I know this plea comes too late in the proceedings to have any real affect on... well... anything. But, I have read in many referee analysis threads in this board the constant referencing of USSF positions. The USSF has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the FIFA world cup, or any FIFA sanctioned matches for that matter. So for example, when talking about a suspected DOGSO in a FIFA game, please refrain from bringing out the "4 D's" reference point, unless you're drawing a distinction between the two... This issue has really started to bug me. Citing the wrong passages can lead to incorrect education of the non-referee who reads here. Thank you.
As I have said previously in the WC Ref threads, the USSF is supposed to take its guidance from FIFA. And any direction given by USSF to its referees should be consistent with FIFA's opinions and guidance. As long as people are clear about this, I don't see the harm in mentioning the USSF Advice to Referees (ATR) document in some of these discussions. I *do* see a benefit. That being said, specifically regarding denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), the USSF's 4 Ds are different from FIFA's guidance and really should be avoided in the discussions here. Wow, I guess so! Yes it can. But it also can be useful information, to show people where we American referees are coming from.
Huh??? The 4 D's are a textual description of the FIFA slides that accompanied the introduction of the DOGSO rules. Much of the ATR is straight from FIFA memos, directives, and decisions that never made it into the rule book.
I'm sure someone can clarify. Perhaps I am confused. There is a different set of written guidelines, a more general and longer bullet list of 'considerations' than the rigid 4 Ds for the referee in determining if an OGSO has occurred. I had thought it was from FIFA, but perhaps it was actually from UEFA?
The written guidelines that you are referring to came from UEFA, which actually pre-dated (2004) the considerations that are in the FIFA Laws now. To my knowledge, the 4 D's (2001?) pre-date them all. Anyway, UEFA's guidelines: Three points to make... A) UEFA gives criteria for a tactical foul. I don't think there's an analogous instruction from USSF. B) The first big difference between UEFA and USSF is that UEFA never says each component has to be "obvious" for DOGSO. At one point, USSF stressed that each individual component of the 4 D's had to be obvious in order to arrive at the red card decision. UEFA doesn't say that and FIFA has never said that. Of course, USSF has seemed to back away from that position a little bit recently. C) The second big difference is that UEFA actually has referees ask the question of whether or not a goal was likely to be produced. In other words, if criteria are missing and the goal was still likely, a red card can (should) still be given. Conversely, if every single component was literally ticked off but a goal seemed unlikely, a referee can exercise his discretion to not give a red card.
The ATR's four D's say this: One set of FIFA slides from 2004 , entitled "Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct (Part 2 - Misconduct)" lists these criteria for DOGSO: While there are certainly semantic differences between the two, the main difference is that the ATR does not actually discuss whether or not there was an opportunity for an attempt on goal. The LOTG have stated since at least 2007: It is more in line with the ATR, which also use four criteria. Specific consideration of whether or not there is an actual opportunity to score a goal had been dropped, matching the ATR. I would like to think, as in the ATR, that even if all four conditions are met, if the referee believes for whatever reason there was no obvious opportunity to score a goal, that a DOGSO foul is not to be called.
To be fair though, the point of this forum (I thought) was for referees to discuss the decisions and learn from what we're seeing on the field in South Africa. Since most of us on this board referee in USSF sanction matches, I think it is appropriate to discuss the USSF guidance on these decisions for that purpose. However, I do agree that if folks are using the USSF interpretations to judge the merits of a call that was made, then that is a problem and should cease.
I personally have made a concerted effort when quoting the ATR or Week in Review to throw in a qualifier that these quotes do not necessarily pertain to FIFA matches. If you read USSF's Ask a Referee, there are frequent questions from referees regarding high school or college games, or even AYSO games they have worked. Jim Allen always qualifies his responses by saying, "USSF has no jurisdiction over the rules of this competition..." but yet he still answers the question because, for the most part, soccer is soccer. It's still a learning opportunity. People use the materials they have been taught to formulate their opinions. We certainly have had a few non-USSF referees (Ceasar comes to mind) give their input over the month, and I really enjoy hearing from these folks because I'm always interested to see if what they hear from their associations differ from what we hear. And if they can reference documents, even better. Sometimes it's interesting to know if USSF's advice is perhaps misguided (the discussion on the 4 Ds being a perfect example). I think it's fine if people quote the ATR. It's basically saying, "Well, I think I'm taught to call that this way." It provokes discussion, and that's a good thing.
NCAA is closer than NFHS...wish they'd just use the Laws so I don't have to keep correcting myself every year.
My take... If there is a point of contention is law related issues that arise in the tournament, then to be diligent and to promote good self education, I would hope that the referees working here would look up FIFA's documentation and provide that and forget the rest of it. Then if there is a question or an apparent discrepancy then a discussion could be started on it. But I find it difficult to read analysis based on American positions which really don't apply in any other place in the world. I do believe we need to improve this partially deserved and partially unfair stereotype of the "ugly" American who thinks their ideas and culture are universal. This is just a very minute piece of that picture, but we should remember our place in things... FIFA> CONCACAF> USSF. YES, there are differences and similarities, but if all you know is the ATR, go read more. If you know there is more than cite the appropriate passages for the game in question. If this was an MLS match, then beat me over the head with WIR and ATR all you like. But let's try to keep the right policies with the right games. USSF hasn't had a referee take charge in a World Cup match since Brian Hall. It's time we all took a little ownership of that fact. I think showing the world we pay attention to their policies and rules regarding this game is a minor but important gesture on every referees part in this country to be able to send an American again in 2014.
Yes, we should utilize the FIFA documentation when possible. The problem is, in many cases FIFA does *not* have documentation that covers the particular question or issue being raised. In the cases where the USSF's Advice to Referees mentions said question or issue, we mention it.
Respectfully, I get tired of hearing this as a condemnation of the state of American refereeing. 30 referees were chosen for South Africa. 21 (I think, I had to Google it) were chosen for Germany. CONCACAF sends what, 3 or 4 representatives to each Cup, and the US is not the only country in CONCACAF, not by a long shot. The odds of any country with the footballing pedigree of the US landing an official in the World Cup are going to be longer than England, Argentina, Mexico, even Switzerland. The reason the US hasn't had a field referee in the World Cup the past two cycles is politics (Stott in 2006) and poor choices by the 2010 nominee (who, incidentally, is no longer listed as a FT referee by USSF). We get to throw out one name, and one name only. Face it, countries like England, Italy, and Spain are always going to have a referee at the World Cup... they are the crown royalty of FIFA. There was plenty of criticism of Mallenco this year, and it seemed like he was not on par with many of the other referees, and yet he still did a Round of 16 match. That's politics. In 2006 these countries sent Poll, Rosetti, and Cantalejo, three very good referees who deserved to be there. But that also made up 14% of the referee crews in 2006 and 10% of them this year. That limits availability for other countries. Many countries with strong (but not elite) pro leagues don't get officials in the World Cup. Holland hasn't had a referee at the World Cup since Jan Wegereef in 2002 (while many people want to count De Bleeckere, I don't think the Dutch count a Belgian as one of their own). I suppose Holland has a weak referee program too? That refereeing in the Eredivise is like refereeing in MLS? Do Feyenoord/Ajax matches even come close to the DC United/Red Bulls rivalry? (That's a rhetorical question, of course.) Other countries with weak pro leagues send very good officials. Irmatov from Uzbekistan this year. Lubos Michel from Slovakia in 2002/06. I'm pretty sure that the organizational structure in the Uzbek pro league is not on par with what MLS has. I think USSF's training program for referees is on par with what you see in the FA or AIA. Our referees are not baptized in the fire of Merseyside, London, Roman, or Milan derbies, or ManU-Liverpool matches, and that hurts, but how do you fix that problem? I think the problem with countries like the US not getting referees on the field in the World Cup emanates from FIFA's hands-off approach to referee development. FIFA tells referees to go work their pro leagues, do what their federations tell them, but when you work internationals, it's a varied set of rules and expectations. How many times this month have we said "Well, no blood, so in England, that wouldn't even be a foul?" How often do you hear that MLS is a "physical" league? For whatever reason whether financial or logistical, FIFA is very hands-off in developing referees in the middle levels, where you could be identifying people with the characteristics needed to succeed, and start molding them into good international-quality officials. Instead, they ask the national federations to do all the dirty work, send them a list of names, and then when they screw up at the World Cup, it's because it's a Malinese or Guatemalan referee. It's a convenient out-clause. Sorry, I went off topic, but I just get tired of people blaming USSF for not having referees at the World Cup. That's unfair to our FIFA badges who I think do a pretty good job compared to others.
It is not to assign blame. However, the USA as a growing soccer nation (and future international powerhouse), we should strive to get referees in the tournament EVERY SINGLE TIME. Fact is, that hasn't happened in 2 cycles... and politics or not, no one has had the whistle since Brian Hall. It's great to blame circumstance but that doesn't get the job done... ask Ghana. I know we do. It's important to the people at USSF, and so it should be important to all of us who are referees in the organization. From the top down to the grade 8. My point was part of that falls on each individual referee to understand and appreciate the differences in each venue and not try to apply USSF to things beyond it's jurisdiction. We wouldn't want someone quoting FA policy that was different from USSF policy for our MLS games, it wouldn't be right. Same should apply in reverse.
Suppose you are a USSF & FIFA referee, assigned to the FIFA World Cup. If a situation occurs in a match which to your knowledge has only been covered by USSF guidance, what do you do? Apply the USSF guidance, even though it "doesn't apply"? Do nothing, because, as there is no guidance from FIFA, the considered infraction is "doubtful"? Toss a coin?
I believe most of the guidence from the USSF is straight from FIFA. The problem is no one collects and publishes all the memo and directives. As far as I can see, the UEFA, FIFA, and USSF writeups of DOGSO are distinct without difference. Can anyone come up with even a hypothetical sitatuation that could not be handled the same way? One of these days, USSF will quietly add the advice to caution any defender deliberately handling in the defending third and any attacker in the attacking third...
Some of your statements are correct, But explain to me how NEW ZELAND GETS 2 CREWS. MEXICO gets 2 CREWS. It has to do with perform on the field of play. yes there is some A$$ kissing but we have not performed on the field like the REFEREE prior to this cycle did we make excuses. Excuses are like belly buttons we all have them and they are all different. So how did we have International quality referee prior to 2006 but since they we do not and prior to that we did not even have a PROFESSIONAL league. Point the finger where it needs to be pointed. Our society and our excuse makers. For One but if you look at other federations the "top Dogs" go back to the professional leagues and improve the quality of referees and they do not change the LAWS to make the league happy.
FIFA says to consider the 4 Ds'; USSF says they MUST be present. This is why the Busacca send-off to the SA goalkeeper stimulated so much discussion. It would seem Busacca was within his right to send off the keeper according to FIFA language, but according to USSF language, Suarez was moving across the face of goal with the ball and arguably did not meet all four of the criteria. Is that what USSF meant? Is that what FIFA means? Busacca didn't do another game in the tournament, so who knows...
Don't get me wrong here. USSF had to nominate one guy, and the guy they nominated accepted a gift from a star from the winning team in which he gave a PK to that team, and then after coming back from his suspension (which is what they called it after 2 weeks of questioning by the media and much hemming and hawing), he gave a water break halfway through the first have of a 1st division pro game. There's plenty to hold USSF culpable for this cycle. The other three FT guys (at the time there were four) all have performed, for the most part, quite admirably over the past 2 years; the difference was glaring. But on the flip side, you think your federation puts your name forth, you don't go and pull stunts like that. Do you think anybody at USSF said, "Hey let's nominate this guy, sure, he might do some ethically dumb things and give a water break at some point, but we can deal with that?" Of course you can say there was poor judgment at the top, but does anybody hire a CEO and in the interview process remind them not to take under-the-table payments from bidders for contracts? I'm a bit confused, and maybe just missing your implication, but what Laws have USSF changed to suit MLS?
FIFA says to consider the 4 Ds'; USSF says they MUST be present. And? Can you construct an OGSO that doesn't meet the 4 D's? (I know we already argued about a cross...)
I just mentioned it. South Africa-Uruguay. Attacker and ball are moving parallel to the goal instead of toward it. According to the most strict interpretation of USSF, this would not be a DOGSO-F. Whether a literal application is really what USSF wants, considering the circumstances, would be interesting to know.
Re: Soap Box: USSF ATR citationsu This is precisely my point. There are a lot of different interpretations and conclusions drawn throughout the world regarding how to handle certain situations and what it is that FIFA really mean. For fifa related forums... we shouldn't confuse general population by citing something by one national association or another. Example fifa does not have a strict policy directive that I am aware of which says "ask, tell, remove." So we shouldn't bring something like that up. Or seeing an elbow in a game... people have been saying if all the elements of "FIRE" were there or not... but they aren't a part of the law.... some reader from austrailia might go thinking that's some requirement, and we should avoid that.
Re: Soap Box: USSF ATR citationsu OK, you're right on that. I still think it's OK to quote the ATR and other USSF material, but I do agree that stuff like that should be qualified with an "according to USSF..." One in the same, I would like to know if other countries do receive that kind of direction from their federations. If so, saying these things might help us figure out if these kinds of decisions do trickle down from FIFA, or if each federation is trying to interpret the Laws on their own. Which would explain a lot...
I just mentioned it. South Africa-Uruguay My apologies, I must have glazed over that... Remember, direction is part of the DGF law. Don't think FIFA can duck out of that one! I believe the reason FIFA was unhappy is that there is an unwritten rule that you don't apply DGF to a keeper making a play on the ball, even if he misses completely and takes out the attacker. It's what's expected out of the position, increases rather than denies the spectacle, and isn't cynical. The PK is just. The SA keeper made a bit unorthodox, but not unreasonable attempt to butterfly and protect as much of his line as he could. With the CR not getting more games, I bet it will be a long while before another keeper gets RC'ed like that.
Correction: We did have a pro league prior to MLS, the NASL. And 4 of the 5 referees selected for the 6 WCs from 1982-2002 had some involvement with the NASL. That is why they were able to get there. This has been mentioned many times before, but the quality of the recent US FIFA referees is not high. This is because of many reasons, but primarily due to the way they are selected and trained and instructed to referee in MLS. We could do better, but they have been held back by this for the past 10 or so years. Also there is not a pipeline of good eligible referees to go on the list. I think the USSF is entitled to nominate up to 10 men, but we don't have enough. This may change with the recent changes in referee administration in Chicago, i.e the appointment of Hall, and with the rumored departure of the "referee advisor" from MLS. We'll have to wait and see.