^^^ oh I totally agree. Just saying it wouldn't be the first time we get a wacky interpretation of something from a CO found one though its (lol) not the situation exactly. It's a classic Hackett answer too. Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler If it's a competitive game, you have to abandon it. It might seem sensible to allow a team-mate to steady the ball, but the laws prevent team-mates being inside the area when a penalty is taken. There's also no provision in the laws for the taker improvising a way to stick the ball to the spot (with sand, for instance). It's a tough position to be in, but you have to call it off. Thanks to Jack Walker.
My wife, who very long ago took the test and long since ceased being a ref, brings this up whenever possible. She hated the damn test that much.
Yeah...I had to go back to Houston 2012 to find the youngest soccer specific MLS stadium to have hosted a home team playoff win.
So what was the answer for the first two cases?? I'm thinking the first is not a goal and the second is a red card but no pk.
Here it is, in case you want a reality check, the referee test. http://areferee.com/soccer.php You need an 85% or more on a 50-question test to get your license by the way
correct on both counts. those ones seemed obvious, but usually two of them were. I always liked when he threw in an 'abandon the match' answer though.
...and a red card only because "brutally flattened". You can always go back and give the card later, from what I understand, if you choose to "play on". But I'm not sure that was always the case.
The "P*to" chants were loud near the end of the game. You could hear them through the broadcast. Twellman even commented on it. And there was quite a bit of trash throwing. They suspended the game for a few minutes to clear it out after RSL scored and Reddit posts are saying the trash throwing was worse before their goal.
It's funny that this happened at Fado. Like it's a f*cking Irish Pub that is fairly known for showing soccer...
Well, but those are the ones that screw you. "If a kicked ball deflates while in the air and which while airborn flies over a sideline but a gust of wind blows it back and it lands in bounds whereupon a dog runs on the field, grabs it in his mouth and runs away with it, whats the restart?" If it helps anyone to feel really foolish, just before they raised the minimum age my kid took and passed the test when he was 10 ears old.
What about the multiple times that the player last night placed the ball, stepped back from the ball, then replaced the ball after it moved? If Mullins would have stopped his run and replaced the ball would that have been legal?
Yeah, no shit. Who is clueless enough to bitch about soccer at a fados? Its like bitching about football at the Buckeye Hall of Fame Grill.
How many ears in a year? (I know, I know...) I never took it, and I'd probably fail, mostly because I can't relate to being a referee in any way. On the other hand, it's utterly amazing how wrong other players my age get certain things and how often it costs them a dissent yellow. Just this past week, a forward (who is perpetually offside for one reason or another) tried to claim that a deflection of a teammate's pass by the defense makes a player in an offside position somehow legally able to play the ball without penalty.
... just cause I'm going to be that guy. That situation was just covered in a class. If the deflection occurs while the defensive player is attempting to make a play on the ball. ie) the player kicks his foot out to play the ball, it deflects off him and continues to the player in an offside position. The call should be ONSIDE I have a real hard time justifying or calling it that way myself. The player in an offside position is gaining an advantage from being in that offside position and the defender is being penalized for playing a ball that if he doesn't play and the linesman doesn't flag it is going to be a sure fire goal. Needless to say, I missed that question on the test.
I think the official answer is that adjusting the ball is fine until the ref has blown his whistle. At that point the ball can only be kicked. That's absurd, by the way. The ref should whistle the play dead if the ball rolls off the spot on its own.
I'm talking a much more obvious inadvertent deflection. Though I really think it's stupid (and I think a lot of refs agree) to penalize a defender for trying to cut out a pass and failing to get full purchase on the ball (usually due to field conditions), so that some asshole forward gets away with being lazy.
There is no official answer to this. After the whistle the player could still move and reset the ball with the referee's permission. I agree if the referee notices the ball moving he should blow it dead.
I took the class along with a guy who had been a cop for 15 or 20 years. He really didn't know much about soccer but that doesn't much matter. Read the book, take the test. Anyway, we started working local games at the same time and he quickly started getting older kids games, higher level games than they were giving me and I couldn't figure it out. But after about a year, I was getting tournaments with MOSSL and stuff like that he he wasn't, and he was the one who didn't get it. Took me a while to figure it out, but it was because, as a policeman, he was entirely comfortable blowing the whistle on stuff that I was busy processing - in the context of this game and based on earlier calls and in the run of play and on and on. He was just blowing the damned whistle, while I was taking too long to make decisions. I was also worrying about framing the game, as they say, creating an even contest, making sure the players understood what I would accept and what I wouldn't and also frequently communicating with them verbally as opposed to just grabbing the whistle. The difference is obvious in High School games, where a lot of those guys ref, like, 10 sports, more or less as a job. They learned the rules,but understand nothing about the game. HS games are routinely awful and a big reason is because the ref, frequently, doesn't know shit about soccer.
If I were the striker, I'd be afraid of a handball call if I tried to move the ball back to the spot.
I believe that is correct. #1 for sure good. The referee is treated as a blade of grass. #2 is a bit of a grey area. Given that advantage was played and an opportunity was presented, and then missed that decision should stand. Depending on the situation the referee could then go back and caution or eject the player who commited the foul but not give a penalty.