Errata to ATR 2001

Discussion in 'Referee' started by SparkeyG, Feb 11, 2003.

  1. SparkeyG

    SparkeyG Member

    Feb 25, 2002
    Mokena, IL
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I just printed out ATR 2001. I'm just wondering if there were any errate published since?
     
  2. whipple

    whipple New Member

    May 15, 2001
    Massachusetts
    There have been no specific modifications to the ATR, however, Chicago is always refining the advanced instruction through its position papers. I just posted some at http://www.massref.net/info.htm

    Additionally, specific interpretations are released by Jim Allen and he has recently added a collection of papers on his site as well at: http://www.drix.net/jim/positionpapers
     
  3. Tame Lion

    Tame Lion New Member

    Oct 10, 2002
    Southern California
    12.28.7 conflicts with 11.10. I am told that 11.10 is the correct caution (unsporting behavior) for leaving the field without permission to put an opponent in an offside position while 12.28.7 applies to [just about] every other case of leaving the field without permission.
     
  4. pkCrouse

    pkCrouse New Member

    Apr 15, 2002
    Pennsylvania
    Re: Re: Errata to ATR 2001

    I think you might have that backwards. You're right that there is disagreement within the ATR: 11.10 labels it as unsporting (UB) while 12.28.7 labels it as leaving the field (L). However, the 7&7 list it as L (at 7.a.), which makes more sense to me since it is the more specific of the two categories. On the pro point system, it's only worth 2 points, as opposed to half of the bullets under UB which are worth either 3 or 4 points.

    You can tell it's a slow day when we're discussing something as dry and minuscule as this. Not nearly as much fun as the "advantage beyond law 12" debate. We may soon need to dredge up one of the oldie-but-goodie topics, like putting more than one whistle onto the pitch! ;)
     
  5. Tame Lion

    Tame Lion New Member

    Oct 10, 2002
    Southern California
    Re: Re: Re: Errata to ATR 2001

    I was just repeating what Jim Allen and several other law experts have told me.
     
  6. pkCrouse

    pkCrouse New Member

    Apr 15, 2002
    Pennsylvania
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Errata to ATR 2001

    Interesting. Since he has significant input to the wording of both the ATR and the 7&7, you'd think Mr. Allen would have them changed to reflect this interpretation. Maybe in the next printing.
     
  7. whistleblowerusa

    whistleblowerusa BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jun 25, 2001
    U.S.A.
    The ATR has quite a few things wrong and these are expected to be corrected in the next printing. Jim Allen also is wrong on his comments at times as well.
    No one is perfect.
    Remember the ATR is just a guide.
     

Share This Page