Certainly, the normal practice is for the ARs to take their positions for the entire game, each team then has each AR calling it offside for one half. Is this just general practice, or is it required? Can the ref have the ARs switch positions at halftime so that AR1 always calls the offside for the green team and AR2 always calls it for the blue team? And, if so, are there acceptable reasons that justify this, or is it up to the referee to do whatever he wants? Needless to say, this question comes from something that actually happened during a game. If it adds to the discussion, assume that one AR is an experienced official who knows what he is doing and that the other truly is lost, having never been an AR before and having only begun to referee shortly before a much less competitive level.
I really can't say that this would EVER be fair. If one defense has to "put up with" an inferior AR on their end the first half, then the other defense should have to put up with him/her the second half. However, I can see one situation where this could be a reasonable idea -- the situation where one team is playing a VERY aggressive offside trap an the other team plays with a deep sweeper. On the one end, you could have 10 to as many as 30 close decision for whether it's offside or not -- and missing one the wrong way can cause a goal. On the other end, you could easily have NONE. As the CR, you could argue that the only place where you ABSOLUTELY MUST have some help is with calling the offside -- particularly with a trapping team. So you switch your senior guy to call that end each half. I can definitely think of a couple situations where this would have been nice to do.
to follow up, kev's possible explanation wouldn't have explained it in the situation i witnessed, as the less experienced AR actually ended up with the defense that was playing the trap in both halves. however, even if that was the explanation, is that legitimate? should the perceived need to call fouls or offside or anything else against one particular team be a justification for switching the AR? something about it seems wrong to me. more importantly, is anyone aware of anything in the rules that authorizes it, or, conversely, that prohibits it?
It's about equity The game is always about equity. One reason they switch halves, like in most sports. Well one of the equity items in soccer is equity in officiating. Player DO deserve to have this equity. They deserve equity in having the bad AR and the good AR equally. But one thing we don't consider is equity from our side. We need to see different players in the second half. One reason why you don't switch sides in the dual. You'll see the same players. When they switch at halftime, as the AR you see a whole different set of players.
Although not a standard mechanic or procedure, there is nothing wrong with doing this. The idea of not being "equal" to both teams doesn't hold water either. All you need to do is walk across the field and then you are still not seeing the same team both halves and now running the opposite diagonal. I worked with a now emeritus National who ran lefst the 1st half and then rights the 2nd half. Kept things interesting and made you really focus on the game. (I also talked to myself a lot during the game)
If the switch was done because of the offside-trap issue, it doesn't necessarily mean that the CR wanted to focus against one particular team. Both teams benefit from correct calls. The team running the trap deserves to have the AR's flag go up when they succeed in catching their opponent offside, and the opponent deserves to have it stay down when they succeed in beating the trap with a well timed pass to space. If only one of the two AR's is competent enough to correctly officiate under the conditions of a trap that is only being run at one end of the field, the switch may be the best solution for both teams. Whatever it takes to get the call right for the players.
As I understood the explanation (this is second and third hand), the referee believed that one team (Team A) was more aggressive, so he wanted the more experienced AR to remain on the side with Team A's defense. I may be overstating it a little, but he wanted assistance in protecting Team B's offensive players. FYI, it was Team B that was playing an offside trap, and thus, in the referee's perceived need to protect Team B's offensive players, Team B ended up losing out on ever having an experienced AR to assist with those offside calls. Team B also missed out on the assistance in calls against Team A's aggressive offensive players, who on at least a couple of occasions arguably pushed defensive players from behind while attacking the goal. Although Whistleblower says that this is permissible (I also was unaware of anything that permitted it (or prohibited it)), it seems like the exercise of this kind of discretion leads down a dangerous road for many of the reasons highlighted in this particular game. Even if the referee's intentions were noble, there is no way of predicting where the assistance would be most beneficial, it unnecessarily opens the door to suggestions of preference (in either direction), and it would seem that the notion of "fairness" or "equity" is probably deserving of more weight.
Both teams do benefit from correct calls, . . . at both ends of the field. Even if there are more calls at one end of the field, there are still "some" calls at the other end (in most games). I suppose it isn't illogical to have that benefit where the most calls will occur, but it does seem to focus or favor one team by saying that we are going to try to get all of one team's offside calls correct, and not the other (the assumption being that the less experienced AR is going to make some mistakes).
Reviewing the LoG, ATR, and Mechanics books, there is no reference to allowing/dis-allowing AR's to switch at half time. I would find, though, by doing this you may open the game up for protest. In situations such as where I have an inexperienced AR on one end of the field, I will confer with the more senior AR and explain the situation. My solution to this problem is that I'll generally "protect" the weaker AR by remaining more in his weaker half of the field. The senior AR will take on a little more responsibility of foul recognition, etc. It's not ideal but works for me. Think of it as a "Dual-and-a-half" referee system! ;-)
This is something I've observed often in the English League this year. I think it depends on the referee there. I've never run into it here though.
Not to say that switching ends has never occurred at the higher levels, though I have never seen it, or noticed it, there are many reasons why a crew might switch daigonals, not only at the half, but even dring the middle of a match. I have, for example, changed diagonals when the sun became a problem, when there was poor footing on the lines, such as mud, a hole, or standing water, and when an AR had problems with spectators., and have as an AR been switched several times by my CR. Usually this occurs at the half, but not always.
I have been tempted to do this when the game has been seriously onesided so that virtually all of the action is at one end and one of my ARs is very new or very weak. My thought is that games like this often result in great frustration on the part of the beleaguered team and there needs to be two pair of very sharp eyes on that end of the field. Jim
You will be crucified if you make the ARs swap ends at half time in any remotely advanced game. You open yourself up to so many problems it is not worth it. If the AR who was "weak" and switched makes a call in the second half, now EVERYONE has no confidence in him, including you and most importantly, INCLUDING HIM! You have undermined his credibility and ruined the role he must play. By the way, I find that even in the highest professional levels of play, roughly 50% of the participants disagree with all offside calls. Now that you have switched at half time you give the "bad" referee to the same team twice! How fair is that? What does that say to the teams about A) your confidence in the AR B) the importance of the team that get hosed twice? C) the integrity and competance of the whole officiating team. Now I will admit that there may be an extreme case in a U14 game in East Sticks, Rural USA and that you might get Ray Charles as an AR......but short of that, you have a responsibilty to give both sides the chance to see both ARs AND you have a responsibility to let BOTH ARs do thier jobs and learn the game.