DI Kick-off

I will give it that the refs do their best and that over a season bad calls even out.

The problem was the ref totally let the consequences of a call control his calls. In the first half he gave a yellow card to a TFC player for sticking her leg out to block a free kick while standing 2 yards from the ball. The same player a few minutes later committed a hard foul and the ref went to his pocket to pull the card. He then recognized the player and put the card back in his pocket. The hard foul either deserved a card or did not. It does not matter that the card was going to have to be a red and not a yellow.

He let the consequences of the game control his calls at the end of the game, too. It was tied 1-1 and TFC had put up a great fight. The ref knew it was a foul but decided that he could not give a PK to decide the game in the final 2 minutes and so he made the play on move. (The ref had earlier missed another takedown of the same player in the box.)

The refs job is to make the best calls he or she can. Yes they will miss calls as this ref did with the earlier takedown in the box, but a LHGCL ref's job is not to be an NBA style ref where the situation and the player's number of fouls control the whistle.

Anybody hear a score yet for Sting v. Revolution?

haha no doubt about that. It's just an honorary degree that was bestowed upon me for watching so much youth soccer over the years. If some of these guys can call themselves coaches then I can be a Dr. I guess I could have said aimlessly or some other word that indicates that contact may have been initiated by the attacker.

I was at the game...personally I wouldn't have called either a foul. Not so sure about the long ball comment- in
the last 10 minutes the Texans must have had 3-4 four missed scoring chances and two of them fairly wide open top of 6 box but shot over the cross bar.

Cmon Cnote give us the score/update before it gets posted on girlsclassicleague.org

BigBoy wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:who was the txns coach screaming at the end of the 95 game? Classy

easy there skippy. most coaches who feel they got screwed usually like to "have a word" with the ref. And...he didnt hang around very long and chew on them. Just said what he had to say and moved on. (at least the opposing coach hasnt mention the back-side of an opposing coach before...right....cuz THATS classy...i was there for that one, so go easy on the dart throwing)

I think you would have to agree that the major take down in the box that would have gone FOR TRD in the last 5 minutes of the game, which mirrored the call that had been given to TFC earlier in the second half resulting in their goal, should have been called. OR...what about the 2nd yellow on the player that would have been a red, but the same ref put the card back in his pocket once he saw the player's number??? What...he didnt want her out of the game?

Well...on the takedown in the last 5 minutes for TRD....the ref saw the foul...you know how I know....becuase he gave the "play-on" sign. In ref language, that means I see it and recognize the foul, but I am not going to call it. That is crap. I wasnt happy, but I stayed calm. It kept me up til 1am last night, but I stayed calm. :-)
no sour grapes here....TFC did what they had to....just giving you a little bit of justification for an upset coach that I believe had a couple more bullets in his gun that he didnt load on poor reffing. I mean..its REALLY not that hard, but some dingbats make it look like rocket science. ITS OBJECTIVE....keep it that way.

It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

SoccerSounder wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:who was the txns coach screaming at the end of the 95 game? Classy

easy there skippy. most coaches who feel they got screwed usually like to "have a word" with the ref. And...he didnt hang around very long and chew on them. Just said what he had to say and moved on. (at least the opposing coach hasnt mention the back-side of an opposing coach before...right....cuz THATS classy...i was there for that one, so go easy on the dart throwing)

I think you would have to agree that the major take down in the box that would have gone FOR TRD in the last 5 minutes of the game, which mirrored the call that had been given to TFC earlier in the second half resulting in their goal, should have been called. OR...what about the 2nd yellow on the player that would have been a red, but the same ref put the card back in his pocket once he saw the player's number??? What...he didnt want her out of the game?

Well...on the takedown in the last 5 minutes for TRD....the ref saw the foul...you know how I know....becuase he gave the "play-on" sign. In ref language, that means I see it and recognize the foul, but I am not going to call it. That is crap. I wasnt happy, but I stayed calm. It kept me up til 1am last night, but I stayed calm. :-)
no sour grapes here....TFC did what they had to....just giving you a little bit of justification for an upset coach that I believe had a couple more bullets in his gun that he didnt load on poor reffing. I mean..its REALLY not that hard, but some dingbats make it look like rocket science. ITS OBJECTIVE....keep it that way.

It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

Then at the very least the play was questionable. Otherwise, the ref would be uttering "play on" at every instance? Without a doubt, a push in the back will be called at mid-field and typically decapitation is warranted within the box to get a foul call. There should not be separate standards for what a foul is depending on where on the field the offense occurred or what the score is at the time. Just my two cents, both are good teams and most refs certainly earn their $25 a game.

Much more importantly, did Sting and Rev play last night or not? Somebody has to know the score...

Arch Stanton wrote:

SoccerSounder wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:who was the txns coach screaming at the end of the 95 game? Classy

easy there skippy. most coaches who feel they got screwed usually like to "have a word" with the ref. And...he didnt hang around very long and chew on them. Just said what he had to say and moved on. (at least the opposing coach hasnt mention the back-side of an opposing coach before...right....cuz THATS classy...i was there for that one, so go easy on the dart throwing)

I think you would have to agree that the major take down in the box that would have gone FOR TRD in the last 5 minutes of the game, which mirrored the call that had been given to TFC earlier in the second half resulting in their goal, should have been called. OR...what about the 2nd yellow on the player that would have been a red, but the same ref put the card back in his pocket once he saw the player's number??? What...he didnt want her out of the game?

Well...on the takedown in the last 5 minutes for TRD....the ref saw the foul...you know how I know....becuase he gave the "play-on" sign. In ref language, that means I see it and recognize the foul, but I am not going to call it. That is crap. I wasnt happy, but I stayed calm. It kept me up til 1am last night, but I stayed calm. :-)
no sour grapes here....TFC did what they had to....just giving you a little bit of justification for an upset coach that I believe had a couple more bullets in his gun that he didnt load on poor reffing. I mean..its REALLY not that hard, but some dingbats make it look like rocket science. ITS OBJECTIVE....keep it that way.

It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

Then at the very least the play was questionable. Otherwise, the ref would be uttering "play on" at every instance? Without a doubt, a push in the back will be called at mid-field and typically decapitation is warranted within the box to get a foul call. There should not be separate standards for what a foul is depending on where on the field the offense occurred or what the score is at the time. Just my two cents, both are good teams and most refs certainly earn their $25 a game.

Much more importantly, did Sting and Rev play last night or not? Somebody has to know the score...

Though not stated in the Laws Of The Game, Refs are trained in class to be "VERY certain of a call in the box"... But, in this case, no different than other sports like hoops where you can bang in the paint, but very little allowed out above the 3 line..

Sting 2
Rev 0

Good game, Rev played very well, pass the ball well playing much more like a team, I think they will surprise some team's they won't be easy. We played down hill most of the game.

After week #1 there is "parity" in DI!

Rev has two ex-'Feet players on the team. One they picked-up last mid season, and the other I believe in July. Both are solid players and make-up for some of what Rev lost in three of their best field players. They might not be as weak as some of us might be thinking. So, I agree with Cnote they could surprise some teams.

Word...don't take any team in D1 lightly

SoccerSounder wrote:
It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

You are absolutely right.. The problem is that is does not mean what YOU think it means either. What it means is that " I saw the fould but I am allowing advantage to materialize", if in the opinion of the referee, it does not materialize, he/she has the option, within a few seconds, to blow the whistle and call it back for a free kick.

But, yes. it does in fact mean, I saw the foul. Otherwise there would be no need to signal "Play on"... Or maybe he/she should just run up and down the pitch throughout the entire game yelling "Play on"...

locomotion wrote:

SoccerSounder wrote:
It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

You are absolutely right.. The problem is that is does not mean what YOU think it means either. What it means is that " I saw the fould but I am allowing advantage to materialize", if in the opinion of the referee, it does not materialize, he/she has the option, within a few seconds, to blow the whistle and call it back for a free kick.

But, yes. it does in fact mean, I saw the foul. Otherwise there would be no need to signal "Play on"... Or maybe he/she should just run up and down the pitch throughout the entire game yelling "Play on"...

Loco,

You said I'm right but actually wrong?? Well, you were half right.. About the I am right part... . The player went "down" in the box, so playing the advantage was not an option.... Like I SAID... A verbal "play-on" is for the players (and parents here in our inimate settings) to keep playing, as in, "I saw it but, no foul is waranted" Like when a player is trying to draw a foul or went down on much their own actions... "Play on" does not mean "advantage"... When a Ref signals both arms forward, that is the "advantage signal"... Otherwise, you were right, lol

"play on" can simply be an affirmation of seeing an "issue" (potential foul) an letting the teams know there will not be call made. If the referee sees a foul he will call it or lets the advantage develop, with or without saying "play on". Typically you should see hands out signaling advantage along with the "play-on" when a foul was affirmed but play allowed to continue...

I think RAYDOS04 forgot that a revolution 2-0 loss to Sting is still a loss, unless LHGCL changed the rules and gives points for moral victories. History shows that throughout the years, there have been other close games from the bottom four. Many parents and players do come away from their match elated about their team's performance that ended in defeat.
The moral of this statement is that stronger teams will find a way to win. While this is not the first time Revolution has loss to sting by just 2 goals, it was a surprise this time to see a small number of goals scored. The outcome was no surprise.

SoccerSounder wrote:

locomotion wrote:

SoccerSounder wrote:
It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

You are absolutely right.. The problem is that is does not mean what YOU think it means either. What it means is that " I saw the fould but I am allowing advantage to materialize", if in the opinion of the referee, it does not materialize, he/she has the option, within a few seconds, to blow the whistle and call it back for a free kick.

But, yes. it does in fact mean, I saw the foul. Otherwise there would be no need to signal "Play on"... Or maybe he/she should just run up and down the pitch throughout the entire game yelling "Play on"...

Loco,

You said I'm right but actually wrong?? Well, you were half right.. About the I am right part... . The player went "down" in the box, so playing the advantage was not an option.... Like I SAID... A verbal "play-on" is for the players (and parents here in our inimate settings) to keep playing, as in, "I saw it but, no foul is waranted" Like when a player is trying to draw a foul or went down on much their own actions... "Play on" does not mean "advantage"... When a Ref signals both arms forward, that is the "advantage signal"... Otherwise, you were right, lol

When referees (or one referee and one Loco) can't agree on "laws of the game" doesn't this prove everyone's point?

transformer wrote:I think RAYDOS04 forgot that a revolution 2-0 loss to Sting is still a loss, unless LHGCL changed the rules and gives points for moral victories. History shows that throughout the years, there have been other close games from the bottom four. Many parents and players do come away from their match elated about their team's performance that ended in defeat.
The moral of this statement is that stronger teams will find a way to win. While this is not the first time Revolution has loss to sting by just 2 goals, it was a surprise this time to see a small number of goals scored. The outcome was no surprise.

I don't recall making any comment about a moral victory. I simply agreed with Cnote a Sting parent, that Rev might surprise some teams. They are not as weak as some might think. And, believe me I'm no fan of Rev.


Just relax transformer and take it easy partner.

I don't see any disagreement about the Laws of the Game, only slight disagreement re: game management and "communication" of what has been seen by the referee.

What the referee saw and what he was thinking is another matter...

The troubling comment was really about the card not being pulled for a second yellow. (seems to be uncontested in those that saw it)

RAYADOS04 wrote:Rev has two ex-'Feet players on the team. One they picked-up last mid season, and the other I believe in July. Both are solid players and make-up for some of what Rev lost in three of their best field players. They might not be as weak as some of us might be thinking. So, I agree with Cnote they could surprise some teams.

Slight correction. The one player mentioned from last spring had played for Feet in previous years, but had already moved on prior to joining our team. We didn't sign any Feet players this offseason.

Ninja wrote:

RAYADOS04 wrote:Rev has two ex-'Feet players on the team. One they picked-up last mid season, and the other I believe in July. Both are solid players and make-up for some of what Rev lost in three of their best field players. They might not be as weak as some of us might be thinking. So, I agree with Cnote they could surprise some teams.

Slight correction. The one player mentioned from last spring had played for Feet in previous years, but had already moved on prior to joining our team. We didn't sign any Feet players this offseason.

I've been corrected. I had heard of a new Rev player from Abilene that had played with 'Feet two seasons ago. Anyway, the other ex'Feet player is a plus for Rev.

SoccerSounder wrote:

locomotion wrote:

SoccerSounder wrote:
It may not help you sleep, but to help you understand: Any "Play On" verbal or sign from a Ref DOES NOT mean "I saw a Foul, but am not calling it"... It means "I saw the play AND it DOES NOT warrant a foul".. Trust me as a Ref and parent when I say the hardest thing to do is be unbias as a parent, especially as a favorite OR an underdog in a close game.... Your staying calm, but up to 1am thing was funny as heck!!

You are absolutely right.. The problem is that is does not mean what YOU think it means either. What it means is that " I saw the fould but I am allowing advantage to materialize", if in the opinion of the referee, it does not materialize, he/she has the option, within a few seconds, to blow the whistle and call it back for a free kick.

But, yes. it does in fact mean, I saw the foul. Otherwise there would be no need to signal "Play on"... Or maybe he/she should just run up and down the pitch throughout the entire game yelling "Play on"...

Loco,

You said I'm right but actually wrong?? Well, you were half right.. About the I am right part... . The player went "down" in the box, so playing the advantage was not an option.... Like I SAID... A verbal "play-on" is for the players (and parents here in our inimate settings) to keep playing, as in, "I saw it but, no foul is waranted" Like when a player is trying to draw a foul or went down on much their own actions... "Play on" does not mean "advantage"... When a Ref signals both arms forward, that is the "advantage signal"... Otherwise, you were right, lol

I shall refer you to "Advice to Referees" and I quote:

5.4 REFEREE SIGNALS
Referee signals should be restricted to those authorized by IFAB/FIFA (play on-advantage, penalty
kick, indirect free kick, direct free kick, goal kick, corner kick, and caution or expulsion when showing
the card), unless there is a clear need to communicate other information to the players or to the assistant
referees and fourth official. Other signals or methods of communication intended to supplement (not
replace) those described in the USSF Guide to Procedures are permitted only if they do not conflict
with established procedures and only if they do not intrude on the game, are not distracting, are limited
in number and purpose, and are fully agreed upon before the match.

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct
committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 11th item) were met. Applying
advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been
committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 -- both the
section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct.

"play on-advantage" is a specific signal defined by IFAB/FIFA. It is a verbal signal accompanied by a gesture of swinging both arms forward. If the mechanics of moving the arms did not accompany the verbal "Play On", then the referee was wrong by providing a different signal which conflicts with the established signal. He can eliminate the verbal signal, if he so chooses, but not the other way around. The verbal part is used, if it will not be misunderstood.

This may have been the case here. I see way too much referee talking to players, when the conversation is not initiated by the players themselves. There is no need for that. It only draws attention to the referee, which should not be the case. Stopping play to "talk" to a player, as a warning, is not proper procedure. That is what the yellow card is for. When the captain, on the field, wishes to discuss something that happened, and initiates the conversation at a stoppage, that is fine. It should be handled courteously and swiftly return to the game. Other than that, keep the conversations to a minimum. 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.

I trust that if you are still refereeing, that you will brush up on your procedures. A player taken down "in the box", I assume that you mean the "penalty area", still has the option of advantage, ITOOTR. I would wait a few seconds to award a kick from the mark, if there is reasonable chance that the fouled team may score. It is always the option for the referee to blow the whistle and award the kick from the mark, if he/she has previously indicated play on-advantage. It is also the job of the referee to handle any misconduct that may have accompanied the infringement at the next stoppage of play.

Any questions?

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!