Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another Ref here:

1. Reminder that most of us who Ref in the DMV are on multiple assignor lists. So the idea that leagues like NCLS or EDP or CCL have markedly different refs isn't true. HOWEVER, DA/GA/ECNL refs are generally better because either the assignor lets them know of availability early, or when multiple refs sign up, the assignor makes sure to assign the better refs. Frankly, when I have done AR for ECNL/DA, I have found the parents/players to be better about knowing the LotG, and I know I felt like I needed to be at my best as well.

2. Overweight men - in general, bad parents and coaches have made reffing so unpalatable that the only people willing to do it are men for whom the money is not the most important aspect.

3. There are absolutely some bad refs in the DMV. I have worked with them, and it's not enjoyable. But the reality is, every weekend we'll get a 2:00 am email from Tarey or another assignor with a dozen games that still need an AR or even a CR. So parents being crappy to refs means there is a ref shortage, which means the assignors have no choice but to give games to refs who everyone knows aren't great. Thing is, even the crappy refs know the LotG better than the vast vast vast majority of parents. But if you scare off the kids learning to ref, then you are left with weak refs. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

This is so true. My spouse and my soccer-playing kids all got certified as refs and all have stopped reffing because of the abuse they take from the sidelines. At U12 games! It’s completely insane and not worth putting up with. It takes a while to get enough experience, especially as a teenager, to get to the games where the parents know the laws better and are somewhat less abusive or restrained, but getting through reffing those U11-12-13 age groups to get to the older leagues is just terrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1. Flopping. The reality is, simulation isn't as common as you think, and very few kids can really pull it off.

I wonder if it is more common than you think. My DS has a teammate who is extremely good (is that the right word?) at this. He was good enough, and I was sufficiently naive, that I didn't cotton to it myself. After about a year my DS told me what was going on - and after that I was able to detect when he did it.

If my DS hadn't told me I don't know how long it would have taken me to realize.

Obviously - before anyone starts screaming at me - my DS and I had a discussion about what would happen if he ever employed the same tactic.

I made sure he realized that he should perfect his technique before trying anything similar.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.

Refs generally do protect the keeper a good bit -- sometimes to the dismay of TV commentators.

The goalkeeper cannot be challenged when he or she has the ball in hand, and the definition of "in hand" is more expansive than people realize. If the ball is in an outstretched open hand, it's in hand. If the ball is between the hand and the ground (or the hand and the ground), it's in hand. (The latter came up in one of my games. The coach said, "Had to have both hands on it last I checked, but OK." I wonder when he last checked.

Anonymous wrote:Another Ref here:

1. Reminder that most of us who Ref in the DMV are on multiple assignor lists. So the idea that leagues like NCLS or EDP or CCL have markedly different refs isn't true. HOWEVER, DA/GA/ECNL refs are generally better because either the assignor lets them know of availability early, or when multiple refs sign up, the assignor makes sure to assign the better refs. Frankly, when I have done AR for ECNL/DA, I have found the parents/players to be better about knowing the LotG, and I know I felt like I needed to be at my best as well.

2. Overweight men - in general, bad parents and coaches have made reffing so unpalatable that the only people willing to do it are men for whom the money is not the most important aspect.

3. There are absolutely some bad refs in the DMV. I have worked with them, and it's not enjoyable. But the reality is, every weekend we'll get a 2:00 am email from Tarey or another assignor with a dozen games that still need an AR or even a CR. So parents being crappy to refs means there is a ref shortage, which means the assignors have no choice but to give games to refs who everyone knows aren't great. Thing is, even the crappy refs know the LotG better than the vast vast vast majority of parents. But if you scare off the kids learning to ref, then you are left with weak refs. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Anonymous wrote:

1. Flopping. The reality is, simulation isn't as common as you think, and very few kids can really pull it off.

I wonder if it is more common than you think. My DS has a teammate who is extremely good (is that the right word?) at this. He was good enough, and I was sufficiently naive, that I didn't cotton to it myself. After about a year my DS told me what was going on - and after that I was able to detect when he did it.

If my DS hadn't told me I don't know how long it would have taken me to realize.

1. Flopping. The reality is, simulation isn't as common as you think, and very few kids can really pull it off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do referees ref Hispanic kids differently than the other kids?

Because the kids are different. You just can't ref a hispanic kid the same way you can ref a white kid.

We actually have a different policy for black kids, chinese kids, and indian kids too. We save the most stringent rules for Vikings though - otherwise the game turns into some sort of medieval pillaging contest.

Not funny. I have actually seen strange calls for kids who are minorities of different kinds. Saw a ref who didn't call a single foul on kids who were clearly pushing and grabbing shirts but when a Chinese looking kid crashed into another kid and to me it looked like just that -a crash- the ref didn't even give a warning. It was a yellow card.

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.

Refs generally do protect the keeper a good bit -- sometimes to the dismay of TV commentators.

The goalkeeper cannot be challenged when he or she has the ball in hand, and the definition of "in hand" is more expansive than people realize. If the ball is in an outstretched open hand, it's in hand. If the ball is between the hand and the ground (or the hand and the ground), it's in hand. (The latter came up in one of my games. The coach said, "Had to have both hands on it last I checked, but OK." I wonder when he last checked.

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.

That’s why you teach keepers to defend themselves. If a player wants to charge a keeper to try and intimidate or knock the ball loose, they’re gonna catch a knee to the chest or face. If they’re just hovering closely in case the keeper fumbles the ball, that’s another thing entirely.

Anonymous wrote:Somewhat of a soccer neophyte here.

How do refs interpret contact with the keeper? I get that a 50/50 ball is just that, and fair game (and a goalie presumably has a responsibility to protect him/herself). Too often, though, particularly at the younger ages, there is no doubt that GK will get to the ball first, yet the attacking player will come in full bore on the chance that the GK misplays it (as taught by the coach to "follow up"), and when the keeper goes to play it cleanly (either by hand or foot), he/she gets taken out.

FWIW, I come from the hockey culture where the rules recognize that GK is almost always in a vulnerable position and the rules are designed to protect the keeper. I'm curious whether soccer refs follow the same thinking.