Bad Officials

[BigG]

Neither TSSAA or NFHS allows the use of video when it comes to appeals, if the appeal is on a point of fact. My understanding is that "fact" means what a referee sees - most fouls, trips, charging pushing, etc. are "fact". If the ref determines a play to be trip, then its a trip and there is no appeal possible as to whether it really was a trip.

 

Again, my understanding, is video replay could be used if a rule is missapplied. For instance, if a goalie reached outside of the penalty box and picked up a ball, the correct call would be handling - direct kick just outside of the penalty box. However, if a referee awarded a PK based on the same call, this call could be appealed because its a misapplication of the rules.

 

I guess the school we played tried to get it appealed (at least they asked for a copy of our game DVD to send to the TSSAA). The call was a deliberate take down by a goal keeper on a break away. They didn't get it over turned, but I assumed it was because the video showed that the ref made the right call, not because they were not able to appeal with it.

 

 

Thanks for the clarity, OKnative.

[Canesoverhere]

Neither TSSAA or NFHS allows the use of video when it comes to appeals, if the appeal is on a point of fact. My understanding is that "fact" means what a referee sees - most fouls, trips, charging pushing, etc. are "fact". If the ref determines a play to be trip, then its a trip and there is no appeal possible as to whether it really was a trip.

 

Again, my understanding, is video replay could be used if a rule is missapplied. For instance, if a goalie reached outside of the penalty box and picked up a ball, the correct call would be handling - direct kick just outside of the penalty box. However, if a referee awarded a PK based on the same call, this call could be appealed because its a misapplication of the rules.

 

So..if what the refereee couldn't possibly see was shown on video, would that then be a point of "poor judgement"? Let's say the center is 40 yards away from the goal and the keeper runs into the goal with the ball. THe center cannot physically see the ball (the keeper is blocking his vision and he cannot see if the player ha crossed the line becasue he is too far out, would that be open to appeal? By the way, the linesman signalled goal. Overruled byt the center. Video shows not only the ball but the goalie across the line and across the plane (the post is actually behind the goalies back as she is facing the back net). When asked after the game, the center commented, "I didn't think that should decide the game".....Oh, little Napolean!

 

Am I over it? Yes. When I see what can happen at the World Cup this past year on the world's stage and a call so bad is upheld, this is nothing.

 

On the other hand, I'm not 15 years old (any longer) and I just didn't have a center tell me what happened just didn't happen. Actually, I guess it didn't happen, because it is obvious he didn't see it.

[oknative]

I've seen my share of questionable or even bad calls, and I wasn't at this game. The key question is whether or not you believe that the referee did it on purpose to shift the outcome of the game. I truly believe that in most cases, the referee couldn't care less who actually wins. Mistakes happen; you???re out of position, etc. Also, if a referee has seen a player playing on (or just over) the line all night, that player might not get the benefit of the call. Also, I have seen calls where the player got to the ball first before any contact occurred, but the fact that somebody else went down or somebody got hurt seems to almost compel the referee to call something on somebody. So a foul, perhaps, or even a card is called. To go to a red card seems harsh (unless the player had been warned)???.

 

Good comments DonCChatt. And like you, I don't believe most referees make calls with the intent of controlling the outcome of the game. Certainly if they are, they shouldn't be officials. And you are correct, when I ref a game, I have no real interest or emotional ties as to who wins or loses a game.

 

There are a lot of factors that create such a wide view of what prompts a referee to call a foul or not. Its been mentioned in this thread that some referees were soft or animals while playing. Or did they even play? I didn't, and maybe that is a factor that causes me to be a more technical referee because of it. I tend to believe that referees who played the game tend to allow more physical contact before a call.

 

Referees call different games, depending on the game. When two teams are playing each other where two teams that are both very physical, there's usually an expectation, by both the players and the referees, that more physical play will be allowed. And if this is the case, has the referee given an advantage to either team by allowing a more physical game? Probably not.

 

As for me, when a team that is very physical is playing a team that is very technical, I know I call a much tighter game (right or wrong), because to allow a "more physical" game, as when they are both physical, would be giving an advantage to the more physical team.

 

But on the field- teams style of play are different, weather conditions (rain & cold) change play, angle to play, how close to the play a referee is, the number of players involved in the play, bright sunshine, etc., all affect and influence calls. An extension of the arms in one play might prompt a whistle for pushing, while the same extension of the arms in a different play, under a different viewing perspective, might not prompt a whistle.

 

And I don't think I've ever been compelled to make a call just because someone hits the ground or someone gets hurt. Injuries happen in which there is no foul, but I follow a simple rule - which is - "if I don't see it, I can't call it". If I'm not looking a play, I can't then look in that direction and make a call . Or if I'm screened from a play, how can I make a call? Do you want me to guess at it??? And yes, it makes coaches and players and parents angry, but if I don't make a call because I didn't see it, that doesn't mean I've made a bad call or even made a mistake. The fact is that referees don't, and can't, see every single foul that is committed in a soccer game.

[MVM]

An old coach told me once .. that I preached to my past players, "When is a foul a foul, When the Refs blows the whistle" I coach, you play, and let the Ref, ref.

This is a dangerous thread that I see it as "ref bashing" . Somewhere on this thread it tells you how to become a ref. So if you think you can do better take the test. I did

[oknative]

So..if what the refereee couldn't possibly see was shown on video, would that then be a point of "poor judgement"? Let's say the center is 40 yards away from the goal and the keeper runs into the goal with the ball. THe center cannot physically see the ball (the keeper is blocking his vision and he cannot see if the player ha crossed the line becasue he is too far out, would that be open to appeal? By the way, the linesman signalled goal. Overruled byt the center. Video shows not only the ball but the goalie across the line and across the plane (the post is actually behind the goalies back as she is facing the back net). When asked after the game, the center commented, "I didn't think that should decide the game".....Oh, little Napolean!

 

Am I over it? Yes. When I see what can happen at the World Cup this past year on the world's stage and a call so bad is upheld, this is nothing.

 

On the other hand, I'm not 15 years old (any longer) and I just didn't have a center tell me what happened just didn't happen. Actually, I guess it didn't happen, because it is obvious he didn't see it.

 

If the refeee couldn't see what was shown on video - that would probably mean he didn't see what happened, and couldn't possibly make a call. This isn't the NFL with 14 cameras and 6 or 7 referees on the field. I've said it before, but referees don't and can't see everything on a field. To expect them to do so is completely unreasonable. Would you have referees making calls based soley on the comments from the players or spectators? And unfortunately for you, video isn't allowed as a means for appealing a point of fact.

 

Certainly a referee should take input from the ARs. I know as an AR, I would be upset if a referee, who wasn't in a position to see a call, wouldn't take my word that a ball had crossed the goal line.

[oknative]

An old coach told me once .. that I preached to my past players, "When is a foul a foul, When the Refs blows the whistle" I coach, you play, and let the Ref, ref.

This is a dangerous thread that I see it as "ref bashing" . Somewhere on this thread it tells you how to become a ref. So if you think you can do better take the test. I did

 

MVM, sounds like you've spent a lot of time around the soccer field. Actually, I tend to think of it as just whining. And some of them are getting pretty good at it. They don't know how to discuss the issues without pulling up some call in some game that he didn't like or agree with. And of course its always the ref's fault.

 

Mustcoach said it great "Aren't they all the "worst calls or refs I have ever seen in my life"." The only thing that seems to determine whether it was a good call or a good no-call, is which team they're cheering for.

[Canesoverhere]

If the refeee couldn't see what was shown on video - that would probably mean he didn't see what happened, and couldn't possibly make a call. This isn't the NFL with 14 cameras and 6 or 7 referees on the field. I've said it before, but referees don't and can't see everything on a field. To expect them to do so is completely unreasonable. Would you have referees making calls based soley on the comments from the players or spectators? And unfortunately for you, video isn't allowed as a means for appealing a point of fact.

 

Certainly a referee should take input from the ARs. I know as an AR, I would be upset if a referee, who wasn't in a position to see a call, wouldn't take my word that a ball had crossed the goal line.

 

I appreciate your comments and I beleive you captured this. He could not see the ball or the player. So, he didn't. The question remains, why would he then over-rule the linesman that did?

[MVM]

MVM, sounds like you've spent a lot of time around the soccer field. Actually, I tend to think of it as just whining. And some of them are getting pretty good at it. They don't know how to discuss the issues without pulling up some call in some game that he didn't like or agree with. And of course its always the ref's fault.

 

Mustcoach said it great "Aren't they all the "worst calls or refs I have ever seen in my life"." The only thing that seems to determine whether it was a good call or a good no-call, is which team they're cheering for.

 

I find it funny that out of hundreds of games, thousands of calls this year the small amount of "grips" that really show up on these threads. Each time someone decribes a game on these threads and types how awesome their team played or how awesome a player is, There no mention of a awesome reffed game.

[Canesoverhere]

MVM, sounds like you've spent a lot of time around the soccer field. Actually, I tend to think of it as just whining. And some of them are getting pretty good at it. They don't know how to discuss the issues without pulling up some call in some game that he didn't like or agree with. And of course its always the ref's fault.

 

Mustcoach said it great "Aren't they all the "worst calls or refs I have ever seen in my life"." The only thing that seems to determine whether it was a good call or a good no-call, is which team they're cheering for.

 

No matter the end of this thread, it won't change the outcome of the game. Actually, the game would not have been decided by changing one goal. The "beef" here is, this was not a judgmeent call, this was not a subjective call, even the goalie booted the ball out of the goal as a keeper does when they are scored on. The ball was in the net. The goalie was in the goal, not partially, not maybe, the goalie was 100% in the goal.

 

I have shared this clip with several people. The immediate reaction is...OMG, that's a goal. I gess I will work on trying to post it. If not, I am sure I can post a still of it. Like I said, 99% of those in attendnece saw it. It was black and white. What gives him the right to say no?

[jbroadrick]

After just watching the Hendersonville Beech Game and the Ref throwing out Mellissa Govea by giving her a red card. It was the worst call i have ever seen in my life even though they wom the game Mellissa will not be playing this Saturday against Ravenwood. Mellissa is a key player for the commandos, and that one official could of just ruined the season for the commandos.

 

Leave your thoughts

 

I feel the same. Just one bad call can turn a game around. During our district game, in the 77th min., our defenders were being pressed back to defend our goal, a shot was taken, our goalie had the ball in hand, the offensive player ran into her, knock it out (no call was made) and the goal was scored. Our goalie suffered a broken hand as a result. So yes I agree that the ref's should be on top of their game.

[oknative]

No matter the end of this thread, it won't change the outcome of the game. Actually, the game would not have been decided by changing one goal. The "beef" here is, this was not a judgmeent call, this was not a subjective call, even the goalie booted the ball out of the goal as a keeper does when they are scored on. The ball was in the net. The goalie was in the goal, not partially, not maybe, the goalie was 100% in the goal.

 

I have shared this clip with several people. The immediate reaction is...OMG, that's a goal. I gess I will work on trying to post it. If not, I am sure I can post a still of it. Like I said, 99% of those in attendnece saw it. It was black and white. What gives him the right to say no?

 

My only complaint to threads like this that they tend to chew on one or two calls that are the bane of spectators of the game. Why don't you ever complain about the mistakes the players make. The missed shots. The missed passes. Letting an attacker through untouched. Missing a PK. Not to mention all the fouls that are committed by players and correctly called by referees.

 

How is is that one or two mistakes or errors in a game by a referee are perceived to determine the outcome of a game, yet the dozens and dozens and dozens of mistakes by players don't seem to influence your opinion of the outcome. Why is the animousity that is given towards referees, not also directed at players mistakes.

 

I guess it's just easier to make the referees the scapegoats of most losses.

[knightman]

My only complaint to threads like this that they tend to chew on one or two calls that are the bane of spectators of the game. Why don't you ever complain about the mistakes the players make. The missed shots. The missed passes. Letting an attacker through untouched. Missing a PK. Not to mention all the fouls that are committed by players and correctly called by referees.

 

How is is that one or two mistakes or errors in a game by a referee are perceived to determine the outcome of a game, yet the dozens and dozens and dozens of mistakes by players don't seem to influence your opinion of the outcome. Why is the animousity that is given towards referees, not also directed at players mistakes.

 

I guess it's just easier to make the referees the scapegoats of most losses.

 

There are a hundred post that talk about player performance thats why i made this one about the officials