because it results in something favorable for the guilty party. (Women's World Cup a few times back, US vs Norway was it?) The advantage should only be with the opponent. If a player commits the foul of handling but the ball falls to the opponent - and it's advantageous for the opponents not to stop play - "advantage - play on".

Conversely, if the ball hits a player's hand (hand is in an acceptable playing position, ball played hand, etc) and it drops to his feet for a shot and goal, this should not be considered handling - this is one area where I often hear that this is an "unfair advantage". USSF is perpetuating this incorrect terminology by making tits statements.

I'm sure USSF does NOT considers this to be 'handling'. Any incidental benefit obtained from a ball to hand situation is irrelevant in judging whether an offense occurred.

The other issue about the location of the attacker being so close to goal is also misleading. Why should it matter where the foul takes place? If it is intentional and cannot be considered trifling or advantage for the opponent, make the call.

I agree. The benefit gained may be more significant than a similar event 40 yards from goal, and I think USSF is clumsily (and without clarity) trying to say that proximity should be considered in determining if it should be assessed as being trifling or not.

In that same section, there is a list of "critical signs" (in addition to 'making oneself bigger')

*****

Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?” - Is the arm or hand in a position that is not normal or natural for a player performing the task at hand.
Hand to ball - Referees must be ready to judge whether the player moved his arm to the ball thereby initiating the contact.
Distance- The further the distance from the defender to the location from which the opponent played the ball, the greater the likelihood of a handling offense.
The result of the action - In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s action. Did the player’s action (handling of the ball) deny a pass or shot on goal that would have otherwise been available to him?

*****
Consider "The result of the action".

First, I think the sentence is messed up. Should it not state "Did the player’s action (handling of the ball) deny a pass or shot on goal that would have otherwise been available to his opponent ?" Let's say I am the player. Did my handling deny a pass that would have been available to me???

Yes - a verbal faux pas!



They try, but sometimes fail to be articulate, but are not alone. FIFA has LONG butchered Law 11, but I'll address that in another post.

USSF totally screwed up on 12.25 in ATR last year but will be correcting in in the 2008 version - per my SRI.

[Caesar]

For sure, USSF interpretations are of some academic interest to referees of other countries. But they're pretty meaningless when it comes to us interpreting the laws.

[OldAndNew]

For sure, USSF interpretations are of some academic interest to referees of other countries. But they're pretty meaningless when it comes to us interpreting the laws.

Dare I risk (a pun by) saying, "Sure, Caesar; when in Rome . . . )? :D

Just curious; in your opinion (or observation), which USSF Interpretations differ from those given out by the Aussie FA (or by FIFA)?

[Caesar]

The ability to give a red card for DOGSO when a goal is scored is the obvious one that springs to mind. The USSF is different to just about every other country I've come across with regards to that interpretation.

Numerous other minor issues have popped over the years during discussions on this and other forums, but to be honest I don't remember many of them. USSF interpretations are not very relevant to me and I don't know them very well.

[Gary V]

The ability to give a red card for DOGSO when a goal is scored is the obvious one that springs to mind. The USSF is different to just about every other country I've come across with regards to that interpretation.Not any more. USSF realized they were at odds with other FA's interpretations on that one, but based it on a wording in the Laws. Finally IFAB reworded something and USSF changed accordingly.

We were told, long, long ago, that Advice had been vetted through IFAB before publication. Now how thorough that process was, I have no idea. Perhaps it was just a generalization of, "Yeah, that's a good idea to give some advice to your referees." Or maybe each word and phrase was carefully studied.

There are a few minor USSF interpretations that I wish were not there. One in particular is that they claim Advantage (Capital A) can only be applied to Law 12, and that when IFAB uses advantage (small a) elsewhere they don't mean Advantage. USSF gets itself tripped up in terminology in that one.