The keeper was at least 3 yards away with his arms outstretched and no opportunity to play the ball, other than hope he blocks or tips the shot. I believe my question on why "dangerous play" seems to be a popular whistle (at least here) was somewhat answered last night in my boys varsity match. Player is shielding the ball near the corner flag with an opponent making a challenge. I hear a whistle and then the signal for indirect free kick. Asked my partner what he saw for him to consider a possible charge (if it even was a foul) a "dangerous play" and he gave a description that didn't even fit what happened on that play, something about the guy being on top of the ball, which didn't even happen that way. He seemed flustered that I would even ask this question. His response half-jokingly was "Hey, what are you busting my balls for?...I'm a mid-60's guy". In USSF sanctioned matches that are higher level, we always discuss key plays and what might have been done differently by the crew (if at all). Many NFHS guys seem to take questions of this nature as an interrogation, not matter how you phrase it and no matter what your tone is. For him, whistling "dangerous play" is so ingrained in his mind, he cannot even recall what happened.
So this referee is reacting to play without really recognizing what was happening. A disconnect between his eyes and his brain, the part that receives signals from the part that recognizes, e.g. "that is a hand' to the part that says "I've seen a hand do that before.' If you can't make that connection, you are going to get the decision wrong because your reaction is not based on your recognition of what happened. In short, I don't think refereeing is a good career for him. Not insulting, just noting that there are probably other things he can do that better fit his abilities. I am a National Referee, in track & field. As the referee, I sometimes have a field event judge or a running event umpire tell me that an athlete should be disqualified for something. But when I ask 'exactly what did you see?' the story falls apart, because they can't connect what they think they saw with the rule book. It really is an under recognized skill that we have developed as referees, to make the right connection between what we see and what that means, in the sense of 'I've seen that before.'
Every long NFHS story you post all season long will be answered with “high school refs are old guys who don’t care about getting the rules right, don’t want to be corrected, and are terrible referees”. They are doing a disservice to the game by refereeing, but they won’t be kicked out. And if you keep trying to call them out or confronting their calls during games, they’re all just going to request to stop working with you, if you care about that. I run into a similar situation with water polo with coaches and refs. People who are biased from playing and wants rules to be interpreted in ways they want them to be or how they were when they were players rather than what the rule book says. I’ve had some people deride me for having not played and therefore can’t accurately apply rules because I don’t know what it’s like to be in the trenches. I flip it back on them and say that actually I think I’m in a better position having not played because I don’t have inherent biases of what I think the rule “should” be like all these people who played do, and call it according to the rules. A number of coaches have praised my “consistency” as a result. They say they may not agree with all of my calls, but that I call it the same way all game long and that they appreciate that because they can coach to that.
I honestly cannot remember the last time a coach said to me, "You just don't understand the game." It may not have been in this century. Ask them how many games they have played and coached. I have refereed thousands of games, not counting the games I coached and the few games I played. So I understand the game better than they do. Not to mention the gamesmanship that I see.
Yeah, I don't have @MetroFever 's experience at all. Yes, we have some older refs, but we have younger (20s and 30s) refs, too. Some are good, some are not so good. Whenever I've had a conversation at halftime or after the game about a particular call, I don't get push-back. I ask questions like "what did you see?" and "what did you take into consideration in making that call?". If what they saw was clearly not what happened, I ask "how could you have been in better position and with a better angle to see that better?" If they get a rule stone cold wrong, we'll talk about it, and I'l say "I think this is the HS rule, but I'll go home and look it up, just to be sure. Why don't you do the same and we can talk/text/email later." And I've been on the receiving end of those conversations, e.g. "Why wasn't that DOGSO?" or "you completely missed the hold that started that." We can all get better. Now, I'm an assignor and a local association officer, so maybe they think they gotta listen to me, but I don't ever see to get attitude about "we've always done it that way".
Age is a contributor, but it doesn't fully answer why guys are still whistling "dangerous play" in today's era where it should be just a play-on. My partner in last year's playoff game who waved off the winning goal for a "high kick" is in his late 40's. A guy I officiate a few USSF club games with each year is now in his late 60's. Obviously, he's lost a step or two over the years, but he's not only pleasant to officiate with for that level, but also to speak with as well. I'm going to attribute the possibility that the previous assignor for our charter had an antiquated look on high school soccer (even for that era) as he did all of the training then and it has carried on.
But it’s not really about “today’s era.” It’s not so much about changes to PIADM as it is just plain poor judgment.