Fuck the extremist election deniers. What's money for if not for keeping them out of office?
Teach a man to fish, and he'll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.
This really is a full service blog.
Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.
I've spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn't seem to do any good.
You are here: Home / Open Threads / You're the referee
You're the referee
by David Anderson | October 21, 2015 2:42 pm | 47 Comments
This post is in: Open Threads, Sports
Here are two scenarios for you to consider as I drive to the middle of nowhere for a game today.
Women's college soccer game where most players are on scholarship.
Stripes are up 3-1 in the 73rd minute against Green. The foul count is 16 against Green, 6 against Stripes and the Green has two cautions. Stripes have not entered the book.
The season is getting close to the end, and Stripes is in good position for a play-off berth while Green is all but eliminated (they play a national top 10 team tonight where anything other than a win eliminates Green from contention.)
The Stripes holding midfielder is attempting to work her way up the center alley of the field. Green midfielder has grabbed a good chunk of her shirt and is pulling hard. The referee has not called a foul yet as he is waiting for advantage as Stripes has been checking back central short runners in conjunction with long wing runs all game long. If the Stripes midfielder can get a good step she has three good options for distribution and if she breaks the grip of the holding defending, she has a ten yard bubble of clear space to either continue dribble penetration or distribute out.
She loses the ball and the referee whistles the play dead and points back 8 to 10 yards for where the foul started. As the whistle is still echoing, the Stripes player swings at the ball. She cracks a second Green defender high, hard, and late on the upper shin. The second Green defender was cutting across the field from left to right to chase the now loose ball.
The Green defender goes down hard. The referee checks on the cracked Green defender, and then gives a caution to Stripes for unsporting behavior. The restart is a direct free kick for Stripes for the original holding foul.
College mens' D-3 game between two teams with a history of relatively clean play. Blue is in line for a play-off spot.
#17 Blue is acting odd on the field in the first ten minutes of the game. He is going in late but soft, he is being a minor league dick to the referee, and he tried to bear hug an attacker as the attacker was transitioning from the defensive third to the middle third of the field. None of these interactions were serious. They made no sense.
The referee had a brief word with the Blue captain, and the captain said the following:
"We have three games left and he has four cautions. "
The NCAA suspends soccer players for one game when they accumulate five cautions. Once the suspension is served, the card count is dropped back to zero.
On the next odd play by #17, the referee cautions him. The play/called foul itself was super soft and in most college games it would not be considered a foul much less a card. The ref wrote it up as persistant infringement. As soon as the card came out, 17 smiled and said "I'll start playing now…"
The game went swimmingly from there.
I was the referee in the first scenario. I really don't like that yellow card as it was a preventable yellow card.
Yes, Stripes hit Green high, hard and late. That combination is a card and it is merely a question of how high, how hard and how late as to what color card is needed. Two out of those three criteria is usually enough for at least a yellow, while one gives a lot more wiggle room to go from legal to trifling to simple foul to plastic.
I needed a card because that foul was hard and Green was feeling that they were getting the short end of the stick on most calls. I wanted to avoid retaliation so a yellow for a legit hard misconduct would enforce the rules, provide justice and promote player safety.
On technical grounds, the card is justified but it is a shitty card to give.
I was not aware of the green defender who got cracked as my focus was split between the moving foul situation and the offensive options. I totally missed seeing the defender rotating in. If I had seen the defender rotating in, I should have killed the play a couple of yards earlier as the potential advantage was being taken away by the second defender.
If I had blown the whistle for the foul two steps earlier, there is no lost ball so no swing which leads to no card, no accumulation concern, and Green's leg feeling a lot better. Getting the whistle one step earlier might not stop the swing, but Stripes would have been hitting air instead of bone.
As for scenario two, I heard about that from a colleague as we were driving to Saint Tommy's of Middle of Nowhere. I am conflicted on it as #17 was bringing the game into disrepute and doing so intentionally. The card cleaned the game up and allowed for a fair display of skill and ability for the next eighty two minutes. However the referee was implicitly rewarding #17 for being a smart-ass rules lawyer. We should not reward smart ass rules lawyering on the field. However, given the accumulation sit-out and the incentive structure of teams, the incentive is for smart ass rules lawyering. I could see myself give that card for player safety reasons as I don't want #17 esclating contact levels until he levels an opponent in an attempt to draw a caution.
Previous Post: « This Is What Gentrification Looks Like
Next Post: Who You Gonna Believe? »
I dunno. I'm still trying to figure what the NFL calls a catch.
Damn it, Richard. I read all the way through that looking for the next installment of brazen boning by someone. If you're going to continue with your ongoing series of intrepid tales on sex, skulduggery and soccer let's have a bit more of a balance, eh?
Greg Schisla
I'm not a huge soccer fan but find myself liking it more all the time.
I thoroughly enjoy your scenarios. Helps me understand the game at a deeper level.
I figured with the types of (hornball) refs your organization employs, the teams would have been designated "Shirts" vs. "Skins"…..
ETA: I see C-Stoney thinks like I do
Kylroy
Yeah, they need to find some way to let a player reset their caution count short of trying to hit 5 before a less-important game. #17 had every reason to try and get a caution, which in and of itself is clearly something that happens in his normal course of play – you can either reward him for rules lawyering, or require him to be a better actor before rewarding his rules lawyering. Either way, it'd be better to give him an incentive to *not* draw a caution.
Basketball has rules on intentional fouls, and playing a ball-carrier too close but not violently to draw a regular foul is a frequent tactical move. The rules exist to accomodate this reality – is there nothing similar in soccer?
Not That Guy
I think that you call the game in front of you, not the context of the season or the players. I know it seems important that one team is playoff bound and the other isn't but that shouldn't enter into whether a call is valid or not.
@Corner Stone: That's exactly what I was thinking. You spoiled us, Richard.
@ploeg:
Maybe I can help fill in missing prose: "Green midfielder–a redheaded runway model during the offseason–has grabbed a good chunk of her shirt and is pulling hard."
I would also have booked the original offender in scenario 1. An obvious shirt-grab brings the game into just as much disrepute as any of the other misconduct you described.
DLew On Roids
1. Good call. Based on your description, Stripes is lucky not to get a red for violent conduct, assuming she saw the Green player approaching and heard the whistle. You could also give a yellow to the first Green defender for a tactical foul, but that wouldn't have prevented Stripes from acting the fool.
2. Good call. The referee doesn't make the suspension rules. The referee could be forgiven for giving a second soft yellow to #17 later in the match as a form of karmic retribution for being a DB.
Scenario 1: I reckon you called it right. You were correct to wait and see if the advantage materialised, and to penalise the foul when it dd not. You were also correct to caution the attacking midfielder. I'm not a referee myself, but I might have considered a red card if I thought the attacker's foul endangered the second defender.
Scenario 2: No 17 really really wanted that fifth yellow card. I don't know what the ref could have done to avoid giving him one. Some rules are made to be gamed, I guess.
I don't understand soccer at all, so this may be a dumb question, but shouldn't a whistle have been blown at the shirt tug? I didn't think that was legal. And if I'm right, and it isn't, what's the rationale for waiting it out to see if the victim gets away? Is it that the shirt-tug might be intended to draw a whistle, because the victim is getting away and a whistle will stop her momentum and re-set the game? so a whistle would essentially reward the rulebreaker?
Scenario 2: whaddaya gonna do? He wants to earn a suspension without doing something on the pitch that potentially earns him a bigger sanction. Ref the game on the pitch, book him and move on.
Scenario 1 hinges on "the referee… is waiting for advantage". Has the ref (i.e. RM) visibly or audibly waved play on or is it one of those situations where it's just a delayed whistle? If the ref hasn't indicated that it's an advantage situation, then I think Stripes should get away without a booking because the ref has misjudged the advantage. And as his writeup suggests, RM is a good enough ref to know that. If Stripes knows that it's going to get called back, then there's less of an excuse for kicking out.
Brendan in Charlotte
Scenario 1: I think it was a good call.
Scenario 2: I'm somewhat conflicted. I'd prefer not to reward him by carding him. I'm torn between telling the coach to pull him at the next whistle, and taking DLew on Roids suggestion…
@elmo: from Law 5: the referee "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time."
The closest analogy is the offsides free play in American football or the ability to pull the goalie when a penalty has been called against the opposition in ice hockey.
It used to be an immediate advantage, but over recent years referees have been given more time to allow a potential advantage to develop and then call play back. Not as much as rugby union, where long advantage periods are commonplace.
Well well, despite RMs desperate spinning, clearly Obamacare is such a disaster it is causing problems with refereeing youth soccar leagues all around these, our great, United States.
That is my take home lesson from all these soccer referee posts.
Mike J
@elmo:
I don't understand soccer at all, so this may be a dumb question, but shouldn't a whistle have been blown at the shirt tug?
The foul is still going to be called, but not until the attackers have played out any advantage they have. This makes professional fouls less of a temptation for a team that suddenly finds itself on defense and badly out of position.
Sometimes a foul inadvertently gives an advantage to the victim's team; that team would feel hard done by if they had to give up a good attacking position (or worse, had a goal disallowed) because the referee blew for the foul too early. The laws of the game do allow a ref the discretion to play the advantage.
@pseudonymous in nc: @Mike J: @Amir Khalid:
For #2, what is to stop the ref from waiting for something just a bit physical and going straight to the red? Then he sits a game *and* his yellows don't reset.
lethargytartare
@pseudonymous in nc:
sadly, at this point most referee's, particularly in MLS, have decided "maintaining possession" = "advantage" which has done nothing to improve the game, and loads to piss off fans and players alike.
There's little reason in the scenario given not to blow the whistle immediately and caution the green player, and every reason to suspect the delayed whistle has directly caused the retaliation by stripe.
Scenario 2 sounds like unsportsmanlike conduct to me. A warning after the second infraction and bounce him at yellow card time.
Richard mayhew
@pseudonymous in nc: delayed whistle as I wanted to see if she could distribute
oh, and red card the guy in scenario 2 just on principle. It's pretty easy to get a yellow without being a moron abut it.
The solution to rule lawyering is to have rules that aren't so easy to lawyer.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@DLew On Roids:
I like that, but having one yellow is still a lot less than 4. There would still be an incentive to do the DB thing in the first place.
I loved playing football/soccer as a kid, but haven't kept up with it since. My gut feeling is that the ref has to call the game in front of him/her and try not to let clever rule-twisting affect the calls. Presumably karma is going to get #17 eventually either way…
I don't understand soccer at all, and I still enjoy the hell out of these.
Not a ref, but I would be tempted to threaten #17 with a red card if he didn't stop screwing around. A yellow gives him what he wants, but the threat of a red might keep him in line.
Anonymous At Work
In Situation #2, the guy wants a yellow, give him a yellow. Otherwise, he will escalate until you do, or until he hurts someone in the process of earning a red card. Prior history indicates that this isn't a dirty or "aggressive-with-the-rules" team, so it was obviously to clear the slate.
Added bonus was that he did this early and not late, when tiredness would increase the chance of injury.
Captain C
Perhaps for Scenario #2, when giving the yellow card, warn #17 that he will have no leeway or benefit of the doubt with further yellows; ie. anything he does that could go either way will be a second yellow card, and explain to him why (intentionally bringing the game into disrepute, &c.).
@Roger Moore:
But in this scenario, the player knew not to commit a red-card foul. He was persistently misbehaving to draw a yellow, which is not in itself a red-card offence.
ribber
And it seem #17 was trying to get a yellow without actually hurting anyone. Lawyering the rule without hostility seems better than maiming someone to do it.
#1 That was making the best of a bad situation.
#2 There is not much you can do about the NCAA rules. Give the guy a yellow and clean up the game play. Everyone wins. I don't even fault the player. He is working within the framework provided to him by the governing organization.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but for scenario 2 – is it impossible for the ref to apply "delayed" cautions? I couldn't find any direct reference to this being allowed or disallowed by the general football rules, but the ref does have broad discretion in giving out cautions, right? So, can the ref say "you get a caution now, and four more cautions after the game you sit out"?
It does appear that general unsportsmanlike conduct is never a direct red card, unfortunately. Which is a bit surprising to me.
#1: From your description, it wasn't entirely clear what Stripes hit Green #2 with. If it's the ball, then I tend to agree with your resolution. Stripes needs to get her head clear, which is why the caution, but the play stoppage was the foul by Green #1, to the resumption is to Stripes. If Stripes kicked Green #2, then I think she gets a red. Someone who is physically within reach of your leg is in your field of vision. Resume play is still direct free kick to Stripes, unless there's a rule I don't know about that a red automatically turns the ball over.
#2: Once I know why #17 is being a douchenozzle, he gets a red on the next screw-up. Deliberately bringing the game into disrepute. ETA: I would likely pull #17 aside and tell him to knock it off before dropping the redhammer.
@Richard mayhew:
delayed whistle as I wanted to see if she could distribute
Which is fair enough, and happens often enough, but I think it can mess with attacking players' heads — if you feel like you've being blatantly fouled and it's not obvious that you're being given advantage, then you're more likely to think 'fuck it, the ref's missed it, let's see if he misses this' and aim a boot to the shins. Not saying that's acceptable behaviour on the pitch, but footballers have that sense of correcting injustice. Anyway, shit happens, can't be helped.
@lethargytartare: for what? Douchbaggery is a caution (unsporting behavior). If the ref gives a red for dbag how does he write it up? To the league commissioner into a very soft ball that is almost trifling. The restroom never work at conference again if he reds for douchbaggery
Correct restroom to ref
@Andrey: power ends when we go to the locker room or parking lot at the end of a game
Did these scenarios take place in America?
daverave
I played 4 years of D-III soccer back in the 70s and 20 more years after that of high level rec and at no time did I think that the referees were as analytical as you are on the pitch, Richard, either before, during or after the game. Maybe I was wrong… And I agree with Not That Guy that you have to call the game you are seeing, not applying context with regard to playoff potential, etc. In scenario one, I always expected referees to come down hard on any intentional attempt to injure an opponent.
Well, OK, no red on Blue 17, but what about telling the Blue captain that unless 17 cuts it out, you won't caution the other team on any fouls against him that don't do permanent damage? And then perhaps tell the non-blue captain the same thing…?
@daverave: After a basic level of fitness is achieved (and mine is acceptable and no better than that), refereeing soccer is a mental game. The best referees in the world are constantly processing information and making decisions including null decisions dozens of times per minute.
@daverave: I disagree, I apply context to at least attempt to gain understanding of what the players are trying to do.
Yesterday I had a high school game. For both teams it was win and get in, lose and go home scenarios. Knowing that, I knew every challenge would be hard and contested. I knew defenders were willing to take smart tactical fouls to stop attacks. If I tell a coach to control a player who is getting mouthy, I know I'll get no help from the bench unless the player is sitting on a caution already. I knew both teams would be whining for calls, I knew that if there was no more than a 2 goal differential going into the last 15 minutes of the game, the game was going to go crazy as the team playing catch-up would start taking massive risks.
Knowing the importance of the game allowed me to find a spot where I still had control of the game but I could let the players wide latitude to play. And it worked, three yellow cards (2 tactical fouls, 1 delaying the restart (smartly)) and no injuries produced a well played game with a winner. I ended up running 8 miles including 2500 yards of hard sprints.
Tomorrow, I have a high school game between the #1 Large school play-off seed an the #2 small school play-off seed. In mid-season, this would be a great game. It will be a snoozer. The center might run 4 miles. As an AR, I'll run 2 to 3.
This is the "burn a red card" game/get sophomores varsity time/stretch legs out and break a good sweat game. No one wants the ref crew to allow anything questionable, no one wants advantage, no one wants a smart yellow card, no one wants a red card for any reason. If we tell a coach to take care of a player who is getting mouthy, they will yank him for the game. The biggest challenge for me as an AR will be staying awake and not talking the entire game to one of the trainers.Everyone just needs to play 80 minutes and get out without injury nor incident.
@Jay: Why?
We got the behavior modification of non-douchebaggery that was desired. Everyone knew what 17 was doing and accepted it as part of the college game. Why put him or any other player at injury risk using a deep element of the referee tool kit for game management when the black arts aren't needed.
@richard mayhew I quote you directly:
"We should not reward smart ass rules lawyering on the field."
I know absolutely nothing about soccer, but I love reading these posts – I always click through and read to the end. It's a joy to listen to someone's reasoned defense of a real split-second decision making process. Thanks!