Yes, I have a question... you said, "There is no need to indicate that an infraction did not occur. If you feel the need to indicate that, then an infraction probably DID occur."

How then should the referee generally address "trifling" fouls? ...IMHO is that the "play on" verbal is appropriate communication with the players even though a foul would not be called; it keeps the game going and informs the players it could become an issue...

I agree the CONSTANT chatter from SOME Referees needs to be cut. We have one I affectionately call, "The Narrator."

AgGermany wrote:Yes, I have a question... you said, "There is no need to indicate that an infraction did not occur. If you feel the need to indicate that, then an infraction probably DID occur."

How then should the referee generally address "trifling" fouls? ...IMHO is that the "play on" verbal is appropriate communication with the players even though a foul would not be called; it keeps the game going and informs the players it could become an issue...

I agree the CONSTANT chatter from SOME Referees needs to be cut. We have one I affectionately call, "The Narrator."

Trifling fouls are basically "no calls". There is no need to address them unless you are looking at a possible persistent infringement situation. There is no problem with using something like "No foul" or "No foul there" or something like that, but "Play On" is misleading if you are not acknowledging a foul or misconduct that you are allowing advantage for.

A trifling foul is a foul so it can't be "no foul"... you shouldn't call every foul, "play on" is communication, it tells the players a foul (trifling) was seen but we are not stopping. What could be misunderstood or someone mislead... they are playing on... these are fine points of game management, but what brought us to the discussion was communication of reaching for a card and not giving it, and missing a call by calling "play on" in the penalty area at the end of a tie game...

Texans hit their shots (from what I heard) and this is never really talked about! I suppose they have 5 other goals to consider since then.

AgGermany wrote:A trifling foul is a foul so it can't be "no foul"... you shouldn't call every foul, "play on" is communication, it tells the players a foul (trifling) was seen but we are not stopping. What could be misunderstood or someone mislead... they are playing on... these are fine points of game management, but what brought us to the discussion was communication of reaching for a card and not giving it, and missing a call by calling "play on" in the penalty area at the end of a tie game...

Texans hit their shots (from what I heard) and this is never really talked about! I suppose they have 5 other goals to consider since then.

You are right a trifling foul is a foul. And remember, that I said, no verbal recognition is required. You specifically indicated that you would like to use "Play On" for those. I indicated that that would be wrong, since "Play On" has a specific meaning. I wouldn't have said anything. I might shake my head in a NO fashion. But, that would probably be it. "Play On" is specifically saying that you are allowing advantage, not that you are just allowing play to continue. It indicates that if advantage does not materialize within a few seconds, that you will be stopping play and returning to the place of the foul for a free kick. That's what can be misunderstood.

There are three tools at your disposal for communication, and those are the only tools that are specifically allowed. The whistle, followed by a specific mechanic, defined by the purpose for the whistle. A yellow card, to be used to caution, for misconduct. And a red card, to be used for ejection, for gross misconduct. None of those specifically allowed tools are verbal communication.

There is nothing that says that you can't use verbal communication. But it does specifically state that there should be no misunderstanding. "Play On" is misunderstood if it is used for anything but to indicate advantage. It is the special case. What would you do if you didn't speak Spanish, and you were asked to officiate a game in Mexico, or Spain, or some other Spanish speaking country? You could still do it, couldn't you? Or Germany... wait... agGermany... you probably speak German... golden German at that

"Play on" is clear as the Advantage being played call, not challenging that at all.

The challenge is dealing with potential misunderstanding between players regarding "trifling fouls" that can escalate quickly, if the Referee can "communicate" verbally, or non-verbally (hands out "saying, you are not getting that little bump as a foul" fingers "saying, I see the bumps and you are close to being called", or "looks that say what are you thinking playing like that") are a part of the game all the way up, and are useful in managing the Game... it is understood in Mexico and Germany too...

You offered a "no foul" call, and that can be understood, so can a verbal "play",(agreed "play on" is specific) the players understand that "something" was seen but it would not be called. The greater misunderstanding is when the players believe they are not being fairly treated or treated unequally. To clarify, this is not to be constant, but for the purpose of communication how the game is being seen and called. U-10 Rec and U-16 would have different communciation levels outside applying the Laws.

Once again these are fine points of game management and there is generally MUCH more to worry about in U-16 Referees... but some are very good!

AgGermany wrote:"Play on" is clear as the Advantage being played call, not challenging that at all.

The challenge is dealing with potential misunderstanding between players regarding "trifling fouls" that can escalate quickly, if the Referee can "communicate" verbally, or non-verbally (hands out "saying, you are not getting that little bump as a foul" fingers "saying, I see the bumps and you are close to being called", or "looks that say what are you thinking playing like that") are a part of the game all the way up, and are useful in managing the Game... it is understood in Mexico and Germany too...

You offered a "no foul" call, and that can be understood, so can a verbal "play",(agreed "play on" is specific) the players understand that "something" was seen but it would not be called. The greater misunderstanding is when the players believe they are not being fairly treated or treated unequally. To clarify, this is not to be constant, but for the purpose of communication how the game is being seen and called. U-10 Rec and U-16 would have different communciation levels outside applying the Laws.

Once again these are fine points of game management and there is generally MUCH more to worry about in U-16 Referees... but some are very good!

Now, we're on the same page

locomotion wrote:

AgGermany wrote:A trifling foul is a foul so it can't be "no foul"... you shouldn't call every foul, "play on" is communication, it tells the players a foul (trifling) was seen but we are not stopping. What could be misunderstood or someone mislead... they are playing on... these are fine points of game management, but what brought us to the discussion was communication of reaching for a card and not giving it, and missing a call by calling "play on" in the penalty area at the end of a tie game...

Texans hit their shots (from what I heard) and this is never really talked about! I suppose they have 5 other goals to consider since then.

You are right a trifling foul is a foul. And remember, that I said, no verbal recognition is required. You specifically indicated that you would like to use "Play On" for those. I indicated that that would be wrong, since "Play On" has a specific meaning. I wouldn't have said anything. I might shake my head in a NO fashion. But, that would probably be it. "Play On" is specifically saying that you are allowing advantage, not that you are just allowing play to continue. It indicates that if advantage does not materialize within a few seconds, that you will be stopping play and returning to the place of the foul for a free kick. That's what can be misunderstood.

There are three tools at your disposal for communication, and those are the only tools that are specifically allowed. The whistle, followed by a specific mechanic, defined by the purpose for the whistle. A yellow card, to be used to caution, for misconduct. And a red card, to be used for ejection, for gross misconduct. None of those specifically allowed tools are verbal communication.

There is nothing that says that you can't use verbal communication. But it does specifically state that there should be no misunderstanding. "Play On" is misunderstood if it is used for anything but to indicate advantage. It is the special case. What would you do if you didn't speak Spanish, and you were asked to officiate a game in Mexico, or Spain, or some other Spanish speaking country? You could still do it, couldn't you? Or Germany... wait... agGermany... you probably speak German... golden German at that

Fine explanation loco - you pass your assessment with flying colors!

Loco is the Assessor...

ALL of you are welcome that I brought these very specific items to topic.