PowerPoint Presentation

Whats wrong with online debates?They allow you to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of spelling, grammar and the LOTGNote that all of the text is copied and pasted directly from a public web page (you do need to be granted permission to enter it.) but it is not the entire thread. I chose to leave the names of the posters to underscore the fact that, if you are going to say things on the internet, they are open for use by anyone at any time.There are two purposes for this presentation.1. To discuss the risks and rewards of social mediaTo discuss the question that was asked in this particular situation

As class how many read and/or post on referee pages, blogs, etc. Most will be too ashamed to admit. Ask why they do and why they dont. Ask for some of the rewards teaching opportunities, share experiences, learning opportunities.What about risks? Makes all referees look stupid, post your flaws and prejudices for all to see, misinform referees (our primary concern!) If people want to make fools of themselves and demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the LOTG, thats on them. But dont teach others wrong stuff.

1The Original PostA goalkeeper use his shinguard throw to a ball, which this ball is obvious goal scoring opportunity. What's the right decision referee should do to this GK? This happening in penalty area.

What'd different will be if the goal are scored or not?So heres an example of a posted question clarify the question English is not the writers primary language: If a GK throws a shinguard at the ball in the PA and denies a goal scoring opportunity, what should the referee do? Were looking for possible sanctions and the correct restart.Second part of the question, what if the ball ultimately goes into the goal?Ask if this is a good question? Argue that its a GREAT question because it involves the analysis and application of various parts of the LOTG.Dont ask them to answer at this point.2The first answerAdam Mitchell Throwing an object is an extension of the hand. So if this was in the PK area, then there cannot be a send off because he did not handle illegally. You can show him a caution for Unsporting Behavior (attempting to circumvent the laws by using artificial implements) and give an IFK at the point where the shinguard touched the ball. If the ball entered the goal, then apply advantage and show the caution once play is stopped. If it did not score, give the IFK.(Depending on the size of the room and the students ability to see the text, it may be necessary for you to read certain slides because of the quantity of text.)This is the first response to the original post. Ask the class for opinions on whether or not it is correct. (Its pretty much on the money, but dont take a position at this point.) Get all the answers from the class out there.3The dissenting opinionSteve Wiggins if he keeps the ball from scoring it would be an ejection and a pk.Heres a differing response from someone who will be continuing to express his knowledge of the LOTG as we go on further. Note to the class that its presented as a statement of fact. So some Grade 8 referee reading this might stop here because This guy obviously knows what hes talking about because its on the internet. Ask the class for opinions on Mr. Wiggins response.4The wisdom continuesSteve Wiggins that is a good question, Steven, for as Adam notes throwing an object is considered an extension of the hands, so technically it can't be for handling the ball, but he did prevent a goal scoring opportunity. I guess you can be technically right and do as Adam and Conner state, but i would err to justice and go with an ejection and pk and let God sort it out. I'd Just call it preventing a goal scoring opportunity. Keep somebody from kicking the goalies ass after play resumed.(The Steven that is referenced is the original poster.) Adam said it cant be a PK and send off because the shinguard was an extension of the hand and the GK can use hands in the PA. But make sure you read this particular post out loud, so that everyone can enjoy the Let God sort it out. Discuss the concept of technically right but changing the LOTG for justice because Id just call it what I want it to be and ignore the Law.5The one who asked the question .Steven Whalen I more like the pk decision. lol, Steve like you said, we need a fair game. And God would like be fair!This is the original poster he was seeking an answer to the question and he is now satisfied to accept the answer from Mr. Wiggins. Because God wants that one.6And this exchange Conner Curnick However we cannot force something to be fair because we feel like it, all of our decisions need to be at least based in the LOTG, and then interpreted and bent from there.Steve Wiggins I disagree Conner - there is law 18 and letting the goalie get away with such is very much not in the spirit of the game.Conner argues that all of our decisions have to be based in the LOTG. (Not sure about bent from there as the proper description, but perhaps saying apply the LOTG in a manner appropriate for the situation would be better.Mr. Wiggins believes that Law 18 supersedes the actual LOTG.Allow the class to agree/disagree with either of these posters.7And thn Conner Curnick If you sent off a player for this you would be missing a game critical incident, and would fail an assessment. You cannot simply make something up because you feel it is the right thing to do, when it specifically says the opposite.Steve Wiggins sometimes you got to take a hit when you are right.Conner believes its game critical and that an assessor might find such a decision to be improper. He seems to think that you cant make stuff up just because you dont like what the Law says.The Wiggins Words of Wisdom in this case sometimes you have to be a martyr for the cause. (Or, The rest of the world is wrong.)Discussion of personal opinion is good here as one person posted, If you dont like the Laws, you should pick a different sport.8The logic behind the magic Steve Wiggins conner, I care about the game, and I would justify it under common sense. If you and the rest of the world disagree, too bad. Just don't wonder why it would become a common occurance after the first incidence on tv and goalies find they can prevent goals at the cost of a yellow card.More Wiggins Wisdom. Common sense allows us to not only disregard the LOTG, but to blatantly change them. And if FIFA, USSF, assessors, and the rest of the world dont like it, tough luck. Its MY game.Besides, could you imagine how many goalkeepers would start pulling off their shinguards and throwing them at the ball in order to stop a ball that they cant reach with their hands. In the heat of a game, shinguards are easily reachable all you have to do is bend over, pull down your sock (maybe pull up your pant leg), remove the shinguard and throw it at the ball to prevent a goal. Shinguards are pretty easy to throw, too, and accurate. So yes, thats a valid concern. The game would be overrun by flying shinguards.9Steve Wiggins disagree - law is wrong in this instance - when considering common sense and the spirit of the game.After a lengthy, accurate explanation based on the LOTG A member of the National Instructional Staff posted a lengthy explanation of the correct and incorrect answers, with specific references to the LOTG explaining why each of the responses was right or wrong.As you can see, the obvious answer is that Wiggins is Wright and the LOTG are Wrong. Discuss what happens when coaches, players, and even other referees read something like this posted by someone who purports to be a referee? You are publicly acknowledging that you dont care what the Law says you will do whatever you want if you think the Law is wrong.10Quoting the LawsSteve Wiggins well, I am glad we had this discussion. I have come up with a solution - violent conduct - for throwing dangerous objects on the field of play - eject the goalie.He has a great solution. Violent conduct for throwing dangerous objects on the field. Ask the class what section of the LOTG says that throwing dangerous objects around the field is violent conduct. Hint: You wont find one.11Offering interpretation of the LawsMichael Smith If he prevents the ball from entering the goal, I vote send off. DOGSO-F applies to any act which denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity and results in a free kick, either direct or indirect. If he throws his shin guard or shoe and it denies the goal, results in an indirect kick, sounds like a DOGSO-F to me! denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the players goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick"Remind the class that there are two DOGSOs. One for fouls and one for handling. Mr. Smith (if that is in fact his name) votes for send off. He says that DOGSO-Foul applies to any act which denies a goal scoring opportunity. Ask the class if thats what it says, because many people base their interpretations on the shortcut phrases that we use. So they conclude that any action that denies a goal is a send-off. Ask people to state the specific language of the Law on DOGSO-foul. They probably wont know it.Click on the mouse to display the orange bubble that quotes Law 12. Has to be an opponent moving towards the goal who the offense is against. Throwing a shinguard at the ball is not against the opponent. 12A GK isnt just a playerShawaan Daniels Yes Austin he (GK) is special but the law say if a player uses his shingaurds, that makes him also a player........the same with the offside law, it doesnt specify who second last player must be because the GK is also clasified as a player"... denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)."This posting isnt exactly clear but it gives us a good lead-in to the other DOGSO for handling. He seems to be saying that if the GK uses a shinguard, he waives any rights as a goalkeeper. At least, thats the way we will interpret it to make our point. You can, if you choose, have some discussion about whether the GK is a player some of the time or all of the time. But under the LOTG, you cant send him off for using hands in the Penalty Area under any circumstance when you click the mouse it will display the orange bubble quoting the Law which specifically excludes the GK in his PA from the DOGSO-handling provision.13So whats the answer?If the ball did not go into the goal:Caution the GK for unsporting behaviorRestart with an IFK to the opponent at the location where the shinguard struck the ballIf the ball did go into the goalApply Advantage and allow the goalCaution the GK for unsporting behavior or give verbal admonishment if referee choosesRestart with a kickoff to the GKs teamMake sure that you close discussions like this with an explanation of the answer or answers that are correct under the LOTG.14Now some random What ifs .These are not things that are likely to happen. They are fictional fact patterns intended to generate analysis of the Laws of the GameNow were going to discuss some other permutations of the original question and see how the answer might change. Students need to understand that we are not having this discussion because we are concerned about goalkeepers throwing shinguards. We do it because it gives us a means of discussing unusual situations and how the LOTG should be applied. Because we are forcing them to think about unusual circumstances, it may help them down the road when they are called upon to make a decision in a game that involves a certain application of the LOTG. So dont dwell on whether or not someone can throw a shinguard at the ball. Accept that it happened, and figure out how you will apply the Law.15Now some random What ifs .IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE:A player is dribbling toward the goal and the GK throws a shinguard at the player, striking the player and disrupting the playFor these situations, tell the students to ACCEPT the fact that this is the opinion of the referee so thats what happened. Dont dwell on how would the referee know ?This one is pretty easy extension of the hand, striking, send off, PK if it strikes in PA, DFK if it strikes outside the area.Dont miss the opportunity to review the location of a foul when it involves a thrown object.16Now some random What ifs .IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE:A player is dribbling toward the goal and the GK throws a shinguard at the player, missing the player and disrupting the playMost people will know that a swing and a miss counts the same as hitting when it comes to the foul for striking or attempting to strike an opponent. There is sometimes disagreement on the misconduct.Is it violent conduct if the player misses the opponent? If there are differing opinions, allow them to be expressed and debated a bit. If it doesnt come up, use the common sense argument if a player tries to punch an opponent and misses, are we going to leave him in the game so he gets another chance? Bottom line the conduct (attempting to strike) is certainly violent. The result is not relevant to that decision. (Good time to remind people that we make our decisions based on what actually occurs. Not on the result.)Is it DOGSO-Foul? Did the GK commit an act punishable by a free kick or PK? Was it against an opponent? Was the opponent moving toward the goal? If yes, its DOGSO-Foul.Which should it be reported as? At our level of game, its not going to make a major difference which send off we call it, though normal procedure would be to put acts of violence first. But if this incident happened in a game, wed want to make sure that there was an accurate description of all of the facts of the case.17Now some random What ifs .IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE:A player is dribbling toward the goal and the GK throws a shinguard at the ball, striking the player and disrupting the playHere we know that the GK was throwing the shinguard at the ball. His aim was off and he hit the player. So here are the topics of discussion:If the GK throws the shinguard at the ball, is that punishable by a FK or PK? Weve already discussed that ad nauseum, so well stick with the answer being, No, it is not.If he was aiming for the ball but accidentally hits the player, is that striking?What is required for striking to be an offense? (careless, reckless, excessive force)So if the referees opinion is that the act was one of those, its striking and a DFK (or PK if in the PA) for the opponent at the location where the shinguard struck the opponent.If it was careless kick only.If it was reckless kick and cautionIf it was excessive force (and that seems quite unlikely under these facts!) kick and send off18So what do we do here?

Video should play on its own about 3 seconds after you advance to the slide. To replay the video, put the cursor in the video window and, when it becomes a hand left click on it.The referee in this case restarted with a dropped ball.Allow discussion and did our previous talk about a ridiculous situation help us to come up with a correct answer more quickly when we saw this?Correct answer: Caution for UB, PK (because the thrown ball is an extension of the hand and struck the ball in the PA).

19