"trifling"

I have never liked this word as the context changes massively from referee to referee.

I'm not sure which word you could change it for in th LOTG but for the many years i have reffed it has caused me a problem.

What is the genral understanding of the word "trifiling"?

A striker commits a "trifling foul" and scores a few seconds later. That troubles me somewhat.

Opinions?

I might be missing something obvious, but the word trifling isn't in the LoTG?

RustyRef said:

I might be missing something obvious, but the word trifling isn't in the LoTG?

Click to expand...

Not any more. Which I think is a miss, because I think it still lurks strongly in the SOTG.

At its core, I think the concept of trifling is captured by things that don’t matter and the newly added La gauge about what the Game expects. The point of soccer is to flow, and if look for every nit-picky foul or infraction to call, the game doesn’t flow and isn’t as fun. a trifling foul is one that doesn’t impact the play. We see players hold and push in ways that could be called all the time. It we don’t want to change it to a non-contact sport. So a lot of what trifling. Comes down to, IMO, is the level at which we set the foul bar (and things like how picky we are about throw-ins and GK releasing the ball on punts). Trifling is about the effect on play, not about the consequence—a foul is not non-trifling because it would take away or give a PK; a foul is non-teifling because of the advantage it gives a player or the disadvantage to an opponent.

socal lurker said:

Not any more. Which I think is a miss, because I think it still lurks strongly in the SOTG.

At its core, I think the concept of trifling is captured by things that don’t matter and the newly added La gauge about what the Game expects. The point of soccer is to flow, and if look for every nit-picky foul or infraction to call, the game doesn’t flow and isn’t as fun. a trifling foul is one that doesn’t impact the play. We see players hold and push in ways that could be called all the time. It we don’t want to change it to a non-contact sport. So a lot of what trifling. Comes down to, IMO, is the level at which we set the foul bar (and things like how picky we are about throw-ins and GK releasing the ball on punts). Trifling is about the effect on play, not about the consequence—a foul is not non-trifling because it would take away or give a PK; a foul is non-teifling because of the advantage it gives a player or the disadvantage to an opponent.

Click to expand...

When was it taken out, I can't remember it at all? We must be talking decades?

RustyRef said:

When was it taken out, I can't remember it at all? We must be talking decades?

Click to expand...

It was in the preface to the Laws for a long time. I think it came out in the great rewrite that brought us C/R/EF—the 90s? It was in the preface about the game not benefiting from excessive whistling and that doubtful and trifling offenses should not be called.

my memory must be playing tricks with me. i remember something about not blowing for trifling fouls not in the lotg but maybe in the explanations of the laws.I

But this has most likely to have been superceded. i expect mr grove to know this.

It was in the “decisions of the IFAB” for law 5 up to the 96 / 97 LOTG.
It basically said that football is meant to be played with as little interference as possible and referees should avoid whistling for trifling or dubious breaches so as not to annoy players or stop spectators enjoying the game.

markref said:

It was in the “decisions of the IFAB” for law 5 up to the 96 / 97 LOTG.
It basically said that football is meant to be played with as little interference as possible and referees should avoid whistling for trifling or dubious breaches so as not to annoy players or stop spectators enjoying the game.

Click to expand...

Right you are about the Decisions. Here’s the language from the Law V Decisions of the International Board from the early 70s.

So nearly 30 years ago, a significant percentage of today's referees (sadly not me) wouldn't have even been born.

I don’t know about England, but in the US the concept continued to be taught as part of understanding the spirit of the gme needed to apply the Laws the way Game intended. USSF’s Advice to Referees quoted the passage in full, explaining that it was an integral part of understanding the spirit of the game.

socal lurker said:

I don’t know about England, but in the US the concept continued to be taught as part of understanding the spirit of the gme needed to apply the Laws the way Game intended. USSF’s Advice to Referees quoted the passage in full, explaining that it was an integral part of understanding the spirit of the game.

Click to expand...

I have to say, I didn't like everything about the USSF's Advice to Referees - it was very much of a curate's egg, for me.

However this was one of the parts that I thought was OK. After quoting the IFAB decision, it went on as follows:

"This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision 8) was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee's fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to.

Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players.

However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws.

Further the referee may wish to talk to or warn, a player regarding trifling infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue."

The closet word used the the current laws to trifeling is "impact" (or lack there of). Not quite the same but moving that way. E.g. the addition of not penalising encroachment on penalty kicks if there is no impact.