Question Number: 19749

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/15/2008

Chris of Vancouver, Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 19739

I appreciate how all of your responses, excluding one, on the issue of the free kick taken inside one's own penalty area being kicked into one's own goal, were explanatory and free of verbal abuse.

As Ref. Fleischer mentioned, a wrong call on this is going to result in a protested game. So as you will agree, this is not an intellectual exercise. (I appreciated this straightforward answer, no sugar coating, just the plain facts, but no abuse.)

What's more, I have asked this question to very senior referees, and been given the wrong answer. So if you wondered why I've been tenacious on this question, there is your answer. In fact, I will be chided by these very referees for suggesting what you are saying in your answers. But I agree with you, and thank you for disbusing me of this notion.

My objections, albeit mistaken, were based on the LOTG, and not taken out of thin air. The verbal abuse on the part of, in this case, at least one of your panel is probably something I'm going to have to put up with when I have a legitimate question, but I think it does you a disservice, not to mention discourage people from using your site.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

We tend to get a bit thin skinned after answering the same question for the same person two or more times and sometimes it shows. I'm truly surprised I was able to be really nice on this one Chris as I'm usually the one who thumps the questioner upside the head. In order to get the correct information where it needs to be the bad stuff needs to move out of the way. In a classroom situation this is easily handled because the instructor can see facial expressions and take a different path in getting to the ultimate goal.

Because we can't see what you're thinking we need to rattle the rocks and make room for a few more. Sarcasm is one method and if kept light it usually works. On this one I allowed the less palatable kind of whack, an assault on your intellect to be used as an attention gainer. After reading that we did have your attention and the correct information crept into your memory and seems to have stayed. Bad form all 'round, but quite effective.

In the classroom the panelist who used the club and me, as well, would have seen your face, known you weren't buying into the explanation and altered the path of instruction to something like this: Right Chris you are correct in what the Law states however you need to keep reading further on in Law 13. At that point you would have read out loud OR the instructor would have done so and stressed the salient point further on. When your expression changed the instructor would have noticed and said: 'Right, there it is -- does that answer your question Sir?'

We have succeeded in getting you on the path of right and truth instead of the path of conjecture and assumption at least in this case, I would hope. Now comes the problem and it's in your lap this time -- someone has to edumicate the 'very senior referees' who are spouting forth bum scoop. The choice in how you get the information past myth and conjecture is yours. Please remember you will get frustrated when they balk at truth and logic and if you are forced to beating them upside the head to rattle loose bad information they will take offence. No worries though, because the end result is a referee who isn't going to embarrass himself [and you] any more, at least on this point. Football is going to be the better for it.

That's why we're here. That's why we sometimes resort to nuclear weapons to get the point across. The end result is a more knowledgeable referee and the only radioactive fallout is ruffled feathers and a small bump on the side of a referee's head. This will heal over time but the information will stay there and your match skills will be better. We appreciate you staying with us and challenging our skills in getting a point across, we sometimes need it. Will we change? Now that is the big question, isn't it?

Regards, C.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

It is a significant deviation that given we are a group referee site pertaining to the LOTG we act as individuals when answering from personal feelings as well as the laws themselves. As a volunteer effort we are all subject to moods and time constraints and occasionally pose are you kidding me or are you obtuse type responses. The realm of disrespect is a perceptual one! If those who feel a sarcastic or pointed response offends but embeds the necessary knowledge they may feel vindicated.

We are not a politically correct site.

I have flavored responses with ethnic sentiments and religious overtones that likely make others wish I did not. The thing is you get the real deal here.

Abuse is a relative term as we expect referees to have a thick skin and differentiate the verbiage which needles, which causes pain and controversy from that which is merely part of the subjective nature of humans to be frustrated when things are not going according to plans.

I have attended seminars in many parts of the country/world and in while most experiences were worthwhile, enlightening, even treasured moments, some of those VERY same people can be mean spirited, persnickety, condescending and unwilling to admit they might even be wrong. Many referees subject their peers or other referees with distain or consider others as dunderheads for asking inane questions or thinking that contrary way at all. I know of several elite referees whom I personally question their competence and values yet are well respected by many others. Perhaps I am being a bigger jerk than I think they are? I enjoy those who do not fold up at the least sign of trouble and can give measured response to things they find unsettling. When you are instructed or taught in a framework of this is CORRECT! THIS is NOT! The not stuff is harshly stomped on and you better get in line with CORRECT! Our, "WHY is it not this way?", sentiments are simply quashed! They embarrass you as often as they try to educate you at these things to marginalize the procedure to dissent but reinforce the WAY they WANT things done!
Is a perception of positive reinforcement possibly where people will tell you if you're being stupid -- which is different than being ignorant! As in all truth it is not always what we think is true but what we know to be true that isn't that catches us out!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Chris: I reread all our answers and am puzzled by your assertion there was verbal abuse. The question you asked was answered further in Law 13 of which you quoted. It's a sad statement that very senior referees in your area can't understand what is clearly written in the LOTG or choose to only read the parts they want to. I'm glad you went to the trouble to contact us and I hope you can convince your fellow referees who should know better to at least read the pertinent parts of Law 13 which clearly show they are wrong and you are correct.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 19903