So far this season, I’ve dismissed a coach. . .and I’ve sent off a player for a second caution, but tonight was the first straight red-card of the season. It was a U19G match and as an aside, the quality of play was beyond bad. . .but I digress. Gray attacker was dribbling with a Blue defender immediately behind and slightly to the right of the attacker. In what I felt was an attempt to disengage the defender (establish territory?), the Gray player brought the back of her hand up and smacked the Blue defender squarely in the nose, causing an immediate reaction from the Blue player. I blew the whistle for the foul and showed the Gray player the red card for SFP. The 2009 directive on Contact Above the Shoulders is pretty clear on swinging the arm/hand back into the opponent’s face in an attempt to disengage him/her and create space. I certainly felt, in this case, the action far exceeded the force necessary. But it got me thinking about the Contact Above the Shoulders directive. Up to now, I’d been focused more on aerial challenges as where I’d most likely apply this directive but now I don’t really think so. . I think I’ll see more incidents like this where a player uses a hand/elbow to the face/head/neck to disengage an opponent or clear space. I think at this point, we’re far enough into the season where we’ve started seeing this directive in action. So I ask. . .what is your experience and impressions of how the Contact Above the Shoulder directive is being implemented?
Author:
Time:
Wednesday, May 20th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Category:
Comments:
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
RSS:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Navigation:
May 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
(I actually can’t say I have seen this directive in action…)
I feel a little uncomfortable when USSF directives put us a bit in front of the commonly accepted practices. If there is a big splash on a point of emphasis, such as surrounded the tackles from behind a couple of WCs ago, then it is easier for us to enforce on Sundays. But w/o that kind of PR, ‘new trends in reffing’ can be tough to enforce.
Most of that directive is just a worthwhile reminder that elbow to the face is almost always Red. (That’s a very short summary.) All of the discussion surrounding the ‘ball in play’ elements provide a good structure for decision making–and a good reminder that we carry the red card for a reason.
However, there is one section that seems to plow new ground: Ball not in play, Quote: Intentional and deliberate contact in the area of the face is not permitted with any part of the hand. Deliberate facial contact cannot be tolerated.
The not-entirely-friendly face slap or head push is extremely provocative and probably deserves at least an orange card–Yellow plus serious talking to–and maybe a Red in many cases. But to mandate straight Red in a situation that *might* be managed puts the everyday Ref out ahead of expectations. Sure the option of RC is there, and often I’d be happy to use it, but always…
In the case you discuss, ball in play, hand flying back, reaction from victim: SFP. I am good with that.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’d generally agree that for the most part, this directive is asking us simply to enforce previous guidance. But I do like that there is more structure, which I hope leads to more/better consistency in dealing with these issues.
And I agree that without the PR assistance we saw with excessive-force challenges from behind, being out ahead of this issue will be more challenging and require more courage. It will mean you may well hear some “But our last ref didn’t do that”. But I also think that we as referees have a responsibility to teach - at least up to a point. If by sending off a player for the criteria in the contact-above-the-shoulders directive, I hope it sends a signal to them that they shouldn’t expect their next referee to tolerate it either.
But if we will need to educate players, coaches, etc on the contact above the head guidance, it’s going to be even harder to get them to understand the concept of flow - and that we will not be stepping in for every little ticky-tack foul. That we’ll expect the players to play through more than they have before. This will be particularly challenging with regard to parents, who want EVERY little incident called as a foul. Eventually, I hope they learn that just because it’s a foul doesn’t necessarily mean the referee should step in and blow the whistle. As a general rule, players, coaches, and parents currently have little or no concept of flow.
I understand where you’re going on the ball-not-in-play part of the contact above the shoulders directive, but generally disagree. Primarily because those incidents are so inflamatory, that in and of themselves they’re so likely to turn what could be just game disrepute into a huge problem. That action, all by itself, is almost certain to result in a 3rd-man-in. I feel US Soccer is doing me a favor by giving me the tools to deal with the situation quickly and sternly - and ideally prevent mass confrontation.
But I do wish we had help in educating players, coaches, and parents on how US Soccer is expecting us to interpret and enforce these directives. Eventually, they’ll get it. I remember when I was in Atlanta in 98 and 99. . .I was primarily doing advanced U15 & U16s. In the boys matches, I was averaging a send-off every other match, usually for excessive-force challenges. They eventually got it and the game (overall) evolved. So it will be again.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
As to the original post, there was a very similar challenge shown in the “Week In Review” on USsoccer.com I think it was week 5 or 6.
As to the others, hopefully coaches and players will read the memos. The US Soccer directives don’t require a referee ID to read online.