Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Referee' started by code1390, Nov 13, 2018.
I don't see a change here. For me, "accidental" is not the same as self protection. I know NFHS is different, but I don't see that IFAB has really moved towards the NFHS approach.
And I think that allowing a goal when the ball bounces off a hand/arm raised for "self protection" will produce a lot of "self protection" moves by forwards against clearances by defenders, all "accidental" of course. Can you imagine allowing that in MLS?
Fun explaining the goal kick change to the players in yesterday's game, 6th division women's open. They had heard of something like a change, but had some errors. They thought the kicking/defending players, other than the goalkeeper, also had to stay out of the penalty area until the kick was taken. I'm wondering why they are taking a short goal kick every time, with resulting risks of pass interception (a 'pick one?') until it dawned on me that they didn't have anyone who could kick the ball much farther than the edge of the penalty area.
We talked about this in the EPL thread. For what it's worth, at the professional level with VAR, leagues are interpreting this in the broader manner. If the accidental handling sets up a teammate for a goal-scoring opportunity, then it is an offence. I think that, de facto, will make it how the rule needs to be applied universally. Whether or not we get textual clarification is anyone's guess.
In related news, I did reach out to IFAB about the "scoring a goal with the hand" issue as it relates to misconduct. I got a very clear answer that a yellow card only applies when there is a deliberate attempt to score the goal. In other words, "accidental" handball to score is not misconduct and should not be punished as such because there is no "attempt" to score. Again, whether or not we get a textual clarification is anyone's guess. But the response was direct and clear.
I was using accidental as an antonym for deliberate rather than specific to the scenario. (Is that sloppy enough to get me a job with IFAB? )
I was taught long ago, and have never seen a reason to change the view, that instinctive self-protection is not deliberate, as it involves the lack of an ability to make a different choice. And what "instinctive" means, varies radically with age level. In a 8U game, blocking pretty much anything coming towards the face is instinctive; in a professional game, well, maybe I'll see it some day--their instincts are pretty refined away from using their arms unless they are on the ground groggy or some such. In between is, well, in between. (I can't say without seeing it if I would have reached the conclusion the attacker as described was not deliberate, but was simply accepting the poster's decision, as it is the opinion of the ref of the day that matters.)
I think there has to be textual cleanup on that. And it just seems to me there is enough confusion on the whole thing that there will be some cleanup overall. But then, I haven't won a lot of money betting on what FIFA will do . . .
Glad they were clear on the "hand of god"--I thought it was pretty obvious that it wouldn't apply to non-deliberate handling.
Agree, but at the youth level (and U15 is bordering on that), I would only call a hand ball on somebody that was doing a Keanu Reeves Matrix-style attempt to get out of the way if the ball went directly off of them into the net. No matter if it set up a promising attack or not.
I disagree with you on this. While I will adjust "deliberate" to the skill level of a particular age, Law 12 is now absolutely clear that certain wholly unintended acts are a handball offense. I don't see any reason to exempt young uns from that.
Hmm. Anybody seeing a wall on a dropped ball yet?
Understood, but we will probably adjust our definition of "promising attack" to the skill level as well....so it will likely equal out.
again, I am not considering exempting them from the part of the law that talks about scoring directly from the handball -- deliberate or not.
Had one of those should-it-be inadvertent handballs last night. G16. Ball hits arm of attacker 45 yards from goal. I'm trail AR, thinking "good no-call" as ref ignores it. Ball falls to her feet. She then feeds a long pass to the open wing who drives in for a goal. Hmm. After the game I asked R if he had thought about that and he looked at me like I just fell out of a space ship. (In his view, that provision only applied in the PA.)
Weird thing came up Sunday:
A coach came up to us before the game to confess that he had been red-carded in a game earlier in the day with another team. We all agreed that league policy would mean his card would apply to his next game with *that* team, but that's not the question. The question is how he GOT that card.
The ref in the game in question tossed out a parent for dropping f-bombs. So far, so good. Then he went across and tossed out the coach for what the parent did.
I've heard coaches are responsible for their parents, but two things strike me as pretty strong arguments that the ref was wrong:
1. Under the Laws, we can show red to any team coach or officials. I can walk up and toss out a trainer if I want to. And if I do so, I'm under no obligation whatsoever to send off the head coach as well. Why in the world would I do so if I sent off someone on the other sideline?
2. If the ref had heard the alleged racial abuse in the Utah-Portland NWSL game last weekend, would he/she have to send off Laura Harvey?
You're right, that's weird.
It's simply wrong. The card goes to the head coach only if we can't identity where the misconduct came from on the bench.
Agree--if what the coach described is accurate, the send off was unwarranted (unless there is some wacky league rule).
I think I actually heard about this through a friend of a friend. It was a good reminder in both cases: (1) referees do not have the authority to kick out a spectator and (2) certainly doesn't have the authority to send off a coach based on a spectator's behavior.
They have the freedom to encourage the coach to handle his teams' fans, but if the coach doesn't or is unsuccessful in doing so, the only thing the referee can/should do in that moment is abandon the match.
Yes, was wondering if that might be the case... I've read rules for a few leagues/tournaments that explicitly stated the head coach can be ejected for their spectators' behavior.
After I warned our parents to behave at one such tournament so *I* wouldn't get tossed, a dad offered to wear a tee shirt of the opponent's color and cuss the ref to try to get *their* HC tossed.
Come to think of it, I was once officially warned about being held responsible for a mom's mouth, but others shooed her to the parking lot before it escalated... probably just so I wouldn't bench her very talented daughter (team policy for bad parental behavior).
I seem to recall a period when HS rules gave the coach a caution each time improper equipment was found . . . so teams that wanted to get rid of their coach would get caught with jewelry twice . . .
Thats still the rule I believe but only for the first team offence. Subsequent violations are a caution to the player.
I've become lax on this. I do make players correct illegal equiptment but the last time a carded a coach for this it was on the 3rd violation by the same team.
The NFHS justification for carding coaches for illegal equipment is that coaches are asked before the game is their players are "properly and legally equipped" so they are responsible for their players' equipment.
You do only card the coach for the 1st time they are caught with illegal equipment. All subsequent illegal equipment result in the player being cautioned. I tried to be as proactive as possible this so I won't have to caution the coach for this. For example, I'll see a player getting ready to sub but is wearing an earring; before they come on, I'll say, "Please take out the earring before you come on the field or your coach is going to be really upset." Last fall was the last time that I gave a coach a card for a player's illegal equipment. In a dual system, neither my partner nor I were right at the halfway line during the sub. When the sub came near me after play restarted, I noticed the player's ear was lined with about 10 earrings!
The league rules say that if a ref asks a spectator to leave the field, he/she must do so or the ref will give the coach at least a yellow card.
Seems kind of strange.
Here's what I'm thinking, and I'd love feedback:
1. If the league rules say a coach can be held responsible for a parent's behavior in any way, I'm going to hold up play to let that coach deal with it. Chances are the coach is dying to tell that parent to get the f out anyway.
2. For U14 and under, I'd probably toss anyone for an f-bomb. Other than that, I think the best rationale would be if there's a safety concern (e.g., a couple of parents are about to fight), in which case I'd think holding the ball and threatening to abandon until the combatants removed themselves would be the way to go.
Does that make sense?
Presidio League in San Diego allows referees to eject parents
Even if league rules say that refs can eject parents, I would still push the informing and ejecting of the spectator onto the coach. Hold up the game until the coach deals with the spectators you want removed. The referee should not be interacting with unruly fans.
I get the reasoning, but is it really worth a two-minute delay in the game to go talk to the coach, let the coach trudge across the field to talk with the parents (or argue with the parents), and then let him trudge back?
On a completely different note: I'm doing U9 rec games tomorrow, and it brings a question to mind: Last season, I had to call an IFK when a keeper picked up a back pass. The coach suggested I work with the keeper instead of calling the IFK right on the goal area ("the 4" or "the 5"), just as we let players in their first season with refs, keepers and throw-ins take a throw-in again if they mess up. Thoughts?
Absolutely. If we're having a parent removed from the facility, then we're not in a hurry. We want all the attention to be on that misbehaving adult and not the referee.
I think that is a local thing that you need to find out what is being done. Only thing I'd say that I think should be universal is that it should be a really blatant pass before you think of calling it at that age.