Consistency is the problem, not the solution.

Discussion in 'Referee' started by SCV-Ref, Mar 1, 2018.

Tags:
  1. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    OK...hear me out here.
    How many times have you heard coaches and sometimes players, say something like "Last week the ref called that a foul...and this ref says it isn't...we want some consistency".
    Well...be careful what one wishes for.
    There are several neutral things that teams must deal with when playing soccer. It might be a mud patch on the field, or longer grass than they like, or even square posts instead of round. Whatever. One of those neutral things, but changing from week to week is the referee. They are different each and every time. I suggest coaches and players learn to adapt to a referee that calls a game tight vs one who lets everything go vs an AR who can't read an offside trap.
    However, if the plethora of people calling for consistency get their way, then prepare for a future of football being refereed by robots. VAR is step one. You can see what it has done to NFL over a period of time. (decades) where every word in every rule is parsed and subjectivity is gone.
    Subjectivity, or interpretation is one of the great traits of our football (soccer). Or "in the opinion of the referee". We should keep it that way.
    If you want to see the future, just look at history.
     
  2. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
    "In the opinion of the referee" is a necessity of soccer, because so many of the calls are subjective.
    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't all be striving for consistency across the board.
    Coaches, players and fans deserve that. We deserve that.
     
    Thezzaruz repped this.
  3. HoustonRef

    HoustonRef Member

    May 23, 2009
    FWIW - and it's probably not worth much since it has nothing to do with soccer, but.......I'm right in middle of reading a history of Russia from about 1984 to the present. Title - The Future is History.
     
    nsa and dadman repped this.
  4. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    Well I think you sort of agreed with me. Yes, so many of the calls are subjective. The question is...do you wish to change that. If you say yes, and your wish comes true, then all the calls become objective. Enter the robots. Personally, I would prefer the calls to remain subjective.
    There is nothing wrong with us being on the same page as much as we can. That is well advised and what we teach, but it seems that VAR only introduces a whole lot of debate among on-site officials (that's why it takes so long sometimes) and continues well after the match is done...which then creates complaints against VAR. I say...leave it subjective, accept the decision and move on. The pundits can debate forever...which we all do, and have always done, about a call that was made, but at least we can all fall back on "In the opinion of the referee".
     
  5. Law5

    Law5 Member+

    Mar 24, 2005
    Beaverton OR
    In my experience, for whatever that's worth, the cry for consistency talks about consistency within today's game. Even the "the referee last week let us" whine is usually reserved for equipment and field issues.

    There are several forms of "consistency." Consistency by a referee compared to his previous work (i.e. he always calls games the same way, regardless of whether it's U-12 girls or men's open 1st division amateur), consistency between referees (i.e. all referees call the games in this league the same, regardless of who is playing today, the importance of the game, etc.) and consistency by this referee over the whole game (i.e. what I call 'end to end' consistency.) Only the last is relevant.

    Having said that, consistency within the same game is usually desirable but not always, even in the minds of the coaches and players. E.g. late in a tied game, with both teams aggressively seeking to score, you may want to call less. "Let the players decide it." That's not to say that the serious stuff doesn't get called, but the line that separates contact that gets whistled and contact that is considered trifling rises, allowing more contact for the remainder of the game. The opposite may be true in a game that has turned into a blowout.
     
  6. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    You seem to be arguing that if the game at any given level was called exactly the same all the time, this would somehow be bad for the game? I'd argue that when it comes to subjective decisions we should be striving to be programmable robots (note this doesn't mean we shouldn't use our personality to manage the game). If we all applied the same standard as to what is or isn't a foul and what is or isn't misconduct at a given age/skill level, that would be a good thing. I say programmable because the standards are different at different levels of play, but within a given level more consistency is certainly better. I think the game is more enjoyable for the players (and coaches and spectators for that matter) if the rules don't change from game to game. They have enough to concern themselves with. When others complain about us injecting ourselves into the game, I think this is what they mean. No one likes it.
     
    akindc repped this.
  7. Pittsburgh Ref

    Pittsburgh Ref Member+

    Oct 7, 2014
    da 'Burgh
    I read the OP to mean that fair does not mean equal. I agree with that.
     
    Cornbred Ref repped this.
  8. Law5

    Law5 Member+

    Mar 24, 2005
    Beaverton OR
    threeputzzz, the problem with your statement about absolute consistency within "this level" of the game is that there are human beings playing and refereeing. We are different. Even within, say, Men's O-30 1st division, there are different skill levels and different personalities, not to mention the random guy who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

    In my experience, the first contact of the game, especially with experienced players, is usually kind of middling. I see that as the players implicitly asking the referee "Is this going to be okay today or do you think it's a foul?" Now maybe I've had enough experience with this level of play to recognize how players in this league and division want to play. So I either call it or let it go. It's really a proposal from me to all of the players, "Guys, I think this should be a foul today. What do you think?" If I get a lot of stick from one team and silence from the other, I know that the players don't agree. I'm looking for a level in today's game that represents an implicit agreement between the players about how physical today's game should be. Ideally, both teams like about the same level.

    But there may be a disagreement. One team wants physical and the other team doesn't want to be touched. What am I going to do in that case? Yeah, it's all O-30 1st division, but today one of the teams is the one in this league that wants to play "no blood, no foul." I think I need to moderate that attitude, if only because the other team doesn't share it, but I shouldn't tell the former team that they can't play the game at all that way. It's their game, not mine. So, yes, I will call games differently, inconsistent with the way I may have done the game in the same division last week, because the players, the opponents, the weather, the field are all different from last week. And then throw in the variables that instead of the teams disagreeing, it may be only one, two, three players whose expectations are significantly different than everybody else. Calling things differently IS how we use our personality to manage the game.
     
    MRAD12, dadman, roby and 5 others repped this.
  9. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    #9 threeputzzz, Mar 2, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018
    "Absolute" consistency is never going to be achieved, but it's a goal to strive for as a group, IMHO.

    And this is the crux of my argument. I think the game would be improved if the players didn't have to go through this process, they could just concentrate on playing the game. I understand some people consider this part of the game. It wasn't originally part of the game, and I think it's an element of the game we could all do without.

    I understand other external influences will change the way we call the game, so I should refine my argument. I think it serves the game better if the outcome of subjective decisions in any given match are not dependant on who the referee is. In other words we all consider those variables in the same way.

    I don't agree here.

    EDIT: My first post was a reply to the OP, not you.
     
  10. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Definitely agree with @Law5 on this.

    To parse farther, and akin to the 100% misconduct concept that USSF used to talk about, I'd say that incidents fall into three categories. Absolute foul, absolute not foul, and the gray. We should have consistency on the absolutes. But in the gray, we need to factor in the level of play and the current tone of the match more. Some fouls don't need to be called in a calm match, but do when the match is heated. We need to read the match and keep the game safe, fair, and fun--and that means a different foul bar in different games--even games a the "same" level.
     
    dadman, roby, IASocFan and 3 others repped this.
  11. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    I like this. Simple but true.

    And ideally we would all do this in a consistent manner. We don't.
     
  12. camconcay

    camconcay Member+

    Atlanta United
    United States
    Feb 17, 2011
    Georgia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't see how we can. Look at the thread about the PK that was disallowed. Several pages of discussion when the facts were not in question, the kicker definitely stopped 2 yards from the ball.

    And this is from what I think are "better" referees than the average bear - or at least those that are interested enough to find and follow an online discussion of referees.
     
    socal lurker and code1390 repped this.
  13. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Some of this is communication from above--on the PK stop issue, there could easily be clear guidance or guidance about referee discretion. It's hard to get consistency when the Laws don't match the desired results. There are things that refs can get more consistent on, but none of that will make the gray go away. Some of the question, I think, is how big the gray zones should be. VAR might shrink them, at least at the professional levels--though I'm not so convinced by what we have seen so far.
     
  14. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Should the kicker be thinking to himself "I wonder how far I can be from the ball and get away with coming to a stop with this referee"? I'm not arguing consistency is easy to achieve - it' not - but it should be the goal. Is a complete stop 2 yards from the ball a feint? We really should all have the same answer to that one (local ROC like HFHS notwithstanding).
     
  15. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    It doesn't matter where the line is, there is are always going to be line issues. Even with the HS rule, when does slowing down become an illegal stop? If we say you can't stop within 3 feet of the ball, are we calling it at 2 feet 11 inches? We can pretend that we can make these things absolute, but they never will be. The reality--in any sport--is that when one pushes the envelope one gains an advantage at the risk of an adverse call.

    Are there areas we could have better consistency than we do today? Of course. Is complete consistency possible or even a worth goal? No.
     
  16. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    I agree it's not possible, but disagree that it's not something we should be working towards. The result is just making your grey area as small as possible.
     
  17. Law5

    Law5 Member+

    Mar 24, 2005
    Beaverton OR
    My business school accounting professor was writing a book at the time and the introduction for one of the chapters contained the following:

    First baseball umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes and I calls them as I see 'em."
    Second baseball umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes and I calls them as they are."
    Third baseball umpire: "Some are balls and some are strikes, but they ain't nuthin' until I calls 'em."

    I'm not all of the way to the third umpire's position, but I lean that way. I'd say, from his comments, that threeputzzz has the second umpire's opinion. I don't think that in soccer there is a fixed, firm line, to be applied in every game, on which there is no possible difference of opinion, between a foul and a trifling foul.

    I'll give you another example of my being inconsistent, in ways that meet the desires of the players. Adult co-ed is (almost) always interesting. Our league has seven divisions, so talent gets sorted out, in the sense that 1st division is players with the most skills, etc. so they're comparable. When I see contact during a game, the trifling meter gets adjusted, depending on who's making contact with whom. Two skilled guys, maybe even two former college players, going up against each other? They don't want, they don't need a lot of protection. They expect some contact and plan to give some too. On the other hand, if it's a skilled player up against less skilled player (usually, but certainly not always, a guy in the former category going up against a woman in the latter), then it's much more likely that I will need to stop play for a foul. (Not that most of the guys in the league, regardless of division, don't make that adjustment pretty automatically.) So am I being inconsistent? That's what the players want and expect. At the bottom, it's their game, not mine and not the IFAB's.
     
    dadman, IASocFan, mathguy ref and 2 others repped this.
  18. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Ive come to the conclusion we are focusing on different sides of the same argument. We should adjust to what the players want, not the other way around.
     
  19. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    I'm just glad to learn that consistency is a problem, because it's one I don't have.
     
    me116 repped this.
  20. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    Hey threeputz, "if the game at any given level was called exactly the same all the time, this would somehow be bad for the game?"....No I'm not saying that at all.
    I am saying it's impossible to get to that point without it becoming like the NFL.
    I just looked at many videos and discussions on some VAR and on any one decision, even with many replays, there are many experts that can't agree on the call. That's because there are so many interpretations. Therefore, we should give up on that and be happy with the single point of reference in the center. It's part of the game, has been for a long time.
     
  21. SCV-Ref

    SCV-Ref Member

    Spurs
    Australia
    Feb 22, 2018
    Threeputz.. You said "It wasn't originally part of the game"...actually it was.
    In the beginning, there were no referees because the game was played by gentlemen and if there were any disagreements about fairness of a play, the captains would discuss it and come to a conclusion. In fact the penalty kick was originally not even a concept because a gentleman would never bring down an opponent near the goal. My point here (yes I have a point) is that there has always been a difference in opinion of what is allowed and what isn't. Not just by the referees, but by the players and captains, and part of the game is, and always has been, finding that common ground and limit as to what is allowed. Call me old fashioned, or a purist, but I'd like to keep it that way.
    Please don't interpret this of having no framework, or set of laws and guidelines for us to follow.
     
    Law5 repped this.
  22. chwmy

    chwmy Member+

    Feb 27, 2010
    i do feel like there is some soccer ref culture, primarily among older refs, that like to portray the craft as something mystical and utterly subjective. We should get away from that, to be sure.

    i think that many of the recent changes to the laws were for clarity, which should lead to more consistent application. The considerations are also tools that we can use to be mentally systematic when judging a foul or situation. This should at least give consistency in the process. But how do those tools improve consistency in the eyes of the public? Just for handling there are 11 considerations, 2048 possible combinations of those factors! So when it is said no two fouls (or whatever) are the same, practically that is true: for misconduct, there are 19 considerations (that’s 524288 possibilities, btw).

    Then take those decisions and apply context and how that changes from game to game (age, skill) and within a game (temperature, score) and how we use foul threshold to manage a game to a safe and sporting conclusion, I’m not sure that utter consistency is a practical or even desireable.

    So, we should consistently apply the letter of the law when it is specific, and have a systematic consistent process when deciding fouls, misconduct, handling. Outside of that, I don’t think what the public or players perceive as consistent is important at all. They are biased, and uninterested in fairness.
     
  23. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Players adjusting to the referee was not originally part of the game, because as you said there was no referee.

    True, it's never going to be perfect until those dreaded robots finally take over. My argument is in the meantime, we collectively should try to be consistent enough that the players should know what to expect and not have to guess or "test" the ref.
     
  24. Law5

    Law5 Member+

    Mar 24, 2005
    Beaverton OR
    If the players (and their coaches) don't really know the Laws of the Game, it shouldn't be surprising that they "test" the referee sometimes, because they want to know if what they're doing is allowed or not. And not all (or, perhaps, even most) testing of the referee is a question of Law knowledge so much as seeing whether today's referee has the intestinal fortitude to blow the whistle for a foul or maybe it's just shear thuggery.

    There's always been disagreement in the game about what was allowed. That's why rugby split off from association football! Some people wanted to hack and others didn't, that being a time before shin guards were invented. And it's why the Laws of the Game were created, for sake of efficiency, because the captains were having to negotiate what was allowed before the game could be started.

    As you say, threeputzzz, there originally were no referees. But they had to be created because too many of the meetings between captains to settle whether that was a foul or not ended in fist fights, because the players couldn't agree. "I say, Percy, don't you think that was a bit over the top?" "Sod you!"
     
    threeputzzz and socal lurker repped this.
  25. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Law5 thanks for the extensive writing on this it did alter my outlook. What I call "inconsistency" could be termed "flexibility". :)
     
    dadman repped this.

Share This Page