Ask me about being a FIFA-certified soccer referee

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you want reviewed in soccer exactly? Goals, fouls, offsides??

[/ QUOTE ]

Propbably all three as they usually fall in together and are the cause of long on-field arguments between the players and the ref which waste a lot more time than having a guy in front of the tv being able to say with clarity that the player wasn't offside and it is a goal.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you keep from falling asleep during the games?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL! Good one.
This reminds me of the Simpson episode where professional soccer comes to Springfield. The soccer commercial gets Homer excited and he takes his family to the game. Then the game turns into a 0-0 match with tons of backward passes and no scoring. Homer falls asleep....

The glory days of soccer which had 3-2. 4-3, and 5-4 games are dead. Instead their is lots of grabbing, holding, and cowardly refs who blow the whistle for offsides when in doubt... The typical 1-0 and 1-1 matches are only exciting to hard core fans....

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a rugby and cricket fan. I'd like to know why soccer doesn't get with the times and have a proper third off-field referee who can check all the video angles as these other sports now do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be against that if it was used for things like judging whether the ball completely crossed the goal line (like Hurst's 2nd goal in the 1966 World Cup Final, for example). I think that technology has more relevance to the game of cricket, though. FYI, I would also like to become certified as a cricket umpire and have studied the Laws of Cricket extensively, but being an American I wouldn't be given 1. much chance to get practice in in the USA, or 2. much of a fair shake internationally (except maybe as an oddity, "the American cricket umpire", kinda like the freak in the sideshow), since I'm not from a Test-playing nation, so unless I move back overseas someday it will probably be a forever-unfulfilled dream. There are plenty of situations that arise in a cricket match that call for video replay, or that video replay COULD be used for even if it isn't right now. For example, whether or not a ball caught by a close fielder was slammed into the ground before the catch was taken. Whether a running batsman got his bat down safely into his ground before his stumps went flying. Whether a batter who was given out stumped was completely out of his ground when the wicketkeeper whipped off the bails. Whether an outfielder had any part of his body outside the boundary when attempting to save a ball going for 4 or 6. It isn't used for this purpose now, but video replay could help cricket umps tremendously in making the correct LBW calls, although I admit using it for the could be quite unwieldy if the ump made the TV sign every time a shout went up for a close leg-before decision. Soccer doesn't have as many "borderline" situations that would call for the technology to be used. Maybe whether a foul right on the edge of the area is a PK or a direct free kick on the edge, but almost 100% of refs I know are going to err on the side of giving the direct free kick if it's at all close.

[rsk111]

I've got a question about the offsides rule. I understand that being in an offsides position is fine if they are not affecting the play. The problem I've always had with this rule is that if I'm a defender and I see someone who is/was in an offsides position and isn't called, I have to assume that he may do something that will help his team score. That means I have to worry about him and my attention will be diverted from other defensive priorities. If my attention is diverted, even in the slightest, then an advantage has been gained.

How does this consideration influence your thought process in this type of situation?

In other words, I think it is impossible for a player in an offsides position to not be at least subtly affecting the play since the defenders have to consider him.

The only excption that I'd make is if a player is lying on the ground injured in an offsides position (and there hasn't been a break in play so that he can be attended to).

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
I've got a question about the offsides rule. I understand that being in an offsides position is fine if they are not affecting the play. The problem I've always had with this rule is that if I'm a defender and I see someone who is/was in an offsides position and isn't called, I have to assume that he may do something that will help his team score. That means I have to worry about him and my attention will be diverted from other defensive priorities. If my attention is diverted, even in the slightest, then an advantage has been gained.

How does this consideration influence your thought process in this type of situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, really, mostly because I can't let it. You make a very good point, but there are a couple of considerations. If I make that call because the defender _might_ be worried about what that player in the offside position _might_ do, then I have to judge intent, what a player is _thinking_ at that time. This is fine when, for example, a very hard unfair tackle comes in. I HAVE to judge intent there, because that intent will probably be the deciding factor in whether I book the player, send the player off, or just call him or her over and warn him or her that they had better not do that again. For an OFFSIDE call, though, I don't think it's as important. Also, when you think about it, it's kind of a moot point anyway. If the ball is played anywhere in the direction of the player in the offside position, the flag is going up because I'm going to deem him as gaining an advantage. If the ball is played to the other side of the field, he's not going to have that advantage because he HAS TO COME BACK ONSIDE if the ball is played towards him or he's still going to see the flag. He has to gain a TANGIBLE ADVANTAGE from being in the offside position, and a shift in the defender's state of mind I don't think qualifies. Plus, one of the points of emphasis they've really been hammering into us in the meetings of the past few years is that, if it's a very close offside decision, you should tend to decide in favor of the attacking player.

[Disturbance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's the most misunderstood soccer rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. The one that I probably see missed most by lower-level and beginning referees is the part of the offsides rule where it states that it is not on offense in itself to BE in an offside position. You would be surprised how often I have seen players in local high school and youth matches whistled for offsides when they are IN an offside position, but they are not interfering with play, an opponent, or gaining any advantage by being in that position. For some reason, a lot of referees don't grasp the meaning of that rule and don't apply it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good thread. The offside rule was only changed in the last few years to allow the "not interfering with play" interpretation. Personally I preferred the old rule where offside means offside, less confusion. Referees in the EPL regularly fail to apply the rule correctly.

I remember a football commentator saying "if he's not interfering with play what's he doing on the pitch?" which I think sums it up nicely [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MediaPA]

The current interpretation as I see it is the person in the offsides position needs to be played the ball, attempting to play the ball, or interfering with the keeper for offsides to be called. Influencing the defense has been removed for difficulty in interpretation.

I can't find a clip. There was a match in a recent world cup (98 maybe?) in which a brazilian player was walking back towards midfield in an offside position. The ball was played towards him. The ball bounced like 3 feet away from him, but he just ignored it. I can't imagine a defense not reacting/pausing in this situation (reason I wanted the clip). Another brazilian ran onto the ball and scored the goal.

Another example would be if a team pulls an offsides trap due to a player in the offsides position but he doesn't get played the ball. Currently it isn't considered offsides, but a talented team can burn a trapping team fairly easily if they are taught to run from the midfield.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
The current interpretation as I see it is the person in the offsides position needs to be played the ball, attempting to play the ball, or interfering with the keeper for offsides to be called. Influencing the defense has been removed for difficulty in interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. There is also the opportunity for a weird occurrence like a player in an offside position not having the ball deliberately played towards him but having it ricochet off of a goalpost in his direction. In that case, he would be adjudged offside since he gained an advantage (however unintentionally) from being in that position. In short, though, you summed it up nicely.

[Mr_Moore]

How much money do you make? I don't like you.

[rsk111]

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't, really, mostly because I can't let it. You make a very good point, but there are a couple of considerations. If I make that call because the defender _might_ be worried about what that player in the offside position _might_ do, then I have to judge intent, what a player is _thinking_ at that time. This is fine when, for example, a very hard unfair tackle comes in. I HAVE to judge intent there, because that intent will probably be the deciding factor in whether I book the player, send the player off, or just call him or her over and warn him or her that they had better not do that again. For an OFFSIDE call, though, I don't think it's as important. Also, when you think about it, it's kind of a moot point anyway. If the ball is played anywhere in the direction of the player in the offside position, the flag is going up because I'm going to deem him as gaining an advantage. If the ball is played to the other side of the field, he's not going to have that advantage because he HAS TO COME BACK ONSIDE if the ball is played towards him or he's still going to see the flag. He has to gain a TANGIBLE ADVANTAGE from being in the offside position, and a shift in the defender's state of mind I don't think qualifies. Plus, one of the points of emphasis they've really been hammering into us in the meetings of the past few years is that, if it's a very close offside decision, you should tend to decide in favor of the attacking player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the way that you are applying the rule is correct, but I think the advantage can sometimes be more tangible than it might appear. The reason why I even thought about this is because of a scenario that my buddy who coaches middle school boys told me about several years ago. Here's what happened in a nutshell:

Attacking player is dribbling the ball up the middle of the field and has one defender to beat. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees another attacking player run past him down the left sideline. As the defender looks quickly to see where the second attacker is and if there is someone coming to mark him, the attacking player with the ball dribbles around the defender and quickly shoots and scores. Since the second attacking player was still at the sideline and nowhere near the ball or goal, no offside was called. However, I think that an advantage was gained.

My friend's player was the defender and that was his explanation for why the attacking player got past him.

I realize that it's impossible to say what you would have done since you weren't there, but any idea what you might have done in this scenario.