Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:24:09 -0800
Reply-To:     Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Christopher Seiwald <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Gerrard non-penalty LIV-ARS
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1

Ed,

I guess I'm trying to define trifling, rather than just assert
through intuition that the foul on Gerrard was or was not trifling.
Unfortunately, I don't have the intuition and must break it down.

So I offered two criteria for trifling:

  - no effect on the play
  - not needed for game control

The effect on the play is pretty cut and dried -- like the ball over
the line -- something that even a referee like me can do pretty well.
I think most all of us would agree that a foul that affects play is not
trifling and thus worthy of FK.  (I surmise that you and Mr Webb disagree
about the facts in Gerrard's case, which is understandable.)

Game control is where a lot of referee wizardry comes in, and depends
on the level of play, the nature of the game, the ability of the
referee, and, yes, the location of the foul.   In some games, a large
inconsequential shoulder barge is acceptable by the players and does
not take the game down the path of loss of control.  In other games,
a small inconsequential heel click isn't acceptable by the players and
would lead towards a loss of control.

So I'm asserting that, after effect on the play, game control is the
most useful factor in determining whether a foul is trifling.

I can't think of any better logic to explain how the mayhem of the EPL
fits within the LOTG.

Christopher
USSF 7
Alameda, CA

p.s. I know I'm preaching to the prophet, but it's interesting.

> Not at all!
> My point is that neither of these fouls was trifling.
> Some posters were saying because control was lost
> the foul should be considered trifling. Although there are
> many reasons why some fouls could be considered trifling,
> loss of control is not necessarily one of them.
>
> In any case, in the Liverpool match, it was not clear that control
> had been lost, but it looked much clearer in the Chelsea match.
>
> I think the decision in the LIverpool match was wrong, and the one in the
> Chelsea match was correct. I don't see much griping about the latter call
> in the press (not that I put very much stock in those opinions anyway!)
>
> Ed
>