|
Post by takeitdowntown1 on Mar 5, 2005 19:59:02 GMT -6
yeah what about the players who's shoes were untied and the ones with their shirts untucked.
Running with your shoes untied is way more dangerous than playing with illegal shinguards
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 7, 2005 8:33:34 GMT -6
Cardinhand...before you go making big pronouncements about what you will and won't call, please take into account things such as intent -
1. was the LHS player intent on getting the ball, or intent on getting the player? 2. You should also consider force. Was the LHS player playing reckless, careless, or overly agressive? 3. How about danger? Were the studs up? Was he off the ground going in cleats up? 4. Will his momentum after a clean tackle carry him into the other player, resulting in contact? 5. Was it possible that the JHS player could have jumped to avoid the contact? 6. Did the JHS player initiate contact in the hopes for a foul? Was this simulation?
Let's answer these...again, I am also only going off of a photo, and that only shows a split second in time.
1. Clearly he was intent on playing the ball, as the photo shows he has already played the ball. 2. There is no show of overly aggresive force being displayed. Not careless either. 3. There is no dangerous play. Studs are down and the back leg is being dragged (of course, dangerous would only get a IFK). 4. Yes, his momentum will carry him into the other player. Is it a foul to collide with another player agter playing the ball? No, it isn't, as long as the tackle was clean and the player does not initiate additional contact (i.e., lifting the leg to trip after getting the ball). 5. The JHS player could have easily avoided the contact, should he chose to do so. 6. That goes to intent. Clearly, the JHS player knows he can't get the ball, so his best hope is to simulate the foul, after all, there was contact, and hope for a PK.
Finally, answer this. Less than 3 minutes to play. Hotly contested match. You're the referee and you just awarded a PK that could tie the match and send it to overtime. Why wasn't a card shown? And why would you then run off the field so that any player wishing to speak to you concerning the call would automatically earn a caution?
|
|
|
Post by lhssoccerfan on Mar 7, 2005 9:34:31 GMT -6
Timaeus has his mouse cursor on the delete button as we speak...
|
|
|
Post by cardsinhand on Mar 7, 2005 15:09:08 GMT -6
Ok Happy (or maybe not so happy), I'll take a shot at your questions even though gut feeling says leave it alone. First I keep saying, I was not at "the" game and I'm simply looking at a picture which is not of "the" call. And we are looking at only a still photo. Sorry I'm not skilled in using the quotes as some of the others are. Set 1 of your questions 1. yes 2. no 3. no 4. yes 5. Maybe? 6. I don't think so. My Opinion. Set 2 of your questions 1. yes 2. no 3. no 4. yes. Face up I say no, from the side, yes it is a foul if he is removed from the play. Tripping. 5. Maybe and played through, "Advantage" would be called. If not go back and penalize the foul. 6. You are correct in questioning intent, that cannot gathered from this still photo. But a good referee after 20 minutes in a game should be able to "JUDGE" intent and that is his job. To judge, in his opinion. He/She decides. For example I would probably call this a direct kick foul because of the contact likely to occur, but as a ref I could possiably say he's playing in a dangerous manner and award an indirect free kick. Maybe I could get away with that? Which takes us to your last set of questions. A FOUL IS A FOUL IS A FOUL no matter where, when, and at what time. I'm sorry but thats just the way it is? Does every foul earn a caution, no. Some are just part of the game. I have been to quite a few matches with no cautions given, but never to one w/o a foul called. Even U5-6s. I had a player in a "similar game" tell me "Can't you just call the foul, why do you always have to give a card?" If a card is merited one will be given. If the foul has no business on the field ie going up with the keeper to challenge with your head and reaching up between his hands and behind your head to punch the ball out or holding a shirt of a player a yard away as he runs 10 yds. after beating you. Those don't belong on the field. IE bringing the game to ill repute. (McScruff please check my spelling. thanks ;D) As far as a mandatory card in the box, I have called several PKs w/o issuing cards and issued several cards w/o a PK. Several other refs have posted the fouls for mandatory cautions, this would be one of those fouls that would not require a caution. Simply because a foul happens in the box, does not mean it merits a caution or sendoff. As to why we run off the field after making the call, that's an easy one (and guys if you delete my post please at least leave this). We are instructed to do this. If I leave the field any player who comes after me is questioning my call and guilty of Dissent. When a PK is called, all players except the striker and keeper must exit the box. If I stand outside the field between the 6 and 18 no player has any business there except to show Dissent. And that is within my discretion to issue a caution if they approch. Now what you are accusing the JHS player of possiably doing, I have seen LHS #4 do in the box in a game I called. I did not give the foul, and when he argued, he got a caution. After the game the coach said that was weak, it just seens no matter what happens, the refs can't make everyone happy (whichever way you make the judgement call). In fact one of the coaches in "the" game has even told me that. Again, I hope everyone can learn something from this, let it go, and move on. Have a nice day! ;D
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Mar 7, 2005 15:33:50 GMT -6
hmmm...nice anecdote about your experience with a similar play, but it seems the calls consistently go against LHS players...just an observation.
PS - approach, seems & possibly are the only misspelled words I notice; but I'll chalk those up as typos. Great job on the spelling, cards.
|
|
|
Post by cardsinhand on Mar 7, 2005 17:19:30 GMT -6
Hey MissScruff, opps sorry , McScruff, thanks for the help, but I really can't spell possiably, see no typo thier. I know what you mean, but when you cheer for the home team it always seems that way. My kids have played and I disagreed with calls too, but let me tell you the hardest one is showing up for a game and no ref shows, the opposing coach says "your a ref, why don't you call the game?" That'll put you in a pickle. But if I'm not mistaken I awarded a PK for the other team and carded one of my players. Refs try to do what's right to the best of their abilities. Be thankful there are some at the field. About LHS players, I'll tell you this they have a reputation for ...... I'll say it like this being "sneaky"... Now are they the only ones, HELL NO! Take a look at the pics page and go to Laf. v Aca. 2 look at a couple of pics. 1. 1535-074.jpg Todds holding Wiltz. He does this everytime someones on his back but is not always called for it. 2. 1535-099-L.jpg Which one of these players has a reputation for being sneaky? Do you think this foul was called? The referee for this game, who is a VERY good one, probably did't call this because he can't see it. Which foul is more "severe", but which one is easier to see and call?? The fact that LHS has a rep., sends a signal for officials to watch for that stuff. But congrats on a fine season and best of luck to LHS next year, I was pulling for you guys in the finals. Anyway it's all part of the game like a hole on the field, crooked goal post, or a water puddle...... you never know how it will may impact the game but there is no way to get rid of it! Go to field to have fun not get mad! ;D By the way, Happy, if you are one of the powers that be and I am incorrect, please send me an IM so we can get it straight or you can do it on the board. It's ok I'm not easily offended. Just look at my spelling!
|
|
|
Post by McScruff on Mar 7, 2005 22:48:12 GMT -6
hmmm.....so a foul is a foul is a foul....
...unless committed on or by a player who the ref has a preconceived bias for or against.
|
|
|
Post by lhssoccerfan on Mar 7, 2005 22:51:34 GMT -6
Ouch...Where is that delete button? 1-800-TIMAEUS
|
|
|
Post by lhssoccerfan on Mar 7, 2005 23:54:33 GMT -6
About LHS players, I'll tell you this they have a reputation for... I'll say it like this being "sneaky." The fact that LHS has a rep., sends a signal for officials to watch for that stuff. Just two points of contention for me... I read through Law 12 very closely...No mention of the word "sneaky." Maybe I'm splitting hairs... I can't imagine referees getting together pre-game and making statements like..."Watch this team, they are really "sneaky." So your reference to "sending a signal" is an insinuation that referees will tend to make calls not on the actual game but base their calls on a teams reputation, a preconceived notion that is difficult to imagine. Then you turn around and make the statement in regards to whether this means that all teams are not "sneaky." Your own response is an emphatic in caps..."HELL NO!" So I guess I need to revise my example of the pre-game conference between the refs. I guess they have to arrive at some consensus on which team is the "sneakiest?" Just a little food for thought... Actually, now I'm starting to wonder. Could it possibly be true that LHS lost the State Championship game because they were too "sneaky?"
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Mar 8, 2005 0:59:19 GMT -6
Hey MissScruff, opps sorry , WEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAK
|
|
|
Post by SmokeyJoker on Mar 8, 2005 2:29:46 GMT -6
Hey this isn't staying on topic... I CAN'T see the pictures!!
Boy to be a ref... we have rules like "dissent" and on this board we can't criticize refs either, where it is exactly the place to do such a thing. Sad.
I still can't see the pics...
|
|
|
Post by acmilan on Mar 12, 2006 20:37:36 GMT -6
yep
|
|
|
Post by allstatebronco on Apr 13, 2006 1:57:08 GMT -6
About LHS players, I'll tell you this they have a reputation for... I'll say it like this being "sneaky." The fact that LHS has a rep., sends a signal for officials to watch for that stuff. Just two points of contention for me... I read through Law 12 very closely...No mention of the word "sneaky." Maybe I'm splitting hairs... I can't imagine referees getting together pre-game and making statements like..."Watch this team, they are really "sneaky." So your reference to "sending a signal" is an insinuation that referees will tend to make calls not on the actual game but base their calls on a teams reputation, a preconceived notion that is difficult to imagine. Then you turn around and make the statement in regards to whether this means that all teams are not "sneaky." Your own response is an emphatic in caps..."HELL NO!" So I guess I need to revise my example of the pre-game conference between the refs. I guess they have to arrive at some consensus on which team is the "sneakiest?" Just a little food for thought... Actually, now I'm starting to wonder. Could it possibly be true that LHS lost the State Championship game because they were too "sneaky?" lhssoccerfan.....you and I think alike. You've got the right idea about what you quoted. Alot of what has been discussed on this thread concerns "soccer laws" and interpretation or lack thereof. What I'm going to say is a little off beat but please follow me. Ok...here goes....if "the law" is blind....meaning : " A FOUL IS A FOUL IS A FOUL no matter where, when, and at what time. I'm sorry but thats just the way it is" -cardisinhand then, justice, so to speak, should be blind on a soccer field?......right? is there a little discretion..yes....but follow me here please. "You are correct in questioning intent, that cannot gathered from this still photo. But a good referee after 20 minutes in a game should be able to "JUDGE" intent and that is his job. To judge, in his opinion. He/She decides. For example I would probably call this a direct kick foul because of the contact likely to occur, but as a ref I could possibly say he's playing in a dangerous manner and award an indirect free kick." -cardsinhand so.....by cardsinhand's rational, after 20 minutes of a game, the ref knows, and I love this.....who's sneaky and who's not. He, the ref....know intent:based on SNEAKY-NESS......those of you who have seen the movie DEEDS with Adam Sander will appreciate that. Anyhow, back to the point. after that 20 minutes: JUSTICE IS NO LONGER BLIND! REMEMBER "A FOUL IS A FOUL IS A FOUL no matter where, when, and at what time. I'm sorry but thats just the way it is" however....NOW, sneaky-ness is now being taken into consideration when calling fouls. wait....justice is blind. maybe not. huh??? here's a comparison: you are picking the people to make the symphony in a major city and THE RULES FOR THAT SYMPHONY STATE THAT "BLIND" AUDITIONS WILL BE DONE TO TRYOUT. People audition behind a wall....you just listen to the music and pick the members based on the given criteria: can they play this note...thate note: this song---that song. (i am not a music person so please excuse my lack of terminology). Any way...you pick the members. And....it's all white females who make the cut. However....an "unwritten" law for that city says that "diversity" is a must in the symphony. The city then makes you take away the wall and listen to the people trying out. You have to now take their appearance (notice I didn't say race.....ever!! so if anyone brings it up you are just wrong here!! this is not about race....it's about "blind justice") into consideration. So....you, for example, hear and actually see them play the violin.....but even if they do it right....good enough....you have others factors to consider that are not in the "official law." your new symphony is very diverse.....you didn't listen to the music.....oh yeah you heard it: but you didn't listen.....you judged the player of the music as well as the music itself. I guess justice took off it's blindfolds. I THINK MOST WOULD AGREE THIS WOULD BE WRONG......SO HERE'S MY POINT. If ...DO I HAVE TO QUOTE THIS AGAIN?.....NO.....a foul is a foul is a foul............ then why would you ever consider a teams coaches, or a players reputation when refereeing a game? Ever. Call the game as it is played. "I can't imagine referees getting together pre-game and making statements like..."Watch this team, they are really "sneaky." So your reference to "sending a signal" is an insinuation that referees will tend to make calls not on the actual game but base their calls on a teams reputation, a preconceived notion that is difficult to imagine." -lhssoccerfan like I said.......lhssoccerfan.....you see it in the correct perspective. "Again, I hope everyone can learn something from this, let it go, and move on. Have a nice day! " -cardsinhand to cardsinhand: yes...I have learned alot: you are a disgrace to THE GAME I LOVE! I BET YOU HAVE NEVER PLAYED THIS GAME AT A HIGH LEVEL....YOU WERE PROBABLY A MEDIOCRE PLAYER. A good player would never ever take a preconceived notion of his opponent into a match.....unless he wanted to risk losing. you ARE A LOSER WHEN IT COMES TO SOCCER. END OF STORY BETTER YET YOU ARE SOMEONES DAD. If I'm wrong please correct me. Don't say you ref because you love the game because what you do is cheapen it. You need to change your thinking or turn in your referee jersey. I have no idea where you do that by the way.....just burn it I guess. DELETE THIS AND YOU ARE CHEAPENING THIS MESSAGE BOARD....BECAUSE YOU KNOW i AM BRINGING UP A VALID POINT FOR DISCUSSION.
|
|
|
Post by allstatebronco on Apr 13, 2006 2:16:42 GMT -6
and....just to lighten the mood.....
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE MY SNEAKY-NESS! I HAIL FROM SPAIN SIR!
the same post will be posted again if you delete it.....mmmmmmmhwwwwhhhuuuuuuuuhaaaaaaaa!
;D
|
|
|
Post by acmilan on Apr 13, 2006 17:12:12 GMT -6
lol
|
|
|
Post by fire2 on Aug 3, 2006 11:24:54 GMT -6
fa sho
|
|