ref accountablity .

[Eagle33]

To make the opposite argument as devil's advocate, that's only if the new rule isn't intended to supersede the existing laws. The wording is clear: it says "Once the opposing team is behind the build out line" therefore the goalkeeper does not have any power to release before the opposing team is behind the build out line. After all, the new rule is there not just to protect the goalkeeper's team, but also the opposing team, so they can properly learn to oppose a build out, and the goalkeeper releasing early would disregard the entire intent of the system we've set up. If goalkeepers are going to release early willy nilly, why bother having the change at all? Additionally, under the rules of construction, the modified rules are modification to rule 1-- therefore because it becomes first, the constructs of rule interpretation say all other rules must be interpreted to, and subject to this first rule, which takes precedence. Finally, if CalSouth had intended to allow goalkeepers to release early, they would have said the goalkeeper can release early, and also expressly address what opponents on the unfair side of the line could do. They could have at least said this rule (adopted later in time than the existing rules and thus constituting an amendment) "is not intended to affect any other rule" but they didn't-- therefore any rules which materially conflict with the new one are superseded by the new one.

Not that I agree with it...but that's the argument given how they've phrased it. ;)

My take on this - BOL is very similar to a free kick. Goalkeeper can release the ball quickly or ask for BOL to be enforced. Just like a team can take a free kick quickly or ask for required distance to be enforced. Anything that disrupts the flow of the game is not a good thing. I strongly believe that all this modified rules for BOL were NOT intended to take ability to release the ball quickly away from goalkeepers.

 

[coachrefparent]

My take on this - BOL is very similar to a free kick. Goalkeeper can release the ball quickly or ask for BOL to be enforced. Just like a team can take a free kick quickly or ask for required distance to be enforced. Anything that disrupts the flow of the game is not a good thing. I strongly believe that all this modified rules for BOL were NOT intended to take ability to release the ball quickly away from goalkeepers.

I agree and that's how Presidio is interpreting it.

 

[coachrefparent]

To make the opposite argument as devil's advocate, that's only if the new rule isn't intended to supersede the existing laws. The wording is clear: it says "Once the opposing team is behind the build out line" therefore the goalkeeper does not have any power to release before the opposing team is behind the build out line. After all, the new rule is there not just to protect the goalkeeper's team, but also the opposing team, so they can properly learn to oppose a build out, and the goalkeeper releasing early would disregard the entire intent of the system we've set up. If goalkeepers are going to release early willy nilly, why bother having the change at all? Additionally, under the rules of construction, the modified rules are modification to rule 1-- therefore because it becomes first, the constructs of rule interpretation say all other rules must be interpreted to, and subject to this first rule, which takes precedence. Finally, if CalSouth had intended to allow goalkeepers to release early, they would have said the goalkeeper can release early, and also expressly address what opponents on the unfair side of the line could do. They could have at least said this rule (adopted later in time than the existing rules and thus constituting an amendment) "is not intended to affect any other rule" but they didn't-- therefore any rules which materially conflict with the new one are superseded by the new one.

Not that I agree with it...but that's the argument given how they've phrased it. ;)

I don't know how traditional legal rules of statutory interpretation apply here, but you highlight an important point. Too many people are too would up about certainty, being exactly right and all the rest. Those with backgrounds in soccer, including referees realize that none of this minutia matters. 6 seconds, 10 seconds, whatever, so long as they are not delaying to stall. We're not in court. We don't need devil's advocates, Socrates, or any of that.

Presidio has interpreted it to mean that they can kick early if they choose as the purpose of the rule is to protect building out by the defense. What's next, getting all hot an bothered because the field is 46 yards wide instead of 45? Stop the game bacause a corner flag won't stay up? Stop the madness people, its all irrelevant and will be worked out over time.

 

[Grace T.]

I don't know how traditional legal rules of statutory interpretation apply here, but you highlight an important point. Too many people are too would up about certainty, being exactly right and all the rest. Those with backgrounds in soccer, including referees realize that none of this minutia matters. 6 seconds, 10 seconds, whatever, so long as they are not delaying to stall. We're not in court. We don't need devil's advocates, Socrates, or any of that.

Presidio has interpreted it to mean that they can kick early if they choose as the purpose of the rule is to protect building out by the defense. What's next, getting all hot an bothered because the field is 46 yards wide instead of 45? Stop the game bacause a corner flag won't stay up? Stop the madness people, its all irrelevant and will be worked out over time.

I thought the entire thing was it was supposed to be fun for the kids? None of the minutia matter SO LONG AS THERE'S CONSISTENCY. Confusing the kids, and making them worried about what's going to happen when they get to the field any particular day, is not fun for the kids, particularly the goalkeeper, who is sitting in bed the night before worrying about it. Throwing a goalkeeper off by forcing him to retake a goalkick except rolling it (and then throwing him off for the fast break that comes) is not fun for the player. Having the coach have to yell new instructions to the goalkeeper because the goalkeeper is now confused is not fun for the goalkeeper (one coach even left an empty net for a few seconds to chat with the keeper). Taking away a goal because the goalkeeper initiated a fast break and didn't wait for the build up line to set is not fun for the team. Confusing the parents, who are scratching their heads about "what's this ref doing", and bringing their frustration to the field is not helping kids enjoy the game. Having the coaches argue with each other and the ref about how to call the new rule is not fun for the kids. The leagues have a responsibility to make sure the refs and coaches are on the same page. Beyond that, you can have the goalkeeper bunnyhop before taking a goalkick for all I care.

Separate and apart from this is whether the new buildup rules are actually teaching teams to actually build up (I'd argue so far no...less backpassing, more booting, primarily due to the new offside rule).

 

[MWN]

To make the opposite argument as devil's advocate, that's only if the new rule isn't intended to supersede the existing laws. The wording is clear: it says "Once the opposing team is behind the build out line" therefore the goalkeeper does not have any power to release before the opposing team is behind the build out line. After all, the new rule is there not just to protect the goalkeeper's team, but also the opposing team, so they can properly learn to oppose a build out, and the goalkeeper releasing early would disregard the entire intent of the system we've set up. If goalkeepers are going to release early willy nilly, why bother having the change at all? Additionally, under the rules of construction, the modified rules are modification to rule 1-- therefore because it becomes first, the constructs of rule interpretation say all other rules must be interpreted to, and subject to this first rule, which takes precedence. Finally, if CalSouth had intended to allow goalkeepers to release early, they would have said the goalkeeper can release early, and also expressly address what opponents on the unfair side of the line could do. They could have at least said this rule (adopted later in time than the existing rules and thus constituting an amendment) "is not intended to affect any other rule" but they didn't-- therefore any rules which materially conflict with the new one are superseded by the new one.

Not that I agree with it...but that's the argument given how they've phrased it. ;)

@Grace T:

I.​

The plain text of the new rule states that these are "modifications" to the existing laws and not intended to be new laws (i.e. superseding laws). These modifications do not "preempt" existing Laws (of the Game) under either express preemption or implied / field preemption. It cannot be reasonably argued that the modification "occupy the field" as the petitioner alludes (although not using that term) because the modifications expressly stated they are intended to modify the existing Laws. Moreover, because the organizations adopting these modifications are subordinate entities to FIFA, they lack the authority as subordinates under the Supremacy Clause. The Laws of the Game supersedes all current modifications and prior iterations. While the court finds that the Laws of the Game also expressly permit certain modifications to the Laws as discussed in section II, the argument that these modifications supersede the Laws of the Game does not "...hold water." (People v. Gambini (1992) and People v. Rothenstein (1992) [citations omitted ... watch the movie]

II.​

We note that petitioner has not alleged that these modifications exceed scope of allowed modifications. In particular, the IFAB expressly states in relevant part:

Consequently, the 131st AGM of The IFAB held in London on 3rd March 2017 unanimously agreed that national FAs (and confederations and FIFA) should now have the option, if they wish to use it, to modify all or some of the following organisational areas of the Laws of the Game for football for which they are responsible:

FOR YOUTH, VETERANS, DISABILITY AND GRASSROOTS FOOTBALL:

• size of the field of play
• size, weight and material of the ball
• width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
• duration of the two (equal) halves of the game (and two equal halves of extra time)
• the use of return substitutes
• the use of temporary dismissals (sin bins) for some/all cautions (YCs)

We further note that Law 11 (Offside) does not expressly permit modifications. Whether, the modifications are permitted under the FIFA Laws of the Game and what authority the subordinate organizations rely on to adopt modifications to the Laws of the game that on the surface appear to exceed the scope of that authority has not been brought before this court, therefore, we decline to offer an opinion.

Ruling: Motion Denied.

 

[Grace T.]

@Grace T:

I.​

The plain text of the new rule states that these are "modifications" to the existing laws and not intended to be new laws (i.e. superseding laws). These modifications do not "preempt" existing Laws (of the Game) under either express preemption or implied / field preemption. It cannot be reasonably argued that the modification "occupy the field" as the petitioner alludes (although not using that term) because the modifications expressly stated they are intended to modify the existing Laws. Moreover, because the organizations adopting these modifications are subordinate entities to FIFA, they lack the authority as subordinates under the Supremacy Clause. The Laws of the Game supersedes all current modifications and prior iterations. While the court finds that the Laws of the Game also expressly permit certain modifications to the Laws as discussed in section II, the argument that these modifications supersede the Laws of the Game does not "...hold water." (People v. Gambini (1992) and People v. Rothenstein (1992) [citations omitted ... watch the movie]

II.​

We note that petitioner has not alleged that these modifications exceed scope of allowed modifications. In particular, the IFAB expressly states in relevant part:

Consequently, the 131st AGM of The IFAB held in London on 3rd March 2017 unanimously agreed that national FAs (and confederations and FIFA) should now have the option, if they wish to use it, to modify all or some of the following organisational areas of the Laws of the Game for football for which they are responsible:

FOR YOUTH, VETERANS, DISABILITY AND GRASSROOTS FOOTBALL:

• size of the field of play
• size, weight and material of the ball
• width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
• duration of the two (equal) halves of the game (and two equal halves of extra time)
• the use of return substitutes
• the use of temporary dismissals (sin bins) for some/all cautions (YCs)

We further note that Law 11 (Offside) does not expressly permit modifications. Whether, the modifications are permitted under the FIFA Laws of the Game and what authority the subordinate organizations rely on to adopt modifications to the Laws of the game that on the surface appear to exceed the scope of that authority has not been brought before this court, therefore, we decline to offer an opinion.

Ruling: Motion Denied.

I love this SOOO much. Great point about the offside rule. But you've also illustrated why parents get frustrated with all this...the argument does sound like a law decision and isn't very clear to the lay person.

p.s. please make sure all CalSouth refs are apprised of your ruling and appropriate disciplinary contempt proceedings are put in place for those violating your order.

 

[watfly]

Soccer and its fans are really unique among main stream sports. I have watched thousands of games among football, baseball, basketball, and golf, from amateur to the pros, with family, friends, and bar-mates. Fans of all those sports are often ignorant of the obscure rules and their nuances, be it the tuck rule, infield fly rule, traveling, or loose impediments; and they understand this when there is a call made. But when such calls come up, most fans of those sports say "hey what did they call there?" Most fans acknowledge that the rules are complicated, and that they don't have a great knowledge of all of them.

Not in soccer. Soccer fan thinks he knows all the rules. Soccer fan thinks that if a call goes against his kid's team, the referee blew the call. Soccer fan (and too many coaches) ignorantly yell at the referee, mis-quoting the LOTG. Soccer fans refuse to follow Mark Twain's advice:

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.”

Come on, you never have berated a golf official?

I'll admit I'm a little confused, your premise is that soccer fans would be better if they didn't know the rules. Yet MWN is claiming that I have an ethical duty to know the rules and I'm vile for suggesting otherwise. Setting aside the fact that we all agree that parents shouldn't yell at refs, which would be better for parents, to know the rules? or not know the rules? or only know rules up to a certain point...which would be?

Yes, soccer is different. In no other sport (non-judging sport) is a single person by design given such wide discretion to officiate, control and set the tone of the game where a single score carries so much weight. I think why possibly American fans get so frustated with soccer refs is they are expecting consistency in calls as they see in other sports. However, they don't understand there is no mechanism for consistency in soccer, as this thread clearly illustrates, and is laid out in the LOTG (refer to MWM's post). This is due to the overriding concept of Spirit of the Game, which is a cool thing about soccer but is a double-edged sword. Heck this thread illustrates that its not even clear what the rules are and that there is a body of laws, or at least interpretations, outside of what is published (granted that the BOL is anomaly, but look at opinions from refs about what constitutes a handball).

I'll say it again, the issue is you shouldn't abuse refs, period. Whether the parent doing the abusing knows the laws, or not, is irrelevant, other than its clear those who don't know the laws are far more offensive to refs.

 

[Dargle]

For those who think these uncertainties only exist because our governing bodies' statements are ambiguous or refs are not experienced enough, I'll note that academic study found that a change to the offside rule produced much variation in referee interpretation and application in the EPL:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14660970.2012.677223

The unsettled law: disputes and negotiations on the meanings of the offside law of Football Association in the English Premier League, 2003–2009

Soccer & Society
Volume 13, 2012 - Issue 4

Abstract
This essay follows the controversies surrounding the disputes and negotiations over the meaning of the ‘new’ offside law, as well as the practical resolutions carried out on the pitch by referees, assistant referees, managers and the players themselves. It defends the argument that the meaning of the offside rule cannot be decided beforehand, mainly regarding its wordings since 2003, but instead at the very time in which the game is being played.

 

[El Clasico]

@MWN & @Grace T, enough with the foreplay!!
Get a room already...

 

[MWN]

... Yet MWN is claiming that I have an ethical duty to know the rules and I'm vile for suggesting otherwise.

Not ethical, but contractual duty. Vile is too negative (Red card level), ... lazy or careless would be better.

Once you appreciate that the discretion of the referee with regard to certain Laws (fouls/misconduct) is a fundamental part of the game then you stop getting all wound up. Other Laws (offside) are black and white and don't permit discretion (unless in the determination of whether the offside player was engaged in the play). You are correct in that soccer is one of the few sports that asks referees to ascertain the state of mind of the player (was this handling of the ball deliberate on the part of the player?). Different referees give greater weight to the various factors based on a whole host of factors.

The rules of soccer are intended encourage continuous play and encourage Referees to ignore minor infractions or things that don't give one team an unfair advantage ... "play on" "advantage." So, yes, soccer is unique in that Referee's are supposed to swallow their whistle when they see a foul or a borderline foul if it doesn't have a negative impact on the team that was fouled.

 

[watfly]

I hope you will never utter this vile phrase again "Parents aren't required to know the rules.

Vile is too negative (Red card level)

Vile was your word not mine. I support referee discretion and always have and have never stated otherwise. http://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/entering-and-leaving-the-field.3744/page-4#post-100525

What winds me up are referees that show up unprepared physically and mentally to perform their paid duties, and refs that blame shift by claiming there is some sort of equivalency between a refs responsibility and parents responsibility to know the LOTG. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Surfref]

Vile was your word not mine. I support referee discretion and always have and have never stated otherwise. http://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/entering-and-leaving-the-field.3744/page-4#post-100525

What winds me up are referees that show up unprepared physically and mentally to perform their paid duties, and refs that blame shift by claiming there is some sort of equivalency between a refs responsibility and parents responsibility to know the LOTG. Thanks for the debate.

I don't give a crap if the parents know the LOTG. I only care that the players and coaches have a basic understanding. If little Susie's grandmother comes to watch the game, she more than likely will not know the LOTG and just wants to see Susie kick the ball.

My job as a referee is to be the expert on the LOTG and how to interpret and apply them. Most players and coaches only have a rudimentary understanding of the LOTG. The last thing any referee wants is a player that is a LOTG expert. My daughter is a college player and referee(since she was 12y/o) who knows the LOTG well enough to be on a Surf Cup BU18 and a BU17 finals crew. She talks/questions referees in "referee language" and knows what refs are looking at, their positioning, and how far to push the LOTG without getting called for a foul. I have seen her foul opponents in a way that the referee does not see or thinks the player went down on their own. I have seen her talk a referee out of giving a card to one of her teammates on two occasions. I have also seen her commit Yellow card offenses, which I was not happy about, off the ball that the CR and ARs had no clue what happened. Her comments on those offenses was that the referee was not calling the fouls and keeping her teammates safe so she had to be the enforcer.

So, just be a parent and cheer for your kid. Let the referees, coaches and players do their jobs. We know the referee, coach, and player are going to make mistakes, so just accept it and be glad you get to watch your kid.

 

[coachrefparent]

Come on, you never have berated a golf official?

I'll admit I'm a little confused, your premise is that soccer fans would be better if they didn't know the rules. Yet MWN is claiming that I have an ethical duty to know the rules and I'm vile for suggesting otherwise. Setting aside the fact that we all agree that parents shouldn't yell at refs, which would be better for parents, to know the rules? or not know the rules? or only know rules up to a certain point...which would be?

Yes, soccer is different. In no other sport (non-judging sport) is a single person by design given such wide discretion to officiate, control and set the tone of the game where a single score carries so much weight. I think why possibly American fans get so frustated with soccer refs is they are expecting consistency in calls as they see in other sports. However, they don't understand there is no mechanism for consistency in soccer, as this thread clearly illustrates, and is laid out in the LOTG (refer to MWM's post). This is due to the overriding concept of Spirit of the Game, which is a cool thing about soccer but is a double-edged sword. Heck this thread illustrates that its not even clear what the rules are and that there is a body of laws, or at least interpretations, outside of what is published (granted that the BOL is anomaly, but look at opinions from refs about what constitutes a handball).

I'll say it again, the issue is you shouldn't abuse refs, period. Whether the parent doing the abusing knows the laws, or not, is irrelevant, other than its clear those who don't know the laws are far more offensive to refs.

No, I never said soccer fans would be better if they didn't know the rules. My premise is that NO FANS really know the rules in depth of ANY sport, but only soccer fans think they do, and open their mouths so consistently challenging officials, and prove their ignorance. A broad brush? Yes, but its my position.

Many sports have single, double or three officials: volleyball, golf, basketball, hockey, and baseball (4), making judgment calls by the second. Fans of those sports accept that discretion, but fans of soccer complain that the discretion is inconsistent or arbitrary.

It really boils down to ignorance and experience. People with a long history of soccer experience and knowledge understand and accept that there is discretion, even if they don't agree with a particular call. They understand the rules, without having to parse and analyze them.

Parents of 7-8-9 year olds that never played soccer competitively, or studied the laws as an official, are emotional and want to bicker over things that are meaningless and above their heads. I don't see this with inexperienced parents of kids in flag football, gymnastics, and other youth sports.

 

[coachrefparent]

I thought the entire thing was it was supposed to be fun for the kids? None of the minutia matter SO LONG AS THERE'S CONSISTENCY. Confusing the kids, and making them worried about what's going to happen when they get to the field any particular day, is not fun for the kids, particularly the goalkeeper, who is sitting in bed the night before worrying about it. Throwing a goalkeeper off by forcing him to retake a goalkick except rolling it (and then throwing him off for the fast break that comes) is not fun for the player. Having the coach have to yell new instructions to the goalkeeper because the goalkeeper is now confused is not fun for the goalkeeper (one coach even left an empty net for a few seconds to chat with the keeper). Taking away a goal because the goalkeeper initiated a fast break and didn't wait for the build up line to set is not fun for the team. Confusing the parents, who are scratching their heads about "what's this ref doing", and bringing their frustration to the field is not helping kids enjoy the game. Having the coaches argue with each other and the ref about how to call the new rule is not fun for the kids. The leagues have a responsibility to make sure the refs and coaches are on the same page. Beyond that, you can have the goalkeeper bunnyhop before taking a goalkick for all I care.

Separate and apart from this is whether the new buildup rules are actually teaching teams to actually build up (I'd argue so far no...less backpassing, more booting, primarily due to the new offside rule).

Counselor: Kids are not worried about what's going to happen when they get to the field any particular day unless they are berated by their helicopter parents about it. No kid that does not have a tiger parent in their face, complaining about the rules and what happened the game before and how bad the referees are, sits in bed the night before worrying about it.

Sounds like a miserable experience for your kid. Leave it alone. Look in the mirror. Be positive. Don't analyze the game with your little tiny kid. Soccer is not a courtroom. Leave your profession at the office. You are killing your kid's enjoyment of the game, not the referees.

 

[Grace T.]

My daughter is a college player and referee(since she was 12y/o) who knows the LOTG well enough to be on a Surf Cup BU18 and a BU17 finals crew. She talks/questions referees in "referee language" and knows what refs are looking at, their positioning, and how far to push the LOTG without getting called for a foul. I have seen her foul opponents in a way that the referee does not see or thinks the player went down on their own. .

You've just pointed out as well that there's a split among refs/players/coaches/parents of players/even casual fans of professional soccer teams. There is a camp that believes players should be free to push the LOTG as far as possible without breaking them...for example, rough contact or an elbow here and there is fine so long as its done in such a way that either the ref sees or the particular ref doesn't take as far as a calling it if seen...they also believe in efficient breaches of the LOTG (e.g. that deliberate handball is o.k. if it might otherwise take a certain goal down to an uncertain pk and saves the game or maybe the ref doesn't see it)...call it the Ibrahimovic school of soccer. Winning is the organizing principle.

There is also a camp that believes the spirit of the law is what matters and that players shouldn't be trying to get away with things whether or not the ref sees them. They believe that what the spirit of the game is more important, and integrity is the organizing principle.

Now that's an oversimplication. It's actually more of a spectrum. Few people believe that a team should just roll over and stick to the absolute letter of the LOTG...such a team wouldn't last long. Few people believe that it's a duty for a player to do anything what it takes to win even if other players get hurt, so long at it's not called (well...maybe Ibrahimovic). But there is this tension in soccer, and it's not just in youth, and not just in the U.S., but it's probably one of the reasons why soccer has difficulty in the U.S.

 

[Grace T.]

Counselor: Kids are not worried about what's going to happen when they get to the field any particular day unless they are berated by their helicopter parents about it. No kid that does not have a tiger parent in their face, complaining about the rules and what happened the game before and how bad the referees are, sits in bed the night before worrying about it.

Sounds like a miserable experience for your kid. Leave it alone. Look in the mirror. Be positive. Don't analyze the game with your little tiny kid. Soccer is not a courtroom. Leave your profession at the office. You are killing your kid's enjoyment of the game, not the referees.

I've written before I rather my kid not play goalie...I rather my kid not play club soccer and go back to AYSO. Soccer wasn't my idea and I'm hoping he goes on the academic rather than the soccer track into college. And I've offered plenty of times to not help him anymore or to let him step down...no dice. Am I perfect? No. Could I stand to back off every once in a while? Absolutely. But there's a lot of kid's killing the enjoyment of the game going around....whether parents, refs who don't adequately prepare or aren't fit to do the game, people who won't step up to do the difficult job of reffing, coaches who are more into it for the cash than the kids, leagues that are run for the businesses and not for the kids. We do a lot of AYSO bashing around here, but sometimes I wonder: maybe we should look at some of their principles and then ask what are we doing wrong?

 

[watfly]

I don't give a crap if the parents know the LOTG. I only care that the players and coaches have a basic understanding. If little Susie's grandmother comes to watch the game, she more than likely will not know the LOTG and just wants to see Susie kick the ball.

My job as a referee is to be the expert on the LOTG and how to interpret and apply them. Most players and coaches only have a rudimentary understanding of the LOTG. The last thing any referee wants is a player that is a LOTG expert. My daughter is a college player and referee(since she was 12y/o) who knows the LOTG well enough to be on a Surf Cup BU18 and a BU17 finals crew. She talks/questions referees in "referee language" and knows what refs are looking at, their positioning, and how far to push the LOTG without getting called for a foul. I have seen her foul opponents in a way that the referee does not see or thinks the player went down on their own. I have seen her talk a referee out of giving a card to one of her teammates on two occasions. I have also seen her commit Yellow card offenses, which I was not happy about, off the ball that the CR and ARs had no clue what happened. Her comments on those offenses was that the referee was not calling the fouls and keeping her teammates safe so she had to be the enforcer.

So, just be a parent and cheer for your kid. Let the referees, coaches and players do their jobs. We know the referee, coach, and player are going to make mistakes, so just accept it and be glad you get to watch your kid.

Voice of reason, well said.