Soccer makes me crazy
 

First ... the clock. WTH is with the clock going up? Instead of stoppage time, why not actually STOP the clock? Why does the end of the game or half HAVE to remain a mystery? Most of the most exciting moments in football or basketball come from KNOWING when the end is - the excitement building to that point, hoping your team can get the job done before it runs out. And why does "stoppage time" aka "the referee's guess" always get rounded to the nearest minute?

Put a freaking real clock on the game - stop it on injuries. (Heck, a vastly superior solution would be shortening the halves a bit, and stopping it when play is stopped - a goal, corner kick, goal kick, throw in, prior to a free kick, etc... it's ASININE that players can waste time by simply NOT playing after these situations)

Second, HTH can you expect ONE referee, and 2-4 junior level helpers that aren't even allowed on the field, to officiate a game that's played on a MUCH larger surface than football and features constantly changing location of play - when it takes SEVEN to do football - and several of those on the field. Create positions, responsibilities, and put several people on the field - PLUS a goal official on both sides.

Third, WTH is this "we don't even have to tell you what the foul was" nonsense. Screw-ups are inevitable - happens in every sport at every level --- but at least the referees have to tell you what you're being penalized for.

Lastly - I'm not yet in the "instant replay" crowd for soccer - especially if they fix the not-enough-referees situation... but there should DEFINITELY be an after-game review of every card handed out. How many yellow cards have we seen so far that were either minimal contact, legal contact, or in some cases no contact at all?

This great big stage they are on has done nothing for me but highlight the reasons I wasn't watching in the first place!

I'll go with replay on goals - but goals only.

Like I said ... not sure we need replay if we get enough officials...

But I do believe that IF replay is used, using it for goals (INCLUDING judging off-side on a score) as well as sideline plays makes sense.

One thing I'd add to my above rant. WTH is it with the ball going out of bounds at a certain point, and the player walking to the general vicinity of where it went out, then vaguely walking up 10-15 ... 20 yards before throwing it in. Absurd.

That is a common rant of some higher up soccer officials in the US. I don't get why its permitted either.

It just seems like most of the rules were decided by a bunch of kids in a field somewhere (really ... like most sports), but never evolved (unlike the other sports). A lot of people wonder why America has not embraced the sport ... I really think this unstructured, Calvinball rule situation has a lot to do with it.

I watched 3 matches, end to end, this year... and came away frustrated all three times - not because of how I rooted, but rather how unstable it was.

Allow me to answer a few...

I used to think the same, but just forget about it. The FIFA folk decided a long time ago that once the clock starts, it doesn't stop. That's how it's done around the world, and that's what's accepted.

Somewhere, there's a YouTube video of a high school game where someone nailed a last-second shot (which I thought was late, but I digress), and comments from outside the U.S. thought it was ridiculous that there was a firm time limit. To them, that's not football, and we're in the minority on that one.

Now, since the clock never stops, here's a reason for time added on. Let's the half ends at 45:00. At 44:50 a striker goes on a breakaway and gets nailed by a defender 20 yards out. Ten running seconds is not enough time to set up a decent free kick, so if you can't stop the clock, you have to tack it on the other end. That's why they let plays "play out."

Apples and watermelons. In football, 22 guys are crammed into a much tighter space than 22 in soccer. While you do indeed get straightlined in soccer, like any other sport, you don't need seven guys. And yes, the four officials have unique responsibilities.

I completely agree. Someone tried to explain to me that other cultures don't view "owning up" in the same way we Americans do, but confusion is universal. That should change.

Actually, I'd prioritize something technological for goal review over reviewing every card. The missed goal in the England/Germany game is understandable -- I wasn't sure myself until I saw the replay -- but it can be solved with the assistance of the fourth official. I agree that cards should have some review process, but I think getting goals right comes first.

I have to disagree here. I work football. The fact the the play at least begins in a concentrated area actually makes it EASIER to call, not harder. Spread these 22 people all over the field, and there's no way 3-7 referees could see everything. In soccer - the ball can be in one place 1 second, and very far away 3 seconds later - no way a SINGLE on-field referee can call everything accurately. I'd like to place blame for several of these horrendous calls on bad refereeing, but as often as not, I think the real culprit is not enough people, causing straightlining and angle problems, not to mention distance.

I don't know enough about soccer officiating to really comment about how many officials are needed but I will say that Mike is correct about football officiating. Years ago when football was mainly a running game, you could get away with having fewer officials as all of the action was mostly in one place. With the growth of the passing game and the spread offense, more officials were needed in order to provide effective coverage of the play down field. This is why the NFL has evolved from 3 officials all the way to 7. Same with college and even high school in some areas has gone to 7 officials for the regular season.

Working solo games isn't easy, even at the middle school level. I assure you of that. But remember, these FIFA referees aren't alone. The A/Rs are also signaling offside, fouls, etc., and the referee counts on their sideline angles as much as his own (especially for offside).

Fortunately, the FIFA president openly stated that he will re-open talks about goal-line technology. I think something could be worked out with the fourth official where something like this could be a reality.

When you preface every one of your supposed questions with "WTH," it appears that you don't care about answers or explanations nearly so much as you care about banging on about something you simply dislike on the face of things.

It seems unstable to us with our long, detailed rule books. The world loves this game partly because of its simplicity. I still love it even though the officiating sometimes drives me crazy.

I don't buy the "smaller space more officials" line.

In football, you have guys watching 22 players because all 22 players are involved in every single play. In soccer, the field referee is only looking at 5-7 of the players at a time. The ARs watch the guys off the ball, most of whom aren't doing much of anything. If the center referee is in good position at a good angle within 10 or so yards of the play, he can see what he needs to see.

An extra set of eyes behind the goal line opposite the center ref might be nice, but it's probably only necessary at the highest level.

I would also give the competition authority the right to impose or revoke sportsmanship sanctions after the fact, but again only at the highest level.

Update on FIFA officiating and use of replay
 

The comments from those outside the country are hilarious. They are losing their ever loving minds.

Oh and soccer on a football field looks horrible.

Of course he was to say that. I will believe it is happening when I see the laws actually get changed. (Sorry, but Blatter brings out the cynicism in a lot of soccer fans.)

It seems to me that Sepp is the Bud Selig of international soccer.

What do you not buy... Football has less space and more officials than soccer. Not sure what there is there not to buy.

Yes, you watch all 22 because they are all near each other. If you put these 22 all over the field, and then make it so that the ball action could move 50-70 yards in a couple of seconds, 7 wouldn't be nearly enough... but you've hit on my reason for needing more right there. IF the referee is in good position at a good angle within 10 yards... Problem is ... with just 1, he VERY often is not - neither good position, good angle, nor within 10 yards. None of the above - hence the awful calls. With as much movement and space as soccer has, there's NO chance for a referee to stay in good position and angle, and straightlines will happen. Often.

I would say more than "nice". Required, I believe. An official there would make a HUGE difference, not just on goals but on penalties and hand-balls close to the goal. I agree with the last sentence as well... and yes, only at the high levels - but we're talking about the World Cup - doesn't get much higher than that.

In American football, you watch all 22 players because all 22 can hit or be hit every play. In soccer, you only have to watch 5-7 players at a time.

And the days of one, omnipotent referee in the center of the field are long since gone. In the last decade AR's have become more and more active in calling fouls, awarding penalties, and even giving cards. There's a reason they aren't called "linesmen" anymore. Now there's even a fourth official who can tell the center referee anything he sees.

The big issue seems to be in the nature of this particular tournament. Since goals are so rare, and since World Cup Finals games are "do or die" (less so in group play, but still) the consequences of every mistake are that much higher. (Remember, the 16-team knock-out format didn't come about until 1986, with the advent of the first American network TV deal.) The lower the margin for error for the players, the lower the error margin is for the officials.

"One and done" might make for exciting basketball, but it's lousy for soccer.

I disagree 100%. The officials for any sport need to be able to observe ALL of the players ALL of the time. There is always a potential for a situation to occur away from the main action.

Or perhaps you feel that the referee crew didn't need to watch these two at this time.

<object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vF4iWIE77Ts&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

Collectively, yes, but I believe we're talking about each individual official, and I've yet to meet anyone with complete, panoramic eyesight.

Your example actually proves my point.

The case the previous poster was trying to make was that there needed to be 5 or 7 or more officials on the field. In this case, three officials saw all they needed to see to get the call right. Notice that the head butt happened while the referee was twenty yards away and chasing the play away from the incident. The AR saw it, called it, and the referee pulled the red card. Problem solved.

Everything that needed to happen happened, and without seven or more extra bodies on the field clogging up the playing space.

The point is, if you have competent AR's -- and you trust them -- a qualified center referee can focus on the 5-7 players nearest the ball and still keep control of the match.

That said, MLB adds two umpires to the field for the play-offs. If you want to put an extra set of eyes behind each goal line just for the World Cup, fine. But overhauling the process to the point of the kind of hyper-officiating we see in football and basketball seems like an overreaction.

Zidane's headbutt was actually spotted by the 4th official...at least officially. :D

What do you mean by "hyper officiating"?

OF COURSE. You just made our point. 1 isn't enough.

Interesting revisionist history there... Do you actually remember this situation? It was NOT as you described it.

True, one official is never enough. However, World Cup matches have four officials.

Why would "What the he(ck) is with..." or "How the he(ck) can you expect" imply that I don't care about answers? WTH :) would you think that? (And I only said WTH 2 times... not every single supposed question...)

Sigh. I'm not going to wordsmith with you, nor repeat things I've said in previous posts just so the wordsmiths out there can pick it apart. My point all along has been that you can't cover the field with only 1 official ON THE FIELD.

And I will NEVER comprehend not having someone at each goal. Perhaps those 2 guys are the junior guys with low responsibility working their way up - but having a guy there just to watch IN vs NOT IN and handballs in the box would be a huge help.

"Hyper-officiated" sports are those in which the participants and spectators expect some kind of official intervention whenever any rule or custom or protocol is violated, no matter how trifling or irrelevant to the outcome of the play or the game.

Football is the most notorious example. If an offensive player's alignment is off by a few inches either way at the snap, then no matter what else happens the play is coming back with a 5-yard penalty. Defenders initiating contact 5 1/2 yards from scrimmage are penalized, but 4 1/2 yards away is fine. And don't get me started on pass interference.

No wonder it takes a crew the size of the Supreme Court to get all the calls right. There are just too many calls to make.

Basketball is almost as bad, though referees tend to get a bit more leeway there. I read on the forums that referees have to worry about things like uniform colors, where people stand for free throws, and what time the score book gets filled out.

Come on, people.

At least in basketball there is some discretion over whether something is or isn't a foul. As I understand it, to be a foul the contact has to give the person who initiated it an advantage. That rule, by the way, came from soccer. As did the rule about not stopping the clock every time somebody scores.

You're welcome.

OK...thanks...though I think we have the order backwards.

While there is nothing equivalent to "trifling and doubtful" written into the rules of football, there is a big emphasis in training and philosophy on applying advantage to many situations. There are even entire rules that are routinely taught to be ignored except in the most egregious of circumstances, such as assisting the runner.

As far as the uniform colors, etc, you see the the same thing in high school soccer. There is a note right now on the TASO Soccer page reminding officials to enforce the NFHS rules about the color of sliding shorts. The reason is most officials don't like being the uniform police.

I also recognize soccer is different and I don't honestly know what the solution may be. I was mainly interested in your take on "hyper officiating".

And let me make sure I'm clear on one point. Saying a sport is "hyper-officiated" is not a reflection on the officials themselves. They're simply doing what's expected of them (and as best as I can tell, quite well most of the time).

My criticism of football and basketball is that those who play and follow the sport have unreasonable expectations of officials and officiating. In the quest for "fairness," they demand every conceivable wrong be righted by rule, and that an impartial judge hand out "justice" every few seconds.

And you're absolutely right that NFHS is the most egregious violator in this respect.

The result is players and fans can't enjoy the forest because they expect somebody in a striped shirt to point out, name and judge every single tree.

Here is a summary of the triple system of officiating (usually called double-dual or three-whistle) which I wrote for officials in our association who would be using it. Most of them preferred it.

The purpose is better coverage, seeing accurately what happens on every part of the field. The advantages are having a trail official closer to play, more flexible positioning for how the specific part of the game is being played and better match control because of increased presence. The triple system covers the middle of the field better than the dual system and covers the ends of the field better than the single or diagonal system, particularly the interior penalty area.

All three officials are equal and share responsibilities and authorities equally, except for the head referee responsibilities in Rule 5. The head referee designation (by assigner or crew choice) has nothing to do with the positions on the field. All work and communicate together as a team. Proper signals, especially prompt "play on", and observing each other are required so calls do not overlap.

Dynamic play:
All three move on or off the field based on the needs of the moment to stay close to the players.

The end referees (ER) work much like the dual system, except for not covering as much of the opposite end of the field as trail. They box in all the players, make all the calls and decisions for play nearest them and usually make most of the calls. The ER’s give priority to the “horizontal” line of sight.

The middle referee (MR) works as a “permanent” trail (vs. lead), boxing in the active play with the current lead, managing free kicks and kickoffs, balancing the positioning and angles of the crew, positioned for “trail” fouls, etc. The MR can penetrate deeper in each end and closer to the lead ER side than a dual system trail. The MR gives priority to the “vertical” line of sight.


Kickoffs
ER ready for attacks and offsides (NL defender)
MR near mid-line (kicker, encroachment)

Throw Ins
ER if nearest side, MR near expected action
MR if nearest side, ER near expected action or offsides

Goal Kicks
Lead ER positioned for attack and offsides
MR near expected action point
Trail ER near goal area, sound whistle if needed

Corner Kick
Lead ER outside goal line near goal area line
MR near trail side of penalty area
Trail ER near mid-field or NL defender

Free Kick
Lead ER ahead of ball, positioned for attack, offsides or goal
MR in line with ball, positioned for encroachment, manages “wall”
Trail ER behind ball positioned for counter attack

Free Kick near goal and Penalty Kick
Lead ER near goal line (goal judge)
MR positioned for offsides, encroachment, manages “wall”
Trail ER behind ball half way to mid-field, positioned for “trail” fouls

The referee on the home bench side is the primary timer.

Technically, they actually are only allowed to throw from within 1 yd of where the ball went out. my instructor said that that was his biggest pet peeve and told us to call it. It's only an unpopular call because no one enforces it. I do enforce it. First time, *BEEP BEEP* right there [color]. second time, *BEEEP BEEP BEEP* throw to the other team. illegal throw.

HS soccer used to have foul signals, but someone got to them and they abolished them. I work Fed games though with NFHS guys who still use the signals on unclear fouls, or with U-littles to help teach them. My rant is that of referees who don't try to take care of situations using conversation or understanding. Yes a card is needed at times, but just running up, flashing a card, and walking away does nothing to calm the situation or prevent fouls. It also just makes the player mad. Sometimes it is ok to have a short discussion with a player as to why they are receiving a card, or say a quick "watch those elbows" after a simple or trivial foul. Referees who are impersonal are generally disliked by teams. Players do however have respect for officials who will listen to players and explain things.