My observation is: Loosely called games give the losing team (and its fans/parents) something to complain about. When you are losing, every contact that might be a foul becomes a crime, probably motivated by a deep seated prejudice against them. Never mind any (all) contact going the other way. That either doesn't exist, or is just a small recompense for all the atrocities previously committed. This observation was crystallized recently as I watched a HS game. Sitting among fans of 'my' team, I was astonished by the fans reaction to the play and to the reffing. I thought the play was physical, but I thought it was perfectly appropriate for HS varsity. There wasn't too much sly, behind the back kind of stuff, just garden variety hand fighting or fully applied shoulder charges. (We weren't actually the losing team, just tied 0-0.) Players were getting talked to, and fouls over a certain line were being evenly called. But to hear our fans' reaction, you would have thought atrocities were being committed that required intervention from the UN. The ref was getting a full treatment of "You're losing control" Someone's going to get hurt!" "That wouldn't happen if you called the first one!" Up to" "You are terrible!" and "Get off the field!" I thought he was just fine, but I was in an extreme minority. Looking back on a couple of other recent outings where the fans got upset, (OK, very upset) they were all loosely called. Not unfair, just contact permitted. One was a College Club game, where I was AR. The center was "letting them play". By the end, the visiting team was demanding the names of the Refs. Was there any specific call? No, just extreme unhappiness--that I thought was mostly caused by the 1-3 scoreboard. Another game in this category, was a U-13B with me in the center. I generally call a loose game, and this one was not being well received. Every hand touch was a grab to the parents, every body contact a push. Every foul called their way was a Yellow card; every one called against them was a criminal conspiracy. Advantage? Didn't help, the foul had already caused apoplexy. Hey losing parents who are freaking out: A) this is big boy soccer now. B) that team is better than your guys. Way better. Then this weekend, I did an out of town team twice at a tournament. I thought they were OK with the first one--but I had to bug out to my next game, so I couldn't read them at the hand shake. Apparently during the second one, the parents became very unhappy and had concluded that they should quit coming down to this tournament since they always get unfair treatment from the local refs. Were they losing, yes. Was every touch being called, no. Well, maybe the conclusion should have been not that they were getting screwed, but that they weren't as good as the other teams in their bracket. Perhaps they should consider that they only have 2 players who would be playing for the other team, and one of them is a serial offender. While I thought all these games were called fairly for each team, I do think that if the games had been called tightly, then the parents and players would have been happier, or at least, they would have less to complain about. I think alot of my Adult games follow this pattern: loose calls provide ammunition for the complainers, especially if they are losing. But does that mean players and fans would be happier with a tighter game? And, does that mean that the soccer would be better overall? I don't know. I may try to call my games tighter for a while to see what happens. (But I say that every time.)
I know how you feel. I think I am also the kind of referee that likes to "let them play". Sometimes, it can go a little too far. I think the key is knowing who are your hot-heads and who are the calming influences and those that are willing to accept. Last weekend I did a U-19B game. Of course it was physical, but there were a couple of players that were just trying to get on each others nerves. Not anything nasty, just niggling stuff and trash talking. Eventually, one of them took down the other by clipping his heals from behind and got a yellow card because it was in the attacking third. The carded player seemed to avoid the other one after that. On the other hand, I did a U16G game at a tournament a couple of years back. The first couple of times I blew the whistle for what looked like obvious fouls to me (and also trying to establish my presence), I got funny looks from the girls. I loosened it up quite a bit, and the girls just went at it. I called the nasty stuff, but there was a whole lot of stuff I let go as trifling or applied advantage for. When I shook the coaches hand, he said it was a great game. I thought to myself, "I really didn't do that much." It all depends on the players that day. I was a music major in college. In jazz band, regarding improvization, the professor always used to say, "The notes you don't play are just as important as the ones you do". I think the same applies to refereeing. The calls you don't make affect the game just as much as the ones you do.
There is no perfect medium. It all depends on the 50,000 variables that occur in a game and your own experience in dealing with those variables. I do an adult league and I have figured out how to call the games based on how the players play and their acceptance of the play. If the players accept the challenge, then let it go, but if they all whine about it, then tighten it up. Some teams are worse than others and that is where experience comes into play. For tourney games, never having seen either team, I let the players basically show me how they want the game officiated with their tolerance of the challenges and then I tighten it up from there or loosen it depending the cleanliness of the overall game. However, if the whining starts right away, you have no choice but to tighten it up and then loosen it as time goes on. I have never really had a problem with this approach to reffing a game. I just don't think it is my duty to dictate the game, but to adjudicate the game based on the LOTG
Don't do that just for the sake of calling it tight. Who cares what the parents think? They don't know what they are talking about, AND they are extremely biased as any parent would be with a kid playing the sporting event they are watching. It's not our job to make sure they are comfortable with what is occurring on the pitch. Losing players do 99% of the complaining, or thereabouts. Don't listen too much to that. If you have players from both teams telling you that the game is being called too loose or too tight -- by all means, listen to them and seriously consider tweaking your approach, your bar for a foul, for a yellow card, etc.
I disagree that the losing team does all the whining. There are lots of winning teams that employ the whining tactic.
I'd like to offer my observations about this: 1. A losing team, unless they KNOW they are entirely outclassed by their opponent AND are just great people in general will always look for a scapegoat as to why they are losing. As a referee, you are 99% of the time the easiest target. 2a. You shouldn't be worried about calling a game "tight" or "loose" - based on the LOTG, a foul is a foul is a foul. But thankfully, Law 5 gives you the discretion to determine whether or not advantage should be applied or that the "foul" was trifling and as such blowing your whistle would be doing the game a disservice. 2b. The only players/coaches/parents/spectators I know that are familiar with Law 5 are also referees (and as such should not be the vocal ones of the group). The vast majority of the unwashed hordes (my term for anyone who isn't a referee) couldn't tell you what "trifling" meant in regards to the LOTG, even if you hit them repeatedly for hours with a hard-bound copy of the LOTG and ATRs. 2c. Therefore, it is your duty as a referee (in regards to keeping the game both safe and fair) to communicate with the players on the field that you recognize the contact, that you agree with them that a foul has (or has not) taken place but that you are NOT going to stop play for it. This communication can take many forms, but my standard list if I'm not doing the very public sweeping of my arms and shouting "PLAY ON!" for advantage is to say loud enough for the players and players only: "let's keep playing blue, you've got the ball still"; "play, play play"'; "no foul there, let's keep going" etc... If a player keeps getting hacked and is clearly getting frustrated with you not calling the fouls he is perceiving, have a quick chat with him - "hey buddy, I see the other team is kicking your ankles/pulling your shirt/hacking you a bit, and yes those are fouls, but you're keeping the ball and progressing your offense by staying with it. Just know that I AM watching out for you, and if I see it get out of hand, I will put an immediate stop to it. Just keep playing your game." It takes 5 seconds and can easily be done during a throw-in, sub, or goal kick lull in the game, and in my experience it cuts out 90% of the whining from a losing (or winning team that is being hacked to hell). 3. Just try to think a little bit like a player of the team that has possession every time there is contact that can be construed as a foul. Would you want a foul called in that spot or would you rather keep the ball moving? I happen to have many years of experience as a player in both youth and adult games, and as such, I try to relate to the players as much as possible. This little strategy of mine works out very well most of the time. 4. Sometimes some people just want to watch the world burn. And referees make for great tinder.
While I agree with this, what can be done? Do we chop the game up simply because the spectator area is upset with the flow of the game? How about do we call every single advantage situation to keep the spectators happy and have no flow of play? There are so many opportunities to insert the referee into play but should we do so at every opportunity? We do not whistle or shout and indicate advantage every time a player plays through a shirt tug or an extended arm because there would be no game. I do not think the onus is upon us, but rather the american spectator to learn how the game is played by the players and managed by the referees. A good referee calls the game in front of them and does so with no preconcieved idea of how the match will be played. And the tenets of play as well as the level of play is set by the players and not the referees. With certain games we may have a expectation of the outcome based upon history, but that does not, determine how we call the game, only that we are aware there is a greater potential for certain actions. Keep in mind, all you need to do to be a spectator is show up; nothing more. And to be a coach, until you get to the bigger/better programs, all you need to do is sign up.
I sat on high school sidelines for 4 years and saw exactly what Jayhonk is saying. It's simply partisanship. Your allegiance to the school, the players, the team far outweighs your ability to react to the available evidence. In order, I am a parent first and a referee/observer second. The parent side will naturally overwhelm the referee side. I'm not as bad as my wife, who thinks every touch is a foul, but there is a side of me who doesnt think ANY referee is doing a good enough job while referreeing a game involving my daughter and her teams. That's why I sit about as far away from the field as I possibly can. That way, I can complain to myself. Call the game the way it needs to be called. Call the game that you are comfortable calling. Half the people watching and playing will hate you, and the other half are not sure. I have given up trying to please anyone on the field. My main job is player safety, foul recognition, getting the restarts right, and keeping the coaches from killing each other and me. Not necessarily in that order. I have had my hand shook at the end of a match by coaches who ten minutes earlier were screaming at me. I have had coaches ignore me completely after a match that they have won. I have ceased trying to figure it out. I go out and officiate the game as presented.
My default starting point on most games is to call it 'loose'. I will also say that my obligation is to the game, specifically the safety and enjoyment of the players, first and foremost. Do I care about the spectators? In a word.... no. In two words... yes and no (wait, was that three words?). First, regarding calling my games loose. Although that's where I start, if it quickly becomes apparent that players don't want to play at that level today, I adjust. Why? Because its their game, not mine. A long while ago I used to try and "bring the players to my level" until I figured out that is generally rubbish. So since there tends to be more contact, less calling of trifling fouls and a higher level of physicality in the matches I referee, I run into my fair share of fans who don't get it. Depending on the level, I either care a little bit or not at all. What it comes down to is how the players react. A youth team (even HS age, to an extent) can be influenced by the crowd. If the crowd is getting ugly and players start to lose control, okay, let's settle it back down. If the crowd is excited and yelling at me on a D1 game but the players don't care, hell, let's have at it, boys. So I guess what I'm saying is serve the game and the players first. Figure out what your style is, but let the players help you adjust that on each game. Understand the impact a rowdy crowd can have on your match and know if you have to take action because of that.
Oh man, that brings me back to a game I did a while ago where one team's parents just HAD IT OUT FOR ME. Having done everything from top Amateur level matches down to kids who had been out of diapers for less time than they were in them, I've seen the different level of effects parents/spectators have on the players, but this one took the cake. In a U12 boys, top flight game, the visiting (but still local) team was losing by a goal, which had been scored against the run of play. They had plenty of chances to draw the game even, and were pressing hard with ~5 minutes left. On a cleared corner kick, a player standing 5 yards behind every other player, but 3 yards on his own half is passed the ball. Now, this kid was no Olympic sprinter, however, the visiting team parents go BALLISTIC shouting for "offsides." Well, the kids on the visiting team, not thinking there is any way their parents could be incorrect STOP playing. Mr. "Not Usain Bolt" proceeds to jog-dribble the ball into the net (yes, even the keeper stopped playing). The most upset person on the field? The visiting team's coach, who knew and understood that the kid wasn't offside. Boy did I have a fun time hanging around after the game and listening to the coach chew new entire digestive tracts to those parents. (And somehow, I didn't have to abandon the match/run for my life, even though these parents really wanted to kill me, I think).
And God forbid if you let ANY physicality in a girls match at that age happen! Jesus, there is a backlash and you forgot my favorite unhappy catcall "This isn't the World Cup."
My favorite retort to that gem is "Nor is it a (if adults playing insert appropriate salty language here) tea party."
Generally, I would say I fall into the "tight" game category especially on foot fouls (I ref with a number of English ex-pats and always tell them I'm more Italian in my refereeing style). Upper body stuff I leave more to the player reaction so long as it is truly trifling (not preventing the player being fouled from effectively playing). A powerful, well-executed charge while running a parallel path is one of the beautiful moments in the game in my book. I get very few complaints about what I call except from players who tend to rely more on their physicality (funny but at youth levels often they are the smallest players on the field). Once I've shown consistency in my standards, the players typically adjust. My experience is teams which have had success with a physical style of play tend to take longer to adjust but a generally more interesting and exciting game results. I've had several games that were hackfests in the first five minutes turn into fun and exciting soccer by early in the second half. I never attempt to "influence" the game but seldom do I feel that matches I referee end in an "unfair" result. More skillful teams usually win. Hardworking teams occasionally pull out a draw. Every once in a while, luck seems to be the determining factor. Foul counts, penalties and cards usually end up very even. I've often had players and coaches (even losing coaches) thank me for getting the game (or one of their more talented players) away from the pushing, grabbing, kicking and tripping. So much here that I agree with but I would like to add: Don't hesitate to let a serial fouler know they are in danger of a caution for Persistent Infringement (trifling fouls count). Keep an eye out for an especially effective or skillful player being serially fouled by different opponents. That qualifies a Persistent Infringement. Calling out that Player X (yes, the ubiquitous Player X) has now been fouled this many times and the next foul against that player will earn the fouling player a caution does wonders. Finally, Jayhonk, you asked if the game would be better overall if it were more tightly called. As with most of the more interesting questions in life, my answer is, "It depends." I would never advocate calling "more" fouls. That just slows the game down and results in soccer that looks more like "pointy-ball" with dozens of ceremonial restarts. Most of my whistles for fouls occur in the first 5-10 minutes of the match and the last 5-10 minutes of closely contested matches. I don't plan it that way but it does seem to happen. Very seldom will I whistle for 10 or more fouls in a match (note: referring Law 12 infringements only). I believe a referee's most important attribute is consistency. If it's a foul in the 1st minute, it's a foul in the 89th. If it's a foul at midfield, it's a foul in the PA. If it's a foul by a defender, it's a foul by an attacker. I know there are many (perhaps most) referees who disagree with me on this but unless you work in a league with a true supervisor of officials who sits everyone down and discusses overarching standards there will be lots of frustration when Colonel Sanders (chicken in the box) shows up, especially late in the clock, at the match. There are very few calls I've made that I regret. There are few matches where I don't second guess myself for a call I should have made but didn't. The world, in general, plays a more tightly called style of football that the US does. I believe when our Men's National Team was primarily college and MLS players this was a huge disadvantage in tournament play. Players like Pablo Mastroeni had developed in a youth and adult system where hard fouls were just part of the game and seldom earned cards unless they resulted in injury. Our player pool is dominated by lots of big, strong, physical players who make up for lack of skill and sophistication with brute force. Look at our current pool of national team center defenders and midfielders as well as our lack of playmakers and finishers. As referees, we are the gatekeepers of our national soccer style. Italian and Spanish soccer is technical and tactical. These are also among the most tightly refereed leagues. English soccer is fast and aggressive and more loosely refereed. German soccer is somewhere in between. Calling a game that encourages speed of thought, speed of play, skill and stamina will do more to encourage the growth of the "beautiful game" than "letting them play". ITOOT(his)R
To point 2: It qualifies as Unsporting Behaviour. A caution for PI is for A player persistently infringing the laws. When multiple players foul a single player it is USB. While referees may like to file it in their minds as PI, the caution is for USB.
You, sir, are correct. Ran to my copy of the ATR the minute I saw your post and there under 12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT The referee must also recognize when a single opponent has become the target of fouls by multiple players. As above, upon recognizing the pattern, the referee should clearly indicate that the pattern has been observed and that further fouls against this opponent must cease. If another player commits a foul against the targeted opponent, that player must be cautioned but, in this case, the misconduct should be reported as unsporting behavior, as must any subsequent caution of any further foul against that same targeted opponent. Eventually the team will get the message. Thanks.
After playing and coaching literally thousands of games over the years, the number of games I felt were "ruined" by a ref calling too much is a mere handful. The games "ruined" by a ref letting things loose? Uncountable. However, if it looks and smells like a foul, it probably is... call it. Too many refs let stuff go in the name of "flow" and for fear of influencing the game, but that often leads to an even uglier result, frayed tempers and more whining. It can work for a good, experienced ref... for most, though, not so much. I got into reffing for precisely this reason, and often get thanks from teams for "actually calling something". Great war story. Reffing U16 Girls. Good physical, but mostly clean, game. Players battling, but not an excessive number of fouls. Players fine with it, coaches fine... but the parents! Oy. They wailed and gnashed their teeth, got louder, and louder.... Then, midway through the second half, a player walks by me and says, "Ref, can you do something to get the parents to shut up?" There's my cue! So at the next stoppage, I blow the whistle, walk over the the parents' sideline, and announce: "Folks, the players have asked me to ask you to please be quiet, sit down, relax and just watch the game. Thanks." You could have heard a pin drop. A few scattered claps. And mostly quiet for the rest of the match. Had I gone over to do the same thing unilaterally, it would have been like pouring gas on a fire. But the very thought that their own daughters wanted them to behave like adults...
These are words of wisdom. The players need to know the lay of the land on which they are playing. I had a moment in an adult league match a few weeks ago when a player complained about the lack of a whistle, and one of his teammates admonished him with "He's being consistent!"
The parents wouldn't have known if the players actually said that or if you were completely making it up Sounds like it might work regardless.
I personally like a little contact. I expect an attacker to fight through a challenge. I expect a defender to defend. That being said, I call the game the players want. Knowing how to see that comes with the territory.
Good post, and I agree with most of what you said. MLS is definitely a 'physical' league. So is the EPL, but they have more skill to go along with it. This is straying off topic, but IMO our national team player pool is not as brutish as you make it seem. Many nations employ big strong physical players as central defenders. In this respect, we are no different than many other countries' national teams. Our defensive midfielders are tough-tackling ball winners, but they also have some skill and can get involved in the attack. Bradley, Edu, Beckerman, and Jermaine Jones were used in the proper position under Bob Bradley, and Klinsmann has essentially kept them in that same role, because they are good at what they do. We have several established and/or up-and-coming skillful attacking players. Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Torres, Brek Shea and a few others are quality players. Perhaps not world-class, but they can hold their own in the top leagues in the world. Holden and Torres both fall in the category of 'playmaker' IMO. Up front...Charlie Davies showed real promise before his accident. Overall, we are sorely lacking. But the same can be said of England and other countries. World-class goalscorers are hard to find and/or develop. We aren't the only ones struggling here.
My personal opinion, and this is just MY personal opinion, albeit a VERY strong one formulated on what I've seen and experienced the last several years doing high school games in two different states. 1. High school soccer is an entirely different animal than club ball. The same kids who complain very little in high level club games become stark raving lunatics in high school ball. My opinion is that this is due to peer pressure, petty local rivalries (some of them deep seated with a long history), parental pressure, and the general lack of "sophistication" which goes hand in hand with high school ball. 2. Most high school "coaches" foster this type of "environment" Lets face it, the quality of high school coaching is NOWHERE NEAR that of club ball. Most high school coaches are required to be full/part time teachers as well. What I have observed in most instances is that the high school coach is the school employee with the most familiarity with the game. Figure out what that does to the potential coaching talent pool and the overall quality of coaching. As a result, most also have that American football mentality "harder, faster, louder, let me "work" the ref," etc. That's why many of these games become slugfests...players take their cues from the guy on the touchline. I know of one high school coach who played for me at the U12B level...and was nothing more than a rec level goalkeeper, at best. Couldn't, and didn't, make any halfway decent club team. Now he's the head coach of a perennial state powerhouse. Great kid/guy, heart in the right place, but I wouldn't let my own kid anywhere near a "coach" like that. Unfortunatley, this seems to be the norm and not the exception. In the few instances I've recognized club coaches sitting on the high school touchlines, I haven't had a problem. They understand. You get Mr. "State XYZ (insert your own)" High School Coach, invariably you'll have a problem. For no reason, in most cases. As a referee, there's nothing you can do about this, so why worry about it? 3. The ole let 'em play mantra Again, this is my opinion only, but the ref who relies on the ole "I let em play" cop out either a) doesn't know a foul from a fig leaf, and/or b) can't get close enough to see the foul. A foul is a foul. Whether you see it as trifling and/or decide to take more risk in the match is another matter altogether. Where that bar is set is determined by each individual ref based on the game itself and his/her judgment. Nonetheless, I don't think approaching each match with the "I let em play" mindset is appropriate, either. Again, this is my opinion only baased on MY experience and not directed to any one particular individual. OF COURSE they do...they ALWAYS do...but so does the "winning" side...and I've already had it happen this year in a 3-1 match where I missed a pk call for the LOSING team...LOL!!!! The "winning" coach (very prominent in this state) was whining and complaining that I wasn't letting some of his hacks get away with their usual nonsense and that I gave out eight cautions (four apiece) in the match. Now mind you, I average less than 2 cards per game in high school, but with THIS particular school, it goes up to 3.5. Now either I go batty and lose my mind when I see this school, or maybe just maybe its something they're doing. In this particular match, one caution was for a tactical shirt pull (100% misconduct), one was for drs when their striker kicked the ball away from an opponent as he was about to take a restart, and one UB card was for a retaliatory foul right in front of the benches with about 5 minutes to go. Why does this "coach" do this? Because he realized this year he doesn't have as much talent as he had in the past and needed to alter his "style" of play to get results. They haven't lost any of the five games I've reffed them, but the coach and fans always scream bloody murder. Ironically, many of this schools fans were at the recent Fire-Crew game at Toyota Park where Chico Grajeda gave a card for a tactical foul in the last 10 minutes of the match that was a MIRROR IMAGE of the card I gave their right fullback a month or so earlier. I just turned and smiled...nobody said a word. Nonetheless, at the time I gave the card, all hell broke loose (2nd yellow), despite the fact nobdy in the stadium but me apparently knew what a tactical foul was. My mantra: It (high school soccer) is what it is...and you move on.
The level of play in high school is different, but I wouldn't peg most varsity coaches as ignorant rubes based on my experience. I also, generally, found players in high school to behave about as well as those in the high level club games. There are key differences, imo, that contribute to a different atmosphere. First, high school sports have a different social meaning. You're representing a a school and a community which are easy to identify with and to have an added emotional commitment. Second, in areas where a dual is used, I think referees cheat too much to stay with a potential offside and that causes them to ignore or miss stuff that happens in the middle of the park. What reinforces this is my experience in an unaffiliated O35 league that chooses to work with duals. It's basically Thunder Dome in the middle of the field. Third, the quality of officials is uneven. I know some great referees who work high school games, but given the timing of most games and the sheer number of games, a lot of people go out there to do games without the fitness, background in the game, or real passion for the sport. As a result, the games can be handled in strange ways. Last, and I think this is a huge contributor here, the coaches rule the roost. If you want to work the good games and you want to get them frequently, you need to coaches to like you. I've found that the high school coaches prefer a more open game. Fouls should be obvious and PKs, in particular, so obvious no one could complain. There's a lot of KMA political refereeing that takes place due to this.
The level of play is VASTLY different and while the coaches may not be ignorant rubes, for the most part they know just enough to be dangerous (there ARE exceptions). Not a chance in my two states, and I've reffed the U16 Boys Club Cup Regional Final that went to double OT as well as nine high school teams ranked in the top ten in two different states, including one playing for a state championship Saturday afternoon. You got that right. I don't do duals. Only DSC. I ref high school, club, mens amateur and collegiate matches. I've played the game for nearly forty years, at the NCAA D1 and mens amateur level. I also have coached at the high school, club, and mens amateur level with licenses from both the USSF and NSCAA. That's the problem. I'd rather not partake. I also refuse to partake in politicking, especially at the high school level. I owe it to myself and the game to call it as it should be called.
I can't stop laughing at aek chicago. Talk about taking yourself really serious and boasting how you are beyond reproach.