Question Number: 24283

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/6/2010

RE: Rec Other

Stef of Elgin, TX USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 24247

I am glad that I read this thread from the initial question because I can see how this can be interpreted both ways. In the beginning of the thread I felt strongly about the second touch. I am just now going over Advice to the Referees with my boys for a re-certification this weekend and was telling them about this very thing. I wish the book didn't have the example in it of a goalie parrying the ball (as opposed to a deflection) and then retrieving it as a second touch violation. To get it to make sense to my boys I explained it as a possible cross on goal where the goalie deliberately uses one of his techniques (parry) because, let's say, he didn't want to try and catch it and possibly fumble it due to a header attempt from a nearby opponent. In that case it would make sense getting a second touch would be an unfair advantage for the keeper (i.e., the keeper chose to control and play the ball to a more advantageous spot for retrieval). Unless there is another example that explains why a parry and subsequent retrieval falls under the category of wasting time, etc., then we refs that lean on the 'Advice' manual are left in this ambiguous world of neither call being wrong. After reading the tread I find myself coming back to a place I was at the beginning of my soccer career - The Spirit and flow of the game. I love how the 'old school' refereeing concepts of interfering as little as possible and spirit of the game really shed the best possible light (IMHO) on these situations that tend to bring out the 'trifling' comments from so many responses. Unsporting Behavior used to pretty much cover it all. Now it seems the more examples and explanations we get about the Laws, the more we lose sight of the game.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Stef
Two distinct sepearte areas here. In the case of recertification or exam questions the answers are always a matter of fact rather than a matter of discretion or refereeing concepts.
The Law makers over the last numbers of years have endeavoured to prescribe the outcome based on match situations. In many situations there is less discretion afforded to referees and that is probably due to the failing of referees at the highest level to deal with certain situations.
The Law now has many 'must' decisions which referees need to be aware of.

Where there is discretion the good referee wil use it wisely for the benfit of the game.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hi Stef and a hearty Amen!!! The concept of the Spirit of the Game is often lost on Americans like myself who were raised on football, basketball, and baseball where every infraction, no matter how inconsequential is supposed to be called. This is especially true for football. I have to be honest and say when my sons decided to play soccer some 15 years ago or so, I was clueless. My first few years as a referee were extremely difficult. I had studied hard and felt I knew when a foul legitimately could be called but now had to decide if it SHOULD be called. Huge difference. Instead of looking at an infraction and how it affected one opponent I realized I had to weigh that against how the infraction affected the opponent, his teammates, their opponents, the match itself, my control of the match and so on. This is something all soccer referees struggle with for their entire careers.
The LOTG give the soccer referee unique powers in the world of sports officiating but also give us tremendous responsibility