I have had similar "debates" and the logic I use is thus: Players have to adjust to lots of things at a field. The length of the grass, the moisture....sometimes even big puddles, and they have to adjust their game accordingly. If it's really hot and the match requires stamina, they will have to adjust their game accordingly. The field might be smaller or bigger than they are used to. Adjust! Another thing that is neutral and the same for both sides is the ref crew. My advice to players.... adjust your game accordingly.
I've always thought that protecting yourself with your hands fit as not intentional. The player isn't trying to gain an advantage with the contact and likely isn't immediately aware of where the ball went while trying to protect themselves. It is also not creating contact as it is just changing the body part contacted. It is a judgement call, but handling generally is.
This 'instinctive' does not equal 'deliberate' thing is going to turn out badly. Imagine a player sees a ball kicked towards their face. My 'reflexive response' may be to stick my hands up there to protect my face, right? If I've got my palms towards the ball, I just might catch the ball, right? This is not handling?????? You've got a field player from the defending team, in the penalty area, holding the ball in his hands and you aren't supposed to call handling? "I was just protecting my face, ref. It was instinctive!" And then he rolls the ball to a teammate. I'm sure both coaches will stand there and not say a word, no matter which way you go. Not a single word. Another rule change that's potentially problematic is the head covering being 'required' for "cosmetic" reasons. Yeah, I get medical and religious reasons but "cosmetic?" "I just got my hair done and I don't want get it messed up, so I'm wearing this scarf over it today." Yeah, they have to get clearance from the state office but you know that there are going to be people calling the office from the field. I told our commissioners (assignors) today, "Don't call me from the field for permission to wear a head covering." And there is no exception to the permission request part of the rule for a head wrap/bandage applied by the trainer during this game due to an injury that occurred during the game. So you know that there will be some referees out there who say that a player can't return to the game with that bandage on because they didn't get permission to wear it before the game.
In the LOTG that was an acceptable interpretation. In the HS rule book, it explicitly stated (before this year) that moving your hands towards the ball is always an offense.
At my son's grade school, conferences were teacher-parent-student conferences. A lot harder to wiggle off the hook when the teacher can cross examine the student about their behavior in the parents' presence.
So to get back to interesting things we hear, I had a defensive player question the distance on a IFK over the weekend. We had a friendly level tournament over the weekend. Small sided with low level contact and all kicks being 5 yard distances and IFK. A wall set set up about 3 yards away and the kicker asked for space, so I held up the whistle and told the wall to step back a couple of steps. They took one. I said take another and they begrudgingly took a second and one player decided to voice his opinion that they were 5 yards already and that now they were too far. He then told me he wanted me to walk it off. I said if I walked it off he was taking a card. He said walk. So I walked from him back to the ball, nailed my 5 steps, turned and produced the card.
More of a thing you see... I walked into the indoor facility last night for my adult coed game and the facility manager walked up to me and said, "oh, you get the pregnant woman tonight." "What?!?" "Yeah, this team has a very pregnant woman on it....like 7 or 8 months along. We have tried to prevent her from playing for her own safety and the baby's safety, but she wants to play and it went up the chain. The head of Parks & Rec said that we can't prevent her from playing." So she comes out for warm ups. (my own un-educated estimate is more like 6 months along...my sister is currently 8 months) I ask if she is sure she is good to play, and she responds that she is. So, with top cover from the league, my own assessment that she is not a danger to others, and her own assertion that she is OK to play, I let her play. Other players definitely give her space, she wasn't challenged at all when she had the ball. More like folks stood in front of her to stop her or slow her down (not that she was moving that fast to begin with...) Thoughts?? anybody had a similar situation, or suggestions on how to handle?
I had an experience with a pregnant player once. She was playing on a competitive Women's indoor league. At halftime she came up to me crying to complain that the other team was too aggressive with her and this is when she informed me that she was pregnant. I honestly didn't know what to say without sounding like an I know whats better for you than you do male. So all I said to her is to inform the other team or her condition. But I thought to myself, WTF are you doing still playing?!?! After the game I informed the management of what has happened.
Agree. This is similar (although magnified 1000 times) to when I see youth players playing with a cast or a splint on their arm and I tried to approach it the same way. I may not agree with the decision to play in that condition, risking further injury. But as long as you have it wrapped in padding and are not a danger to other players I don't see how I can really ban you from playing under the LOTG. Same with her...not the decision I would make, but not really my place to tell her it is a stupid decision to play.
Every USSF game I have worked, the ROC is no casts, period. There is a rec league I work that allows casts as long as they are padded. Funny thing is I had a parent ask me "You allow a cast on an arm, but you don't allow earrings?" It's not me. It's the league.
The one season I coached HS, I was informed that one of my players was cleared to play the first 9 weeks of the season before she was 'too' pregnant to play.
When we lived in Texas my wife was a substitute teacher. One day she received an assignment because the regular teacher was with one of her 6th grade students in delivery. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe with HS games the school bears the responsibility of determining a player's fitness to play. Stuff like this is the reason I register with the state's HS league every year (and pay a fee to do so) even though it's not required to work sub-varsity games - the insurance coverage.
One of the single worst injuries I ever had on a game was a player getting a detached earlobe while going up for a header. She was NOT wearing earrings. It was the bloodiest of all time. Imagine what the injury would have been WITH earrings.
I'm shocked that they would allow a woman who is that far pregnant to play. I've always assumed that most of us here played the game, but if you've never played let me inform you that a well struck ball coming at you has a LOT of kinetic energy. If that women is hit with a hard strike and it hits her right in the abdomen there is absolutely risk to her and baby. You can't even sit in the massaging chairs at the mall stores if you're pregnant but you're going to let someone get nailed right in the abdomen?? No way I'm refereeing that game.
In this game, I am an employee of the County Parks & Rec Department, and am covered by their insurance. Agree totally about the shot to the abdomen. In this same coed league last year I had a woman knocked silly by taking a shot to the head. She went down for several minutes, but eventually stumbled off under her own power to be driven across the street to the hospital by her boyfriend. The pregnant woman played up front the entire game, so unlikely for her to take a shot....but could have easily taken a clearance from a defender. It would have been bad.
I had, many years ago, a clearly pregnant woman, maybe five to six months, not only playing but playing on an O-30 team that was in the O-30 women's national championship game. No ill effects that I ever heard about. And, while it's not a contact sport, per se, a friend's wife ran a marathon at eight months and she's a very short woman, under 5'0", so a lot of pounding the pavement. The baby's an adult now, even has her own kids, if memory serves. As far as the 6th grader is concerned, my wife taught for some time in a pregnant and parenting teens program. She had them as young as 12. She had a 14 year old pregnant with her second child. And my daughter did some U-19 girls' games where the players brought their kids to the games. I don't think we have any role in determining players' physical capabilities to play. You may even create an issue under the Americans with Disabilities Act if you try to tell someone they can't play because you don't think it's wise. As far as high school is concerned, I see nothing in the NFHS rules that allows a referee to determine that a properly rostered and equipped player shouldn't play. Questions of a players physical capabilities and eligibility are up to the schools, not the referees, the same way that we don't evaluate whether a high school player is academically eligible. Or can you imagine telling a coach that "I think number six's legs are way too skinny for her to be able to keep up with play. I'm not going to expose her to that risk, so she's not playing today."
And, we don't want that role. If you take a stand and say "You can't play, you're pregnant" or "You can't play, you're concussed" you open yourself up to the argument of why you told Player A she was done with a head injury, but not Player B, who later showed serious signs of a concussion. When Player B collapses two hours later at home, the lawsuit her parents file will have a lot more bite because you are apparently making decisions about whether players are fit to play, and you let her play. When we send a player to the sidelines or call a coach on because of a clash of heads, we aren't saying "Jill can't play anymore." We are saying "Hey, you need to decide if Jill can play the rest of this game." The coach (or more hopefully, certified medical professional) is the one who determines if Jill is still fit. You may not like the decision, but unless you want the liability of making medical decisions, don't make them.
The duties of the Referee in the LOTG do not list any requirement for the Referee to determine the physical adequacy of a player to participate. Inserting yourself into this role is problematic Soccer does involve contact with either other players and possibly the ground as well as being hit by the ball. Plus, there are balance issues due to a changed center of gravity. Do I think it is a good choice for a very pregnant player to play? No but it's not my body, not my baby and the decision to play is not mine. And as far as I know there are no statutory limitations regarding pregnant athletes.