Judgement call conundrums
I told the player that I might kick myself the next morning for the decision I made, and while I'm not kicking myself, I seem to have opened a philosophical can of worms that I'm repeatedly going over.First the background: since we're in the winter, this is the boarding school again - for those not familiar, it's an unabashedly sports-oriented school, with players on the youth national teams. The skill level on this team is better than any other team I've seen, except for maybe the U15 boys teams I had the last time I went to regionals (and ended up winning the national championship). They've played retired professional players and current semi-pro teams; I don't know how they did on the former, but when I've reffed the later, they've always won. In fact, I've never seen them lose. This time they were playing a college club team, but a college club team coached by a former NASL player and MISL coach (back in the heyday of the MISL in the 80s, when they were shown on ESPN). This virtually guaranteed this would be a great game to referee and watch - both teams play very disciplined, even though I'd give the advantage to the U18s from the school.
Now, before I go into the judgement call, here's how I've been taught to look into past history and presuppositions about any game. The first I've seen noted in books and online, which is, during warmups watch how the teams do drills. Are the players who are clearly the pivotal players, be them scorers or playmakers; make a mental note that these are the players most likely to be fouled and intimidated. In referee speak this is keeping the game clear and the flow of the game moving; I would guess to the average non-referee, this is known as "protecting the star players." Still, despite it's possible look to the general public, this is a good thing, as long as you don't start calling fouls where they're not there - it's simply using your knowledge of the game to anticipate possible or even probable reactions.
Now let's use that phrase, "using your knowledge of the game to anticipate possible or even probable reactions" a step further. In a game earlier this year, I had a feeling that a player was diving; he would go down very easily, but I couldn't tell for certain if he was actually simulating, or if the defenders were just that good in fouling him without my knowledge (it certainly wasn't him being uncoordinated). In that scenario, I decided he was a suspected diver, based on previous actions. Later on, I confirmed it and booked him for it. Good? Bad? What I'm supposed to do as a referee? I'd say most referees would say yes, this is what you're supposed to do: something was flagged as suspicious, but I didn't do anything about it until it was confirmed.
Now, a little further, in yesterday's game. Keep in mind that I've never seen this team behind, let alone in a close game. In the first half this player goes down very easily in the penalty box, and I make very clear that I'm not buying it, and play should go on. Now, in the second half, the player is again driving the ball into the penalty box, and a possible foul is committed - do I use that knowledge of the first half to inform my decision on the second? To me, we've crossed from, "a little foreknowledge is a good thing" to, possibly, too much. At this point - I can honestly say I don't know. Actually, I couldn't even say if I used that foreknowledge or not, given the speed of the game (fastest I've had in ages - faster than the semi-pro games I've done in the past) - but I wondering if it influenced my decision, even if I didn't spell it out, and if it did, if that was a good thing or not.
For the record, the player drove into the penalty area near the goal-line, avoided a trip with some minimal contact (trivial foul - no doubt in my mind about that), then had another tackler come in - again, not square contact, but he went down. I wanted to blow the penalty, but something held me back, saying it wasn't clear enough. I've always mentioned in my pregame that if I'm giving a team an 80% chance of a goal one one kick, I want to be 100% sure of the foul. Now, would I have called it at midfield? I'd have to say yes, but with a with a "minor foul" whistle (a chirp, instead of the "I'm pissed" whistle blast) - and I think that's also what's bothering me about this.
And was it big? Turns out - the team lost 3-2, so if I awarded them a penalty kick, and if they scored, the game would have ended in a tie. Nobody said this job was easy, and it's tight games that make this job fun, but I'd like to think that my own ruminations are what make me a better referee. Now if I could just figure out if I made the right call or not.
It sounds mostly like you need another game to switch off your overanalysis of this play. Trying to put the call into a general pattern is a good way to figure it out. But, it seems like this on can be boiled down to one word, "borderline". A player with a history that may include diving is victim of a ‘borderline’ foul. You made the call. The end.
Keep up the blogging.
George - 15 March '10 - 11:15
High school should give more chance to players thats true. good post.sharry () (URL) - 21 March '10 - 03:01