Working an adult amateur league: we had a 4-3 match with the losing team winning at one point 3-1. So post match I gather with the other two officials and we walk off the field together. As several players were thanking us and shaking our hands one particular player shook my hand, shook the referee's hand and refused to shake AR1's hand. He told AR1 "You deserve to lose your license!" The AR1 without a skip replied back "You deserve a 2nd yellow card!"
Update from the U10 Group of Death: I just filed a report with my State Office on the abominable behavior on the fan side in that first match Sunday. Better late than never, and perhaps on another day those kids will be free to err, succeed, and grow.
Not on the pitch, but a discussion with a fellow official who is trying to argue with me that there is a loophole in the current laws and he see's a MAJOR problem that has yet to be addressed. His logic is that a keeper cannot be called for handling in the PA (correct). But the GK is treated like a normal player outside the PA in regards to handling(correct again). Now here is his major flaw. What if the keepers hand is on the ball outside the PA. The ball may still be inside the PA though. So let's say 70% of the ball is outside the PA line, keeper touches that 70% with his hand. He is telling me that should be a DFK for handling outside the PA. I have tried with the handling is where the ball is not the hand, I have tried with "trifling", guy still thinks it is a problem. Bad part is, he is announcing all of this where younger officials are reading it and I don't want them to try and take him seriously. Ugh.
I have pointed out the "lines" and he is in agreement that the ball is still in the PA. but the keeper is touching a part that is outside the PA and so that is handling by the keeper... It is maddening. To try and prove how this is a bigger problem than just handling he stated that what about a player who is off the pitch (injury) and a ball comes towards him. He kicks the ball (the 70% that is over the side line). He doesn't think that I could card him for re-entering the field without permission, because he didn't actually enter the field. Maybe I should link him to this site. I am trying to see how Schrodinger's Cat could apply here...
Shoot, this should be covered in a Grade 9/STAR course...maybe you should suggest he take one of those.
Yup....every group has at least one of those guys. Was about to do a HSBV when my partner asked me what I considered dangerous play. I told him, "I know it when I see it". He raised his leg to 90 deg, bent at the knee, and said, "this is dangerous play any time you see it".
So by his reasoning any ball on but not completely over a touch line or end line, if played by a foot that is outside that line, that would make the ball out of play. I have $10 that says he is calling lines wrong.
This has been a long term drafting issue. "Everyone knows" that the determination is based on where the ball is -- but that can't really be teased out from Law 12: The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick. This is one of the things that could have been easily corrected in the re-write, but the new Law 12 has the same textual ambiguity it has always had. (And I don't recall it being squarely addressed in the ATR, either.)
Yup, that is his sticking point. All I could do was tell him if he calls this don't be surprised if you have to abandon the match eventually. Seems like gotcha refereeing to a fault and is the definition of trifling. he could never really answer when I asked him what if his arm was touching the ball inside the PA, but the hand was also touching it outside the PA. Serenity now.
Better, how about if I use my hand to keep the ball from going completely over the touch line. As long as I touch it outside the line, I should be OK!
That could apply to substitutes or outside agents too. I know I've seen coaches touch the ball before it completely crossed the touch line. I guess I should ignore that and allow play to continue.
You could try asking him what the restart would be if a non-keeper handled the ball in a similar manner, only touching the part of the ball that is not over the PA line. If he says DFK outside the area, well, he's a lost cause (as far as this argument goes).
You mean give a DB instead of a TI? Yes -- this is the classic reasoning on why the only analysis that makes sense is where the ball is. Before last summer's revision that permits fouls outside the lines, the best explanation was that, unless it was based on where the ball is, a defender could stop a goal by making sure his hand was off the field while the ball was only partially over the goal line -- not only would it not be a PK, it would not be an offense because it occurred off the field of play.
Already done, it would obviously have to be a DFK outside the PA because the foul occurred outside the area. I just tried to tell anyone who might read his "theory" that please do NOT try to make these calls. That is all I could do. But I was being stubborn for not thinking along his line of reasoning...
Well I don't think ANYONE here agrees with him. You might mention that and ask him if any experienced referee anywhere has ever agreed with him. If not and he thinks he is really so much smarter than everyone else I would add him to my block list in a heartbeat. Nothing but grief will come from working games with someone like that.
Sorry for the OT post, but every time I see "Serenity now", I want to follow it with "dammit!". :: gently places thread back on the ground :: Play on!
So ask your colleague this. What if the ball is 70% over the goal line. A non-keeper defender handles only that portion of the ball that is already in the goal. No PK, no DOGSO?
I had thought this no longer worked as fouls can now take place off the field of play -- but that provision only applies to offenses against an opponent, so you are correct, this remains the clear question that shows it is nonsensical if it is not he location of the ball that determines GK handling and PK.
HS varsity boys ... Whistle ... White coach: "What the heck are you doing?! DON'T FOUL!" Later, whistle, caution ... Green coach: "I'm a referee, and you HAVE to rescind that card!"
"I don't HAVE to rescind the card. But here's your caution, and you HAVE to not say anything else stupid if you want to stay."