Two questions, one a clarification on the new Laws and one arising from this thread ... 1. What’s the best time to explain to a coach that he doesn’t understand the Law? That came up in my first game as a center this season. My AR put up the flag and said an attacker had kicked the ball while the keeper had possession - in this case, one hand trapping the ball on the ground. I relayed the call to an inquiring coach. He replied, “Last I checked, you needed two hands for possession.” Between games, I took a screenshot of the Law from the IFAB app and was prepared to show it if he came up and asked. 2. Someone claimed on Twitter that in the new Laws, it’s automatically a yellow if a player gains possession from a handball, even if accidental and not the result of making herself bigger. I didn’t think that was true. I checked and found that a yellow is given for USB if a player attempts to score a goal with a handball, but (A) that’s not marked as a change to the Laws and (B) that seems easily interpreted as applying only of a goal is *directly* scored from the offense. And the “attempts to score” would seem to exonerate a player who didn’t mean to commit an offense, wouldn’t it?
Yes, caution to player for unsporting behavior for attempting to score a goal directly by handling the ball.
This is the kind of coach that really pisses me off. If I remember correctly, you were doing a U9 or U10 game. And this coach is basically saying you can come in and blast away at a ball loosely, but not fully in possession of the keeper. Forget telling him the law - tell him "it's about safety and if that keeper has 1 pinky on the ball, or even if it is just close to his body, I'm protecting that kid all day long. You want your keeper kicked at, coach? Jeez, what are you teaching these kids............." or words to that effect. Now, if you want to educate a coach who honestly wants to know, then it can be anytime. Could be while you are waiting for them to retrieve the ball from the parking lot. Just don't let it turn into an argument about the call.
I had this interaction with a referee when I was in HS, but after I'd been certified for 2 years. The Play: I'm laying on the ground with my arm stretched out and hand on the ball trapping it on the ground. An attacker kicks the ball in the goal and a goal is awarded. At half time I go to the referee crew and this discussion follows. Me: What do you consider goalkeeper possession? Ref: I don't know, a finger isn't enough. (there had been a number of referees at that time that were saying, if the keeper touches the ball, they have possession) Me: I had my whole hand on the ball. Ref: The ball was still moving, your hand was rolling over the top. Me: [I just left thinking, "Crap, I'm going to get lit up."
[QUOTE="Dayton Ref, post: 38188743, member: 206043" Ref: I don't know, a finger isn't enough. (there had been a number of referees at that time that were saying, if the keeper touches the ball, they have possession) Me: I had my whole hand on the ball. Ref: The ball was still moving, your hand was rolling over the top. Me: [I just left thinking, "Crap, I'm going to get lit up."[/QUOTE] So now I am pissed at this ref. He is basically saying attacker can kick the ball and break your hand and that is fine and dandy.
So now I am pissed at this ref. He is basically saying attacker can kick the ball and break your hand and that is fine and dandy.[/QUOTE] It's probably a high school sports referee that only does scholastic soccer and hasn't done any other form of soccer. I had a game this week where blue took a shot that bounced off the white keeper's chest so blue took another shot that hit off the white keeper's hands. The third shot by blue went into the net for a goal. The keeper got up and started complaining that he had possession.
Same. U15 boys, shot hit the keeper's hands and squirted to his right. Shooter followed his shot and put it in. Keeper said he "had possession and was in the process of getting possession again."
Reply: "So you admit that there was a time when you didn't have possession." And if necessary, remind the poor soul of the definition of "again".
Doug Marshak put out the law change videos from the Minnesota SRC on YouTube. First video covers most of the changes, second covers cards to coaches, and third covers handling.
I'm just an armchair fan who often lurks in this forum trying to learn things from a refereeing point of view. In another message board I frequent the following opinions were made... Person 1: (complaining about players stopping when in an offside position) "You should just finish off every chance even if it might be offside these days, annoys me when they stop still. Might be onside, whack it in." Person 2: "I agree. Linesmen shouldn’t be allowed to signal offside anymore, we got VAR now. If they score from offside then no harm done as it’ll be overturned but if the linesman made a bad call and raises the flag for offside then there is nothing that can be done to fix it." What's the rebuttal to this argument?
Not sure a rebuttal is needed tbh but I'll offer you my take. Not much wrong but the important part is not that players should finish off shots/chances but rather that they should play until the referee stops the game, or as they say, play to the whistle. A somewhat workable idea but then you'd need to review for offside several hundreds of times per game and that's far from ideal. But yes, getting AR's to adhere to the "delay the flag if close and near goal" is important.
Would it make things better or worse to have a signal for "that looks offside from here, but play it out until we have a goal or save just to see if we'll need VAR"? If nothing else, it would give the VAR crew a headstart of a few seconds in reviewing.
I found this article by Matt Dawson (ex rugby player and NT Captain and WC winner for England) concerning law changes that has been made recently in their sport. For full article and photos -> https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/49946231 Sounds like a somewhat different approach to changes compared to the IFAB.
That’s essentially what we have today (at least in MLS protocols, but I think it is general).The AR says “delay delay delay” into the mics, which means “I’m raising my flag for OS as soon as the goal scoring opportunity has passed.”
1. A smart player who knows he is OS stops because it means there is a chance a teammate who is not OS could get the ball. 2. As others have noted, that’s why we have the delay in AR OS calls (except, apparently, in the PL). But taking it entirely off the field would lead to many more delays. Heck, we could take the whole ref team off the field and just do it from a central TV room, but is that what anyone thinks would be good for the game?
Player in Northern Irish league given second yellow for ignoring referee's instruction to leave the field at the nearest point. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/49960000 Thoughts on this?
Sure--why is a player already on a caution stupid enough to ignore a clear instruction from the referee?
The law change was a solution looking for a problem, and now it's finding them. As long as this is the letter of the law, it's what must be done. In this instance, the player is jogging of the field, not wasting time, which was what the law change was supposed to prevent. So taking the risk of flogging a deceased equine, I must question whether this is an example of how the letter of the law conflicts with the spirit of the game.
By the time he sees the ref’s instructions he’s entering the center circle. Seems like there would be no benefit to stop his jog and then turn around and go the opposite way. He should’ve left in the opposite direction to start with, agreed, but it seems like the card is more to make a point then for this actual infraction.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that the refs have been given clear instructions that this is to be cautioned. And I'd bet players have been told that is the instruction to the refs. But some people only learn the hard way.
I didn't see the whole game, but I wouldn't doubt this dude is a jerk asking for yellows (already got one earlier...). Didn't see the few seconds before video started, referee could have already been signalling him to go out other way.
As @socal lurker points out, we do have that signal. ARs say "delay, delay, delay" to indicate to the referee that there will be an offside once the goal-scoring opportunity is over, but they are not signalling immediately because it's very close and should be subjected to review. They don't need a headstart. I mean, first, everything is getting checked and they timestamp incidents like this so they can immediately start reviewing as the AVAR watches live play. But second, they are plugged into the comms and are part of the crew, so they don't need a visual signal even if the first part wasn't true.