socref1

Life is full of disappointments. Peace. This was my last post. For-ev-er.

You took my missive out of context. I see no inconsistency. Be precise in your interpretation. FIFA's look at potential line technology is not "reform" in the sense that you would call it reform. The first paragraph is right out of the IBD. Its their words not mine. The second paragraph is mine. Sorry to disapoint you in your quest of the "I got socref" moment. As long as their technology does not disrupt the flow of the game that would be different. No technology is without defects. I was referring to instant replay to disrupt the flow of the game. For a goal, the play is dead so that would not be the issue. I am against the stopping of the game constantly like we see in basketball and soccer. Baseball is not dependent on a clock to define the span of 9 innings.

Canes, when you come off your meds, you will realize I am not against advances in technology for the good of the game. I am cautious of any technology that disrupts the flow of the game. I am also cautious of pretentious pudgy armchair analysts who really should pick up a whistle and run some pounds off. I've heard you for years bashing refs. Its got old my friend. I'm bored.

I'm glad you give me enough credit to hold a seminar. In reading this article, which someone put on my chair at work, I noticed the following: "The ejection -- automatic for a player who attacks anyone on the field -- angered Dorchester's players, who complained in vain to the referee. Two more visiting players ended up being sent off in the final 10 minutes for unrelated incidents, leaving the club with only eight players at the final whistle." Sounds like the game went into the toilet after that. As with anything on the field, the player had options: 1) do nothing 2) say something and let someone else do something 3) dispose of the streaker without a "a thudding, neck-high tackle". Maybe Option 3 was his only choice in his mind, since if he went any lower, people might have thought the wrong idea. In any event, the ref probably thought it was violent enough to warrant a red card, which is allowable in this case if violence was used. It isn't a foul because the streaker isn't a player. The violent conduct sanction can be given to a player or substitute for action against a player (same team as well), substitute, bench staff, fan (yes the ref will protect you CC) or any other action where violence is used within his jurisdiction (parking lot as well - but no card shown). If the player kicked a dog that ran on the field, he gets a red card as well as probably prosecution.

What we see at the WC in the manner of advanced technology or 6 officials probably wont ever be seen at the HS level, at least not in TN. Also, IFAB has no members from the Americas; North, Latin or South. At the end of the day, its politics.

This is a very good discussion topic and one that players, coaches, parents, and even refs can share. As a player, I never want play to stop. As a parent, I would like to see my player protected. As a referee, I have to evaluate each situation individually. I believe the correct approach to stopping play is "it depends". In the AYSO, they want referees to stop play regardless, and thus the old "take a knee" comes in to play. For more competitive play, one must weigh the safety for the player, and preserving the game. The default is player safety comes before the game. Period. However with soccer, because it is best viewed without interruption, it is a delicate balance. One thing as a referee I need to be aware is that if I make the wrong decision, there could be a life at stake. A quick answer to "are you ok?" usually tells me a lot. There are situations where the referee should stop play, should not stop play, must stop play and must not stop play. The "should" is sort of the discretion of the referee, for the good of the player and game. The stoppage of play is a referee prerogative, not the players. Law 5 lists referee powers and duties. The referee has the power to stop the game, and the duty to protect players. If the referee in the above example stopped play, one thing to determine in the thought process, "did the player respond?", "is there visible signs of blood and is it a danger to the other players? Referees do not have medical training however this year's Point of Emphasis by TSSAA is the concussion. Blood is another issue. So in the above example, the referee could have used his discretionary power to ascertain whether the player hit in the face with the ball either was bleeding or needed attention. One thing referees are very aware of are players feigning injury behind play to stop an attack.

I have refrained from replying to this thread because it seems what ever I say regarding refereeing invites controversy. I am encouraged that people are having the discussion because it shows interest in what would appear an inconsistent approach. This last sentence of RRs post intrigued me. No two soccer games are called the same way? I thought all soccer was called to be fair and unbiased and in accordance with the LOTG. That is similar. Approaches can be different. Now the texture or outcome of no two games are identical, nor are referees I will grant you that. However, let us also remember that HS soccer is a brand of soccer not like FIFA soccer, where the referee might have some discretion to add time for injury, subs etc as per Law 5. From NFHS, there is no provision like the FIFA Law 5 power to add time. For HS, if the ball is in the air, and time is out, time is out. It is an easier sell though to have the time keeper run the clock and have the buzzer go off while the ball is in flight. At college matches, they may count down the last 10 seconds.

Only if you are off the angle and sitting in your popup chair sipping a cold one through a brown paper bag. Don't forget to add the umbrella for effect. You can wave that to get the refs attention.

I am going to bill Coacht for the consulting fees.

I am going to correct myself. The soft red is for anyone that uses NFHS rules, and not necessarily exclusive of HS. If middle schools choose to adopt it, they may in fact have that soft red provision if they so choose. The fact that a soft red requires no sit out the next game is self evident to its departure from standard soccer, yet acknowledges an out for schools for handling the routine which is a part of soccer. I like the analogy to fouling out in basketball. Schools don't haul players in to the principal for fouling out. The differences with "scholastic soccer" versus any other form of soccer can be found on page one of the NFHS Rules Book - "To maintain the sound traditions of this sport, encourage sportsmanship, and minimize the inherrent risk of injury"... The Rules Book does state that "NFHS Rules are used by education-based and non-education based organizations serving children of varying skill levels who are high school age or younger. In order to make NFHS rules skill-level and age-level appropriate, the rules may be modified by any organization that chooses to use them. Except as may be specifically noted in this rules book, the NFHS makes no recommendation about the nature or extent of the modifications that may be appropriate for children who are younger or less skilled than high school varsity atheletes.." So what does this mean? It means that a rule like the soft red was probably instituted to give flexibility to the schools for less heinous offenses like violent conduct (fighting) which would require a sit down with school administration. Bear in mind, scholastic soccer is no different than any other form of soccer in principle, however the NFHS Rules Book is probably twice as thick as the USSF LOTG. The bulk of this extra tree killing stems from examples, situations, points of emphasis, charts, diagrams, and tables that aid in implementing this flexibility.

You don't need to be churlish. The way you brought about the argument for technology was a bash since it implied the refs in the England Germany game were incompetent. They saw what they saw. You needed to frame the argument for technology such a way not to be condescending. I actually did an adult game where I found a cold beer in my ref bag after the match. That's the ultimate thanks. My experience with parents are that some are caring, and understand If you are the person I believe you are, you will be fair. You called me arrogant for being precise with my interpretation of the laws of the game. I never took a player out for mismatched sliders. That is extreme. I'd let players beat each other up if that is what they want. Its whatever they want. If they want technology fine. I don't think they want needless interruption of the game to arbitrate a call. There is enough theatrics already.

The National Federation of High School Associations, which all 50 states are a part proscribe to this rule. In fact, the soft yellow is unique to High School soccer and no where else. The southeastern states, including Florida, comprise Section 3 in NFHS (which the Heritage HS AD, is the Section 3 representative on the NFHS Rules Committee). Also unique to HS soccer, the fact that dangerous play can be against the same team, that is the opposing player (who gets a cleat near the face) is a team mate of the perpetrator. There is a whole list comparing NFHS versus FIFA (USSF) and college. Google it. So bear this in mind the next time you see something freaky on the field and want to yell at the referee as a knee jerk reaction.

Maybe the goal line technology will be ready for World Cup and limited higher venues. Don't count on it in HS sports or in East Ridge unless everyone adopts it. TSSAA hasn't weighed in on electronic aids.

You have it wrong CC. I am not important. But I am probably the only person on this forum that sticks up for refereeing. It has to be done because as long as people here on this forum continue to bash officiating, for their own reasons, there has to be a champion for the other side. I am in lockstep with FIFA on preserving the flow of the game. For some people here, flow should be interrupted for a perfect call. FIFA does not share that belief. BTW the rulers of this game are a generation a head of me, as I am a half century. Sepp Blatter is in his 70's. The rulers of this game want to preserve the integrity of the game but also improve it without destroying the game. Its a delicate issue. Have I said something factually inaccurate regarding the laws? I corrected a misuse in the laws of the game. Is it proper for people to continue to misquote the laws? It shows how little they know and that they argue from a faulty position, or like shouting at the rain. I will say this, to paraphrase Stephen King, "give me what I want (no bashing officiating), and I will go away". As long as bashing officiating remains on this forum, I will have a purpose. If that is frustrating then its simple - do not bash officiating. The choice is simple. I will always defend attacks on officiating on this forum if those attacks are malicious, spiteful, and personal. If you feel that is arrogant so be it. Who is being arrogant and pretentious by not quoting the proper language and understanding in the laws? Officiating is a part of the game that must be held to the highest regard, because it is people, flaws and all, that are the heart and soul of the game, not technology. If you do not accept the flaws of refereeing, its not this world. I accept that people misquote the laws. But I do not accept that they misquote then misapply without being called on the carpet.

At least we agree this is a subjective game. Furthermore as long as people continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the laws of the game, or their application, there will always be frustration. Case in point - There really is no term in the laws of the game for "hand balls" and "offsides". What you really mean is "deliberate handling" and "offside infraction" or "offside". "Offsides" is American football. Humans will always referee games. The most important call is the "no call". Referees should be invisible. Constant whistling for trifling offenses spoils the enjoyment of the game.

Thanks coach. The best refs are invisible to the match. Sometimes when people make mistakes, its those that have a tendency to highlight the negatives that draws attention away from the game. I take abuse too. Just recently a club manager gave me the "you'll never work our games again". And they wonder why there aren't enough refs.

I actually saw the game and understood the "no call". It is what it is. The 4th official usually is at the half line and has no angle to make that call and no authority to hold up the game to review. FIFA will not allow it. Holding up play for 30 seconds is counter to the beautiful game. Instant replay would kill soccer as you and I know it. No human can be perfect is a fact. Technology will not better the game. Technology will hold up the game, which will hurt the game. So you want an imperfect game at the price of a perfect call. Seems like a losing proposition. The referee's already wear headsets. They are in constant communication with each other.

Oh don't get me wrong. The ball was in the goal. As I said numerous times on this post, the human eye is much slower than technology. That being said, there is no place for instant replay in soccer since soccer is a subjective sport. Instant replay will destroy the subjectivity. The laws of the game there are points of fact and points of opinion. Advantage and calling back advantage are unique to soccer. The electronic measure has failed to even garner the support from ussoccer. Now referees do carry electronic communication devices, but only to aid in communicating. The electronics do not aid in judging. The electronic line thingy isn't practicable since the goal line is usually obstructed by human bodies. If it were adapted for soccer, it would have to be a new technology altogether. Don't hold your breath. Just accept up the imperfection in referees the same way you would accept the imperfections of coaches and players. In the end, players do decide the game.

The pic of Lampart's goal is actually off axis. The only way to truly determine if it was in the goal is to have the camera directly in line with the goal line. One can not determine where the ball is from that picture. It could be a parallax optical illusion. Just because the whole world watches, doesn't mean diddly. Instant replay will never come to soccer as we know it. And if it does, it would ruin the sport. Sports officials have enough stress. Why add to it? No value added here.

Thanks. For a long time I thought he was easttnref, because he was from Seymour. But he wasn't. I know that some people here despise referees, but here was a good person who wanted to make a difference.

I just learned today that a fellow HS referee, John Burnett has passed away today from injuries sustained in a motorcycle injury last week. John was from Seymour and a HS and USSF referee. He was on his way home from a game in Cosby County when he stopped at a red light (or stop sign - not sure which) and was plowed over by a car. The bike was broke in half and the frame was mangled. The helicopter unit from Johnson City was in the area so they responded and John was flown to Johnson City Medical Center where he was in ICU in critical condition. He had a broken back, both legs are broken, all ribs broken and his lungs were punctured. John's daughter went to the hospital and she said when she talked to her father, he would squeeze her hand in response. This was a good sign but it wasn't enough to overcome the injuries sustained in the accident. I remember John as larger than life, with his yellow Mohawk, USMC tatoos and jovial outlook. He will be missed.

No problem. Offside rule in soccer will probably stay. People do need to know it does help the game. Its historic and keeps forwards from cherry picking. Its difficult to do right and the AR will miss the game and fouls if he is focused on offside. This is a good thing, because the CR is watching the game as is the trail AR.

I might have to go over there and buy a pint glass, collect a few in my day. When not soc reffing, another hobby involves beer drinking at micros and English/Irish pubs.

Now that's funny. I don't see our exchanges as arguments. In fact I think there is value added in the discussions. Take it easy.

I am over 3x some of these players ages and over twice their weight. Do I keep up? Not like I used to. Do I understand where I need to be and be in the right position? Yes better than when I was in better shape. Sometimes the game doesn't require full on sprints. We learn as we get more proficient its not about the fitness more about the reading play. The referee fitness you desire for everyone will not be there with older adults that break down like me. I would rather have a referee than none at all. Someone once said if you want to solve a problem, start with yourself. I do not believe you are a referee. I would suggest maybe you consider getting qualified and showing people what true fitness should be. You think players are cheated because someone is out there collecting a check? It isn't fair to characterize all referees like that, and I will tell you the fittest referee in my area is a young 25 year old person that can run 3200 meters in 12 minutes. He wants that dual V and JV check because that is the only job he has. Still one should not rule out self improvement, even at my age.