oknative

Goodpasture & Harpeth scrimmage on Feb 26th

You make this statement sound like DLHS, GP, Alcoa and Maryville are all impacted the same by the multiplier. The only commonality is that all four teams get to field players from outside of what a typical district would be. Yet Alcoa and Maryville aren't touched by the limitations of a multiplier as GP and DLHS are. Alcoa has distinguished itself because it now gets to play teams, that without the multiplier, would be 1a. Lets see -the multiplier went into effect in 2005, and no one other than Alcoa has won the state 2A title since. I truly believe the multiplier did fix some of the problems associated with the small 1a public schools, but its tilted the balance of fairness in 2A to an open-zone school like Alcoa . How many consecutive titles at Alcoa will it take before someone realizes fairness or a level-playing field can't be reached until the privates and open zoned schools like Alcoa all have the same llimitations applied equally.

But as I read on through the posts. There's no one from Alcoa who wants to answer the question. How many players on the football team come from outside of the district!!!!!

Or simply apply the same multiplier to any school (private - open zone - magnet) that has players from outside their district playing on a team. That would also solve all this. The unfairness occurs when you have teams that have a multiplier applied to them who have to play teams that allow players from outside the district, who don't have a multiplier applied to them. Does Alcoa or Maryville have an advantage? Let's find out. Out of the 2007 Championship teams - how many players from each team came from out of the district. Answer this question - and we'll know whether these schools are benefitting from their open zone status. If it turns out that there are only 2-3 players from out of the district, then its probably not a big deal. If its a much larger number, then there's probably something to the original argument stated on this posting. And I've heard, not confirmed, that it only costs $750 for a student to attend Alcoa if they are out of the district.

Why even play the game if the state championship is Alcoa's. Why don't you take one at time. If you don't have a solid pass defense, DCA is going to score more than 21.

But just because Bolton self-reported themselves doesn't necessarily give them a "get out of jail free". I don't like the fact that the family apparently went to great lengths to deceive Bolton, but they may not escape without penalty.The NCAA did the exact same thing to Oklahoma Sooners face NCAA sanctions last year when they self reported violations. Many praised the diligence of its own self investigation and self reporting to the NCAA, but the NCAA still forfeited all of their wins from the 2005 season and took scholarships. I know that this isn't college football or the NCAA, but ...

Good point - but CPA needs to figure out how to stop the 20+ yard plays.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I haven't seen a dive - but what makes them so hard to call is the fact that the defense usually gives the attacker the opportunity to dive through their contact. More often than not "dives" - for me - are no calls because the defender is usually contributory in these plays, meaning there is usually some sort of contact by the defender. Example for consideration: [a recent play where I thought a dive might have taken place] an attacker is running in on goal with a defender directly behind them with two outstretched arms in the back, then the attacker goes down. I might question whether the fall really resulted from the observed perceived push - and maybe, just maybe the attacker fell upon feeling the contact from behind - but the defender set himself up by having both of his hands on the back of the player. My call was a no-call. But, I don't think they are as easy to spot as you seem to indicate. I've participated (refereed or watched) literally hundreds of games at the club, rec , and school levels - in 3 states - over the past 13 years and have NEVER seen a dive called - by ANY referee? What I really want to know from the players on this board is how often "dives" are taking place. Are you diving? Do you dive more in the penalty area than other areas of the field? Are you getting PKs from them. Will anyone admit to it?

So if you think its the referee who establishes a different level of play, does it favor offense or defense? Or do you simply think they allow more from anyone before a call? Do the players know, or think, this, and therefore wouldn't this attitude be a green light to play more aggressively in the box? I've yet to see a dive called, or call one myself. Am I missing them? How frequent are they?

This has been a season in which there have been several significant PK kicks given during the A/AA post season play - HHS v Beech - HHS gets PK in 38th min of 2nd half to win. CCS v CPA - PK given during a tie game of the state semi finals. I'm sure there are more. And during the debate that followed some of these calls, there have been postings which have been severely critical of referees who make calls against key players, or late in the game, or when a game was tied, and even during the playoffs. My question, as a referee, is why do players or coaches think that play/fouls should be treated any differently in the penalty area, or late in a game, or during the playoffs, or any other time. The rules don't say that pushing in the penalty area should be called any differently that pushing in the rest of the field. Only the restart is different. There have postings to the effect that play is treated differently within the penalty area. By whom? Players or referees? I would like to know what are the coaches and players perspectives? 1. Do players treat play/fouls differently in the box? 2. Do they think that referrees treat play/fouls differently in the box? 3. Who are they favoring - the attacker or the defender? 4. Do attackers get more leeway in the box? or do defenders? 5. And the key question for players who are forwards - do fowards dive when contact is made to draw the PK? Someone needs to sell me on why a referee should treat the same foul differenlty just because its inside the penalty area. And don't say because it has such a dramatic impact on the game. The players know this and still commit the fouls. Why should a referee bail out a player who commits a foul, by not blowing the whistle?

Congratulations Beardon. Great Game.

Having refereed many games with the referee in question, I can tell you that he is a quality referee who takes the position and responsibility of the position very seriously. With him being from West Tennessee, I see no reason to suspect any favortism or bias in a game between CPA (Nashville) and CCS (Chattanooga). As a parent of player who has played in games with the referee, I've disagreed with calls he's made - but as a parent I tend to lose the objectivity of calls made by any referee. But again, when refereeing with him, he can be a very effective and disciplined referee. As to the call, I didn't see it, but it appears that Chasanooga (who I assume is from Chattanooga) described an outstretched arm all the way - which is a classic descriptor of a holding call. Whether or not the attacker lost an advantage due to the outstretched arm, an outstretched arm would certainly give a referee reason to suspect a hold was taking place, and therefore potentially justify the call.

VG, don't worry, the radius will be okay as long as the diameter isn't broken. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

atdenton, my feelings are that the referee usually only gets involved when the wall is being setup within the 10 yard infringement area, or if the kicker asks specifically for 10 yards to be enforced? Would you agree?

ref2coach - good commentary. For someone to say that a referee can't make a call just because its a red card foul, late in the game, during playoffs, and against perhaps the best player on the field is just unreasonable. And Darren is right, people have different views and see different things. The coach didn't even see a foul, others say a non-card foul, and the ref said it warranted a red card. You can't not make a call because people have different opinions. If that were the case, there would never be any fouls called.

Now you just playing with words and semantics. The rules that concern rings, bracelets and earrings aren't inadequate, because they cover areas and equipment that needs to be covered. Those rules adequately cover the areas as they pertain to wearing extraneous jewelry during a soccer match, and would be good rules regardless of whether there were rules on headgear or not. And yes, there may need to be additional rules to protect players, but the rules that are in place are good rules - in any context. They don't become frivolous just because high school soccer doesn't require headgear. And rest assured that as long as I'm on the field, the earlobes of our girls will be adequately looked after because I still check for earrings before a game.

Look, don't take it out on me because you made some stupid statements while trying to make a good point. I'm just the one who called you on it. Separate the two issues and we're on the same page. ANY rule that helps protect a player in ANY way, is a good rule.

The answer is easy, because its too hard to count "One, two, three, four ... for eighty minutes! Canes, come on now you're just playing devils advocate because its me. You should know my answer by now! Don't you???? Because the rules require me to have a watch, as well as a pen or pencil. So even though my mommy told me not to run with a pencil, the rules of soccer say I can, and have to.

I'm not missing anything. But you just called a head cut that bled profusely "nothing serious". You called the rules banning the wearing of rings and bracelets and earrings "politcally correct" and "frivolous". Why not be happy that we at least have those rules. I know the dangers - I see them - I understand where you're trying to go. I officiated at a game just last week in which a girl was carried off the field in a neckbrace and a backboard by an ambulance. Ask coaches to weigh in on the matter. But don't downplay any injury or any rules that help protect soccer players to make your point. Let the merits of your argument stand on their own, without making silly statement that make it sound like if we don't have headgear, we shouldn't have any rules to protect players.

So we should allow bobby pins because bleeding like a stuck pig on the head isn't a serious head wound??????

You're arguing with the wrong guy about headgear. It would be easy, yet not very popular, for a coach to require all players on his/her team to wear headgear. Wear it or dont' play. The referees don't have that kind of pull. And you are WRONG - its neither PC nor frivolous to require the removal of jewelry. Would you let them wear jewelry just because they won't wear headgear? Would you knowingly let players wear items that have a real possibility of injuring or hurting another player - simply because they're not wearing headgear. I appreciate your concern, but you are wrong.

They're all important. The rules clearly allow me to help protect players by making sure they don't wear bracelets, earrings, etc. So I'm going to enforce them. The rules don't allow me to force players to wear head gear, so I can't. Perhaps the pressure would be better put on coaches and schools to force their players to wear head gear. And yes, a head injury is more serious than a torn earlobe.

Maybe that's why I don't see any of the fouls you see. I keep looking for the apples. Or is it oranges I'm supposed to be looking for? By the way, where do they keep the apples and oranges - most of their shorts don't have pockets??? /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

I'm going to assume that the player who walked up to the ball was a defender. If she was, I'd have given her a yellow as well. Unsporting behavior for delay tactics. Its a deliberate manuever on her part to intentionally delay the kick by the attacking team. Once the ball is placed at the spot of the foul, the kicking team doesn't have to wait for a whistle. They can take the kick any time they want. There's nothing that says that a team has to wait for the other team to set up a wall. If the defense is disorganized and an attacker is by themselves, many teams will quickly kick the ball for a better scoring opportunity. The maneuver you've described is a common maneuver whose sole purpose is to give the defense time to set up. Many referees simply don't call it. Another version of the maneuver is when a player jogs towards getting in position of the wall, and steps over the ball and then starts walking. Its the same deliberate intent to prevent the attacking team from taking a quick kick that is their right. I've given a yellow for the first time its done, and also given a warning with no tolerance afterwards. My guess is the referee was sending a message that he/she was serious about the game and wasnt' going to put up with any antics.