Question:
I’ve been questioned for advice by a junior referee on the following situation:
Referee whistles a foul that would call for an IFK restart. However referee fails to signal IFK, kick is taken, and the ball travels directly into the3 opponent’s goal.

What is the current consensus on the referee’s next action? Restart? (Retake, Goal-Kick, or Center-Kick?)

Answer (July 9, 2007):
The Questions and Answers 2006 tells us:
6. An indirect free kick is awarded to the attacking team outside the opponents’ penalty area. The referee fails to raise his arm to indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal. What action does the referee take?
He has the free kick retaken because of the referee’s mistake. The initial indirect free kick, is not nullified by the referee’s mistake.

7. A player takes a quick free kick and the ball goes into goal. The referee has not had the opportunity to indicate that the free kick was indirect. What action should the referee take?
Order the kick to be retaken as the original offence only merited an indirect free kick but the referee did not have the opportunity to give the recognized signal.

This information is repeated in the Laws of the Game 2007, under Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees:
LAW 13 – FREE KICKS

Procedure
//deleted//
An indirect free kick should be retaken if the referee fails to raise his arm to indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal. The initial indirect free kick is not nullified by the referee’s mistake.…

Question:
1. I’d like to know if you agree or disagree with the following. The situation as described in the recert was that the kicker of a PK commits an infraction before kicking the ball, but after the referee blows the whistle to take the PK. He shoots wide. What is the restart? I got it right, because I guessed correctly that the exam writer was only interested in infractions of law 14, but that isn’t stated in the question and is an assumption that turned out to be correct. Let’s assume for a moment the following scenario: the GK is doing the crazy-leg thing a la Dudek in Champions League 2005. The kicker gets angry and uses foul and abusive language to the keeper while making his approach to kick the ball. The kick is taken and goes wide. Now if the referee decides that he allowed the kick to be taken he gives the IFK, but can no longer eject the offending player. He has allowed a restart. In order to eject the player, the referee has to decide that he had not yet allowed the play to start and therefore the restart would be a PK (by a teammate this time). If this logic is correct, it would have made a great connection to the speech that [one speaker] gave. The referee needs to have done his homework and recognize what is at stake in the game. If it is 1-0 and one or both teams are battling for league leadership and there are 30 seconds left in the match, the defending team (or another competing team) will feel fairly angry if the PK gets to be retaken and scores even if they are now up a man. If the game is 3-0 either way, ejecting the player probably makes more sense, and the referee should decide that he hadn’t allowed the play to begin, but the player just kicked quicker than his stopping whistle.2. There are times when we are to call fouls for things that don’t seem to match the letter of the law. An example is the following: The attacker is dribbling the ball and the defender is directly in front of him a few yards up field. The defender slides directly into the ball, and because the attacker is directly behind the ball, there is no way for him to avoid taking the player out. What is the foul? It isn’t “tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball”. It isn’t a trip or attempted trip, because clearly the ball was being played, and tripping a player using the ball is certainly legal. The defender is allowed to stop a ball from the side that the attacker is running with causing the attacker to fall over it. One would like to say the tackle was made carelessly or recklessly, but those don’t apply to the “tackles an opponent..” The law clearly states the decision is strictly whether the ball hit first or not. When we make this call, what rule do we cite to the coach or player, when they inevitably argue this call?

3. I had an interesting conversation with a state referee in January. I had just watched him give an IFK in the penalty area for a player impeding another through contact, just as the infamous test question from a couple of years ago discussed. As we chatted, I mentioned that what occurred was exactly the test question and it seems like it should have been a PK (yes I had a bias in this game). He said he remembered the test question as well and agreed that what occurred was exactly what it stated, but. and this is the interesting part, he is accustomed to doing higher level games and. (this is pretty close to a quote) . if in one of those matches an assessor saw him even call such a foul in the penalty area despite it being a foul anywhere else on the field, he would have been hammered for it. As a coach, one always suspects this is the case, but usually one thinks that it is just fear by the referee, not an organized conspiracy. Is this really what higher level referees are taught? I had always believed the mantra that a foul is a foul whether it is in or out of the penalty area. I try to call games that way. Is that just what level 8s are taught. Is the real way a secret only taught to state refs and up? Or was this guy in need of some counseling? When I am refereeing should I apply his advice or does location of the foul not matter?

USSF answer (June 18, 2007):
[NOTE: The answer to question 1 was modified on June 21.]
1. The penalty kick has been taken, the kicking team had its fair chance to score, it didn’t. Game over (penalty kick in extended time). The referee must then show the red card to the kicker for using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures. The end of the match IS the next stoppage and the Laws of the Game allow a red card to be shown after a match is over since all parties are still in the area of the field.

2. “I/He got the ball first” is not a defense for any foul tackle. It’s not what the player does to take the ball that constitutes a foul when making contact with the ball before making contact with the opponent, but what he does afterwards. If, after taking the ball, the tackler lifts or curls his leg to trip the opponent or uses both legs to take the opponent down or goes “over the top” of the ball (despite making contact with it), then there is at least a foul and likely a caution or send-off (particularly in the case of the “over-the-top” foul) with it. We see no problem with charging (no pun intended) a player with a careless or even a reckless charge when he steps in front of an opponent vigorously dribbling the ball and therefore causes the resulting contact. The player who does this is clearly not playing the ball but playing the player. Further, it is not “shoulder to shoulder,” which remains the traditional, meaningful core element of a legal “charge.” It is at minimum impeding — done in such a way as to force contact solely because of the momentum of the opponent (see Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game 12.14, below).

3. Oh, goodness gracious, you have found us out! Yes, there are secret sessions only for state referees, giving them all the information that is denied to the less-privileged masses. And of course assessors will hammer any referee who awards a penalty kick for a direct-free-kick foul in the penalty area. NOT!

Your state referee needs to get a life and follow the instructions given in the Laws of the Game (2007, under GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES)
“Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. “All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. “Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”

and in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
“Impeding the progress of an opponent” means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).

Question:
The core question: some players have religious beliefs that conflict with the literal application of Law 4. Is there any guidance from FIFA or USSF for dealing with this situation, particularly for youth matches?

Law 4 states in part:
Basic Equipment
The basic compulsory equipment of a player comprises the following separate items:
…
* shorts – if thermal undershorts are worn, they are of the same main colour as the shorts.

and ATR section 4.4 states in part:
… In addition, goalkeepers traditionally wear items of clothing besides those prescribed under Law 4. These items include soft hats or caps, … training suit bottoms …
…
The referee should prevent any player other than the goalkeeper from wearing an item of clothing or equipment that is permitted to the goalkeeper under these criteria.

[My organization] and possibly other leagues have advised that religious headgear, such as Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, are to be permitted as long as they are safe for the player himself and for all other players. I expect that a Muslim hijab would fall in the same category, though I’ve not run into that one yet in practice.

We have recently been asked to allow long pants (tights) for female players whose religious beliefs prohibit them from showing skin on the legs in public.

I can foresee controversy regardless of how we respond (e.g. protests of unfair advantage, particularly in cold weather, vs. protests of religious discrimination). I was wondering whether there is any existing policy or guidance from FIFA or USSF in this area.

Answer (June 6, 2007):
Regarding garb required by a player’s religion, we believe that this memorandum of April 1999 (still valid) and the answer of 2004 (including another memorandum from 2002) should answer your question. As to cold weather gear, we have already responded that players may wear tracksuit bottoms, as long as they are uniform for the entire team.

1. To: State Referee Administrators
State Youth Administrators
State Directors of Instruction
State Directors of Assessment
National Instructors
National Assessors

From: Alfred P. Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education

Subject: Player Dress

According to Law 4, The Players’ Equipment, a player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player. The basic compulsory equipment of a player is a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, and footwear. There is no provision for a player to wear a skirt or similar clothing.

However, in an analogous situation, in respect of certain religions that require members to wear headcoverings, the Secretary General of the United States Soccer Federation has given permission to those bound by religious law to wear those headcoverings, usually a turban or yarmulke, provided the referee finds that the headgear does not pose a danger to the player wearing it, or to the other players. This principle could be extended to other clothing required of members by their religion.

Since the referee may not know all the various religious rules, players must request the variance well enough ahead of game time by notifying the league. The league will notify the state association, which will pass the information on to the state referee committee. The state referee committee will make sure that the referees working that league’s matches are informed.

The referee is still bound by the requirements of Law 4 that no player use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player, or use this equipment or clothing to circumvent the Laws of the Game. An example would be the use of the equipment or garment to trap the ball or to distract an opponent.

April 5, 1999

cc: State Association Presidents

2. USSF answer (July 28, 2004): The referee needs to distinguish between issues of safety and issues of “unfair advantage.” There cannot be any weakening of the referee’s authority with regard to player safety. As to any “unfair advantage” that might accrue to the player with religious attire, that is strictly a matter of perception, rather than one of fact. For once, perception is not reality.

We can do no more than emphasize that the position paper of November 22, 2002, cited in full below, is still applicable and that no further position can be taken by the U. S. Soccer Federation. If and when an issue arises on the international level regarding a conflict between the dress of teams from Muslim nations and those of the rest of the world, we will receive guidelines from the International Board and from FIFA.

Subject: Player Dress

Date: November 22, 2002

According to Law 4, The Players’ Equipment, a player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player. The basic compulsory equipment of a player is a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, and footwear. There is no provision for a player to wear a skirt or similar clothing.

However, in an analogous situation, in respect of certain religions that require members to wear head coverings, the Secretary General of the United States Soccer Federation has given permission to those bound by religious law to wear such headcoverings, usually a turban or yarmulke, provided the referee finds that the headgear does not pose a danger to the player wearing it or to the other players. This principle could be extended to other clothing required of members by their religion.

Since the referee may not know all the various religious rules, players must request the variance well enough ahead of game time by notifying the league. The league will notify the state association, which will pass the information on to the state referee committee. The state referee committee will make sure that the referees working that league’s matches are informed.

The referee is still bound by the requirements of Law 4 — the player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player, or use this equipment or clothing to circumvent the Laws of the Game. An example would be the use of equipment or garments to trap the ball or to distract an opponent.…

Question:
Recently a referee made this call and I don’t beleive it to be correct. After a goal is scored the teams are getting ready to kick off. The referee notices a player with his shoe untied and tells him to tie it. The player does so and the referee waits until the player is bending down then blows the whistle to start play. I told my player to get up, the play was coming right at him as he was tying his shoe, and the referee told him to stay down and tie his shoe or he will get a yellow card for dangerous play. I told the player to get up, better a yellow than a kick in the head, the referee then stopped play to yell at me and said that the player being down was, “your problem coach not mine” . Should the player have been allowed to tie his shoe then play resume, since play was already stopped? Was the referee creating a dangerous situation, or is this a new rule?

Answer (June 6,, 2007):
We sometimes poke a little harmless fun at coaches for their “inventive” minds and ideas regarding the Laws of the Game. In this case, we have to do more than poke fun at this referee, who was certainly inventive, but definitely in the wrong on at least three counts: (1) The player should either have been sent from the field to tie his shoe or, more sensibly, the referee should have simply waited until the shoes were tied and then signaled for the kick-off. (2) If the referee were unintelligent enough to caution the player for this “offense,” it would have to be for unsporting behavior; there is no such thing as a caution for “dangerous play.” (3) The problem was created by the referee himself, not the player nor you, the coach. We apologize to you and your player(s) for the lack of wit, wisdom, and common sense of this referee.…

Question:
I recently was the referee for a Upper level youth match hosted at a local high school. Because of where each team originally located their equipment, they chose to locate their substitutes and coaching staff on opposite sides of the field. There was no obvious technical are or seating drawn. I allowed it to proceed because I cannot recall any instruction to point to which does not allow for this kind of arrangement. However, it made substitutions often confusing/difficult as there were no limit to substitutions in this match.

My question: Is there any documentation/instruction that would forbid this kind of arrangement, other than local policy? Is there any restriction on the location of benches at all? behind the goal area for instance?

Answer (June 6, 2007):
What you describe is a typical high-school type of arrangement. Although contrary to the arrangements indicated in Law 1, it is no more illegal than other arrangements in which both teams are located on one side of the field and their supporters on the other.

As to team areas or benches being located behind the goals, that is strictly forbidden by tradition, common sense, and the Law.…