Call 'em what they are!

Sometimes we refs are our own worst enemies.

Recently, during a U12 match I was refereeing, a defender cleared a ball out of his own area with an overhead bicycle kick, a very fine play for a player that age. To my surprise, two of the opposing forwards immediately raised their hands and called out "High foot!", appealing for a foul. Since no one was within yards of the defender when he played the ball, I said "Not dangerous!", shook my head and headed down field. By mid-field, I was wondering why the attackers had thought that this play might be a foul (U12's don't usually try gaming the referee, and from the expression on their faces I could tell that these players really were expecting a call). By the time I had reached the other area, I had realized the sad truth - these players had heard enough referees announce "high foot" when awarding free kicks that they (and probably also their parents on the touch line) had come to believe that "high foot" was a foul. "That foot was up way high. So why doesn't the (description deleted) ref call it?"

Well, the ref didn't call "high foot" because there is no such foul. It might have been Dangerous Play, had an opponent been close enough to have been interfered with. It might have been Kicking, had an opponent been actually hit. But neither of these were the case. And it would never be "high foot"!

Is it just being fussy to insist on calling fouls by their proper names? Not at all! We refs (as a group) have the simplest of self-centered reasons for doing so - it makes everyone's games go more easily if we do. Imaginary fouls, like "high foot" (and other urban legends of the touch line that come from a poor understanding of the Laws) cause much unnecessary grief for referees. We all hear the grumbling when one of these situations happens and (quite properly) goes uncalled. Yet we ourselves contribute to the problem when we (sloppily) describe our own calls in just such terms! We say to ourselves "Everyone knows what I mean", despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The players do (sometimes) listen to us! (Just never when we want them to.) If we always say "backpass" when awarding an IFK under Law XII 4(c), why are we surprised when players come to believe that such a pass will only be punished if it goes backwards?

In addition to "high foot", the two phantom "fouls" that cause the most problems for AYSO referees are "playing on the ground" and "slide tackle from behind". Anything that even begins to look like one of these can be counted on to raise howls of protest from one team and its spectators. But, like "high foot", these catch-phrases don't describe fouls - they describe situations in which some other fouls might occur. Specifically,

Playing on the ground:

When a player falls so that both she and one or more opponents are within playing distance of the ball, the opponents often (at younger ages, invariably) cannot play the ball safely (i.e. without danger of kicking the player on the ground) until the player on the ground has moved away or regained her feet. If the player on the ground takes advantage of this, by playing at the ball while her opponents cannot, or by staying down on the ball and disrupting play, she should be penalized for Dangerous Play (the danger coming from the fact that the frustrated opponent will shortly try to play the ball, safely or not). When calling this, look for the danger (it's obvious with young players) and call the danger. Otherwise, you'll be expected to call "playing on the ground" when a player loses her footing and plays the ball on the ground yards from anyone.

Slide tackle from behind

Some recreational leagues (usually for arthritic old gentlemen) have adopted ad hoc rules against slide tackles. AYSO is not one of them. If you penalize a slide tackle it must be for one of two reasons. Either the tackler's feet made illegal contact with opponent, in which case you will award a DFK (or PK) for tripping or "playing through the man" (Law XII(g)) and, depending on the circumstances, perhaps also discipline for misconduct. Or if no illegal contact took place but you regard that particular play as unacceptably risky, you will award an IFK for Dangerous Play. Here, the issue isn't just one of being fussy about terminology - the nature of the restart depends on what Law you apply. So, even if you have a very strong expectation that, for this group of players on this day (say, U10 boys early in the season), some kinds of slide tackles will almost always be beyond their ability to execute safely, you still have to decide (and so you might as well announce) for each one whether your call is for a penal foul or for Dangerous Play. That way, the first time a player surprises you by executing such a tackle cleanly and safely, you won't have to appear either inconsistent (by not calling something that you have earlier described as illegal) or inept (by penalizing the play anyway, even though it was skillful and legal).

Now, if only I could train myself to say "handled the ball deliberately" instead of "handball"!