You seem to be looking for bright lines where there aren't any. The question the referee is considering is whether the activity created an unfair advantage or disadvantage. The "math" involving a GK is going to be different from a field player. But at the end of the day it is ITOOTR whether the activity crossed the trifling level and should be called.
Nah the guy is describing a situation rather than being able to see it which is almost impossible to analyze. “Well what if XYZ happened”, sorry I can’t see it, no idea
This gets to it but is still ... strange ... to me ... all of this has been bizarre to be honest. Are you all officials? instead of answering "yes, interfering with a keepers arms is a foul more than it would be interfering with a field players arms" ... it feels like the answers have been convoluted end arounds, as if simple yes or no answers are not allowed and multiple steps of logic *must* be had in order to reach a conclusion. Take this response: Yes, I am looking for a bright line: is interfering with a goal keepers arms a foul more than it would be with a field player. Is that really ... too bright? Is it really necessary to logic it out in steps by first determining how much an advantage was gained and then using ... math ... what kind of math? Is it math that you can show your work? I'm not even sure what this is supposed to infer? Are we not talking about a specific scenario that indeed happened in the game and has multiple camera replay angles for us to analyze? is it ... always ... like this in the officiating threads? I'm sorry in advance or rather ... post? ... I've been told that my style of writing and commenting on other peoples posts sometimes gets under the skin of folks. I don't mean to grate on anybody here I'm just fascinated how all of you have answered what I otherwise thought was a rather straight forward question. The concept of trifling is not new to me but the term itself is not one I've heard before and is now something that fits nicely. Thank you for your responses.
We are officials. Frankly, it appears you are just looking for someone to agree with you, so this is going nowhere.
Here's the list of offenses involving contact that result in a direct free kick for the opponent: I certainly don't find anything about interfering with a player's arms. EDIT I forgot this was college. But, there is equivalently no rule about arm interference there either.
Yea I get this and understand the concern in that department, but you had already agreed with me, and on the matter specifically we stand on ... agreed ground ... if that makes sense? It was all just very ... circuitous. I'm sorry if that added more apparent debate than necessary, it was just something I found a little frustrating. Correct. Nothing directly about it in the rule book, IFAB or NCAA. When looking at the rule book for college I thought perhaps it might be implied when you look at the section of privelages granted to goal keepers and then this line, which seemed tailor made for the discussion at hand: A.R. 12.2.13.1.a. May a player stand in front of the goalkeeper during a corner kick without trying to play the ball but merely trying to stop the goalkeeper from playing it? RULING: No. Indirect free kick from the point of infraction There's nothing specific about the goal keeper having their hands restrained, but the ruling implies that because goalkeepers have added privelages of playing the ball with their hands, any attempt to stop the goalkeeper from being able to play the ball with their hands is an infraction that wouldn't be for similar obstruction of field players. Trifling was the word used in this discussion. I'm not sure where that comes from but after it's been described a little bit to me I it fits and makes sense. A little bumping and jostling on the corners with the arms is to be expected amongst field players, but when it's done against the goalkeeper it becomes non-trifling. Maybe we don't have all the same way we look at it, but we all seem to be getting to the same point. for us UNC fans it's obviously a bit of a sore spot. Some have moved on from it better than others and some can talk about without pissing off everybody in the room better than others. I ... don't think I'm one of those people ... yet.
Let's give a rundown of your experience in this thread 1. The referees here are ignoring your leading question of "refs, isn't it a foul to deliberately hold down the goalkeeper's arms?" which didn't even happen here. Instead they are explaining to you the things refs typically look for when it comes to goalkeeper foul contact for you to better understand it because refereeing is rarely black and white yes or no. But because they didn't fall for the bait so you could just say "ha see I knew it was a foul", you think they're just giving you the runaround. 2. Your last paragraph is basically "well gosh, I mean this is just SUCH a straightforward question, I'm just so FASCINATED by the responses that didn't immediately affirm my opinion. Are you all really refs? Because your responses have just been so BIZARRE". I wonder why people don't appreciate your incredibly condescending tone, especially when it's completely incorrect. By the way I should say that I do think this was a foul, but not for this piece of rule book you incorrectly referenced because this is a reference to impeding the progress of the goalkeeper, which is a foul occurring without contact. The foul in the case of the UNC-UCLA clip would actually be a pushing foul if deemed a foul, as the attacker is basically leaning into the keeper without making a legitimate attempt on the ball. So now you got the trifecta of making an attempt to parse thru the rule book to find a passage you think applies to your question to prove you right, but it doesn't because you're misapplying it. All in all, hope you had a good experience over here on the referee forum. I doubt you'll be back so see you later.
whew, passive aggressiveness that you can only find on a sub-forum full of officials! Invigorating. yes I'm starting to get the sense that referees in general like to ignore or dodge important questions related to important sequences of play that absolutely happened ... and then they gaslight and pretend like it didn't happen because referees in this country seem to be wildly sensitive to not just their own possible mistakes but also mistakes of other officials. Reminds me a bit of police who defend their own no matter what. First, let's make sure we are talking about the same play ... after watching that video and that play again, please tell me that you still believe the attacking player (#15) did not place her arm over the goal keepers arm and kept it there for the entire sequence. I didn't ask what officials look for, we already know what happened. This is like responding "the officials look for the ball to cross the line completely" if I ask you if you think the ball had gone out of play on a specific play. Uh ... right ... did it go out or not? I'm asking about a very specific sequence and a very specific type of obstruction that isn't explicitly defined in the rule book and wanted to know how officials would call that very specific kind of obstruction say ... if the push foul that you're talking about after hadn't happened. again, I'm not sure I understand why this is such a hard question for officials to answer. Certainly I can no longer expect a yes or no response from anybody after such a contentious back and forth, so now what? ... I guess I'm trying to not let you put words into my mouth about what I was trying to say or ask. I think this might be at the heart of the contention in this discussion. I understand completely how officials would be defensive towards the idea of a leading question. I do think however you are confusing the greater idea of a foul occurring on this sequence with my question about a specific type of contact. I'm not here to validate or affirm this sequence as a foul. That was established and continues to be established by all and that doesn't register at all with me. To me there were two different kinds of fouls on this play. The first one is the arm contact that I'm asking about. The second was the push while the goalkeeper was in the air that seems to be what you and most officials on this forum, before I even entered the chat, agreed was a foul that probably should have been called. The rule referenced was not cherry picked and or parsed. I wouldn't do that with professionals who know, or should know, the rule book inside and out. As you know and have stated, this rule is from the indirect kick section and explicitly deals with obstruction in preventing someone from being able to play the ball, with or without contact. Yes, with or without contact. There is also a line in this same section, maybe even the line above, that explains what happens when the obstruction being described in the larger obstruction section involves physical contact. I'm thinking this is just an oversight on your part and I'm hoping I don't have to reference the rule book again to an official ...that would only ever not be rude if say an official was bullshiting about a rule book he supposedly knows by heart while thinking us plebs and fans don't also take the time to read and learn the rule book. You're not doing that, right? The greater officiating community in this forum already validated that this was a foul that should have been called ... that wasn't what my question was about. I do understand if you defensively believed that, but it's not. I don't know if there's anything more to the point that I can say to prove that. Yes, because I firmly believe the only response to people who turn their nose up at your questions with condescension and passive aggressive is to give it right back. I *did* ask a simple question in multiple polite posts in a row, and got a boat lot of condescension and passive aggressiveness in reply. That's where we are at right now and it sucks for the sake of a civil argument, but ... don't give it if you can't take it. Would it be weird for me to say I actually really enjoyed this back and forth and I am excited to inject myself into conversations about officiating calls in the future? Maybe it won't be so contentious when we're talking about situations that don't involve my team or players I like. Please don't suggest I should be an official. That would be depressing.
Thank you once again, Big Soccer, for the ignore feature. Don’t really need folks on here to denigrate officials while admitting they are unwilling and incapable of doing it.
that's fine. It's why the ignore button exists, but again, don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was unwilling or incapable. I was in fact an official in a rec league and enjoyed it. What I suggested was that I didn't want a bunch of officials who turned their nose up at a non-professional for asking a question to think "hmm, he'd fit right in". You guys clearly are not the standard I would want to be embraced by.
I haven't paid attention to this thread for awhile. Skimming through recent posts (and don't mistake "skimming" for actually reading the posts or arguments in detail), it strikes me that this all could have gone a different way. Maybe a new poster could have done some things differently; maybe some regular posters could have as well. I hope, in general, this forum continues to be a useful resource for many non-officials. Particularly after we saw so much good engagement and unsolicited praise in the WC sub-forum
Spoken like a true moderator. Used to be one on another board and applause your measured response. I spend most of my time on another part of a board that doesn't seem to have a permanent mod, but it feels like we mostly mod ourselves. There's not enough College Women's Soccer fans to use the ignore button so blithely, so things rarely get this contentious. I can only imagine how things might get here or on more popular parts of the forum.
Skimming recent replies and seems like most posters weren’t willing to stake out a position on whether this looks like a foul by the attacker #15 on the goalkeeper? Sure looks like a foul to me. ♂️
Sorin Stoica had had the first middle last night and Daniel Radford had the second middle last night, both did pretty well. Not sure who the 4th official was (and he was on both games) at one point he came onto the pitch to put a ball back in play for a DFK...and when Stoica really needed him to deal with a Vermont bench issue, I could not see him at all...interesting to say the least.
https://t.co/yAdvTU1y9H pic.twitter.com/lNzudGxNGN— Denver MSoccer (@DU_MSoccer) December 14, 2024 This was the big controversy from the first match. I think a penalty would be extremely harsh, personally.
Agreed, and I think the arm position is a consequence of him being put off balance by jostling for position with an opponent. My only question is considering the college rules, is this something that should have been reviewed just in case?
Agreed not a PK while seen live and not on replay either, but I had a question...when they went to VR for the Vermont goal Stoica put a headset on, exactly who would he be communicating with...maybe the TV production crew???