Date:         Fri, 26 May 2006 07:03:54 -0700
Reply-To:     Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Boerio, Jeff" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Who's advantage?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Excellent point.  I haven't been watching much playoffs basketball.
I'll get interested in when the Finals roll around.  The whole symbolic
foul-to-stop-the-clock-and-pretend-it-isn't-intentional ... akin to the
"professional foul" in soccer ... is something I don't particularly
like.

Whether I would have had the presence of mind to call the foul in the
scenario described, I don't know.  Maybe I'll have that chance as I
referee tournament games this weekend.  But I still subscribe to the
theory :)

     - Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of The Geissmans
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Who's advantage?

At 03:56 PM 5/25/2006, Boerio, Jeff wrote:
>I think the extra credit question is a little too obvious.
>
>One of the things that I have seen referees do is that if the player
>gets a shot off on goal, then they won't call a foul.  It's like in
>basketball where, with a few seconds left and someone shoots a
3-pointer
>to win and gets fouled after letting go of the ball, they're highly
>unlikely to get the call, even if the shot misses.
>
> From that standpoint, the coach probably thought that advantage = shot
>taken.
>
>I subscribe to the theory that the player in your scenario was indeed
>fouled.  I believe the correct call was made in this case.  Unfortunate

Well, sort of.  The correct OBSERVATION was made:  that was a foul.
Whether the call should have been made is a separate question.

I'm happy to  accept that the player was fouled.  The real question is:
Must the referee stop play and award a free kick?  Is the referee
REQUIRED
to stop play and award a free kick every time he or she sees a real
foul?
If you've been watching the NBA playoffs, you have seen situations
where that is how the the refs operate:  team B wants to get the ball,
so
as soon as team A gets it, somebody from B commits a soft but obvious
foul; ref stops play; team B achieve their objective.  That philosophy
is
opposite to soccer -- letting the fouling team gain advantage from their
foul.  So suppose we view this as soccer rather than basketball and
take away the automatic character of the whistle.  For those asleep in
the back row, this means the simple fact that a foul occurs is not
sufficient to cause the ref to stop play.  What are the other reasons to
stop play in this situation?  Are there reasons to let play continue
without a whistle?  I don't think we can tell from the scenario as
presented.