I completely reject this assertion. I am dumbfounded that it's even been made. Sorry, I don't think this discussion is going to be productive. The argument that better communication from IFAB will lead to less dissent which will, in turn, lead to making referees lives easier is one that I just think is so divorced from reality on so many different levels that I don't even know how to engage it. You're welcome to your opinion. But I would also point out you seem to have a penchant for shifting threads from the main underlying premise of "how did the referee do and how could he have handled it differently" to more philosophical "how do we make big-picture changes to the sport because this is unacceptable to me" discussions. I would suggest there isn't as big of an audience for that discussion on the referee forum as you seem to hope. But I might be wrong.
Ehhhhh. At some point people are just incurious and deliberately ignorant. They have all the information available to them, they refuse to take some time to read and educate themselves. I'm all for clear guides and rules being available to everyone...and they are. You can't change stupid people, and you'll have a lot less stress in your life if you stop trying.
*record scratch* What? I mean seriously, what? The NFL has had a multi-season debate over what a catch is. The ongoing joke in baseball to somebody who "knows the rules" is "Ok, explain a balk" or "Ok, explain the infield fly rule". Not to mention the current hubub over the TSA-like examination of pitchers for foreign substances. And its probably been 10 years since a travel was called to the letter of the rules in the NBA. I don't watch hockey but there sure seems to be a lot of debate come playoff time over rule controversies. The idea that soccer is the only sport where fans don't understand the rules is laughable.
Fair enough. The reason I do so here is because there are no other forums on BigSoccer that I am aware of that seem like a better place to discuss the rules than the "Refereeing" forum. If I'm wrong, please point me to a more appropriate forum for such discussion....
My own rule of thumb is very close to yours - stop play unless the ball is going where it intended to go, to whom it was intended, and that it doesn't result in a promising attack. Several weeks ago, I'm in the center of a U16 boys game. The ball just scrapes my foot about 10 yards in the defensive half. The ball didn't change direction. It was intended for the left mid, and that's who received the ball. No promising attack, so I just let the play go. I'm not sure anyone except me knew the ball hit me. But if the ball changes direction, it's pretty obvious that the ball hit me. I just think it's easier from a game management perspective to stop the game.
In theory, this is what you're looking for: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forums/the-beautiful-game.24/ Of course, a lot of people here instictively like to debate the philosophy around the laws, so I suspect you'll get overall better engagement here on new threads. All I'm saying is that the constant shifting of existing threads will likely get tiring for some (though, of course, not for others).
I'll concede your point about the definition of a "catch" for football. But balks and infield flies are situations that rarely come into play in baseball and rarely have a significant impact on the game. And everyone knows how travelling is called in the NBA, even if it's not to the letter of the rules. The problem for soccer is that the decisions being made by refs that fans find confusing usually have a HUGE impact on match outcomes (offsides, PK/no-PK) because they often determine whether or not a goal is scored/dis-allowed.
Why? How can players/coaches/players/fans having a better understanding of the rules be a bad thing (for refs or in general)? How many arguments have you had as a ref with players/parents/coaches that stem from a misunderstanding of the rules? Imagine if the "ball hitting the ref" incident which started this whole discussion had occurred in a full stadium in Colombia rather than an empty stadium in Brazil. The match would likely have had to be stopped due to fans throwing stuff on the pitch and Pitana would have been lucky to make it out of the stadium alive...all because 95% of the fans in the stands would not have understand the "ball hitting the ref" rule correctly.
How about something as 'simple' as the strike zone? Pretty subjective based on the umpire behind the plate.
You did not need to include "in this situation." All that can be expected considering he has never refereed an international match, no credibility at all. Clattenburg sometimes does not agree with the final decisions but at least he has a lot of credibility based on his actual refereeing experience. No idea why Fox continues to use Machnik. PH
I don't want to play this game. I think you're wrong. About a bunch of things with a number of incorrect assumptions--many just about human nature. I just don't want to spend time going point by point to rebut your assertions. The idea that misunderstanding of the Laws is on the top 10 list of things that make officiating difficult or challenging is just utterly foreign to me. And the idea that some of those misunderstandings can be fixed in any significant manner also is a fantasy. So you're asking me to engage you on a topic where I think you're proposing an impossible solution to a problem that I don't think is a problem. Can you see why my interest level is low? Even your proximate argument is way off here. Pitana himself may not have applied Law 9 correctly--that's what most of us are arguing here. So if suddenly 95% of a stadium does understand the Law and the referee gets it wrong... then what? At this point, I truly don't understand how we got here based off the Brazil v Colombia incident.
Very simple. He has an agenda. He doesn't like some of the LOTG, and uses match incidents to butress his position. Also he clearly likes to troll referees, FIFA and IFAB. This was all clearly foreshadowed in the "change the Laws" thread he started in the main Referee section. PH
Yes, I do have an agenda....discussing ways to improve the game. And to me a lot of that starts with both the LOTG themselves, the way they are implemented, and the way match decisions are communicated to fans. Sorry if you think the game is perfect as is. And if you think a polite poster like me is a "troll", you probably shouldn't be reading discussion boards.....
Your suggestions won't get anywhere, as others have repeatedly pointed out. No-one cares what you think and some of your concepts and rationale are outright ridiculous. @MassachusettsRef Told you! PH
Yeah, as others have said - this isn't even close to being a true statement. The ball went backward off the ref - it didn't change possession and he didn't blow his whistle. Play on!
Having just watched the play, I’d argue that the only reason the deflection gave Brazil an advantage is because half the Colombian team stopped playing, expecting a whistle…there was no advantage coming from the deflection itself. He handled it terribly, but I agree with the call to let the goal stand.
I agree with this. The ball was in the attacking third… already a promising attack! If anything, the pass that struck the ref was going towards the general vicinity of penalty spot. The ball hitting the ref broke up that promising attack. The ball went out wide, no more of a promising attack than before. This didn’t start a promising attack. It was already a promising attack.
Having seen the video of the incident, it's an unfortunate one that Pitana clearly desperately tried to find a way out of but was tied by the laws as no law was broken so he couldn't justifiably disallow the goal. The 7 minutes afterwards just looked a mess. I get it's a controversial decision and therefore you accept there is frustration but IMO he had to do something about the Colombian players prolonged protests, especially Ospina and Cuadrado. With regards to the 'advantage' signal, this is why I never agreed with the change to the signal for advantage from two arms outstretched to one, as too many referees, generally South American and some Europeans, tended to use one arm to just indicate to carry on (but not because of an infringement), e.g. when a team takes a quick free kick. I think that's what Pitana was indicating, rather than 'advantage' because he thought an infringement had occurred, but it's now been confused by this jointly accepted advantage signal. Finally, with regards to the laws of football being the most confusing, you want to try looking at the laws of rugby...!
Absolutely. If you think the LOTG read like they were written by lawyers, the rugby laws (which may have actually been written by lawyers) are a doozy.
BOL:URU - Not certain in know what a handball is anymore, but was handling not called in the PA in the 48’ because the ball hit leg first?
I liked what the referees did at EURO 2016 in this regard, one arm advantage as a kind of general "go on", two arm advantage as a "proper advantage"; it was a clear and helpful delineation IMO, and the referees were clearly instructed to that effect as all of them followed it.