June 26, 2007
The onus of responsibility
There is too much onus and responsibility placed on a referee’s opinion and interpretation of the rules in today’s game. It’s now got to the stage where almost any decision that is made can find an excuse in the individual referee’s ‘interpretation’, and this set of circumstances is just not good enough. It’s disrespectful to the effort and time given by players, coaches, administrators and the referees themselves. Something has to change.
You only need look at the assistant referee’s requirements on the off-side rule. There is far too much latitude in the interpretation of the rules and this is leading to dissatisfaction and resentment with referees, the rules and the game as a whole. Matters are even worse here in this State as many junior referees are ‘gaining experience’ in the role. But, it is too much to expect for kids to perform under the kind of pressures evident at any Premier League game.
My recent post on the topic of the off-side rule clearly lays out why the offside law is so problematic. It allows a player to be in an offside position as long as he/she is not interfering with play. Well, from my perspective, any player who is on the park is interfering with play. If they are not physically interfering, then they certainly are psychologically, and if they aren’t, my players aren’t doing the job they are required to do.
With the ‘interpretation’ ruling now in place, a referee is capable of getting away with anything and this leaves the game open to ‘fixing’, or at least ‘influencing’. Don’t think for a minute I’m suggesting referees or clubs are crooked, but the game should not be placed in a position where doubts about such matters can be created.
Players ‘diving’ or feigning injury to achieve an advantage is also another area that needs urgent attention. The antics of Drogba, Robben, Ronaldo, Henry, Gerrard and numerous others have become an embarrassment to the game. I would like to see referees have the intestinal fortitude to refuse free-kick appeals if there is even the slightest doubt that it may not be genuine. Okay, there will be some free kicks that may not be awarded, but within a few weeks, players are going to think it is just not worth the theatrics. The big drawback to ‘blatant’ dives will be instant dismissal and a further 1-2 week ban.
Likewise, the handball rule is now patently ridiculous. It has become a catch call around grounds now to hear players bleating (and I make no apology for using this terminology because they are starting to sound like sheep) about handball whenever a ball goes even close to a hand/arm/shoulder and this behaviour is patently stupid. I would even go as far as to say that it is a form of cheating and is bringing the game into disrepute. A player whose arm is by their side, or who is in a ‘natural position’ for their attempt to play a ball, and who makes no attempt to play the ball with their hand/arm, should not be penalised as there is no ‘intention’ of trying to play the ball with the hand. The same should be said for the player who has a ball kicked into their body and which also strikes the arm or hand. In this case, the call should be made “No intention, play on”. No call leaves the referee open to a barrage of pleading, bleating players calling for a hand-ball.
Action is required to address these areas, and with some urgency, too.
BJ
So who exactly do you expect this urgent action from?
Who do you think it should come from Steve??
FFT - FFA - FIFA These are the governing bodies but prior to getting there we would need to have some sort of consensus. Do you think there is a problem?? BJ
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 26, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
BJ
Lets get realistic
FIFA is the only place any change can come from.
And that is not going to happen. Both you and Walter need to accept that FIFA want more goals. Therefore the “passive offside” interpretation.
Coaches need to take more responsibilty in informing their players, both attackers and defenders, as to how the offside law is meant to operate. Of course that means they have to take the time and effort to actually learn it properly!
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 26, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
To begin with, change can come from anywhere (club, region, state, nation)…FIFA has to rubber stamp it. FIFA is the palce where the change ends not begins.
Steve, the reality is it doesn’t matter WHAT a coach teaches a player, it comes down to a referee’s ‘interpretation’ of what the rule is. Hence a assist. ref is required to make a decision from his/her position when sometimes he’s just not in the best position to make that decision.
A coach could spend hours explaining to the enth degree how the passive offside rule works only to go out and have a referee explain that his ‘interpretation’ is something completely different.
Your opinion on handball and diving??
Comment by Blackjack — June 26, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
handball - opinion of the referee
diving - opinion of the referee
Basically to call either the referee must be sure that there is an offence. But that surety is called from where the referee is situated at the time and the view the referee has of the incident.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 26, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
to begin with - change cant come from anywhere - it has to come from FIFA . That is because FFA agrees to be part of FIFA and apply FIFA Laws & Regulations, and FFT agrees to be part of FFA and apply FFA requirements which include FIFA LAWS and Regulations. Yes FFT can make recommendations to FFA, and FFA can make recommendations to FIFA, but FIFA is where the changes have to come from, and this is not likely to revert to the old offside interpretations. (the body that makes the changes is actually the IFAB but primarily FIFA would need to support it for it to happen)
So ideas don’t come from anywhere but inside FIFA?? I disagree, FIFA predominantly perform a rubber stamp function. The majority of the ideas/ recommendations /suggestions come from the coal face, but let’s not have the philosphical discussion on what is, and isn’t, a ‘change agent’.
BJ
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 26, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
The ideas need to be adopted by FIFA or IFAB members else they dont get anywhere near to being implemented. No amount of discussion or debate at local or national level will lead to any change unless it filters through to the committees that are charged with the responsibilities for the Laws of the Game (primarily the province of the IFAB).
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 26, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
This is what I am saying, it should not be at the opinion of the referee, simply because the referees get it wrong far too often and frankly Steve the referees in Tasmania aren’t good enough to get these decisions anywhere near to a consistent standard (2-3 exceptions). It also puts the referee in the position of NEVER being wrong because any decision is open to interpretation and the only excuse the referee needs is, “… in my opinion” which has stuff all to do with the rules. It also falls flat on it’s face when you have referees like Craig Phillips who ‘instruct’ his assist. referees NOT to flag for penalties as the like. This behavior which is against the spirit of ‘team’ leads to resentment and bitterness. Is the assistant an assistant or a flag waver?
I never thought I would say this but maybe it’s time to look at technology and bring in the video referee.
Comment by Blackjack — June 27, 2007 @ 12:36 am
BJ..Many years ago now about 35 I think..my under 7 or it might have been under 8 coach gave me wise advice that all players coaches and spectators should remember.
The referee is never wrong and he never changes his mind.
Whether he is bad or good (might I add few in history considered this)
he is always right.
I doubt changing laws would change this time honoured fact.
Comment by interested spectator — June 27, 2007 @ 7:27 am
There is absolutely NOTHING to stop changes such as those proposed by Blackjack from starting here. All it needs is the correct instruction to referees and this starts, not with the interpretation of the rules, but with their attitude and role on the park. Many years ago I attended a referees course in Tasmania to be told “This is a whistle…and with this you control the game”. If we start with the premise that the referee is out their to “Control, Punish etc” we are placing them above the game.
From the other side though, if players and coaches don’t give younger referees a bit of leeway to learn and make mistakes WITHOUT the abuse, how do we expect them to stay in the game long enough to gain the vital experience and match experience they will need to become first rate refs and then be able to pass their knowledge on to the new younger group?
On the specifics: OFFSIDE - the offside rule I believe still contains words about “seeking to gain an advantage”. A player can interfere with play by just being a distraction and a clever player can pull a defender out of position to leave a gap for a colleague without “interfering”. Referees have to be educated how to read the game to cope with this.
DIVING: Simple…if the referee believes a player has dived…card him. Of course it helps to check before you act. I can recall last season watching one player carried off the field after a tackle and subbed just after being carded for a dive that somehow left four studmarks in his leg.
HANDBALL: Most players and many referees simply don’t understand the rule. Keep posting that article BJ…we will educate them somehow.
The fact is, just because FIFA or the A League get it wrong doesn’t mean we have to. Who knows, if we get it right, maybe they will come to us to see how WE did it?
When FIFA made the rules they had an idea in mind. As we all know, a players/coaches job is to work out how to bend the rules to get the most advantage…isn’t it? A bit like that discussion about block tackles that Charley had the other day. A deliberate move to take the man if you can’t be sure of the ball is a foul, and calling it a ‘block tackle’ doesn’t change that.
Referees need to find the best way to keep the game within the rules without becoming tyrannical. Referee education is not just about learning the rules. It is about reading a game and adjudicating on the intent of a player in his or her actions. That is what the opinion of the referee is all about.
Comment by A Whisper — June 27, 2007 @ 8:23 am
I am talking in a general sense here….but on past blog submissions numerous suggestions have been put forward as to how refereeing in tassie could be improved, because lets be honest at the moment, other than barker & Peter A. it is very poor. Now everytime this topic comes up, Steve Pitchford (and this is not having a go at him) always replies…this has been tried, out of our hands etc. This kind of thinking is not going to develop the refereeing and kind of stops any potential developing. Maybe it could be time to get some fresh people in the door….as the punters are clearly showing there frustration.
Comment by Observer — June 27, 2007 @ 9:48 am
A Whisper
“seeking to gain an advantage” is no longer in the offside law.
This might explain why you dont understand its application.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 10:23 am
A Whisper
we are no longer “many years ago”.
try attending the new style courses and find out what is being taught currently. as well as what the laws actually say and how FIFA are asking that they be applied.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Gents, with all due respect, we’re not discussing the wording of the laws, nor what took place many years ago and definitely not who and who isn’t a decent referee in Tasmania. Could we focus the discussion on the topics raised in my orginal post? If we don’t then we’ll get side tracked with no chance of a solution or suggestion on how it could be overcome.
Just a warning - this will NOT descend into a referee bashing exercise.
Comment by Blackjack — June 27, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Observer
We already have a new State Referees Development Manager and he is working through the issues across the state. There is no quick fix. The issues in tasmania are common throughout the world (to varying degrees of course). Referee recruitment and retention issues in particular - and no-one has an absolute answer. Just as FFT are putting in place strategies for the longterm improvement of the playing standard they are also looking to improve, in the long term, the quantity and quality of referees. The real issue is still numbers. If we get more numbers then more older refs can be put to better use as mentors/coaches/inspectors thereby assisting in improving the quality of refereeing. Referees courses have been run constantly since the beginning of the season and some new refs have come on board. Hopefully the attrition rate overall will be less than the recruitment rate so we get a net gain over the season.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 11:00 am
It’s not just the quantity or even quality of the referees Steve. It’s also about the way in which the laws are applied. When a referee starts out it can only be benefitial if they have ‘concrete’ laws in place to support their decisions. If you have some vague ‘wishy-washy’ off-side rule to apply it puts the newby on an unstable platform to begin with. If anyone approaches them to ask why (a certain decision was made), the kid is going to require almost an intricate knowledge of the law so they can state their case. This isn’t fair for the kid, puts them under pressure, etc. It’ OK for the older more experienced referee he’s got the runs on the board and can probably state their case. Not so for the new ref.
If retention of referees is one of the main problems then give them a stable platform on which to stand. This will give them some confidence and a base from which to work.
Comment by Blackjack — June 27, 2007 @ 11:36 am
I know Steve, you have mentioned this on numerous occassions and has been said by others for years, outcomes…..I would say no. From the outside looking in I believe it is not working and their failure not to listen to the football public is hurting your credability even further…..long term strategies etc….this is not going to win over people. Don’t get me wrong Steve, your intentions are 100% to improving the game….I just think you may need to stop..sit back and actually listen to what is being said….something FFT does poorly.
Comment by Observer — June 27, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
BJ
The offside law is not wishy washy. It just takes a bit of time to learn and a bit more time to learn how to apply it correctly. It takes an eternity for any law change to filter down through clubs - especially to supporters. Supporters make calls that the flag was wrong when the spectator was watching the player kicking the ball 40 yards away when the assistant ref made his decision. It is logical and has some very positive outcomes compared to the ‘old law’ - especially in terms of encouraging more goals and attacking play.
FFT have agreed to apply FIFA Laws of the Game.
FFT cannot vary the application of those laws without express permission from FIFA. So what you are asking for isnt possible.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
As previously mentioned my interest in the game goes back 40 years or fast getting closer to 50..While I appreciate BJ’s efforts to get some concrete offside laws and interpretations I think you will find FIFA has been trying this since 1904..and as we all agree they havent got it right yet.
The call of “offside” from the mob gathered by the touchline is as much a part of our great game as the call “BALL” in that other Australian game.
I enjoy all sports apart from our football and I am yet to find one that has concrete laws that are not open to some form of interpretation.
Those in the high paid world of pro sports use video referees and as is evident from the countless mistakes still made, at the end of the day its a game between players who make mistakes adjudicated by a referee or umpire who is also human and makes mistakes.
sadly nothing is perfect yet I am glad someone at least cares enough to raise the thought we might be able to right laws which are.
Comment by interested spectator — June 27, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Observer
How can you say its not working ? the mgr was only appointed a couple of months ago!
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
The offside law IS wishy washy because it is open to interpretation and opinion. It comes down to the official’s ‘opinion’ if a player is interfering/influencing play or not.
The official on the sideline is also watching play (where the ball is) and on MANY ocassions they also get caught ‘ball watching’ and a close call becomes a wrong call, so that is not the sole domain of the mob on the hill.
The same thing applies to the hand ball ruling. A player who has a hand by his side and then has the ball kicked into that arm should NOT be called for a handball even if the result of that ball hitting the arm is a goal. Simply because there is no intention. But you hear all the bleating players & supporters scream “handball”. This has actually become a tactic by many teams these days and it needs to be stamped out before it goes any further. I have seen handball called against a player who is in the motion of trying to get up off the ground (both hands on the ground and raising himself from the turf) while inside the penalty area who then has a ball kicked into his arm and a penalty is awarded. Now that is just ridiculous.
Diving (and other theatrics) is another area that needs some attention. This is something that can be done at local level as the current laws support the action. I’d like to see the referees take this on board. Make players think twice before throwing themsleves to the ground like some poor high school drama queen. Stamp it out.
Comment by Blackjack — June 27, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
BJ
The instruction to referees is no different than what you are saying.
BUT it is in the opinion of the referee as to whether the handball is deliberate , and making that judgement is not always easy whilst in the middle of the play etc. and is quite often different to how a supporter sees it. Again ‘diving’ is in the opinion of the referee - and given that it is a caution the referee will want to be sure that it is simulation and not just a player losing their balance and/or footing. And again it is not that easy whilst in the middle of play as it is based upon the referees view from where he is at the time.
The three areas you are concerned about - offside, handball and ‘diving’ are discussed on a regular basis.
The issues today are no different than they have always been - differences of opinion. For example the player getting up may have been viewed by the referee as deliberately putting his arm in the path of the ball when he was getting up - and therefore a penalty may have been the correct call.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 27, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
I take on board what you are saying Steve but too many will react to the bleating players appeals and award the free.
And by way of clarification…the player had both his arm on the ground BEFORE the ball was kicked, i.e. the ball was kicked into his arm while it was still in contact with the ground, he wasn’t even facing the ball.
Comment by Blackjack — June 27, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Ah, a topic about refereeing, I had to contribute! Firstly, referee development in the past five-ten years was stunted by the selfish ambitions of those in power - ie. appointing all the good games to your buddies and giving everybody else the scraps. Wondered why all of a sudden last year you saw younger referees getting some quality games? It’s because all the old clingers-on had realised there’s gotta be somebody to replace them. Unfortunately this has put some officials in positions out of their depth. It is good that an ‘outsider’ is now the referees coach - somebody who can cut past the political crap that has stunted development in the past. It is also good for flow of information, as Tassie was clearly not in the loop in years gone by. When I went to nationals a few years back there were all sorts of coaching manuals, DVDs etc. I had never come across any of them in Tassie. These DVDs make teaching things like offside very simple. On this note, offside is itself a very clear law. It is fairly black and white as far as I see it, but few players, coaches, spectators etc understand it - maybe watching one of the DVDs would help! Handball is also a very simple law - was the contact intentional? Yes - free kick; no - clearly and loudly state ‘no’ if there are appeals, thus removing any doubt. On the other issues - diving is a blight on the game but very difficult to police - it is a problem not even FIFA in all its wisdom has addressed thus far. I would suggest that it is almost impossible for somebody who has never played the game to correctly call this when refereeing. And lastly, yes, consistency and personal interpretation are issues, but are always going to be around. Everybody sees the game differently, heck, I’ve even argued with referees examiners about what I’ve/they’ve seen. Think of the infamous ‘dive’ in the world cup - many claim it was a dive, whilst an equal number say it was a penalty. But the reason why referees in south Tas in particular have been so inconsistent is because nobody went to training, nobody did any coaching, there was no flow of information, referees were an exclusive club who never communicated with clubs, there were no plans for development etc. Things will change, but slowly.
Comment by onlooker — June 27, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
I love it when referees state, “Off-side and handball laws are clear cut…black and white, etc.” and then go on to say, “(personal) interpreations are an issue”. LOL Makes me laugh…
Comment by Blackjack — June 28, 2007 @ 12:33 am
With the handball law, in my days of refereeing, I always made an effort to tell the player before the match that I’d only call it if I believed it was deliberate, or their hand/arm was in an un-natural position and the ball fell to their control (ie. arm out to the side, not by their side or in running motion)… you can see by that description there it’s hard enough to describe nevermind decide and call immediately.
That’s how I believe it should be officiated, but the majority of other referees did/do not call it like that, which in-turn has made players call out for everything, most annoyingly when it gets kicked into a player from 5m away or less. Even more annoying is the fact that a lot of referees will give in to that.
So it’s a vicious circle, that (along with the decisions made on other laws) has turned the game into something it shouldn’t be. Ref’s should be ignoring the players’ calls, but the calls are only being made because a lot of the time they get given. Cliche saying, but if I had a dollar for everytime as a player I’d make a comment to the player calling out for handball, to let him know what a joke it was he called for it when it wasn’t even close to an arm etc. for him to turn around and say he was just trying to get a free… So who’s to blame, the players for trying to get the free, or the refs who over the years allow the players to get the free so they’ll keep doing it?!
Another thing to ponder, is when watching international/EPL matches, how many times do you see an appeal for handball? How many times do you see a handball decision?…. Hmmm I wonder how that could be, when they’re playing under the same laws!!
Comment by Ril — June 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Steve, I said
“On the specifics: OFFSIDE - the offside rule I believe still contains words about “seeking to gain an advantage”.
Your response:
“seeking to gain an advantage” is no longer in the offside law.
This might explain why you dont understand its application.”
The law actually states “In part”
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of
the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position
The reference comes from a book entitled
Laws of the Game 2006 - July 2006
Authorised by the International Football Association Board
Published by
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20, 8044 Zurich, Switzerland.
Dot point three clearly states that if a player, in the opinion of the referee, is gaining an advantage by being in an offside position, he is offside. The fact that you believe that it is no longer part of the laws may be why YOU don’t understand its application.
…and please lets not get into a semantic debate about the word “seeking”.
Comment by A Whisper — June 29, 2007 @ 8:56 am
Page 22 of the 2007 law book states:
International F.A. Board Decision:
Decision 2:
The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:
Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to playthe ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture which, in the opinion of the Referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goal post or cross bar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position
From Laws of the Game - 2007 Edition, the rulebook given to our referees this year.
The first and last points are fairly clear cut and easy to police, it seems like the second where problems can occur. It is hard to see from side on if a player is obstructing an opponents line of vision and there is also the situation where a player who was in an offside position stepping over the ball and leaving it for a team mate, which could be judged as a movement which deceives the defender. Assistants certainly have to be on the ball to make correct decisions under the new rules, but they certainly aren’t helped by the many players, coaches and supporters who don’t understand the rule and give them abuse.
Comment by el diablo — June 29, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
As for handball, it seems in the EPL and other European leagues that free kicks are paid everytime the ball makes contact with hand or arm, which could be why players always appeal for free kicks. I agree with blackjack, some referees go overboard with handball decisions and most players are probably unaware of the rules.
Diving will always be hard for a referee to police. The best action will be for major competitions (champions league, national leagues, internationals etc.) to use video evidence to give harsh penalties to players adjudged to take dives. It is shocking for the game’s image and stamping it out in top level competitions will show everyone else that it is unnacceptable.
Comment by el diablo — June 29, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
AW
Removing the word “seeking” is a HUGE differential. You will note that it does not appear anywhere in the passages you quote - and that is what I was referring to. Nowadays you have to gain an advantage not merely be seeking to gain an advantage. - and thats not arguing semantics.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 29, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
BJ ……i am stunned that you can “quote” instructions given by an experienced referee in Craig Phillips
Referees give instructions …….from inside the changerooms and unless you are in those changerooms …..I believe Craig has been misquoted …… gee how that surprises me !!
I would suggest that you seek clarification from Craig or any other referee for that matter before you make big bold statements
cheers
can i suggest that Steve knows the laws of the game just about inside and out.
Like the great Bas Masters ….steve could just about quote word for word what is in the law chart
Why should you be stunned? If he has been misquoted as you suggest then it’s a misquote that has arisen from his own colleagues and on a number of occasions. These are the same people you ask me to seek clarification from. Gee, what’s a man to do?? Maybe YOU need to check your sources Digger…but that doesn’t surprise me. cheers to you too BJ
Comment by digger — June 30, 2007 @ 9:58 am
SP
It might be HUGE for the sake of your argument but means little in regard to the point of the discussion which had to do more with interpretation than literal wording. As always we can agree to disagree and lord knows we have done that often enough.
Interestingly the comments from El Diablo are also very relevant so let me ask a specific question.
If an attacking player deliberately positions himself in an offside position causing a defender to move to cover him should the ball break his way, surely this falls into the realm of “interfering” to which Diablo refers? I will guarantee at the moment that most referees will rule the player NOT offside because the ball is nowhere near him, however the gap caused by the defender moving may be just what the man with the ball needs to shoot or run through…and yes I agree this is an “in game” situation that is VERY difficult to teach.
The logical answer is that the defender should ignore the attacker but it seems at the moment that the interpretations on this differ so much that the defenders don’t have any faith that the officials will make the right decision. As I said earlier, the reason that this decision is left to the referees opinion is to interpret the rules within the game environment, not to apply it from a technical perspective.
The major issue is the inconsistency in the decision making process. At one premier league game I attended last weekend the interpretation placed on this ruling by the two assistant referees was so different that players could not have been anything but confused.
I do agree that it takes time to teach young referees to do this which is why I also suggested that players should be encouraged to give them a little more leeway to let young referees develop.
DIGGER…sorry mate but BJ is spot on. I was involved in a discussion a couple of weeks ago when a young assistant referee asked the man in the middle just as they went on the ground what he should do in the case of a penalty because he had been told exactly what BJ is reporting a week earlier. I don’t wonder some of these youngsters are confused…and some of them are potentially very good referees.
Comment by A Whisper — June 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
AW - you asked: “If an attacking player deliberately positions himself in an offside position causing a defender to move to cover him should the ball break his way, surely this falls into the realm of “interfering” to which Diablo refers?
FIFA directive is, as I understand it, that this is not interfering with an opponent nor interfering with play.
Instruction to assistants are just that, and vary from referee to referee. They also vary according to the relative experience of the assistant referee. In general, assistant referees would not flag for a penalty unless they were of the opinion that the referee had not had a clear view of the incident.
Comment by Steve Pitchford — June 30, 2007 @ 6:51 pm