Incident between Wes Hart and Damon Nahas

I have no issue having two whistles in the dasherboard indoor or Futsal. This is generally no issue. But... the playing field is significantly smaller and there are fewer players so proximity is generally less difficult to contend with and we're usually in decent enough location to have reasonable angles built in for most challenges... In the bigger field there is a really important thing with occupying space in the middle of the field which seems to get lost when you bring in another whistle. If you're going to go there, might as well do what West PA does and use 3 whistles like their HS system...

Don't lose the middle third.

.....

If you want to increase scoring in soccer... you know what you do? Make the field smaller and reduce the number of players to 5 each. I mean then you can have line changes and... oh you've just invented futsal... which has an average of 5.96 goals per 40 min game which gets you to 13.41 extrapolated a 90 min match... how much attacking are you looking for and why because at some point it becomes a different game.

 

These posts bother/trigger me so much and I can't help myself from responding. Intellectually, you have solid logical reasoning skills and you do a good job refuting poorly-construed arguments. You're an above-average debater. But then, substantively, you advance theories that show you haven't done research on your own and are operating from a level of ignorance with respect to refereeing. You throw the onus on someone else to not only respond but also to educate. That makes reading the arguments even more frustrating. It feels like you're arguing in good faith from a position of ignorance. It's one of the reasons I find political discourse so frustrating.

Two referees on the soccer pitch will not work. We have explained it time and time again on this forum when the question inevitably comes up every world cup or other major competition. We have done it so often that our responses to you, now, are somewhat lazy.

Top level refereeing requires a referee to simultaneously: (a) obtain a viewing angle for the play that is occurring, (b) predict where the play is developing to see that next phase; and (c) maintain proximity to play while avoiding players and passing lanes. The current top level referees are about as good as it gets at predicting play, staying near the ball, but being out of the passing lanes during matches.

If you have two referees, you need to solve for the following variables that are now added into the equation: (1) where they are supposed to be located to adequately obtain angles; (2) how they coordinate their position relative to the other; (3) who calls what and when; (4) what happens if two referees have different perspectives on close decisions throughout the match; and (5) who has final say on yellow and red cards (and what happens when the closer referee "has a yellow" on a play but the further referee is confident it's red).

You don't need a study to recognize that these variables will influence the way games are called, and they will influence the spectacle negatively. There will be positioning errors that affect play development, it will be harder for referees to obtain angles to view play because of the nonverbal communication required to do so with two referees on the field. Then you will have consistency issues frequently with respect to no-calls, foul decisions, and misconduct decisions. You will also likely have more downtime for the referees to consult (like they do in hockey, or basketball, or American football--all games where the clock is stopped).

Having more than one main referee undoubtedly complicates things even more than they already are...and throws the goal of "consistency" completely out the window. The solution creates more problems than the status quo creates.

 

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.amp...ian.com/football/2002/oct/02/newsstory.sport2

 

I'll weigh in and give my 2 cents on top of what some others have said. I think the solution you're looking for would be changes that would lead to a less physical game, or at least one that is less likely to be disrupted by what is currently considered borderline fair but physical play. The solution to this is unlikely to be adding another official. Partially for the reasons articulated by AlexTheRef but also because I simply don't think enough of what you want to be deemed as fouls are being truly missed by 1 referee. And by truly missed I mean they are not seen. There might be philosophical differences in what our training instructs on what a foul should be in these types of games, and how we should handle certain aspects of physical play, but those are very rarely issues that would be addressed by having another referee on the field.

I don't think adding a second referee would see a statistically significant change in the number of fouls called, nor increase the amount of misconduct issued. Soccer referees have freedom of movement on the field which helps them have a view of incidents and is fairly unique to sports other than rugby. Sports that have multiple people with whistles like basketball, hockey, football, and futsal/indoor soccer do not have this same freedom of movement because of how cramped the playing surface is, and therefore a second set of eyes is likely more helpful in those sports than it would be on a traditional soccer field. Sure, there are wear and tear issues for officials running too much and being overworked that can hamper decision-making, but those officials could also take fewer games. But the fouls that would be most likely to be called by a second on-field official are defensive third fouls that occur way deep in a corner of the field and are rarely the real source of frustration for teams. Maybe that would help clear the game up, but the types of incidents that a referee simply cannot see by working hard to be in a good position are rare outliers in play.

In short, the solution you've proposed, even in a perfect, harmonious implementation, is unlikely to address the issues that I've understood you to have put forward simply because the issues are far less about what isn't seen by the referee system as it exists and more about the philosophy of how certain tactics within the game are viewed/tolerated by the powers that control the institution of the game.

 

Hey world....here is a game everybody can play. Here are all the rules.

Australia: Looks like fun. I think we can squeeze that in among all the other sports.
Spain: Suena bien..I think we can bring passion.
Italy: Va bene, we can make art with this game.
England: Oy..needs a bit of muscle...we can do that.
Germany: Verstanden, we will be the most precise there has been.
Argentina: Dale.. we can embellish every action for emphasis and result.
USA: You know what, I think we need to change all the rules. Otherwise, it will never catch on...properly.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-cards/7acbb5c7-321b-4fbe-8f0d-a44d31d1f517/

Also...

And...

You can see a little bit of the system in action here.

I can't find much about the end of the experiment. Only to say that it went away with a whimper (after being tested in multiple countries) than with a bang.

 

The end was in 2001... see IFAB AGM.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/annual-general-meeting-2001-minutes?l=en

-- Babs, bud... you'll have to pick up the research from here, I'm done looking.

 

@babranski

Incidentally, if you're interested in learning about the myriad experiments that IFAB run around the world to tweak the laws, you can find out what they have tried by reviewing the history of these documents.

 

Yes, one should always judge an audience for humor carefully.

Ironically, you then go on to say. "The physical play stuff is more about changing the rules about physical play themselves and less about changing the methods involved in enforcing those rules."

 

It is taxing. I'm trying to have this discussion though.

IFAB is probably not going to call something a "failure" that was suggested by one of its constituent members, least of all the one with the 4 votes as opposed to the UK nations that have one each. But, they had at least five nations from around the world test this out and within a year decided to abandon it. If FIFA supported it and only Wales pushed back, they could have had the support to carry it as they only 6 of 8 votes to get the law change across the line and that's to say nothing of just continuing a limited test.

Unfortunately, my info on this was anecdotal, but I was only a referee for about 2 years when this trial went down, so I followed it with some interest. I do recall speaking with folks who played in games that used it and they didn't like it, and pretty universally, the referees who used it didn't love it. Again, I blame the size of the field. We use multi whistles like other sports in indoor and futsal and nobody has a problem with it, because you're designed to stay out of main playing area w/indoor and to generally stay OFF the floor entirely in Futsal.

When I talk about losing the middle of the field it was because placing two officials opposite each other on a huge field with ARs covering the opposite side inevitably leads to those officials not wanting to get too close to one another and not to duplicate angles. You WILL lose the transitional view and the ability to communicate with players by talking (not yelling from distance) if you have to vacate the middle of the field. It also makes for awkward game management in things like free kicks. Most of that would sort itself, but getting an official in the middle of the field through transition is crucial.

They have added additional officials in a more effective way by using the additional assistant referees. This was far better. You got 2 more sets of eyes and for people who are vastly better placed in a more critical area of the field (although I have always thought they should be opposite the AR side, but whatever, that's just me. This works because the AAR can provide the referee with information but still allow a single official to make determinations on tempo management, foul selection with purpose, and when and how to play advantage. I fully support the use of AARs... and in conjunction now with VAR there really is little need for a second whistle.

What makes this sport great and unique is the lack of technical stoppages. Coaches can't be constantly setting up plays and the players have to dictate the terms once the game begins. The referee is there to balance all of that. Alfred Klenitis used to compare the referee to an orchestra conductor. You would not want to put a second conductor out there to handle the brass and percussion while the other one handles the woodwinds and strings, the tempo could never be matched. The game thrives on tempo management. Ice Hockey is the closest equivalent, but even that is not the same given the frequency of substitutions and there are quite a bit more stoppages (like Futsal and indoor).

I don't have a lot of time, but I may go and have a look at this game you keep talking about.
Just looking at the box score, Arkansas had 10 fouls in the first half and 6 in the second. They also had the only 3 cautions in the game.

I also noticed that Arkansas took an early lead, so I would be curious if they thought they could disrupt UNC enough to win or steal a draw. In the end, they could not which explains probably why their fouling drops to 6 (against UNC's 9) in the second half.
Arkansas had fouls by:
White
Franklin
Aragon
Malham
Franklin (2)
------- my video started here because of Vball game finishing
Wren (tripped 21 w/warning from referee points to 3 locations, maybe targeting 21?)
Field (2) (brief hold of #3 100 yards from goal)
Franklin (3) (jumped in to #16, won ball while staying upright. Simple foul, nothing more)
Jones (corner kick scrum, maybe hold/impeding in the group, I think to #25. Just a foul)
Pofojil (I guess a charge of #16)
Riley (YC for a tactical foul - deliberate hold) - they didn't count this as a foul though, so it's really 11 fouls. Tell you what though, if she doesn't hold UNC has no options, so it's a card, but not even that bad.

Without more info on the first fouls, hard to identify patterns, but from this, only the tactical foul is really a solid caution. Persistent Offenses (Infringement in college) would apply for targeting a single opponent with multiple players OR one player picking up multiple fouls. Possibly Frankly should have gotten one for Persistent, but it also depends on the nature of the offenses to a certain degree otherwise they would set a number.

AND THEN, I saw this play, which I forgot was from this game, and is going to be reviewed on this week's ACC training call.



The game always paints the picture better. UNC are at least guilty of a 4th foul for the first half, but don't get credit for it... see below.

This whole thing comes up because the referee opted to conduct a video review on this play. First, the referee didn't call anything. The Arkansas player appears to tell him that she was stomped on or stepped on. The referee reviews it at the table. But, I think this was an illegal review. If the referee was looking for Violent Behavior 1 then he would be within his right to do so, but this develops such that for me it's more likely Serious Foul Play if you're going down the road to an ejection. The question is if this fits under the new VR test conditions. The only one it could qualify under would have been
"2. Determining whether an issued straight red card (ejection) offense occurred.
a. This experiment allows any straight red card to be reviewed (expanding from only fighting and violent behavior I and II red cards).
b. A red card must be shown on the field for it to be reviewed.
c. Red cards resulting from two yellow cards are not reviewable."

But, this cannot qualify for that provision since a red card was not shown first. So, unless he was going to the monitor on the word of the player that there was VB1 (or maybe it was an AR in his ear), I don't think he can check this).

Anyway... funny. He looked at it and I guess decided that this was only reckless or maybe SFP, but you can't review for those things unless you have the red first, so he ends up coming out of this which is an obvious foul and at the very least a yellow card offense and gives a throw-in after 8 minutes of review.

And I digress, but a lot of college refs are saying just to err on the side of caution and to review EVERYTHING possible just to be safe. Do you find this outcome as a college soccer fan palatable? Do you think the coaches or players find it palatable? Interesting...

 

Regarding your point that the referee is letting stuff go to look like he is being more fair... even if we counted Arkansa's extra foul as well as UNC's - the count was 11 v 4 with one YC to ARK and no card to UNC for an obvious misconduct... Not sure how I'm getting "afraid to call it fairly" from the part of this game that I watched just now.

 

You are allowed to have opinions. My comment goes to the weight that should be afforded your opinions when compared to the opinions of others. I come from a viewpoint that the more reliable opinions on a topic/issue come from the people who have subject-matter expertise through training, education, experience, etc.

People have come up with the concept for multiple referees in soccer in the past, the concept isn't new. The concept does not gain ground because experts understand that multiple center referees would change how the game is seen, and therefore how the game is called. Its a solution to a problem that doesn't actually solve the problem, and creates even more problems.

You're just handwaving away the problems I spent the time identifying, rather than considering what the actual process would be to fix them. I'd like you to spend time considering "how exactly would that suggestion work?" and perhaps you will start to realize why the suggestion wouldn't work.

Seriously, if you want multiple referees on the field, you need to have a framework to answer the issues I raised:
(1) During dynamic play, where are the referees supposed to be located (relative to the ball, relative to each other, relative to potential next phases of play) to adequately obtain angles;
(2) how they coordinate their position relative to the other during dynamic movement;
(3) who calls what and when;
(4) what happens if two referees have different perspectives on close decisions throughout the match; and
(5) who has final say on yellow and red cards (and what happens when the closer referee "has a yellow" on a play but the further referee is confident it's red).

As of right now, there is generally a correct position for a referee to be in during almost all static restarts and through most dynamic plays. Because there is one referee, issues 3-5 are also solved for. With 2 referees, I couldn't tell you what that would look like and I wouldn't want to.

The "don't lose the middle third" comment comes from a place of experience. It has to do with the expected positioning running a "dual system," which can be seen at the American high school level where two center referees attempt to call a game without ARs. Because they are responsible for offside decisions, the referees need to generally stay in a location somewhat near the touchline and somewhat near the defensive back line of the half they are refereeing. They cannot move into the middle of the field because that puts them out of position if the ball is swung wide (a frequent event in soccer). Because neither ref is actively patrolling the middle of the field, there becomes a problem in finding angles to view fouls, identifying fouls, and identifying who should be calling fouls in the middle third of the field. The middle of the field, the area where the most fouls occur, is the least policed by the dual system.

 

Right. AND in a 2+2 system even if you have the ARs, you would have to create a who new movement system and if you end up putting each whistle opposite each AR you will still end up leaving blind spots and gaps in the middle of the field because ultimately, I THINK... you will end up still trying to box the play and leave all the space un-managed in the middle since I doubt there would be any wise time to cross the central channel. Even if you had one ref always trailing the back side of the play and the other one all the way in advance, to stay out of attacking play the lead...........

Why am I trying to sort this out? Wasting my time.

 

I still don’t understand why this thread didn’t get locked or deleted. You guys humoring this guy in his second thread to come here to rant and rave and post his 10 paragraph essays about how to “fix” refereeing when he has never done it himself and ignores all your comments are why he comes back. I’ll just add another guy to ignore and hope I don’t have to see this stuff anymore

 

Because even when we here massively uneducated and biased fans "just asking questions" we still have hope that maybe they'll actually listen to people with experience and knowledge.

But no. Every time we shoot something down we're attacking them or something and the reason why "people don't like referees"

 

This poster has shown no desire for that. Their first thread was endless ranting about a lack of “accountability” with refereeing and dozens of paragraphs about how to “fix” refereeing with more refs on the field.
Now they post another thread supposed to be about technical area behavior which quickly turned into massive ranting about officiating bias against his team, ranting about overly physical play against his team, and back to the dozens of paragraphs about how to “fix” refereeing with more refs on the field.

They’re just using this forum as a way to vent about how they hate referee. Even replying to these people and giving them attention is letting them win.

 

Can we just get real for a minute?

Do you REALLY believe that adding another official to the field, or double/tripling the size of the law book to further define the fouls is going to make fans of football/soccer any happier with the state of refereeing in this sport? Do you think it would actually make the game safer or more enjoyable to play?

Regarding the former, I don't think there is ever a place where people will be happy with the officiating. For all of your proselytizing about the amazing changes that the NHL made, are the fans suddenly happier with the officiating? (no). College football added an 8th official to the game (necessary because of the extremely defined and complicated sport that it is, plus between its rulebook and then their case book, there are at least 500 pages of explaining everything in minute detail), but did adding the "C" official drastically improve the game or the perception of fans/pundits surrounding officiating and the game? (no).

Regarding the latter, it may be so that the change in the interference rules has drastically improved the enjoyability of ice hockey. I personally love the addition of the pitch clock to baseball because all it did was remove the dead time from the game (still has the same amount of action). So, consequential rule changes can improve a sport. In soccer, we saw this with the prohibition on passing the ball back to the GK to pick the ball up as a time-wasting tactic (rinse and repeat). But, that did not require extensive expansions of definitions in the rule book and it didn't require additional officials. You just change the basic format of gameplay and you can have an improvement. However, that will not translate to increased satisfaction over the refereeing with players, coaches, fans, or pundits. (It just moves the goalposts for what is expected to be called and when).

As far as general enjoyment and safety goes, the referee can have an impact, but mainly this comes down to the team tactics and the players on the field. If a team wants to sit back and stay compact all game and the other team wants to just play tiki-taka waiting for a hole to open up in the defense, you're going to have a generally pretty boring match. The way teams and players choose to challenge and pressure will more directly impact safety than a referee's influence over those things will ever matter (all it takes is one tackle to break a leg).

And a final point: here are some rule books:



Compare to: IFAB

and NCAA soccer

This is a simple game. Do we need rule book expansion? In 1997 they took a longer version of the laws and drastically simplified it. That didn't make the game worse (or better) although it made the laws easier to study and understand.

Let's not raise barriers to interest in refereeing. The shortage is already bad enough.

 

This is one of the most bizarre threads I've seen on this board. Maybe EVER. How some of you have the time and energy to read some of these long posts/ramblings is impressive.

 

It is weird. All I can say is it's a discussion forum and fortunately for most, you don't have to engage the discussion, otherwise I would probably feel bad, but still, pretty harmless all in all.