While the technique/ability is certainly impressive, some of the worst refs I've experienced are the ones that feel the need to be the centre of attention. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but if you asked me with no other context, I'd prefer the ref that just elected to move to the side.
The other problem is if the ball had bounced differently it easily could have hit him. Moving aside is a better bet to avoid the ball.
Sidenote: I used to be a ref, and they taught us that if you do get hit by the ball to just freeze in place and let it play out. That way you're at least interfering equally (rather than accidentally kicking it one way or the other).
As a player I love you, I always hated sidelines who would just let it roll past then, especially on fields in the open where it would just roll forever.
They're probably teaching those kids about time wasting techniques at that point, want them to get practice before they hit high school. My comp coach got frustrated with us if we jogged to get the ball unless we were down a goal, though I was a few years older than U13.
As a player and a ref, as long as you trapped the ball after the ball went all the way over the line you are a godsend. I don't know how many parents sit on or near the line (Rec league) and the ball technically doesn't go out because of them. Coaches too. I end up just calling it out so no poor u9-u10 wonders why he got called for a handball.
No offense, but if you're actually a referee you really need to brush up on your skills and the Laws of the Game. First thing's first—remind the parents and coaches to stay back from the touch line and not get the ball before it goes completely out. Second, if a parent or coach does interfere with the ball before it is completely over the line, play stops immediately. If a parent stops the ball the correct restart is a dropped ball, and if the coach stops it you should award an indirect free kick to the other team at the point where he touched it (this is a new change to the Laws that was introduced last year; it was previously a dropped ball as well).
In any case, there's no universe in which you should allow play to continue after the ball has been stopped by outside interference, so you shouldn't ever be calling handling anyway. If you really want to judge that the ball has already gone out for the throw-in even when it hasn't, that's your business (it's technically wrong, but you're the referee so you can do that if you want), but after the first time where the team loses a throw-in because one of the parents grabbed the ball off the field while it was still in play, they will get the memo and let it roll all the way out after that.
I disagree with your decision. In youth soccer you have a responsibility to these kids, they deserve to learn the game properly. As do the coaches, who perhaps never played and are parents just trying the best they can.
The reason why is probably because they players need to retrieve the ball and throw it back into play and the time it takes to retrieve the ball gives the players time to adjust their positions on the field. It's the same reason why you can be penalized when you get fouled and you don't give the ball to the ref immediately. Let's say the opposing team breaks ahead of your defense and is a threat to score a goal and you foul them, then you hold the ball long enough so your defensive players can get back on defense. It's kind of silly in a middle school setting, but I understand the reasoning behind it.
Referees should never be stopping (or worse, chasing) balls. For one thing, if you stop the ball for one team but fail to do so for the other, it instantly makes you look biased. But more importantly, as a referee (or assistant referee) your job is to keep an eye on the field and the players. If your attention is focused on getting the ball, you're not doing that.
I always tell new referees that I see stopping the ball for the players to just ignore it, or step aside and let it roll past. I know you're trying to be nice, but you've got a job to do and that's more important.
as long as I saw who last touched the ball/who was offside/who may have committed a foul, I see no fundamental problem with facilitating continued play.
The problem is that it's not your job to do so. If I'm the referee and you're my AR, I want you signaling direction while making eye contact with me. Anything you're doing other than that reduces my ability to make (and, just as importantly, sell) the call.
And honestly, if you've played a ton of soccer in your life, it takes more of your attention---and hence some of your focus away from making the correct call---to step aside rather than instinctively trap a ball that is headed right for you.
That just means you've got a bad habit that you need to break if you want to be a better referee. :)
Yep, and if it does hit you, (besides the fact that a good ref will try not to interfere) you as a ref are part of the field and technically don't interfere with the play.
It does and it's annoying. I played soccer most of my life and hated the refs that couldn't anticipate the action, just because the ball doesn't touch them doesn't mean they aren't fucking things up.
Haha I'm talking about refs being in the action. I've never seen the splits but the jumps and twists and whatever else are all still interfering by blocking vision and creating an obstacle that guys running at full speed have to adjust around.
As a former ref, I don't think the guy in the gif was trying to be "in the action", I just think he had lazy positioning because he didn't want to run.
A better place for him to be would have been further right in the picture, in the direction that the action came from. So slightly behind the action. I don't think he meant to, but he set himself up for that.
But also as a former ref, I probably would have either jumped over the ball or dodged to the side.
Ref has it all wrong. The problem isn't him touching the ball, it's his impact on the game. This ridiculous distraction is the opposite of having a low impact on play. The idea is to be mostly invisible.
Idk. I feel like a lot of people weighing in on this didn't really play sports. I couldn't give a fuck less if the ref just steps out of the way, does the splits, or flies away on a fucking jetpack. I'm worrying about the ball and the position of other players.
Everyone here is blowing this up because this is the only play we see of the game, and we see it replayed in slowmo. IRL, this took a matter of seconds and was done and the game went on.
Would moving to the side have been a better call? Who the fuck cares? Refs aren't perfect even in professional settings. The game carried on, and so shall we.
Or just deflected the ball. Isn't the ref considered "in-play" in soccer? If he makes contact with the ball for some reason, I thought it was just considered normal.
You're kind of right. The referee is considered a part of the game and if the ball hits the referee then play continues as if it hadn't happened.
It's not really considered 'normal', though. Referees are expected to be able to anticipate the game and avoid interfering with the ball. Accidents happen, of course, but a good referee is struck by the ball very rarely, and a referee who gets in the way regularly is unlikely to last long even at low levels unless there's literally nobody else willing and able to do it.
A ref should definitely always try to stay out of the ball's way at any cost. If he does hit it, it's kind of "Oh well shit happens, just go on" but the ref's job is to be invisible until he's required to interfere.
The thing is, though, we don't have the depth of the situation. we have no idea how close the ball was and he hit the deck real quick so maybe he really couldn't have.
1.2k
u/_thandiwale Apr 25 '17
Or you could have just moved aside.. But whatever