What to do when ref tells players before the game that he has bad eyesight?

[watfly]

There are two philosophies to refereeing. You can either view yourself as the defender of the LOTG, or as the peacekeeper. The defender of the LOTG does the game of "Soccer" justice. He follows all the rules, even if both teams are not aware of one particular law, the referee does not care, he enforces them. This is a good refereeing philosophy for most games, especially the competitive games that determine futures.

Then there is the refereeing as a peacekeeper. What you do in this style is you imagine that the two teams are just having a scrimmage or pick up game with each other without a referee. You then call whatever both teams think need to be called and are there in case the teams cannot agree on what the result should be.
For example, two unskilled girls are running side by side, there is fair contact and one girl falls down and sprains her wrist because she doesn't know how to fall properly. Under the LOTG, this is not a foul. However, everyone on the injured girls team think it is a foul, what's more, the girl that bumped her down thinks it was a foul and her whole team thinks she committed a foul. You are now in a situation where everyone on the pitch except you thinks there was a foul.

I think that's a valid observation. It always struck me that a scrimmage with the coaches "officiating" always has this nice flow and openness that you don't see in a ref directed game. Of course, coaches want to see kids play and ref's are charged with enforcing the LOTG as they deem appropriate, so it's bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe a simpler definition of your point is officiating from a "player's perspective" or a "ref's perspective". Maybe the former is the what a lot of us refer to as "let them play".

I don't pretend to be an expert on how things are done in Europe, but my son played in the Gothia Cup this summer. I probably watched a couple dozen games and spoke to a few refs and they definitely have a "let them play" philosophy. The refs I spoke to said they are taught to maximize playing time and to keep their interference to a minimum. They take a much lower profile in games than here in the States. Unless the foul resulted in loss of possession by your team (or there was blood!), they typically didn't call it, kind of like a defacto advantage. They managed the game with communication as opposed to the whistle. A lot of American parents would completely lose their minds if little Johnny's game was reffed this way, I had some WTF moments myself, but it did result in a better flow and more soccer. Of course, one of the issues with this approach is that it can give the more physical, but less skilled, team an advantage.

Not saying that either approach is better than the other, just different, with their own pros and cons.

 

[Eagle33]

I think that's a valid observation. It always struck me that a scrimmage with the coaches "officiating" always has this nice flow and openness that you don't see in a ref directed game. Of course, coaches want to see kids play and ref's are charged with enforcing the LOTG as they deem appropriate, so it's bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe a simpler definition of your point is officiating from a "player's perspective" or a "ref's perspective". Maybe the former is the what a lot of us refer to as "let them play".

I don't pretend to be an expert on how things are done in Europe, but my son played in the Gothia Cup this summer. I probably watched a couple dozen games and spoke to a few refs and they definitely have a "let them play" philosophy. The refs I spoke to said they are taught to maximize playing time and to keep their interference to a minimum. They take a much lower profile in games than here in the States. Unless the foul resulted in loss of possession by your team (or there was blood!), they typically didn't call it, kind of like a defacto advantage. They managed the game with communication as opposed to the whistle. A lot of American parents would completely lose their minds if little Johnny's game was reffed this way, I had some WTF moments myself, but it did result in a better flow and more soccer. Of course, one of the issues with this approach is that it can give the more physical, but less skilled, team an advantage.

Not saying that either approach is better than the other, just different, with their own pros and cons.

Great post. The difference is many of those refs in Europe actually played the game and most of the refs here did not.

 

[espola]

I think that's a valid observation. It always struck me that a scrimmage with the coaches "officiating" always has this nice flow and openness that you don't see in a ref directed game. Of course, coaches want to see kids play and ref's are charged with enforcing the LOTG as they deem appropriate, so it's bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe a simpler definition of your point is officiating from a "player's perspective" or a "ref's perspective". Maybe the former is the what a lot of us refer to as "let them play".

I don't pretend to be an expert on how things are done in Europe, but my son played in the Gothia Cup this summer. I probably watched a couple dozen games and spoke to a few refs and they definitely have a "let them play" philosophy. The refs I spoke to said they are taught to maximize playing time and to keep their interference to a minimum. They take a much lower profile in games than here in the States. Unless the foul resulted in loss of possession by your team (or there was blood!), they typically didn't call it, kind of like a defacto advantage. They managed the game with communication as opposed to the whistle. A lot of American parents would completely lose their minds if little Johnny's game was reffed this way, I had some WTF moments myself, but it did result in a better flow and more soccer. Of course, one of the issues with this approach is that it can give the more physical, but less skilled, team an advantage.

Not saying that either approach is better than the other, just different, with their own pros and cons.

When we played Gothia Cup in 2007, the Norwegians at our table at the Leaders' Party complained about how clueless the Swedish referees were. I guess it is universal.

 

[outside!]

Great post. The difference is many of those refs in Europe actually played the game and most of the refs here did not.

I remember watching one of the U?? WNT games from somewhere in Europe a few years ago. The commentators kept harping on how "physical" the US players were.

 

[Surfref]

Great post. The difference is many of those refs in Europe actually played the game and most of the refs here did not.

How do you know most US refs have not played? 9 out of 10 refs I know have played.

 

[coachrefparent]

How do you know most US refs have not played? 9 out of 10 refs I know have played.

Because he said so and believes it so it must be true. And if he gets a bunch of people to agree with him, then those that don't believe it are denying science.

 

[Grace T.]

I remember watching one of the U?? WNT games from somewhere in Europe a few years ago. The commentators kept harping on how "physical" the US players were.

This is a fair point. It comes from our UK and Latin American influences which tend to be more physical

When I was in Italy last summer, one of our guides was a youth ref in Rome. We were chatting football so begged him to have lunch with us which they don’t normally do. They call it different depending on the level but at the younger ages things are called pretty tight so the players can properly learn what is a trifling foul and the technical fouls like throw ins are called too because by age 11 even the lowly rec players are expected to know how to throw in properly...later let it ride....it’s assumed they know already because they’ve been properly taught. From dys pen pal, in the UK they have similar ref issues to us

I’d actually there are 3 SoCal schools of throught: defender of the laws, let the players set the tone, let em play. The issues with the last 2 schools occur when the teams have differing expectations of what the game should be.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

nope. that wasn't it. from your previous posts, i can tell you like to hear yourself talk.

"You also don't need to be that fit to do a 7v7 game. If he literally does not leave the center circle all game, he will still be closer to play than most fit referees doing a U19 game."

that's borderline crap. that was what i was referring to. i haven't read the rest of this last post you made. probably won't get around to it....

I do like to hear myself talk, doesn't mean I am wrong though. I guess me knowing you didn't have the patience to read the whole post and me writing it anyways proves that point.
There are like 15 yards between the edge of the center circle and the top of the penalty arc in some of those 7v7 fields. 15 yards away from play is an acceptable distance in U19. I don't think that is that controversial.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

I think that's a valid observation. It always struck me that a scrimmage with the coaches "officiating" always has this nice flow and openness that you don't see in a ref directed game. Of course, coaches want to see kids play and ref's are charged with enforcing the LOTG as they deem appropriate, so it's bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe a simpler definition of your point is officiating from a "player's perspective" or a "ref's perspective". Maybe the former is the what a lot of us refer to as "let them play".
Not saying that either approach is better than the other, just different, with their own pros and cons.

Here is a more articulate article on the subject that you are talking about. The interesting observation is that the higher level the ref is, the more likely he is to have the "let them play" or "game manager" point of view. I know, I know, "appeal to authority" argument, but whatever. It's a survey so at least it is pseudoscience.

http://www.psychref.org/2018/01/the-referee-as-game-manager.html

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

The refs should always call a game according to the LOTG regardless of age or what parents might think. If only the ref knows the rule then he/she can quickly tell everybody else what call was made and carry on. A ref not using the LOTG to call a game only results in further confusion down the road.

I was mostly referring to the AA-C Presidio teams that will stop playing once they hit high school and adult games. For them, "down the road" is kind of irrelevant. The adults are lost causes and want the game to be played with 1970 laws and any attempt to educate them is fruitless. And for the rec and low level competitive kids, they just want to have fun in a safe environment, so why not let them. No need to shove the Laws of the Game down their throat if they don't like them.

 

[baldref]

I do like to hear myself talk, doesn't mean I am wrong though. I guess me knowing you didn't have the patience to read the whole post and me writing it anyways proves that point.
There are like 15 yards between the edge of the center circle and the top of the penalty arc in some of those 7v7 fields. 15 yards away from play is an acceptable distance in U19. I don't think that is that controversial.

Doesn’t mean you’re right either

 

[SageMajor]

I think that's a valid observation. It always struck me that a scrimmage with the coaches "officiating" always has this nice flow and openness that you don't see in a ref directed game. Of course, coaches want to see kids play and ref's are charged with enforcing the LOTG as they deem appropriate, so it's bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Maybe a simpler definition of your point is officiating from a "player's perspective" or a "ref's perspective". Maybe the former is the what a lot of us refer to as "let them play".
.

Having coaches of opposing teams ref is a recipe for disaster. I watched a game this weekend where the two coaches got into an argument about what a foul was or was not. Multiple slide tackles (10), most clean against the same player. One coach saying every one was a foul the other saying none were fouls. I though 2 were. the one from behind that got ball first then the players legs from behind, the 2 legged studs first one that sent the player out for the rest of the game. The other 8 were good tackles.

Letting the coaches do games that are competitive is not a good idea. Safety is much more important than flow of the game. I have been lucky and only had 1 ambulance come to any of my games, a broken wrist going up for a header against his own team mate.

 

[watfly]

Having coaches of opposing teams ref is a recipe for disaster. I watched a game this weekend where the two coaches got into an argument about what a foul was or was not. Multiple slide tackles (10), most clean against the same player. One coach saying every one was a foul the other saying none were fouls. I though 2 were. the one from behind that got ball first then the players legs from behind, the 2 legged studs first one that sent the player out for the rest of the game. The other 8 were good tackles.

Letting the coaches do games that are competitive is not a good idea. Safety is much more important than flow of the game. I have been lucky and only had 1 ambulance come to any of my games, a broken wrist going up for a header against his own team mate.

I was in no way proposing that coaches should ref competitive games, that would be a bad idea. I was simply mentioning scrimmages to illustrate a point.