Question for the Refs...

[coachrefparent]

US Soccer and Cal South do provide good training on time management. At our July 2018 referee association meeting Time Management was the subject. Law 7 does cover Duration of the Match and the third line item addresses Allowance for Time Lost. The referee may add time for substitutions, injured players, wasting time, yellow and red cards, water breaks, and "any other cause. If no 4th official the CR is supposed to announce the minimal time additional time which time may be added to that if there is a reason. If there is a Penalty kick, the game cannot be stopped until the PK is completed. We had an interesting training at RPD that showed during the WC that each game only had active play for 54 minutes (not exactly sure of the minutes but it was close to 54) of the 90 minute games. The lost time was for throw-ins, setting up for set plays like goal kick, free kick corner, substitutions, injuries, etc. So, there are plenty of reasons a referee can use to justify adding time.

"Any other cause" of "time lost'"; not simply any other cause that the clock was running. Normal stoppages such as goal kicks, and a player kicking a ball to a corner, are not "time lost." A referee can't (shouldn't) add time just because there was no "active play" (in your example.) The full sentence is "any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)." Any other cause still refers to "lost" time.

But this has nothing to do with the question presented, which is whether time can (should) be added to allow a free kick (other than a PK) after time has expired. If the referee has already decided to add time (and is permitted under the local rules), that's fine. But to arbitrarily add time after time has expired so the offense gets "it's last chance," is simply contrary to the laws, as we all know.

 

[baldref]

No offense taken. But I do note the parents are the ones paying our fee. Yes, the kids are the most important and they are the primary customer, but they don't pay the bill. Parents do have some right to understand what's going on in the game they put their kid in and are paying so handsomely for. Sure, it's easy to point to the Laws of the Game and say learn them and to scoff when the parents yell for offside on a corner. But we already established there's a lot of vagueness in the Laws that leaves a lot in the discretion of the ref. And unfortunately the refs aren't calling it all the same. If some refs are taking the approach that time is over when it's over (taking into account the added time rules, if permitted by the particular league, and PKs) but others are letting it play out, that's an issue.

I don't believe of a "vagueness" in the laws. I believe the laws are written, and the advice is given, to allow this game to be different from all others in that the "spirit of the game" should be the most important factor in officiating. that mostly means, let the game flow and do everything in your power to let the players decided the match, not some technicality in the rules. if a foul doesn't need to be called, if it's better for the game that it isn't called, then it shouldn't be called. and as for the notion that since a parent writes a check to the club, that they have any special privileges or are allowed to make themselves part of the game, that's not something i buy into or care about at all. again, i'm out there for the players. if the parents want to become more knowledgeable and understand what their kids are doing, i encourage that and support that. if they think that because they paid for their kid's soccer, that they're allowed to question calls, or bitch and complain because they think some referee isn't doing it right, i 100% disagree.

 

[Grace T.]

I don't believe of a "vagueness" in the laws. I believe the laws are written, and the advice is given, to allow this game to be different from all others in that the "spirit of the game" should be the most important factor in officiating. that mostly means, let the game flow and do everything in your power to let the players decided the match, not some technicality in the rules. if a foul doesn't need to be called, if it's better for the game that it isn't called, then it shouldn't be called. and as for the notion that since a parent writes a check to the club, that they have any special privileges or are allowed to make themselves part of the game, that's not something i buy into or care about at all. again, i'm out there for the players. if the parents want to become more knowledgeable and understand what their kids are doing, i encourage that and support that. if they think that because they paid for their kid's soccer, that they're allowed to question calls, or bitch and complain because they think some referee isn't doing it right, i 100% disagree.

I like your post and I agree that just because they pay, that doesn't give parents the right to question calls. That's not a reasonable expectation. Nor is it reasonable to expect a ref to be perfect in all the calls. Otherwise why hire a referee. But there are expectations they have as people who pay for a service including: a ref that cares enough to give it a reasonable effort, a ref that has a basic level of understanding of the Laws and how they are to be applied, a ref that is impartial and a set of rules that both players and spectators have a reasonable expectation of being applied going in.

Funny, but the "spirit of the game" was one of the topics in our ref meeting last night. We talked about "do everything in your power to let the players decide the match". The instructor talked about how if both teams are playing very physical, and neither is complaining, maybe you give them a little more leeway and go light on the whistle. That the players themselves will give a reading of how tightly the match should be called. The problem with that, though, is that here in SoCal we have a lot of diversity in playing styles. I asked well what happens if you get a team that's very technical v. a team that's been trained in the anything-goes-school....it's impossible to please both. I don't buy the ref koolaid on this point. It's these differing expectations that create the bad situations we see on the field, I'd argue, and it's the proximate cause of the bad behavior from players on the field, parents on the side lines, and bad management from certain refs that aren't really good (for whatever reason) match managers.

 

[Surfref]

"Any other cause" of "time lost'"; not simply any other cause that the clock was running. Normal stoppages such as goal kicks, and a player kicking a ball to a corner, are not "time lost." A referee can't (shouldn't) add time just because there was no "active play" (in your example.) The full sentence is "any other cause, including any significant delay to a restart (e.g. goal celebrations)." Any other cause still refers to "lost" time.

But this has nothing to do with the question presented, which is whether time can (should) be added to allow a free kick (other than a PK) after time has expired. If the referee has already decided to add time (and is permitted under the local rules), that's fine. But to arbitrarily add time after time has expired so the offense gets "it's last chance," is simply contrary to the laws, as we all know.

We have a communication error. With, "We had an interesting training at RPD that showed during the WC that each game only had active play for 54 minutes (not exactly sure of the minutes but it was close to 54) of the 90 minute games. The lost time was for throw-ins, setting up for set plays like goal kick, free kick corner, substitutions, injuries, etc. So, there are plenty of reasons a referee can use to justify adding time.", I was just trying to show how much time is spent with the ball not in active play. I purposely did not use the phrase from the LOTG "time lost," but used the phrase "lost time" as an indicator of how much time the ball was not in active play. They also said during the training that the addition time added to each half in the WC games was longer than in years past by an average of 2 minutes per game. This may have been due to the time needed for VAR.

If there is a DFK with 10 seconds to go and the defense causes me to have to go through the entire setup of a ceremonial free kick (moving the wall) then I will add time. On the other hand, I have ended the game when the offense is taking their time getting set up. When there is less than a minute remaining and a set play situation (corner kick, DFK, IDFK, throw-in) I always tell the players "less than a minute" or "less than 30 seconds." This will usually keep the players from delaying the restart.

 

[Surfref]

....The problem with that, though, is that here in SoCal we have a lot of diversity in playing styles. I asked well what happens if you get a team that's very technical v. a team that's been trained in the anything-goes-school....it's impossible to please both. I don't buy the ref koolaid on this point. It's these differing expectations that create the bad situations we see on the field, I'd argue, and it's the proximate cause of the bad behavior from players on the field, parents on the side lines, and bad management from certain refs that aren't really good (for whatever reason) match managers.

This is what makes refereeing difficult. Anyone can memorize the LOTG, but the true art of refereeing a soccer match is the actual game management and maintaining a smooth flow to the game with minimal stoppages. The referee has to factor in the playing style of each team and individual players, the temperament of the players, the coach and coaching style, and to a very lesser extent the spectators. The spectators play more of a role in the youth game then the adult game. In the youth game the spectators can actually influence what the players do and say on the field. For instance, if I have a coach giving direction to his midfielders to pinch in and some dad on the other sideline yelling at his kid to get wide, then that is counter productive to the flow of the game and will confuse some players. I will address the "dad coach" with the coach and the coach can shut the dad up or ignore him. I will squash spectator comments quickly if what they are saying is being repeated to me on the field. For instance, if a dad yells "call it both ways ref" (I hate that saying) and then a player says the same thing to me I will usually talk to the coach on the next stoppage and ask the coach to shut that dad up or have him leave.

 

[baldref]

But there are expectations they have as people who pay for a service including: a ref that cares enough to give it a reasonable effort, a ref that has a basic level of understanding of the Laws and how they are to be applied, a ref that is impartial and a set of rules that both players and spectators have a reasonable expectation of being applied going in.

Who says this isn't the case? I think all of those things are pretty much a given, except for a very minute percentage. Just like any other "profession". There are bad lawyers, bad cops, bad doctors, etc. etc. etc..... And they're making more than $18/hr.

 

[Grace T.]

Who says this isn't the case? I think all of those things are pretty much a given, except for a very minute percentage. Just like any other "profession". There are bad lawyers, bad cops, bad doctors, etc. etc. etc..... And they're making more than $18/hr.

Agree, except for the last point. And that last point is not really your every day ref's fault....the "reasonable expectation of the rules being applied going in"....players and parents have a right to know what game they are playing and its rules: does the match end when time (including added time, PKs and any additional permitted extensions) is over or if a DFK is given does the match end after time is expired and there's a reasonable chance to play out? Otherwise, it's potentially (regardless of how the ref rules) the ref deciding the match instead of the players. Look, the players have a right to know going in if they are playing chess or checkers...are they playing monopoly with free parking or not...soccer is not supposed to be like Dungeons and Dragons where every referee calls it like he sees "fair" and decides which rules to apply and how. And when the expectations of the players or parents clash with the ideas of "fairness" of the ref, that's when you have all the conflicts which both sides are always complaining about. Clarifying how things are called to increase consistency, and having those clarifications in an easily accessible source so that everyone can see them, is the best thing the soccer orgs can do to removes these conflicts....and that's a soccer org, not a ref, problem.

 

[baldref]

Agree, except for the last point. And that last point is not really your every day ref's fault....the "reasonable expectation of the rules being applied going in"....players and parents have a right to know what game they are playing and its rules: does the match end when time (including added time, PKs and any additional permitted extensions) is over or if a DFK is given does the match end after time is expired and there's a reasonable chance to play out? Otherwise, it's potentially (regardless of how the ref rules) the ref deciding the match instead of the players. Look, the players have a right to know going in if they are playing chess or checkers...are they playing monopoly with free parking or not...soccer is not supposed to be like Dungeons and Dragons where every referee calls it like he sees "fair" and decides which rules to apply and how. And when the expectations of the players or parents clash with the ideas of "fairness" of the ref, that's when you have all the conflicts which both sides are always complaining about. Clarifying how things are called to increase consistency, and having those clarifications in an easily accessible source so that everyone can see them, is the best thing the soccer orgs can do to removes these conflicts....and that's a soccer org, not a ref, problem.

as was explained, time is over when it's over. goes back to the spirit of the game thing. it's not in the spirit of the game to end time when there's a shot screaming at the net. and, again, i don't care if the parents aren't happy about it because one set of parents is usually unhappy about it no matter what. i ended a half on a corner after repeatedly telling the team that time is almost up, hurry up if you want the kick and they didn't. blew the whistle and the parents and coach went nuts. you can't do that! time was up, and i used reasonable means to let the players know when it would be up.

i think you're exaggerating and maybe using one or two poor examples and extrapolating that to "usually happens".

and in my opinion, the rules and laws work wonderfully. it's not football where there's a lineman holding some guy on the opposite side of the field and gets penalized when it has nothing to do with the play. it's not basketball where the last twenty seconds can take five minutes and there are cameras focused on the timer trying to dissect it into hundredths of seconds. it's soccer. it's free flowing. it's not supposed to be rigid and unforgiving. it's supposed to be just the way it is. it's so much more enjoyable than any other team sport for these specific reasons. and if the parents can't wrap their heads around that, too bad.

 

[espola]

I don't believe of a "vagueness" in the laws. I believe the laws are written, and the advice is given, to allow this game to be different from all others in that the "spirit of the game" should be the most important factor in officiating. that mostly means, let the game flow and do everything in your power to let the players decided the match, not some technicality in the rules. if a foul doesn't need to be called, if it's better for the game that it isn't called, then it shouldn't be called. and as for the notion that since a parent writes a check to the club, that they have any special privileges or are allowed to make themselves part of the game, that's not something i buy into or care about at all. again, i'm out there for the players. if the parents want to become more knowledgeable and understand what their kids are doing, i encourage that and support that. if they think that because they paid for their kid's soccer, that they're allowed to question calls, or bitch and complain because they think some referee isn't doing it right, i 100% disagree.

Which rules do you consider to be just technicalities?

 

[Grace T.]

as was explained, time is over when it's over. goes back to the spirit of the game thing. it's not in the spirit of the game to end time when there's a shot screaming at the net. and, again, i don't care if the parents aren't happy about it because one set of parents is usually unhappy about it no matter what. i ended a half on a corner after repeatedly telling the team that time is almost up, hurry up if you want the kick and they didn't. blew the whistle and the parents and coach went nuts. you can't do that! time was up, and i used reasonable means to let the players know when it would be up.

i think you're exaggerating and maybe using one or two poor examples and extrapolating that to "usually happens".

and in my opinion, the rules and laws work wonderfully. it's not football where there's a lineman holding some guy on the opposite side of the field and gets penalized when it has nothing to do with the play. it's not basketball where the last twenty seconds can take five minutes and there are cameras focused on the timer trying to dissect it into hundredths of seconds. it's soccer. it's free flowing. it's not supposed to be rigid and unforgiving. it's supposed to be just the way it is. it's so much more enjoyable than any other team sport for these specific reasons. and if the parents can't wrap their heads around that, too bad.

You're just arguing that the Laws are like Dungeons and Dragons...basically the ref has great flexibility to use discretion in the name of the "spirit of the game". I don't think that's what soccer should be but that's just my opinion. And what's worse, if that's what it is the soccer orgs shouldn't be arrogant and pretend that there are actual rules which apply from game to game by calling them "Laws" and using words like "MUST" when it comes to throw ins or trying to do things like VAR since it ultimately doesn't matter. At a minimum, and in the end, if that's what the orgs want soccer to be then they should just come out and say it...but there are consequences (as I always tell my kids) to one's actions and doing that would consequences from the mundane (new refs might be scared off by the amount of discretion they really hold) to the more serious (soccers never really going to take off in the US because Americans hate arbitrariness). It would, however, remove a source of confusion for people and maybe ramp down the player-on-player violence or the misconduct from coaches and parents on the sideline...if the rules have a very broad interpretive scope based on what the ref wants to do, don't complain when you chose to play the game and on any given Saturday it bites your team in the butt. My only comment, when all is said and done, is that the time ending discussion is just an illustration to show that we aren't all on the same page, so we shouldn't be surprised when conflict results from the confusion.

 

[baldref]

You're just arguing that the Laws are like Dungeons and Dragons...basically the ref has great flexibility to use discretion in the name of the "spirit of the game". I don't think that's what soccer should be but that's just my opinion. And what's worse, if that's what it is the soccer orgs shouldn't be arrogant and pretend that there are actual rules which apply from game to game by calling them "Laws" and using words like "MUST" when it comes to throw ins or trying to do things like VAR since it ultimately doesn't matter. At a minimum, and in the end, if that's what the orgs want soccer to be then they should just come out and say it...but there are consequences (as I always tell my kids) to one's actions and doing that would consequences from the mundane (new refs might be scared off by the amount of discretion they really hold) to the more serious (soccers never really going to take off in the US because Americans hate arbitrariness). It would, however, remove a source of confusion for people and maybe ramp down the player-on-player violence or the misconduct from coaches and parents on the sideline...if the rules have a very broad interpretive scope based on what the ref wants to do, don't complain when you chose to play the game and on any given Saturday it bites your team in the butt. My only comment, when all is said and done, is that the time ending discussion is just an illustration to show that we aren't all on the same page, so we shouldn't be surprised when conflict results from the confusion.

that's not what i said at all. but ok.

 

[baldref]

My only comment, when all is said and done, is that the time ending discussion is just an illustration to show that we aren't all on the same page, so we shouldn't be surprised when conflict results from the confusion

i don't see any confusion. i understand completely what is being discussed. i understand completely how we are trained and what is expected. you said yourself that your instructor spoke of the same things. and you say americans don't like arbitrariness. i don't think it's abritrary, and i don't know how you speak for america.

 

[Soccer Dad & Ref]

You're just arguing that the Laws are like Dungeons and Dragons...basically the ref has great flexibility to use discretion in the name of the "spirit of the game". I don't think that's what soccer should be but that's just my opinion. And what's worse, if that's what it is the soccer orgs shouldn't be arrogant and pretend that there are actual rules which apply from game to game by calling them "Laws" and using words like "MUST" when it comes to throw ins or trying to do things like VAR since it ultimately doesn't matter. At a minimum, and in the end, if that's what the orgs want soccer to be then they should just come out and say it...but there are consequences (as I always tell my kids) to one's actions and doing that would consequences from the mundane (new refs might be scared off by the amount of discretion they really hold) to the more serious (soccers never really going to take off in the US because Americans hate arbitrariness). It would, however, remove a source of confusion for people and maybe ramp down the player-on-player violence or the misconduct from coaches and parents on the sideline...if the rules have a very broad interpretive scope based on what the ref wants to do, don't complain when you chose to play the game and on any given Saturday it bites your team in the butt. My only comment, when all is said and done, is that the time ending discussion is just an illustration to show that we aren't all on the same page, so we shouldn't be surprised when conflict results from the confusion.

I love arbitrariness...

 

[espola]

i don't see any confusion. i understand completely what is being discussed. i understand completely how we are trained and what is expected. you said yourself that your instructor spoke of the same things. and you say americans don't like arbitrariness. i don't think it's abritrary, and i don't know how you speak for america.

It's arbitrary.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Forum ref’s a question for any or all of you. After how many fouls which are not flagrant but certainly worthy of being called do you issue a yellow card?

 

[baldref]

Forum ref’s a question for any or all of you. After how many fouls which are not flagrant but certainly worthy of being called do you issue a yellow card?

Depends a little on situations. Are they just clumsy or see they careless with some intent?

Could be two or three, could be four..... I definitely let them know before they get the card

 

[LASTMAN14]

Thanks.