off topic- college soccer game

[Back In The Saddle]

I thought seriously about officiating soccer a couple years ago. In the end I decided against it. While toying with the idea I did study up a little about some of the officiating systems used. But I never got to try them, so I'm probably arguing from ignorance here. But with four officials on the game it sure seems like there is a lot those other three guys could do besides just watching for offsides, calling OOB, and taking care of subs. Give the linesmen a whistle and put them to work watching off ball. Better yet, give them primary (or shared with the center referee) responsibility in their "vertical third" of the field. I know it flies in the face of soccer tradition, but if we can call a better game with three officials in basketball, by dividing coverage, putting eyes off the ball, and allowing all three officials to make the judgment calls in their area...there is no way it couldn't help in soccer.

[BktBallRef]

She isn't the only one who should be suspended. She clearly should and could have been sent off for several of those infractions. I would be embarassed if my name was listed as an official for that match.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I thought seriously about officiating soccer a couple years ago. In the end I decided against it. While toying with the idea I did study up a little about some of the officiating systems used. But I never got to try them, so I'm probably arguing from ignorance here. But with four officials on the game it sure seems like there is a lot those other three guys could do besides just watching for offsides, calling OOB, and taking care of subs. Give the linesmen a whistle and put them to work watching off ball. Better yet, give them primary (or shared with the center referee) responsibility in their "vertical third" of the field. I know it flies in the face of soccer tradition, but if we can call a better game with three officials in basketball, by dividing coverage, putting eyes off the ball, and allowing all three officials to make the judgment calls in their area...there is no way it couldn't help in soccer.

First of all, they are not linesmen, they are assistant referees. As an AR, we CAN AND MUST call fouls (technically, we signal to the center referee that we have observed a foul, but at higher levels an ARs flag for such foul calls is seldom "knocked down" -- i.e. ignored).

Due to the size of a soccer field, the two-man system is a very poor one. Many of the "problems" develop in soccer games in the midfield and in the "dark corners" (opposite side of the field occupied by the two referees). It is very difficult for referees in a two-man system to get good coverage in the midfield or in the dark corners.

The biggest challenge with any multiple whistle systems is the concept of the "Advantage" provision -- something I wish we actually had in basketball. As soon as a whistle blows, play stops -- thus taking away any possibility of allowing the team to "play through" a foul. It is typically much easier for the center referee to ascertain whether to apply "Advantage" to a particular play due to his/her angle on the play.

Tennis uses SEVEN linesmen/umpires/referees to cover a match between two players. Granted, there are many situations involving points being awarded that lead to the need for the large number of eyes on the court.

At the same time, I can see the logic of using up to SEVEN total referees in soccer.
1. A single center referee,
2. One assistant referee on each goal line (one on each side of the goal in top games with a video camera over top of the goal in top level matches) who would ONLY make goal kicks/corner kicks calls,
3. One assistant referee in the traditional positions for the purpose of calling the offside line, balls out of touch in their quadrant (there actually ARE primary areas of coverage in soccer's diagonal system) and signalling for fouls in their quadrant,
4. One assistant referee in the opposite quadrants from the traditional assistant referee positions -- these ARs would NOT be responsible for the offside line (covered by the opposite traditional AR) nor for the goal line (called by the goal line AR), but would be responsible for calling the ball out of touch (out of bounds) and signal foul calls in his/her quadrant.

These last two assistant referees would significantly decrease the rough play in the "dark corners" of the soccer field. These are the corners OPPOSITE the side of the ARs. Due to a lack of help from the AR in these two quadrants, the center referee is primarily responsible for coverage in these quadrants. When rapid transitions occur, the center referee may be 40 - 60 yards behind the play. If the ball is played to the ARs side, the AR can identify foul calls. Unfortunately, if the ball is played to the opposite side, the center referee has a difficult time covering this play.

I would add a second AR for each goal line in the highest level games (World Cup, EPL, MLS -- OK, a LITTLE STRETCH). This would leave a total of seven or nine referees in total. This would not be dramatically different than baseball which has an umpire behind the plate responsible for making most of the calls, but adding three to five additional umpires for the higer level games.

This would maintain the "consistency" and the application of the "advantage" situations that today's single center referees manage. At the same time, this would give the center far more help on out-of play calls allowing the center referee to focus more attention on fouls on the field.

Such a system would be completely impractical in youth games, high school games and even college matches as there simply are not nearly enough referees. But, baseball and football both use a far smaller "crew" in younger games and high school games than are used in the NFL or MLB. As fast as the game of soccer is today and as big as the field is (over 22, that's TWENTY TWO times the size of a basketball court!!!), the traditional three referee system with a fourth referee on the sideline does not do justice to the level of the match.

By the way, contact while the ball is not in play will NOT result in a free kick or penalty kick, players can be and are shown red cards for violent conduct. The restart remains the same -- free kick or throw-in, but action can be taken. So, it's not as if the referees have no recourse simply because the ball is not in play.

Not that I have an opinion on the subject......

[Back In The Saddle]

A well thought out response, thank you.

One quibble, however, is with the notion that the only, or perhaps just the best, way to ensure consistent application of advantage is for the center referee to be the only one with a whistle. As I understand it, when you get to the highest levels, you very likely have a crew composed of seasoned center referees. In other words, the center referee for today's match was likely an AR on yesterday's match, and the ARs on today's match may each be center referee on tomorrow's matches. Every one of the officials on the field are qualified to read the play and apply advantage.

We do it every night of the week on the basketball court, and usually manage to be fairly consistent in our application of advantage/disadvantage.

I would be curious to know how often ARs make "foul calls" during an average match. Being as the center referee has the whistle, and I don't really know what to watch for, nor are the cameras on the ARs most of the time, I have no idea if this is done occasionally, frequently, seldom, 20 times a match.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

A well thought out response, thank you.

One quibble, however, is with the notion that the only, or perhaps just the best, way to ensure consistent application of advantage is for the center referee to be the only one with a whistle. As I understand it, when you get to the highest levels, you very likely have a crew composed of seasoned center referees. In other words, the center referee for today's match was likely an AR on yesterday's match, and the ARs on today's match may each be center referee on tomorrow's matches. Every one of the officials on the field are qualified to read the play and apply advantage.

We do it every night of the week on the basketball court, and usually manage to be fairly consistent in our application of advantage/disadvantage.

I would be curious to know how often ARs make "foul calls" during an average match. Being as the center referee has the whistle, and I don't really know what to watch for, nor are the cameras on the ARs most of the time, I have no idea if this is done occasionally, frequently, seldom, 20 times a match.

Actually, at the highest levels, referees must declare whether they wish to continue their career path as an AR OR as a center referee, but NOT both. This applies, for example, at the MLS level. The biggest challenge with multiple whistles is the dreaded advantage situation. The difference is, in basketball, if we see a travel, we call a travel. We do not wait to see if the player throws a pass directly to the opposing team. If a player is bumped while going up the court, we cannot wait two or three dribbles to see if the point guard was able to play through it or loses his/her balance a couple steps later. We need to make that decision much more quickly (several SECONDS can pass in soccer before we cannot go back and "get the foul"). Yes, we can AND SHOULD have a slow whistle in basketball, but doing both sports, there is a HUGE difference in the timing of events resulting in an advantage/disadvantage in each.

In my opinion, the coordination involved in soccer for the "advantage" clause if FAR more complex than in basketball. While it would be possible to get this level of coordination in soccer, it would lead to a less consistently officiated game, in my opinion. The size of the court in basketball would make the use of a center referee very difficult -- we would constantly be in the way of the play -- or at least a player. But, how many times have you reffed a basketball game with a partner who calls a dramatically different game? This is especially true when working with a brand new official. This can be extremely frustrating for the players. What is a foul in one referee's area is NOT a foul in the other. What is an illegal dribble (palming) in one referee's area is permitted in the other.

Such situations are dramatically lessened in the Diagonal system (center referee running a diagonal). Of course, adding the extra ARs would give the center referee more flexibility for positioning (we currently try to get to the left side of the ball). But, that is another story.

As to how often ARs make foul calls, this varies dramatically by game. I am sure that you have reffed basketball games in which you go in at half time having called five total fouls between the three referees. You have also gone into the locker room have called 20 or more. It is somewhat dependent on the center referee's view of the game. I try to make calls in my quadrant that the center referee would also call if he were able to see the play as I did. Some HS/USSF center referees really like to let the players try to play through things. Others prefer to call a tighter game. In many cases, the center referee will reign in the teams if he/she feels the game is getting a bit too physical. In these cases, I will try to mirror his/her calling of the game. In most basketball games I have witnessed, each referee tends to call his/her own game much more so than in soccer.

To directly answer your question, I have gone halves of games without making any fouls only indicating throw-ins and goal kicks/corner kicks. As a center, I have also had many ARs go through halves without making any foul calls. There are other games in which I have made 15-20 or more offside calls and/or 5 or more other foul calls in a half.

[Back In The Saddle]

Thank you for your detailed response. I did claim up front to be arguing from ignorance