My name is Stephen. I am a soccer referee living in Madison, WI (USA) - which is two hours from Chicago, IL, (USA.)
My goal is to create meaningful content that will be of practical value to soccer referees.
If you have benefitted from this content, please consider supporting me through a RU-vid membership, or through a purchase via affiliate link. I would appreciate it.
Clip 1, I agree. Foul on white. Clip 2, I believe no foul should be called. Play on. Clip 3, white was not playing the ball. White would have fallen regardless. Advantage to blue. Play on.
First clip; potentially a yellow card, second clip, yes a foul but incidental. Attacker in the second clip is allowed to challenge for the ball. Is in the air and his momentum is carrying him forward towards the ball. Yes the keeper gets to the ball a micro-second first; and thus the foul. No card.
I have one that I spotted repeatedly refereeing high school soccer..it seems to be more common in school ball than club ball but I've seen it happen in both..there would be a shot on goal from , let's say, the 35 yard mark..let's call it a grass cutter..the keeper scoops up the ballon his knees and smothers the ball ..as he goes to get up, he uses the ball to push his body up with both hands on the ball, leaves the ball on the ground to pull his socks up, then picks the ball up to start his distribution of the ball...I blow the whistle from an indirect at the spot of the infraction ..another one that I've seen mostly as an AR is the whole ball fully outside the whole 18 yard line while the keeper is distributing the ball with his hand ..handball where the ball was when it crossed the line
A warning for a first time infraction may be the better course of action here. These are minor technical offenses for which the punishment of idfk inside penalty area creates a scoring opportunity for the other team. Similarly, we don’t count six seconds when keeper is in possession and then immediately whistle for a violation. This is not the expected call.
Second one for sure isn't a card, as the player jumped at the ball then did his best to minimize impact when he saw the keeper get his hands in there. First one, I was thinking yellow for reckless, based on fully stepping on the keeper's hand. Maybe it wouldn't be, with more context, but that's where I'm leaning.
@@cpat6389I agree. Player is late and there is significant force. If this is the same game where the first challenge occurred, this could be a match control issue. Great that the offender recognized his mistake but still a caution.
I disagree on the third. Good shoulder to shoulder we agree there, but getting your feet caught up with a defender is not a foul in my opinion. It is just a footballing play, there needs to be intent or dangerous play for a foul. If you reverse the reasoning and imagine an attacker running directly into a defender and tripping without the defender making a tackle, you couldnt call a foul on the defender for taking no action. This happened yesterday between Portugal and Slovakia for the penalty. The referee analyst disagreed with the penalty call.
I disagree. While the trip was not intentional, it knocks the Blue player to the ground, potentially dispossessing him of the ball (clip ends early to know what happens) and certainly interfering/stopping him from his next logical football move to advance the ball. At the higher levels of the game, that has to be a foul. I can see making the case that at the high school level, tangling feet just sometimes occurs given the physical maturity and skill sets of the players, but if it affects the flow of play, then I think it needs to be a foul (as compared to 2 players running down the field not directly competing for the ball who tangle feet and one or both falls to the ground - since flow of play was not directly affected - no call even though someone tripped someone or both tripped each other. Judgment call.
@@rizzivideocollection1902blue initiates the contact and bodies the guy in white. Getting your feet tangled is part of the game. It’s over all a clumsy play. I wouldn’t want to penalize either of them for playing hard and honest. The trip is accidental. As for calling that at the highest level, I think you would get absolutely lit up by the white team if you called a foul against the white player. In general you should allow physical play that isn’t intentionally malicious. Overall, I would understand a ref making that call but I think the ref would be getting grief from the white team. It’s the beauty about football, the reffing is subjective and what I think is a clumsy but fair play, you may call a foul. That’s okay.
@@julianavila8 I think we are largely in agreement and my view is generally allow play to happen. Few things are more frustrating than parents screaming "handball" every time there is a slight deflection of a player's arm in a youth game that has no impact on the flow of play or even direction of travel of the ball. However, at the highest level (elite development, college, pro) I think the standard has moved to if the action disadvantages the other team's opportunity to attack or defend, than call it a foul. Not saying that should be the standard but it is what I observe; think of how many times commentators use the phrase "clumsy challenge" - essentially, at this level, you cannot be clumsy. But totally agree that at lower levels, kids are and that is part of the game. Where that line gets drawn is highly subjective which is why I appreciate channels like this.
@@rizzivideocollection1902 yup agreed. It’s one of these challenges that’s right on the fringe of a foul. That’s why it’s a good example to include. It’s true if you do a clumsy tackle at the pro level it will usually be a foul. He actually falls on the ball with his hand at the end, something I dislike in football in general, it forces a stoppage of play and so many times the ref caves and gives the foul. I’ve really been enjoying the reffing in Copa. They have been simply allowed to play, and that’s what I personally like to see.
I agree on all three of these. For the last one, with the trip being inadvertent, I think it's one of those calls that I would make for the defending team (as it is here), but if it were the other way I'd probably let it go. Great example of how to manage the game in the different zones of the field. Something that does stand out to me is your focus in the first example on the player having made contact with the ball. The Laws of the Game talk about making a challenge FOR the ball, but they don't actually say anything about making CONTACT with the ball. An attempt to make a play on the ball that is unsuccessful in making contact with the ball is still a challenge for the ball. Whether you make contact with the ball is only one of the considerations in determining whether it was in fact a challenge for the ball (as is how the foot landed flat in front of the opposing player, and not into them, as you illustrated), but it doesn't have primacy. It's a challenge for the ball, so now we move onto the second question: Whether it was careless, reckless, or done with excessive force. Here again, contact with the ball is a strong piece of evidence in making that determination, and most of the time a lack of contact with the ball makes it pretty clear that a challenge was at least careless, but once again it doesn't have an outsized importance compared to other possible factors. I'm sure YOU know all this, and you do take this into consideration. I just think it would be useful from an educational standpoint to make this clear. The #1 most common objection I get from players, coaches, and spectators is that "I/he/she got the ball!" as if that's the ultimate pass/fail line in determining whether a tackle is legal or not. Television commentary (which is usually poor from a rules standpoint in any sport) contributes to that, probably because the question of whether the first point of contact was with the ball or the player is the clearest thing for super-slow-motion replays to focus on, so it makes for good drama. Because of that, I do consider it important for at least US as referees, to understand the letter of the law and the nuances in decision making. That's what this channel is all about, after all. Cheers!
The only one that’s a yellow card for me is the last one. If there’s no foul there, he is in inside the 18 with a shot ready to go. Clip 4 with no foul he has 3 defenders right in front of him. Clip 5 same thing with 2 defenders waiting to pounce but much more of a card for me than clip 4. That’s what I love about this channel. As an official, we all see a little differently, but these are very good discussion points.
Stephen, how about the other side of the coin. You have a foul in the box against a team that is already losing huge. Let's say a handball and the player clearly knows she did it to where her face and body mannerisms and dejected look even tattles on her. She puts you in a position where if it was any other game, you have to call it. Do you in this case?
I was taught fouls from the back usually have yellow card "written all over them" as they are not plays on the ball, they are playing the man at that point. #3, to me, is definitely a yellow and borderline red in my mind. Out of bounds, from behind, and an obvious shoving motion a brief second after he touches the player. It sort of mad me mad to even watch it. #4 with the girls, I don't know about that one, I almost feel like white is simulating. To me, I just see blue putting out her arms to feel the white players proximity as she goes up for ball. i think she even pulls her hands away at the point in which white player goes down. But, as always, it's easy to analyze when you are watching slo mo, don't have that luxury on the pitch.
Great things to consider here Jay. Hope this helps you in some way. Sounds like you know how you call these kinds of things already. Players are lucky to have you as a ref who knows what they want and how to keep players safe.
Would you say that foul #7 3:09 is a caution on the first player who makes contact? From my perspective, it looks like a reckless charge from behind with no intent to play the ball. At least the second blue player makes a play on the ball before he gets plowed over by his teammate. Thanks for the videos mate, they are great!
I like watching US soccer ref videos as well since Im from Canada. Fouls are universal I know but there is a slight difference refs manage the games compared to Canada I find. Keep up the good work. Keep posting more vids:-)
This happens to me more often than I care to admit. 😅 My most recent one was an adult league where the GK asked the defender to "pass it back" - defender did (as he was starting to get pressed), with his feet - a normal soccer pass, GK bent over and scooped it up. I had to shake out the cobwebs and was like "did what just I think happen actually really happen" and felt dumbstruck for a LONNNNNG 2-3 seconds and finally blew the whistle. lol.
Thanks for the story, I would have reacted the same as you. Since I could have missed the call on the potential scorer and the player was probably hurt by the fence, I could not give out a red. Yeah getting verbally abused is difficult. Under ideal conditions, telling the player the contact was on the shoulder and not a clear call, here's a yellow card that should have been red. It is a teaching moment to the player. Lets say it was defender giving foul language after a foul or penality given, easy red card since the player instigated. Super difficult job being ref and ensuring a positive atmosphere and outlets to help players be better people
The group behind you were probably annoyed nuns jumped in front of them and didn't want any more late comers to jump in. Were you alone? They probably thought more people were going to jump in. It was a passive aggressive action to stand close. "No more people in front us, we're going to not give any space" Extending this to referree-ing, how does a ref handle retaliatory fouls? Example where a hard challenge isn't called and more hard challenges occur in retaliation. Once calls need to happen, then players complain about the first foul not being called. De-escalation is not easy
High school coach here… a player, when I asked her to remove her jewelry, told me “but what if it is a religious necklace”? I felt like saying, “especially if it’s a religious necklace, I don’t want you relying on prayer instead of skill.” 😂
Something else to keep an eye out for. At the end of clip 8, the player who gets the card runs off (maybe this is a rule?) and another player comes on. The new player runs onto the pitch immediately, without waiting for the other player to come off or for a signal from the ref that he can come on. That is a yellow card offence, 12 players on the pitch. Also, there is a red player standing at the halfway line, probably warming up, but his bib is not on and the coach (wearing identical colours to his players, which is a no for me) is not only out of his box, but actually on the field of play. Make sure you stamp these things out.
@@prs314 I’d consider the flow/vibe in the game before blowing the whistle, but yea I call foul throw all the time for sloppy throws like this one. More often I blow the whistle for feet. I think some find it annoying but I try to demand a certain respect for the game with routine stuff like this.
I'm seeing a foul in #6, where the defender is advancing hip-to-hip into the attacker. The clip cuts out before I can see whether to play advantage, but otherwise I'm calling the foul.
I thought it was just good defense. He’s allowed to have his body spread out like that to play defense. I didn’t really see much there. Maybe a push but too soft to call imo
@@oddbigking9069 Fair enough. It's within the realm of judgement calls, as so many rules are in soccer. I work games at the low end of competitiveness (house league/rec & the lowest levels of youth district play), so I tend towards calling things pretty tight to the letter of the law. Per the rulebook, shoulder-to-shoulder is the only type of contact where a push of any sort is explicitly allowed. Bumping and grinding happens as a natural course of fighting for the ball, but when I see a push, check, or hit that's moving an opponent off the ball with something other than shoulder-to-shoulder, my inclination is to call it. It's definitely something that wouldn't fly at higher levels of competition, and I'm cool with that. I love working these lowest-level games, and have no desire to go up the ladder. So, in summary, I see a foul that I would call here, but I totally get why someone else wouldn't.
@@grahamfox4279 Look for yourself in slow motion. Releasing the ball is the last step of the "throw". Ball not released over the head -> ball is not "thrown over the head". Law 15: "throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head..."
@@prs314here is what IFAB states for the rules of a throw in: At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: stand facing the field of play have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play It does not state when the ball must be released, simply that the ball must start behind the head and move over the head. That's it! If the ball is thrown from the side of the head then it's a bad throw. If the ball starts above the head then it's a bad throw. But if it starts behind the head and moves over the head it's fine.
Second clip is a yellow card for reckless challenge, late, no play on the ball, keeper in a vulnerable position, blue turns his body, and moderate force, unfair challenge.
you also need to make sure the benches are in the proper spots ..school games will have the markings there ..also there's a club field in pennsylvania that has a tree's canopy over the field, the ball hits the canopy sometimes and according to USSF the tree is a pre existing condition and the restart is an indirect form the opposing team ..this should be made clear in the pregame to the teams and the ref crew
white makes 2 slight contacts, the first he kind of accidentally stumbles into blue but immediately intentionally trips blue and tries to cover it up by offering to help blue up
1..I would have shown caution for reckless play..he won the ball but still fouled him without the ball in the play ..2..the ref saw the foul and acknowledged it by showing the play on signal ...good call
