Let me go opposite on the "let him go" portion of this discussion. Defender is going to get beat to the outside, and decides to hold the attacker and you yell let him go, and he does, and the attacker gets by him, crosses and they score. What would the defender truly have wanted in that situation? A foul outside the area, a free kick and a yellow card....or a goal against? That's for he and his coach to decide, not you as the referee.
And since when is it the referee's responsibility to protect a player/team's ability to violate the laws of the game? In your scenario above, you've just defined a tactical foul so why on earth as a referee would I want to protect their ability to commit that?
I'm playing devil's advocate here......a tactical foul could fall into a yellow category. So, say, the defender is already on a yellow and you start counseling him about his tactics, what benefit is that to the attacking team? Would they not want him to commit the second TACTICAL foul and be sent off, then to habve you counsel him? I know if I'm the opposing team I would want you to shut up. Are you more concerned with the match going to hell?
Bullsh*t. The referee's first job is to enforce the laws of the game. How that gets done is up to the referee's discretion. If the police are in the presence of a man with a weapon who is threatening to kill another person, they don't just wait for it to happen. They try to stop it from happening. I won't let the argument of "we would have rather them got a second yellow" card fly, because what if the player who was being held, elbowed back out of frustration. As referees, particularly at professional levels, it's our job to enforce the laws while keeping player safety AND spectator enjoyment in mind. Having to call more fouls and send players off the field could possibly detract from BOTH of those things. A little prevention can keep the foul count down, reduce the number of cards, and therefore increase safety and enjoyment. If the defender was holding and really wanted to hold him, he can always ignore me and finish the task... and he will be dealt with... but as a referee I don't want that to happen IF I can stop it.
I think he was correcting the ridiculous stuff the USSF posted in Week 3s WiR. I don't see this as a thinking outside the box or anything, just as a thinking inside the common sense.
I'm just throwing stuff out there....not really advocating that position. But, I can see the other side. Where would you draw the line?
To qualify, I haven't blown a whistle in four years, and just ended my high school coaching career last winter - so you can take what comes for whatever you think it is worth. If as a ref, I tell a player to get his elbows down, is he fouling or about to foul? If he is fouling, the quickest way to fix it is to whistle it, and stop it. If he isn't fouling, then what he is doing is legal and I am telling him to change what he is doing - maybe coaching him out of his game. If, as a ref, I tell a player to "play smart", what am I saying? Just what does that mean? If a player is whacking another at the heels, shouldn't I whistle it and stop the behavior and give the fouled player satisfaction, too? My instruction from a couple of Nationals was to NOT talk to them in a manner that is coaching, or that could be interpreted that way. I could compliment players (rarely), answer their questions (as we run together up the field), or exact correction or discipline, but NOT coach.
You missed a third option there though. He could be fouling but it's trifling and by saying something proactive you prevent it becoming a foul that you have to stop the game and flow for and also help ensure that the attacker doesn't escalate it thinking you're not seeing it. See this is where I really start to have a problem with this idea of getting rid of proactive refereeing. If you're going to do that, then you have to throw out the idea of trifling fouls because as you just stated above your choices become either it's a foul and you gotta call it or it's not a foul and you don't. I don't want to live in a soccer world where every foul is getting called, talk about frustrating.
Answer to the title question: Only by people who don't know what they are talking about, including unfortunately some high level assessors. See Bob Evans' blog a few weeks ago on foolish assessors for other examples of this. He may even chime in on this one as well. (Note for LY: Sorry I don't have the URL link handy, but most people who post and read here know where Evans' blog is. I know you do as you recently referenced it yourself!) PH
I agree here. That's like suggesting that we should check with the defenders to see if we should allow a quick kick or let the defense set up first.
a referees precence on the field is not to be underestimated in any way. firstly, the match cannot be played without you..nor the ball move without your say so through the whistle. A referee is there to impliment /preserve the letter of the law and the spirit in which it was written...nuff said.