Hello I have been coming to this forum for many years. I have only reffed at a very low level, but played and coached for lots of years. I'd like to open this thread to allow posters to ask legitimate questions to this group. I don't want to argue about any of these questions, but am very interested in hearing your views on them (and give me something new to read every day at work). I am not limiting any of these responses/questions and very much appreciate any inputs. I very much want to try to keep learning about the laws, and more specifically, how they are supposed to be applied. So, for my first question: At a youth level (say U-17 or lower), what is your personal bar for advantage during the run of play? Also, if a team doesn't agree with your play on ruling, can then just not play a ball to get a call? Thanks for any replies and I will try to answer any questions.
I consider a few factors: Do I think the fouled player/team wants advantage? Do I think the fouled player/team has a real advantage? I find the answer to the first question for youth players is almost always yes if they keep possession of the ball and are able to play it. I start to disagree when they are starting to play away from goal, have their back to goal, or are in the defending third (this depends a lot on the team's ability to counter quickly). I've had varsity (U18) players become frustrated with me for blowing a play dead after a foul after they dribbled towards their own goal for 20 yards because they "had the ball"! I allow players to opt-out of advantage by not playing the ball or saying they'll take the kick.
It’s a spectrum. The lower the level, the more clear the advantage is going to need to be. Foe 10U, pretty much needs to be a goal is about to be scored. (For this reason, advantage is not even taught in the AYSO Basic course, which is primarily for 10u refs.) by 16U, I see advantage closer to what you would do in an adult game—based on the level of play, is the team better off without the foul being called? As far as declining the advantage, again, it is a spectrum. At 12s and 14s, if they don’t try to keep playing, I’ll just call the foul. At 16s, it depends on how clear the advantage is. If there is a clear advantage and I’m signaling, I’m not going back because a player doesn’t take the advantage. But if itks a more questionable advantage and I’m waiting, I’ll go with the foul.
Allowing players to decide if they want advantage or not sounds strange to me. Years ago, in a college game, I saw the CR signal for advantage and I heard the assistant coach say, "We'd rather have the free kick." The CR responded,"That's not how it works."
Considering I wait 2, 3, even 4 seconds after a foul before actually calling advantage, I usually rarely have to worry about calling a bad one. Sometimes it happens though
If a player has a shirt pulled and he's stopping at midfield, where most players would "fight through" for a possible scoring opportunity, he's telling you he doesn't want the advantage and obviously you blow the whistle. You don't force advantage on someone. Are there isolated calls during the year a player or coach (regardless of skill level) says "ref, we wanted advantage" after blowing the whistle?. Sure, and I'll explain why I did so immediately after (yeah, I'll second guess myself after the game in certain cases that they were probably right). I've done advantage in the defensive third in younger ages in rare cases, which certified referee coaches frown on and others here would also. Never had a case where it came back to haunt me since I knew the the skill level of the players and know they have 30 yards of green space ahead of them as a meaningless free kick 70 yards from goal is rewarding the offending team.
This is a fair point, and I think it's a balance. At the higher levels, the more I take into account the players' apparent wishes (coaches, not so much). Sometimes I'll even have a direct conversation with a player: "It looked to me like you wanted to keep playing on that one. Are you oaky playing through that?" The game is about the players, and the answer to many of these questions will therefore be: Do what the game expects. I'll add one caveat: The less I trust the players to not give the ball away, and the less I trust players to be able to control their emotions, the less likely I am to play an advantage. Some games and teams just need you to call fouls. Keep it simple. If there's a foul, call it. If you don't, you risk an advantage not developing the way you thought it would, or worse, the fouled player thinks you aren't protecting them and takes matters into their own hands.
One thing I haven't heard anyone say is: match control its is one of my biggest considerations for flow vs. control or advantage. I am not not looking to really give advantage if it's a contentious match (although I don't have a lot of contentious youth matches) unless it's super obvious. Also another thing I am considering is the player already on a caution... and what type of foul would it be not calling: spa, careless, reckless, sfp. When I occasionally get roped into youth matches my considerations: Match Control is player on caution? was this a reckless or SFP? Tactical advantage and player's tactical acuity Location on the field Speed, number and position of players Some loose one's ill consider: going back to match control overall temperature of the game, time and score of the match (4-0 match... lol to advantage), player's body language More often and not I find myself rarely giving advantage in youth games unless it's in the attacking 3rd or in the wide channel's with good space and options.
ejschwartz and frankieboylampard have it perfect. Others saying they don't let the players decide they don't want an advantage need to rethink their beliefs.
I appreciate everyone's replies. Thank you. Yesterday, I was watching the very end of the Europa League Malmo v Ludogorets match. Ludo up 2-1 near end of stoppage time (7 minutes), Malmo gets a corner kick and ref lets them take it. The Malmo GK has come up for the kick. The kick straight to the Ludo GK, who grabs it and in turn punts the ball as far as he can. A Ludo attacker is racing a Malmo defender, but is in the lead. As they cross midfield, the ref whistles for end of match. I know most folks here allow an attack to proceed, even if the final time has gone. Now, this did not affect the outcome, but in this competition, goal difference is extremely important. I know it's kinda a "you had to see it", but in a situation like that, would you allow the extra few seconds for the attacker to score into the empty goal or whistle like the ref did?
It depends on heavily where things are on time, too. The ref may well have decided the CK was the final element of the game. So it would not be appropriate to just change his mind and add on more time after that because it helps one team. If time had not reached full time until the GK was releasing the ball, I think most refs would let it play out. I have often said that if you ask 3 refs for when to blow full time, you’ll get 4 different answers. Most important is that a ref has a clear view on how he or she will handle and sticks to it so that there is not subjectivity that can favor one team over the other.
You started this with a question about advantage. Then pivoted to when to signal for full time. Let me be clear: when to signal for full time has nothing, nada, bupkis to do with Advantage.
He said he'd want this post to include various questions of referees. Might have helped to start his new question with something like: "New question:" I started a poll on the question of ending time. 92% allow for attacks to finish usually. I was one of those that voted for that, but would likely have called the game in your example like that referee did. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/ending-game-poll.2136360/
New Question. Do you handle giving cards differently during the start of a match vs say mid-way through the first half? If so, can you let me know why. Thanks.
The question is really too vague to answer. But I’ll give some context to that generalization. Think about there being two kinds of cards. The first are what USSF used to call 100% misconduct—those are given regardless of other factors. The second is more discretionary cards. On more discretionary cards, a whole, lot of factors can go into the decision, including the temperature of the match, prior behavior by the player or team. In the first couple of minutes, you don’t have prior acts or temperature to factor in (though you may know something about the teams and their relationship that affects how “tight” you want to be with cards. Halfway through the half, you know more about today’s game, which could make you more or less likely to give those more discretionary cards. (And even the type of cards where you are lenient may be inconsistent, as there may be particular issues of concern and not others.)
NFHS match...at the taking of a PK the player advances towards the kick via a zig zag pattern taking the kicker 6 yards to the left of the ball and then 6 yards to the right of the ball before striking the ball. Since the kicker (eventually) advanced to the ball, albeit not in a direct fashion, what would you do?
Laugh in my head that is he is distracting himself more than the GK? I’m not seeing an issue unless there is a quirky HS rule I’m forgetting.
There is not...other than the need to advance to the ball...but my thought...is this really in the spirit of the game or is it another tool used to deceive the Keeper?
There is nothing against the SOTG in trying to deceive an opponent. There are specific, narrow places we’ve decided are unfair, like stopping after the run up. But other than that, deceit is an essential element of the game. The GK is similarly trying to deceive the kicker as to whether she will dive right, dive left, or wait to see what happens. Nothing unfair here. And as I noted in my first response, these overly cute things often do more to hinder the kicker who is overthinking than the GK who is waiting and doesn’t really care what the kcker does until the kicker gets close to the ball.
new question. High school game. Ball goes out for a throw in on the far side of the field from the benches, White team has a sub waiting. Referee signals for the sub to enter. Sub enters and a teammate jogs away towards the bench. Referee thinks the sub process is taking too long, so he whistles for the throw-in to be taken. As it's taken, the exiting player approaches the bench, still on the field. The coach tells her "No, Sarah is supposed to come off!" So this player jogs back to where she was before, maybe to tell Sarah that she's supposed to be off. Meanwhile, play is going on. How does the referee fix this?
Once the substitute has been beckoned onto the field, they become the player and the player being replaced is no longer a player and becomes a substitute. This is straight from Rule 3-3-6, and Scenario 3.4.1A addresses this also. The exiting player must leave the field. Sarah can come off at the next substitution opportunity for her team. The referee should stop play, require the exiting player to leave the field, and inform the coach that Sarah may be substituted at the next opportunity. Then the referee should remember why we wait until the player has fully left the field before we beckon the substitute on, and never begin play before the process is complete. Also remember that we have the power to stop the clock (Rule 7-4-1) for any reason. I encourage my referees to use this as a game management tool - if we think the substitution process is taking too long we can caution for DR (and thereby stop the clock) or just stop the clock without issuing the caution.
I would ask the head coach how much time he spends in practice on this stupid play and if he realizes it's more of a detriment to him and not the keeper.
The only restriction in NFHS would be if the kicker came to a complete stop. So as long as they don't stop it is ok.