|
Law 12
Jan 22, 2007 14:49:51 GMT -6
Post by forthoffical on Jan 22, 2007 14:49:51 GMT -6
Today I was thinking of current trends in fouls relating to Direct Free Kick for • holds an opponent and Indirect Free Kick for • impedes the progress of an opponent which as I understand English can result from the first offense of holding.
Time was when holding the Jersey was popular but then refs let it be known if you kept your shirt tucked in it was easy to call. So now the duck and diver has found that holding the shorts is hard for the center to notice.
I have seen some really dirty games this season where when you look across the pitch all you can see are players using their forearms like a machete trying to hack lose a hold on their shorts.
Having questioned a number of young players on this subject even those that are not of the mind set it is something they care to do claim they often find themselves in the position of "hey their doing it to me so I've got to do it also because if give the opponent such an advantage even if I don’t want too!"
How can the center train themselves to be more observant of this foul and what kind of speech before the game will make believes of the players that the officials are not going to have any of it?
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 22, 2007 19:45:07 GMT -6
Post by biome22 on Jan 22, 2007 19:45:07 GMT -6
I think the only way to enforce this rule is to call it the very first time you see it. Fouling is part of the game but in order to catch this foul call it every time. Players will see this and stop pulling the other players shirt.
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 22, 2007 22:10:18 GMT -6
Post by forthoffical on Jan 22, 2007 22:10:18 GMT -6
Yes shirts too but my point is really more about short holding as something about that seems to be harder to detect for officials.
|
|
ref
Bench Warmer
Posts: 24
|
Law 12
Jan 23, 2007 11:21:25 GMT -6
Post by ref on Jan 23, 2007 11:21:25 GMT -6
I don't think any speech will stop it but calling it from the beginning does. you don't want to take over a game but you do want to control fouls. if you don't start out strong then you deal with constant complaining which i don't tolerate.
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 23, 2007 11:48:13 GMT -6
Post by swlasoccerfan on Jan 23, 2007 11:48:13 GMT -6
I don't know about y'all but a handfull of shorts is VERY easy to hide. Not admitting that I do it (haha) but I have the technique down pretty good. I think that a ref that has been around the game long enough and even played and knows what to look for will catch it.
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 23, 2007 13:07:45 GMT -6
Post by ronaldo11 on Jan 23, 2007 13:07:45 GMT -6
There's nothing to this really. A ref can only give what he/she sees. If a ref doesnt see anything, but feels that there could have been a tug on the shorts; i dont think a ref is able to call a foul.
However, this is where I think assistant referees should be more prominent and more confident to raise their flags if they see something. Many times (in LA) i've heard centre refs tell their assistants NOT to raise flag for fouls. I dont know why any centre would do this?! Perhaps he/she is trying to protect the assistants from something?
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 23, 2007 14:09:01 GMT -6
Post by cajunref on Jan 23, 2007 14:09:01 GMT -6
The reasoning behind center refs telling their ARs not to call fouls is usually because the center ref does not trust the AR. A good ref will allow their AR to call fouls and if the center does not agree with the ARs call, the center ref can always wave the flag down. If centers never allow their ARs to call fouls, the AR will never learn how to properly do their job. In my opinion, center refs who give this pregame instruction should rethink their reasoning. In catching the shirt or short pull, a good ref will seek to position himself where he can see "thru" the two opposing players. If ARs see shirt or short pulls, they definately should call the foul unless an advantage occurs. Even the slightest tug can make a player lose a step and this should be flagged.
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 23, 2007 16:19:50 GMT -6
Post by forthoffical on Jan 23, 2007 16:19:50 GMT -6
Cajunref, I like the way you explain it, you make it very clear, so even a caveman can understand it!
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 24, 2007 0:57:44 GMT -6
Post by brhsoccer14 on Jan 24, 2007 0:57:44 GMT -6
Cajunref, I like the way you explain it, you make it very clear, so even a caveman can understand it! Well what if I turn it around and say that it is so easy, a therapist can understand it? What would you say to that? (Im assuming everyone has seen the new commercial : p)
|
|
ref
Bench Warmer
Posts: 24
|
Law 12
Jan 24, 2007 8:35:15 GMT -6
Post by ref on Jan 24, 2007 8:35:15 GMT -6
Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the rock!
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 24, 2007 16:19:36 GMT -6
Post by socrrulz02 on Jan 24, 2007 16:19:36 GMT -6
Cajunref, I like the way you explain it, you make it very clear, so even a caveman can understand it! That's probably because she's been around since the cavemen were....
|
|
|
Law 12
Jan 27, 2007 3:03:33 GMT -6
Post by lather on Jan 27, 2007 3:03:33 GMT -6
Today I was thinking of current trends in fouls relating to Direct Free Kick for • holds an opponent and Indirect Free Kick for • impedes the progress of an opponent which as I understand English can result from the first offense of holding. There is a bit of a misconception here. 'Impedes the progress of an opponent' is a technical foul (IFK) and does not involve contact with an opponent. 'Holds an opponent' is a penal foul (DFK) and requires contact. To illustrate, when a player is following the ball out of play and extends his arms so that an opponent cannot run around, he is impeding the opponent. IFK. If the opponent runs into the extended arms, then the player is holding the opponent. DFK. Typically, 'holding' results from 'impeding', not the other way around.
|
|