This situation comes from a tournament game that I worked at the beginning of the summer, but the call I made has been bothering and I would like to know 1) how might I have avoided the issue and 2) once in it what could I have done differently. BU-12 game being played at a high pace (both teams needed to win in order to advance from their group) but given the level of skill, play was extremely unpredictable and moving all over the field. The key point is that I had no assistant referees-only parent volunteers. as a result, I decide to run my diagonal much deeper than I normally would in order to try and have some idea as to offsides calls. Play starts when black looses possesion around whites' 18. White immediatly clears towards the halfline. I was positioned nearside and even with the 18. I immediatly start sprinting upfield and toward the farside. However the ball was recieved by a white player at the halfline who takes one touch lofts a ball towards blacks goal. a white player runs on to the ball and the black keeper comes out to meet the ball. The ball takes one bounce, the white player goes up into the air, makes contact with the ball sending it over the black keeper and into the goal. He then makes contact with the black keeper who falls to the ground. I had managed to get within 15 yds of the play, but was not on a great angle (the white player shielded my view of the ball). From what I had seen, it appeared that white had headed the ball and then made contact with black. That alone would in my mind stand as a goal. However, the black keeper is on the ground holding on to his side and when his coach comes out to help his player (after I signalled for him to do so) the keeper says to his coach that he was kicked in the side. Given the age and level of play that I observed, I seriously doubt that there was any simulation. Despite the understandable protests of the black coach and the muttering-not directed towards me- from the black players, I let the goal stand on the basis that I can only call what I saw. 5 minutes later I had to card a player from each team for getting into a shoving match-probably a direct result of this earlier call. I am not happy with what I called, but don't know how I could have done it better. My issues are 1) Should my positioning hae been different or should I have given up my cross-field diagonal to get on an angle to the play in less time. ie ran straght up the field from my initial nearside position? 2) Once I had called the goal could I should I have changed my call upon hearing that what I saw was probably incorrect? 3) Related to #2 am I correct in thinking that I should only call what I or when I have them my ar's see?
HH, it sounds to me like you gave the boys every possible effort as a solo referee, which is all that can be expected. You simply can't be everywhere all of the time. Personally, offside considerations drop pretty low on my list when working solo - if the leagues want perfect enforcement of law 11 then they need to stick a crowbar into their wallets and pay for AR's. My advice would be to not sacrifice your ability to manage potential foul and misconduct situations by positioning yourself instead to judge potential offside situations. If a team chooses to live by an offside trap with a solo referee, they will probably die by that decision. You've already pretty much answered your other questions yourself. You can only evaluate what you see. If you didn't see it, you can't judge it. If you can't judge it, you can't act upon it. You may want to have a few quiet words (separately) with both the keeper and the attacker, but the goal should stand. Assume for a moment that you had been in better position to see and evaluate the play. The fact that the keeper was injured wouldn't be the issue. Even the fact (if it happened) that there was contact between the attacker's foot/leg and the keeper's side wouldn't be the issue. The issue would be whether the attacker fouled the keeper. The black team is not making that same judgment when they howl in protest. They see contact + injury = unfair goal. That's why only your informed opinion matters.
One change in positioning that you might consider is to be farther from the player when the coach comes out to treat his injury. That way you don't need to hear what the player and coach have to say to each other - and if they raise their voices in order to make you hear, you can consider dissent. You can't just saunter off, though - that makes it look like you have no compassion for the downed player. You need to find something else that you have to do - perhaps fetch the ball, move over to have a chat with an AR (when you have one), etc.
First off, position wise, when I am running solo, I go more or less straight up the field only moving sideways with the play. So on the situation you describe, I would run straight up the field so as not be be running straight behind the play. Remember that the primary reason for running a diagonal (keeping your ARs in view) no longer exists when running a solo. Second, you can't change your call based upon what may be said between players or between a player and coach. I don't think that it shows a lack of compassion when you back away. You check out the player briefly to see if he just needs a moment or if he needs assistance. That's showing the proper compassion. Once you call the coach on, the player is being taken care of and you can back away -- and it is a good idea to do so. Many coaches will take this opportunity to provide commentary and you just as well avoid that situation.
I agree with what's been said thus far. I ref in a couple of adult rec leagues where in order to keep costs down, they only run a CR and don't play with offsides. That's not quite the same situation as what you've described, but the essence is similar. I still run a diagonal, just because I think it gives me a slightly better view of most plays, but it's a very flat diagonal that sometimes is almost straight up-and-back on the field. With no ARs I run a lot more, often sprinting from 18 to 18 several times in the course of a single series, but I'll flatten out the diagonal so I can still stay near the play.
I appreciate everything that you guys have posted here. Basically giving up the diagonal in a solo match makes sense and I will adopt that-it just gets hammered so much that it become automatic. As to walking away from an injured player after someone arrives to treat him, I see the point at a higher level, but with younger kids I think Id rather stick around especially as I am CPR/First Aid trained and so can give assistance if the coach/parent needs it. At anyrate I have my first tournament of the season this weekend and guess what 9 games as a solo center so I'll have plenty of chances to work on this. Thanks
Ah, a whole new pandora's box. My advice would be that you only get involved if the player is critically injured and there is nobody else available to render life-saving assistance. Short of that, let the coaching staff et al treat their own players' injuries or wait for qualified help to arrive.
Eeep. no. I also know CPR and a vareity of other lifesaving devices, though I am wary of advising that as an option as a referee. It would scare me to know that people would expect me to save a life, and I would not want the legal reprocussions that could arise if I participated in lifesaving acts. My insurance doesn't cover this. I know it sounds cold, but I am not a medical agent on that field and I am not hired to be one. Jarrod
That's very very true. We were always taught to hover near, but don't assist, in fact don't ever even touch a player that's down. It's rarely covered under the referee's insurance that clubs carry. During most tournaments and events like that, they'll have trainers or emts on hand anyway. Best bet is always to just wave the coach onto the field in the event of a serious injury. That way the responsibility is immediately shifted from your shoulders.
Your overhearing of the keeper's complaint does not change the initial description you gave - i.e. the ball was headed over the keeper and the attacker continued into the keeper. If the ball was over the goal line before the contact then there is no DFK foul because the ball is no longer in play once the goal is scored. Card may be given but can't wave off the goal and give DFK the other way. If the collision happened prior to the ball crossing the goal line then it is a foul and DFK the other way since the ball was still in play and the DFK is taken from the spot of the foul. In the real world since the foul was after the play on the ball and had no connection with the goal I doubt many would wave the goal off - especially since your ability to card is unhampered. Jim
Being there "Mechanics of the Ironman" ??? Wow, I'm curious; do you guys do a lot of iron man games; as part of the plan? I'm just curious, is this more of a referee-shortage or a cost-saving measure? (USSF and NFHS) HH, you just describe the classic situations that happen at that magical younger youth age that we've all encountered. . . doing your best, but not quite confident you saw it all, and the injury and goal throwin in to make it worse. Yikes! Been there - done that! First an inciteful comment, even with an AR you wouldn't have much help, since you said the ball dripped middle of the field away from the AR, though they might have some "opinions"; (or maybe not). But with a three-whistle system you'd have an official with full authority and a whistle, and ability to move close to that drop zone and make the call, when you couldn't . . . no one, and I mean NO ONE, is faster than a long ball counter attack. I admire your dedication to positioning. Looks like it worked against you this time? I think you're reading we all agree with your decision. Your duty is to like the cub scouts. . ."do your best." That's all you can do, and when the system limits your ability, that's all you can offer. But heed Gary's advice. This situation, a no-call contact resulting in injury, followed by a goal. . . reeks of frustration. GET AWAY from the player. I realize at the younger ages, we're supposed to appear concerned, but recognize "when" to show concern by proximity; otherwise always excercise caution, and remove yourself from the possibility of the coach saying something he (and you) will regret. The coach is there for the player, if the player is severely injured, allow more help to come in, but I still wouldn't get involved. The age level of this game obviously looks more at effect then cause in these situations. They don't look to see if the white player played the ball fairly and had "possession" by proximity, and if the keeper came in late. They look at the "poor little 12 year old on the ground injured" in a game where there's not "supposed" to be injuries. This is part of the educational process of the parents and coaches of 12 year olds. More reason to stay away. There are times when even making the incorrect call, and satisfying the "enjoyment" and demands for the call can better serve game management, but in this case you'd have to deny the goal, that appears was earned. e.g., you see a player come out and carelessly run into a hard charging player near midfield and the challenger gets hurt, making the restart for the injured player might better serve game management than truth. But then theres always the choice of hard reality for the same of education; but we're not teachers either. . we're game managers. Make a choice, but make it a good one!