Older than dirt former national level ref instructor. Too old, too broke down, and too ornery to do this for real. Thanks for the opportunity to relive more exciting times. For the first, there's not enough in the video to tell if it's shoulder to shoulder or something more, but the linesman was right there, so I'd go with his call. For the second, it's hard to tell if there's a jersey pull from behind, but, the ref was in the perfect position to see that and 12 reacted as if he'd been fouled, so, again, I'd go with the call on the field. For the third, white reacted as if he'd been fouled and the elbow was head high, but from this angle and weak resolution, I'd have let it go. Again, the ref was in the right position to make the call, and he delayed the call to see if there was an advantage. For the fourth, it looks like he's reminding the players to stay outside of the circle. The shooter is focused on the goal while the keeper is focused on the shooter, so his hand signals had no effect on the play. For the fifth, yes, there was a hand to the back that looked like a push, but white retained possession, it was weak, and, in this case, it looks like the camera had the better angle. But, it was a push off, even if it was weak. It also could be a game management foul. I don't know. Not enough footage here to tell. Not a big deal because the same team ended up with the ball whether the foul was called or not, so this is a hard one to get up in arms about; you're talking shades of grey. For the sixth, I'm also not calling the trip. It was a hard fought, physical 50/50 ball and both got away with something. Be like the Beatles; let it be. For the seventh, again, the angle and resolution are weak, but the linesman and referee have the play sandwiched and neither flinch. White definitely nut-megged red, but it's unclear from the angle and video if there was a foul. So, I'm going with the call on the field. For the eighth, I hate these. Not because they're hard to call, but because so many people don't get it. This is a 50/50 ball, white got there first, played the ball, and red knocked him to the ground. So, that's a foul on red. But, first you stop play to make sure everyone is ok. Remember, soccer is a contact sport; at least it was 50 years ago. I can't speak for today. If red had gotten there first, that's a foul on white and a yellow card. Fractions of a second matter. I'd have called the ninth. That's an illegal corner because the first touch didn't go far enough. Technically, the ball has to roll more than two feet before it can be played (the circumference of the ball), and most of us let it go at half that. But, when it doesn't go that far, at the lower levels (age and skill) you make them take it again. At the higher levels, it's a turnover. More important, that's a coaching failure and the linesman didn't call it. Something the ref should mention to both. At the high school level, that's unsat. For the 10th, I'd probably have waited a bit longer, but there's four white players closer to him than any red, two between him and the goal, no runner in sight, and he's got his head down, so, it's unlikely he's scoring. More important, games tend to get out of hand when you don't call fouls after someone has already played the ball. Game management means different styles and, in this case, we only have a few minutes of a 90+ minute game, so I'm not bashing the ref for possibly having a quick whistle. For the 11th, the angle and resolution are too poor to make a call, but it appears white touched the ball and red did not. Whether or not someone fouled, who knows. But, for throwing the ball, you have to give red a yellow. Especially at this age and point in the game. Either the linesman got the last call wrong or he called offsides. The ball was played out by red, so it was a white corner if there wasn't offsides. But, from the video, I can't say there was or wasn't offsides, that the linesman did or did not call it, or whether the ref checked with him. However, in the run-up, there were definitely times when white players were closer to the goal than the red players. Thanks. This was fun. Hope my games stand up this well.
Well, as a younger ref (only a year in), I feel better that I won't be a sht as this guy. He must have received a review from a previous game where he didn't use the whistle enough. Making up for it in this game.
If you slow to .25 speed, the first one, 0.05, the black jersey definitely pushes the white jersey. No goal. DFK coming out. On the field, we don't get kind of luxury to review much less review at 1/4 speed!
LOL WHY ARE THESE PARENTS COMPLAINING FOR A TRIP, He clearly got the ball in the cleanest way possible according to the rules of the game (that parents don't know or bother to read)
As a referee I can that being in the middle can be very stressful, and scary at the same time. I don't think this referee is right for this age. Although his calls may have been with the "letter of the law," he should have played through and managed his way out of it. As this is not a high level game, players may be playing the player and not the ball. He should be closer to the play and try and predict ball movement. This kind of referee style may be good on a younger age group, but for this age you must play through some of the tiki taki fouls and continue the game.
0:01 - That doesn't look like a foul from this angle. Burgundy player is first to the ball and his arm doesn't strike or push. I think the AR is being a bit too active here. The contact looks normal. 0:24 No foul/PK. Goodness, the ref is too sensitive for this level of play. There is no pushing, pulling, holding, etc. Had to stop watching the video after awhile. Ref's need to attend their association training and talk through these calls. They need to watch video and ref with some more senior people.
I agree with Dino. I occasionally cruise RUclips for refereeing videos such as this one ... and almost always find cause to defend the referee's performances. This was (I hope) FAR from this refereeing crew's finest hour. Having said that - all of us who officiate soccer have had our fair share of less-than-fine hours. With any luck at all, a mentor sat down with this crew afterwards and reviewed their performance and what they could do next time to avoid the mistakes they made.
It's funny that one call he gets right is the one highlighted in the title. Yes, he is "airborne" and the maroon player undercuts him and takes out his legs. Easily could've been a yellow. The rest... Woof. Pretty bad officiating overall.
I have refereed thousands of youth soccer games and some semi-pro games. I have yet to call a perfect game, but I'm sure my next match will be the one.
First one was correct. Obvious push by the attacker. Stupid parents! Second one is close. But, I say it was correct as well. Third one was correct. Dangerous play was the call. You don't jump almost on a player like that. Fourth one is close too, but I say no foul. Fifth one looked like he hit the ball first. Couldn't really tell though. For all of them, parents "SHUT UP!"
By the letter of the law, almost every one of his whistles was correct. ...Red attacker made contact with white defender in the 1st situation. ...12 red held 13 white in the penalty area. ...Red defender jumped at white attacker with a raised knee to win the header. ...Red clipped white's ankle in the middle of the field. ...White's foot was on the ground not moving; red tripped over a stationary foot. ...White trapped the ball, red tripped over the stationary ball. ...The white defender jumping for the header is one I completely disagree with - his path was always to the ball, not at the red attacker, and he won the header; red created contact under white with no attempt to play the ball (playing in a dangerous manner - IFK for red). ...Red held white with his hands stretched out behind him. ...White received the ball with his back to goal and a defender less than a yard away - no advantage. ...Red used his body (backside) to push white away from the ball while white was in the air. But I'm with Dino. Just because it's a foul by the letter of Law 12 doesn't mean that the referee has to stop the game. ...Although the red attacker made contact with the white defender, the defender was the one who put his leg in front of the attacker to try to win the ball. Trifling contact. Goal. ...12's hold had absolutely no effect on 13's inability to play the ball - it was too far over his head. No PK. ...Red defender did not use his knee to intimidate the opponent - it was a reactionary maneuver to protect himself from anticipated contact, and it was angled slightly down, not up into the opponent in an intimidating gesture. No foul. ...The contact to white's ankle was trifling - from close range, no backswing, foot not planted - and the ball went to a teammate facing forward with no defender in front of him. No foul. ...No trip ...No trip ...Red's body was always between the opponent and the ball; the hands were not used to prevent the opponent from playing the ball. ...No advantage. ...White would not have been able to make a play on the ball without fouling red. Trifling contact - the contact was more of a nudge, not an undercutting motion that would keep an opponent from landing on his feet. No foul. A foul is a foul. But different ages, heights, weights, and levels of skill call for various levels of foul recognition, foul selection, and foul discretion. I would say his recognition is fine, but his selection and discretion were not appropriate for this age and skill level.
Yes, almost every one of these is trifling. I typically watch these videos prepared to roll my eyes at the clueless parents complaining, but these are legitimate complaints. This referee needs some instruction.
The "airbourne" one was the right call without a doubt. The rest were painful to watch.
I disagree.
Give that whistle to a toddler. They'd blow it less often.
Phew, some of those just plain unbelievable.
Older than dirt former national level ref instructor. Too old, too broke down, and too ornery to do this for real. Thanks for the opportunity to relive more exciting times.
For the first, there's not enough in the video to tell if it's shoulder to shoulder or something more, but the linesman was right there, so I'd go with his call.
For the second, it's hard to tell if there's a jersey pull from behind, but, the ref was in the perfect position to see that and 12 reacted as if he'd been fouled, so, again, I'd go with the call on the field.
For the third, white reacted as if he'd been fouled and the elbow was head high, but from this angle and weak resolution, I'd have let it go. Again, the ref was in the right position to make the call, and he delayed the call to see if there was an advantage.
For the fourth, it looks like he's reminding the players to stay outside of the circle. The shooter is focused on the goal while the keeper is focused on the shooter, so his hand signals had no effect on the play.
For the fifth, yes, there was a hand to the back that looked like a push, but white retained possession, it was weak, and, in this case, it looks like the camera had the better angle. But, it was a push off, even if it was weak. It also could be a game management foul. I don't know. Not enough footage here to tell. Not a big deal because the same team ended up with the ball whether the foul was called or not, so this is a hard one to get up in arms about; you're talking shades of grey.
For the sixth, I'm also not calling the trip. It was a hard fought, physical 50/50 ball and both got away with something. Be like the Beatles; let it be.
For the seventh, again, the angle and resolution are weak, but the linesman and referee have the play sandwiched and neither flinch. White definitely nut-megged red, but it's unclear from the angle and video if there was a foul. So, I'm going with the call on the field.
For the eighth, I hate these. Not because they're hard to call, but because so many people don't get it. This is a 50/50 ball, white got there first, played the ball, and red knocked him to the ground. So, that's a foul on red. But, first you stop play to make sure everyone is ok. Remember, soccer is a contact sport; at least it was 50 years ago. I can't speak for today. If red had gotten there first, that's a foul on white and a yellow card. Fractions of a second matter.
I'd have called the ninth. That's an illegal corner because the first touch didn't go far enough. Technically, the ball has to roll more than two feet before it can be played (the circumference of the ball), and most of us let it go at half that. But, when it doesn't go that far, at the lower levels (age and skill) you make them take it again. At the higher levels, it's a turnover. More important, that's a coaching failure and the linesman didn't call it. Something the ref should mention to both. At the high school level, that's unsat.
For the 10th, I'd probably have waited a bit longer, but there's four white players closer to him than any red, two between him and the goal, no runner in sight, and he's got his head down, so, it's unlikely he's scoring. More important, games tend to get out of hand when you don't call fouls after someone has already played the ball. Game management means different styles and, in this case, we only have a few minutes of a 90+ minute game, so I'm not bashing the ref for possibly having a quick whistle.
For the 11th, the angle and resolution are too poor to make a call, but it appears white touched the ball and red did not. Whether or not someone fouled, who knows. But, for throwing the ball, you have to give red a yellow. Especially at this age and point in the game.
Either the linesman got the last call wrong or he called offsides. The ball was played out by red, so it was a white corner if there wasn't offsides. But, from the video, I can't say there was or wasn't offsides, that the linesman did or did not call it, or whether the ref checked with him. However, in the run-up, there were definitely times when white players were closer to the goal than the red players.
Thanks. This was fun. Hope my games stand up this well.
Well, as a younger ref (only a year in), I feel better that I won't be a sht as this guy. He must have received a review from a previous game where he didn't use the whistle enough. Making up for it in this game.
That ref definitely bias
Goal
I don’t have any words for this😂😂
I'm speechless.
At the parents, yes. At the narrator for the remarks on a "You make the call" video. Yes, you should be speechless for them.
I agree with Tyler Garrrigus what he saying I am also referee
First one he pushed off
If you slow to .25 speed, the first one, 0.05, the black jersey definitely pushes the white jersey. No goal. DFK coming out. On the field, we don't get kind of luxury to review much less review at 1/4 speed!
LOL WHY ARE THESE PARENTS COMPLAINING FOR A TRIP, He clearly got the ball in the cleanest way possible according to the rules of the game (that parents don't know or bother to read)
As a referee I can that being in the middle can be very stressful, and scary at the same time. I don't think this referee is right for this age. Although his calls may have been with the "letter of the law," he should have played through and managed his way out of it. As this is not a high level game, players may be playing the player and not the ball. He should be closer to the play and try and predict ball movement. This kind of referee style may be good on a younger age group, but for this age you must play through some of the tiki taki fouls and continue the game.
0:01 - That doesn't look like a foul from this angle. Burgundy player is first to the ball and his arm doesn't strike or push. I think the AR is being a bit too active here. The contact looks normal.
0:24 No foul/PK. Goodness, the ref is too sensitive for this level of play. There is no pushing, pulling, holding, etc.
Had to stop watching the video after awhile. Ref's need to attend their association training and talk through these calls. They need to watch video and ref with some more senior people.
i was a football referee for 21 years local leagues this is the worst ref i have ever seen sould stay at home and watch tv
perhaps he thought the little contact in the back right at :27 was egregious. wow. weak.
This ref's foul selection is pretty bad, I will have to say.
Do you even know the laws of the game? Probably not.
I agree with Dino. I occasionally cruise RUclips for refereeing videos such as this one ... and almost always find cause to defend the referee's performances. This was (I hope) FAR from this refereeing crew's finest hour. Having said that - all of us who officiate soccer have had our fair share of less-than-fine hours. With any luck at all, a mentor sat down with this crew afterwards and reviewed their performance and what they could do next time to avoid the mistakes they made.
Bad call
First one is a good call, second one, I can buy the shoving and sells it perfectly
It's funny that one call he gets right is the one highlighted in the title. Yes, he is "airborne" and the maroon player undercuts him and takes out his legs. Easily could've been a yellow. The rest... Woof. Pretty bad officiating overall.
I have refereed thousands of youth soccer games and some semi-pro games. I have yet to call a perfect game, but I'm sure my next match will be the one.
First one was correct. Obvious push by the attacker. Stupid parents!
Second one is close. But, I say it was correct as well.
Third one was correct. Dangerous play was the call. You don't jump almost on a player like that.
Fourth one is close too, but I say no foul.
Fifth one looked like he hit the ball first. Couldn't really tell though.
For all of them, parents "SHUT UP!"
By the letter of the law, almost every one of his whistles was correct.
...Red attacker made contact with white defender in the 1st situation.
...12 red held 13 white in the penalty area.
...Red defender jumped at white attacker with a raised knee to win the header.
...Red clipped white's ankle in the middle of the field.
...White's foot was on the ground not moving; red tripped over a stationary foot.
...White trapped the ball, red tripped over the stationary ball.
...The white defender jumping for the header is one I completely disagree with - his path was always to the ball, not at the red attacker, and he won the header; red created contact under white with no attempt to play the ball (playing in a dangerous manner - IFK for red).
...Red held white with his hands stretched out behind him.
...White received the ball with his back to goal and a defender less than a yard away - no advantage.
...Red used his body (backside) to push white away from the ball while white was in the air.
But I'm with Dino. Just because it's a foul by the letter of Law 12 doesn't mean that the referee has to stop the game.
...Although the red attacker made contact with the white defender, the defender was the one who put his leg in front of the attacker to try to win the ball. Trifling contact. Goal.
...12's hold had absolutely no effect on 13's inability to play the ball - it was too far over his head. No PK.
...Red defender did not use his knee to intimidate the opponent - it was a reactionary maneuver to protect himself from anticipated contact, and it was angled slightly down, not up into the opponent in an intimidating gesture. No foul.
...The contact to white's ankle was trifling - from close range, no backswing, foot not planted - and the ball went to a teammate facing forward with no defender in front of him. No foul.
...No trip
...No trip
...Red's body was always between the opponent and the ball; the hands were not used to prevent the opponent from playing the ball.
...No advantage.
...White would not have been able to make a play on the ball without fouling red. Trifling contact - the contact was more of a nudge, not an undercutting motion that would keep an opponent from landing on his feet. No foul.
A foul is a foul. But different ages, heights, weights, and levels of skill call for various levels of foul recognition, foul selection, and foul discretion. I would say his recognition is fine, but his selection and discretion were not appropriate for this age and skill level.
Yes, almost every one of these is trifling. I typically watch these videos prepared to roll my eyes at the clueless parents complaining, but these are legitimate complaints. This referee needs some instruction.
Very poor refereeing
More terrible refs