The things we hear returns

Thanks to you for being Last Week's Ref. Little by little...

 

More of a thing we see moment: Girls U14 tourney matchup and #9 is on her third grabbing foul, nothing crazy just a lil bit grabby. So, I call her over and give her a "hey, #9, take it down a notch with the grabbing or we're not going to have a good time today." and i got the biggest, longest, most drawn out full-body eyeroll I've ever seen. I mean, I've got a 14-y/o daughter who's an expert eye-roller and this girl must have set some kind of a record, all the way from her toes, as she turned away.

Had to stop and think..."is that dissent? I dunno, I'd have a hard time defending that. She's 13, let it slide."

It was pretty funny.

 

I am aware of it. It's an adaptation from Futsal.

 

Except that in futsal, a single arm advantage explicitly means a non-accumulated offence (ie, a non-direct FK would have been the result)...

I have a feeling that it's actually been introduced for the reasons stated... it's easier to run with only one arm out rather than both...

 

IIRC, at the time it was added, there was discussion that the one armed signal came from a request from FIFA level refs and that the request was because it easier to run and stay with play with one arm up than both. (But I am *way* too lazy to search the archives . . .. )

 

This weekend I was doing a D2 college double header make up match as an AR. The first game was a girl's match followed by a men's match. The first half was completely dominated by the visitors. The home team went down like 4-0 in the first half. As the second half begins the opposing team scores another 2 goals and then takes the foot off the gas pedal (a bunch of subs, players playing out of position, etc). As the home team starts to look a little more positive going forward they get a couple of opportunities. I have their men's team directly behind me being 18-22 year old boys hooping and hollering. In the last 10 mins the home team gets a goal, a player for the guys team behind me gets up and shouts "last goal wins! You guys have 10 mins!" Both teams laugh on the field, and both coaches chuckle. Well the jokes on them the visitors go down 2 mins later and scores again to make the final score 7-1.

 

No, absolutely no basis whatsoever. In a game played under the Laws of the Game (unless you're in Australia where as mentioned they're having an IFAB-sanctioned trial) there are no cautions or cards for team officials - who are not also players.

Under the LotG the only specific thing you can do is "expel them from the field of play and its immediate surrounds" for "fail[ing] to act in a responsible manner." There is also the rather vague reference to "tak[ing] action against team officials" which I suppose provides a theoretical basis for the "ask, tell, dismiss" philosophy.

 

Up until the 2016 rewrite, the laws gave the following definition of holding:

I'm not quite sure why they removed it in the 2016 edition but I think it was just part of the overall reduction of what they saw as unnecessary wording (such as things that everybody knows, so they don't need to be spelled out) rather than any intent to change the definition. Certainly, no new definition was given that would supersede the old one.

 

Because that became impeding with contact.

 

But impeding requires that the ball not be within playing distance, no? So "impeding with contact" within playing distance becomes (or still is) ... holding. Yes?

 

I can't find a picture of this during a throw in. But picture the white/blue player is about to receive a throw in and sticking his arm out there in front of the green player. Remember, this was a U8 game as well. You would agree with the parent and call that holding?

 

Be careful with how you framed that. Impeding with contact using only the body and not in a careless or reckless manner is legal. Using the arms in a non-trifling way would become holding or pushing.

(I was surprised how many people seemed to think that impeding with contact was new in a meaningful way. As I believe someone wrote above, it simply named a foul in a different way--but the reaction to it as being something new, I guess, shows why it was needed as a separate foul: referees weren't recognizing that a DFK offense occurred, and too many would never call the IFK impeding, so nothing would get called.)

 

Impeding is never legal. Shielding is, if you're within playing distance, but then it's not impeding.

 

You're just getting cute with words. Shielding is impeding in every normal sense of the word. Shielding is not a an impeding offence under the LOTG,which is exactly the point I was making and directly responsive to the post I was responding to.

 

PIIP = player in impeding position ... not actually impeding and not an infraction unless and until player ... oh never mind.

But we started off talking about holding.

 

An O-40 player's dissent "Get it together ref, you're losing the game" begets a response from an opposing player "you're talking about your own player, right?" which begets a response from the original player "shut your trap!" which begets a response from the referee "shut up and play, guys!"

 

Sorry but you said impeding with contact was legal under certain conditions without saying anything about playing distance.

Edit: plus the lotg do define impeding as not within playing distance.

 

Back to the original question ... my point was that OP's particular impeding obstruction interposition of body or parts thereof in such a manner as to unfairly and contrary to the spirit and Laws of the Game frustrate the opponent's access to the ball was done within playing distance and therefore did not constitute an impeding offence. And that leaves -- holding.

 

Context is your friend. The post I was responding to, and quoted, made it utterly clear what was being discussed was shielding in playing distance.

Duh. Hence my distinction between the normal use of the word and the meaning in the LOTG.

This is really silly. Over and out.

 

Difficult to say without actually being there. But in your earlier post you said that it couldn't be holding because, "His hand was not grabbing the arm or a jersey." I think the point people were trying to make is that it can still be holding, assuming the player uses the hand, arm or body to prevent the opponent from moving past or around.

Holding does not only mean a grabbing motion with the hand. So an arm that is being held out straight could be holding, it just depends on how is being used.

 

I was AR1 on an O50 semifinal yesterday which was 0-0 late into the game. Team manager behind me mutters, "I see my wife is here. No wonder there's no scoring."

 

One of my friends in Oklahoma has a Facebook page to attempt to combat poorly behaved parents on the sideline. It started out with tongue-in-cheek referee posts but has evolved into more about actual reffing and parent behavior.

It has gotten enough attention that he has been on TV stations in both Tulsa and Oklahoma City to talk about referee abuse.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1832655047025522

 

"Cheeseburger eating parents" The guy cracks me up