Author: Jim Allen

Law 18 - Common Sense

FLAG WITHDRAWN BUT GOAL DISALLOWED

Posted on by

Question:
Here is what happened: During the first 10 minutes of the game a goal is scored but right afterward, (during celebration of the goal), to everyone’s surprise, the center referee stops play and goes to talk with the side referee. No one knew why at the time. Players that were in the area of discussion said that the center ref asked the side ref why he had put his flag up and then quickly down before the goal was scored. The side ref told the center referee that he did not mean to put up his flag and that it was a goal. The center ref says well you did put up your flag and so I blew my whistle and so whether you meant to put your flag up or not, you did, and so since I therefore blew my whistle I can not call it a goal. The side ref then said well it was a goal I made an error and I clearly saw that the goal scorer was behind the defender and it was a goal. But again the center ref said well I can’t count it as a goal. So he calls it no goal and does a drop ball. Now I must add that no one heard the whistle be blown and play continued during the goal being scored, no players stopped playing. What is the rule on this? How can an obvious goal not be counted just because the side ref accidently puts up his flag for a brief moment? And then the side ref says it is a goal. The center ref even came over to the head coach during half time to say that he knew that it was a goal but was sorry that he could not count it but under the circumstances he could not. By the way, this goal ended up being very important to the out come of the game. It was the only goal scored and made the difference between a tie and a win! And the points were needed, now its the difference between 1st & 2nd place in the bracket! Bummer! Thank you for your explanation and can anything be done at this point? Can a protest maybe correct this?

USSF answer (October 31, 2011):
The referee acted correctly only if in fact he had blown the whistle upon seeing the AR’s flag go up. He apparently reacted (albeit inaudibly) to his assistant referee’s flag and stopped play for whatever the flag may have meant — offside, foul, etc. The fact that the AR then lowered the flag does not make any difference in the outcome; the referee’s decision was made and the whistle was blown (even if inaudibly). Play stops when the referee decides it has stopped. Anything that happens after the decision to stop play has been made does not change the fact of the stoppage.

No, the referee has not misapplied the Laws or called something counter to the Laws, so we doubt that any protest would be allowed. If the referee included full details in the match report perhaps the competition authority will have pity.…

"Inventive" Refs

BE THE REFEREE!

Posted on by

Question:
I was reffing a recreational league the other day when something incredible happened that took me by surprise. The Blue attacker and Red defender were running after the ball and into the pk box, they were both legally shoulder charging each other, I was about 5 feet from the play (very close to miss) and saw the Red defender stumble (never fouled) and tumbled ahead of Blue attacker, when the Blue attacker jumped over the tumbling Red defender to get to the ball,The defender stretched his legs up deliberately and fouled the Blue attacker. I called the pk (no doubt) and proceeded to yellow card Red defender and red card him (second yellow). Blue attacker refused to take the pk stating he had committed the foul against Red defender instead of the other way around and his teammates retrieved along side him. I had never encountered this situation and proceeded to call back the ejected Red defender back and explained the strange situation and allowed him back in the game and let the Red team take an indirect kick from the place the Red defender had stumbled and fallen. Red and Blue are also friends, which has nothing to do with the game, but I suspect friendship had something to do with Blue’s decision to avoid getting his friend (Red) ejected. How should I have handled this situation better.

USSF answer (October 24, 2011):
The referee is certainly allowed to change a decision, even the awarding of a send-off (red card) if he does so before the next restart, but he needs to have an extremely good reason to do so. The referee also needs to stand by a decision to award a penalty kick if the foul occurred in the perpetrator’s penalty area and was clearly a direct-free kick foul, no matter that the player who was fouled objects.

If the player who was fouled does not wish to take the penalty kick, life is hard. In that case, another member of his team must take the penalty kick. If no one cares to take the penalty kick, then the game is abandoned and the referee submits full details of the reason in his report to the competition authority.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PITCH INVASION BY IRATE PARENTS

Posted on by

Question:
In the 30th to 36th minute of a 45 minute second half game for U17B, there was a foul that took down a player and they were injured. That player remained on the field until the coaches could be called on to attend to him. During that time, the parent of this player ran onto the field yelling at the referees that they allowed his son to get injured because they didn’t make the calls necessary to stop the rough play. The coaches from the parents’ team got the parent off the field of play and away from the referees. The player was then taken off the field. During this time, the referees conferred in a conference and then came back and stated the match was suspended due to parent coming on the field.

Since the match was called in the 36th minute of the 2nd half does the score stand as official? Should the officials have notified the coach to have the parent removed or the match would be suspended before they just suspended the match? Can they have the results of the match overturned to a forfeit for the team with whose parent entered the field of play?

USSF answer (October 24, 2011):
We cannot understand why the referee needed to have a conference with the ARs to determine that the match was suspended. The match is automatically suspended the moment the referee allows authorized medical (or coaching) staff to enter the field to examine the player.

Surely the referee told the teams that the match had been “terminated” because of the actions of the parents, who entered the field without permission and then verbally attacked the referee.

What happens when a match is terminated is dictated by the rules of the competition (league or state/local association, etc.), not by the referee. The referee must include full details in the match report. Then the competition authority will determine what remains to be done;…

Law 5 - Referee

GROUNDS FOR PROTEST

Posted on by

Question:
Clearly – a coach could theoretically protest any game, but does the USSF offer any guidelines to leagues regarding what might make a game truly “protestable”?

Or to re-word it – what type of referee errors might be grievous enough to result in a protested match being replayed?

We have differing schools of thought. Some here would say that any misapplication of the law, such as an incorrect restart, would qualify.

Others would pose that the error must directly impact the outcome of the game, for example, not allowing a goal scored from a corner would be a referee misapplication of the Law which directly impacts the outcome. Whereas, awarding a corner kick when it should have been a throw-in, and then the corner results in a goal, would be an indirect impact. The players had the opportunity to mediate that misapplication of the Law.

Of course, leagues prefer not to incur the expense of replaying any games at all. That financial concern aside – are there any guidelines for how a coach or league Board might determine if a protest is worthy on the basis of the referee’s performance alone?

USSF answer (October 24, 2011):
There are no national standards for protesting the result of the game and the acts of the referee. Traditionally there is only one reason to protest the decision of the referee, and that is solely for a decision that is counter to the Laws of the Game. In other words, a situation where misapplying the Laws does indeed affect the game or where a referee clearly sets aside one of the Laws of the Game.. There can be no protest on a matter of referee judgment.

Equally traditionally, many protest committees pay no attention to the facts of the case, no matter how rationally reasoned and presented.…

"Inventive Coaches"

“MOTIVATION” ON THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Hi: I am a Boys U-12 coach and also an intermediate referee. I think the following is appropriate and I see no rule against it. But I need an opinion.

My team is names AC Milan. Throughout the game I usually scream “who are we?” My team on the field respond, “AC Milan”. I use this as a way to motivate my kids. Also to make sure we are a team. I do this every once in a while throughout the game.Not specifically when we score.

This is ok to do, correct?

USSF answer (October 21, 2011):
It is okay only if the referee on the game does not view it as an attempt to intimidate and/or distract the opponents. If he or she detects either intimidation or distraction, then the players doing the responses on the field could be cautioned for unsporting behavior and you, the coach, could be removed from the game (expelled) for irresponsible behavior. The referee must judge the appropriateness of both the WHEN and the WHY of the coach’s and players’ actions.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

SUBSTITUTES MUST BE READY TO GO

Posted on by

Question:
I have two questions re: U10 Girls soccer:

1) We have played a team multiple times that if they are ahead, will substitute their goalie with less than 5 minutes left in the game.

When they substitute, the girl coming into the game is not ready…not pinny, no gloves. Instead, we have to wait for them to switch pinny and goalie gloves. This eats up the clock and obviously slows the momentum of the game in their favor. What are the rules in relation to subing a goalie?

2) One of our girls was going to a 50/50 ball with the opposing team.

Our girl was tripped and while trying to get up, got kicked in the head (and was not playing the ball). The ref called a dangerous play on our girl and gave the opposing team the free kick. If she is not playing the ball and merely trying to get up (while the other team is kicking the ball into her and kicking her), shouldn’t it be a dangerous play with a drop ball?

Thank you!

USSF answer (October 19, 2022):
1) As with the substitution of any player, the referee must ensure that the new goalkeeper is already fully prepared to enter the field before the referee permits the restart to be delayed for the substitution.

Players, including goalkeepers, must be ready to play with all uniform/equipment parts in place when they appear at the midfield line to indicate a request to substitute. The only “delay” allowable in a goalkeeper substitution is to hold the restart until the new goalkeeper has reached the goal.

2) If the situation was precisely as you describe it, then the referee would seem to have made an error in calling playing dangerously on your player and not calling a foul on the girl from the opposing team, who kicked your player. In no case can the kicking by the opposing player be considered to be playing dangerously by either player: it is clearly at least careless play by the opponent and must be punished with a direct free kick.…

Law 4 - Equipment

RELIGIOUS EARRINGS

Posted on by

Question:
I have a U12 Girl who is telling me that she cannot remove her earrings due to her religion. She is a Muslim.  They are saying that Islam will not allow her to remove the earrings for any reason.

What should I tell them ?

USSF answer (October 13, 2011):
No referee should be placed in a position in which a decision on this matter must be given by the referee. This is not the job of any referee. If learned theologians can disagree on what a religion requires, and armies of adherents can take up arms to enforce to the death their particular vision of salvation, then the lone individual referee has no chance.

The competition authority (league, tournament, etc.) should be the one to decide if a player may be permitted to offer the religious exemption by applying to them with a description of the item of clothing or equipment which the player desires to wear on the field and accompanied by an explanation of how and why (and under what authority) that item is required to be worn by the player’s religion.

The competition authority should then decide to accept or reject the application. If it accepts the application, it should issue a written decision which the player, the player’s coach, or the player’s parents should have with them at each and every game in which that player wishes to participate. The referee’s sole responsibility is, based on this approved application, to inspect the item described in the approval to determine if it is safe both at the start of play and throughout play.

The competition authority has no business encroaching on the referee’s responsibility for safety, and the referee has no business making any decision about religious doctrine.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TWO INCIDENTS IN HIGHLY-CHARGED GAME

Posted on by

Question:
I’m a fairly new referee, and I’m hoping to get some insight into a particularly difficult game I was an AR for over this past weekend.

I’m writing to get an opinion regarding two incidents that occurred during a highly charged U15 game in [my state] over the weekend. First, I’d like to address the general atmosphere of the game. It was a very physical game with lots of bumping and jostling for position, and several cautions were issued in the first half. At one point during the first half I overhead the coach of the blue team instructing one of his bigger players that he should, to paraphrase, dish it back as hard if not harder than it was being served. I kept an eye on that player and did not notice any overly-aggressive behavior, so I thought nothing of it. Before the end of the half the red team, down 1-0, tied the game up through a fantastic half-volley from around 20 yards out. The goal scorer had been a threat all game and was clearly the red team’s most talented player. By the midpoint of the second half that same red player had been knocked around a bit, and the situation reached a boiling point when he was tackled by a blue player well after the ball had left his feet. The blue player was cautioned, but at this point in the game several red players pointed out that they had overheard the blue coach instructing his players to target the red team’s goalscorer. The players of both team were mostly Hispanic, and as such these instructions would have been given in Spanish. None of my crew spoke the language and, as such, we had no way of knowing if the red team’s claims were true. I called the center ref to my position and explained the first half incident I had overheard, but he decided to only warn the coach and not take any further action. While there was no direct proof that the coach was instructing his players to target the opposing team’s best player, the actions of his players on the field as well as the conversation I’d overheard earlier led me to believe that the Red team’s claims of deliberate targeting were substantiated. Were I in the center, I believe I would have dismissed the coach from the game. In this situation do I have enough evidence to do so? Would the correct call be a dismissal of the coach or, as my center did, simply offer a stern warning?

The second incident occurred with around 5 minutes remaining in the match. At this point the red team was winning 2-1, and the atmosphere had gotten even more difficult. Both coaches were being aggressive in their dissent of referee decisions and players were beginning to act similarly. A blue player played a through ball which was contested by a blue player and the red goalie. The two players slid feet first and collided at full speed. It was clear that both players were in a considerable amount of pain but it was also clear there were no severe head or bone injuries. With these two players down, the referee allowed play to continue around 30 seconds longer. I did not get a chance to ask him why he did not stop the game immediately, but I believe it was because the blue team had a clear advantage with the goalie down and the ball in the red penalty area. The ball was eventually cleared by the red team and the game was stopped. After a minute or two on the ground, the blue player was helped up and off the field by his coach and a teammate. The red team claimed that they had only one goalie, and as such the referee allowed them to treat their player around 5 more minutes. The blue team was furious that the game had been stopped for so long, believing that the goalie should have been substituted for one of the general players on the red team’s bench. They even went to far as to claim that the referee was required to have the goalie taken off the field and substituted. I have several questions regarding this situation. First, what is the suggested protocol for stopping play when a team has a clear advantage? In this case, the blue team had a clear advantage with the red goalie injured on the ground and the ball in the red penalty box. Should play be allowed to continue until the advantage is ended or is it the duty of the referee to stop play immediately when two players have sustained significant, but not severe, injury? Could the referee have stopped play immediately and determined the play reckless on the part of the blue attacker? It was a clear 50/50 ball, but had the goalie gone into the challenge head-first as opposed to feet first he would have certainly sustained a severe head, neck, or facial injury. This being the case could a foul be called on the blue attacker for a careless or reckless challenge? This call would have the advantage of stopping play immediately without regard to the blue team’s advantage. If a goalie is down for a significant period of time is the referee required to ask that he be substituted? The final question addresses the method of restarting the game had it been stopped immediately to address the injury on the field. In this case, play would have been halted by the referee when the blue team had a clear advantage. Is it the duty of the referee to restart the game in a manner that restores this advantage and, if it is, what would have been the best method of restoring such an advantage?

I apologize for the length of the email. I’m sure you guys get lots of these and I don’t mean to take up a disproportionate amount of your time. I’m anxious to hear the opinions of some experienced referees regarding these situations. As I said before, I’m very new to refereeing, and while I do have aspirations of reaching the highest levels, games like these make me wonder if I have the willpower to control highly intense games and make correct decisions that keep the match fair. I believe that, were I in the situations described above, I would have dismissed the blue coach for instructing the deliberate targeting of a player and I would have called the blue player for a reckless challenge. Both decisions would have been aggressively disputed, since the sending off of a coach is extreme and the blue player would have had to be cautioned for the challenge on the goalie. That caution would have been the player’s second caution and would have resulted in a sending off. I look forwards to hearing what you guys have to say about the situations. Thanks for listening.

USSF answer (October 13, 2011):
Incident 1:
If you did not understand the words of the coach’s message to the player, then you could not report it to the referee unless you had some other indication that the player was supposed to “take care of” his opponent. You might have mentioned it to the referee immediately if you had a suspicion, but that is not conclusive proof. By reporting it when you did, you at least provided some assistance to the referee for the match report.

By taking no action against the coach beyond the caution, the referee did not display the courage expected of a referee. We hope your rules of competition require this caution, as no team official may be cautioned (or sent off) for anything; they may only be expelled for irresponsible behavior, which this act certainly merited.

Whatever the coach may or may not have said or exhorted his players to do, the primary focus of the referee must be on what the players actually DID. They can choose to ignore their coach’s advice or they can be egged on by it – it is still their behavior on the field which determines the referee’s response to any particular incident.

Incident 2:
• Audible or visible dissent by a coach is irresponsible behavior, for which the correct punishment is expulsion. “Aggressive” dissent requires immediate expulsion.
• “Serious” is in the eyes of the beholder. If the referee believes the injury to be serious, he should stop the game immediately, no matter what the game situation. The referee’s primary job is player safety, not playing the advantage for a dubious reason. And in making this decision, the referee MUST take into account the age and experience of the players. Given this was a U15 match, there does not appear to be any reason to delay the stoppage.
• An injured goalkeeper may be treated on the field for as long as it takes to determine whether he or she can continue to play. The opposing team has no vote here.
• Any punishment for misconduct van be made only by the referee ont he spot. It’s a “youhaddabethere” situation. However, sliding in feet first against a goalkeeper warrants consideration of at least carelessness, if not actual recklessness, or even excessive force if the tackle were performed at high speed and/or two-footed and/or with studs exposed and/or with one or both feet raised above ball height.
• If play was stopped immediately to address the (serious) injury, the only possible restart — barring a foul — is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.. No, referees do not normally slant the restart to account for a possible “advantage’ for one of the teams.

Overall
We might suggest that the referee showed too little courage throughout the game. If a game starts poorly and becomes wild and woolly, then the referee must ensure that it slows down and remains a part of the beautiful game, not some sort of war.…

"Inventive Instructors"

TROUBLE-MAKING SPECTATORS

Posted on by

Question:
At a U15 Girls match this weekend, the game seemed to go without too much incident and not too many insults to the officiating crew.

It was IMMEDIATELY after the game that the situation eroded. The game was played on an outlying field that was away from the rest of the tournament and apparently no “field marshals” were assigned to the game.

Towards the end of the game, one of the parents from the team who was loosing positioned himself with the parents of the winning team.

Immediately after the game, he began to “start trouble” by provoking arguments with the winning team. The situation was volatile, but after a few minutes the winning parents seemed to leave the area before the incident could get out of control.

I have been taught that the referee is in charge of the game, technical area, the players and SPECTATORS from the time the referees arrive on the pitch until they depart (even before and after the game). I know exactly how to handle this DURING the game, but this was after the game had technically ended and while the referee crew was still on the pitch. (There were less than 50 spectators — of which only about 10-15 were involved)

It seems to me that a few well-placed words from the referee could have ended the situation rather quickly.

My question is, since there are NO other unbiased officials of the tournament, does the referee have any authority under the “laws of the game” to “persuade” the spectators that it is not in their best interest to continue their arguments.

Should I, as THE referee, get involved on a MORAL ground just to try to stop the situation from escalating? Obviously, I am not going to step into a fist-fight, but should I, as a 40-year old adult, step in to prevent the “arguing” that could lead to something stupid?

USSF answer (October 11, 2011):
The Laws ask only that the referee deal with situations in which someone unauthorized enters the field, in which case the referee should suspend play and perhaps terminate the game if the situation cannot be handled by the appropriate authorities. Unless there is some rule of the tournament that permits you to deal with spectators or anyone other than team officials, you have no authority to deal with such persons at any time, whether before, during, or after the game, unless there is some question of player safety off the field. Your job is to ensure that the players are safe, not Mom or Dad.…

"Only in America!"

THE FINAL WORD

Posted on by

Question:
On 10/3/11 you said “In the scenario you present, the deliberate handling by the goalkeeper outside his own penalty area, no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied. There is no evidence that, but for the handling by the goalkeeper, the ball would have gone into the goal. The horse is dead. Long live the horse.”

Your second sentence has no bearing on the first sentence. The law says the offense is “denying . . . a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity.” While I agree that a goal has not been denied (as the ball was not moving towards the goal), I am shocked to hear that an attacker in the “D” with only the keeper to beat is not an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Which D is not ticked here?

Number of defenders: 0 not counting the offender.

Distance to goal: 20 yards. While not inside the area, it’s certainly closer than many breakaway OGSO I’ve seen called.

Distance to ball: Unclear in the scenario, but would the keeper have handled it if he wasn’t under pressure?

Direction of play: Not entirely clear, but I take “running onto play” to indicate he was in a position to shoot.”

I’m not saying it’s always a send-off when the keeper handles outside of the area (I’ve had 2 this season and not sent-off for either), but to dismiss it just because the ball isn’t moving is not consistent with the 4D philosophy.

USSF answer (October 11, 2011):
You seem to have missed the clear interpretation of DG-H provided in the original training materials for OGSO and confirmed clearly in Advice to Referees 12.37(a). Your argument is without merit.

We shall spell it out one last time (we have done this several times before). The elements of the 4 Ds may be used in determining if, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would have gone into the net but for the handling offense (e.g., the more defenders there are between the handling and the goal, the more likely it is that ONE of them at least would stop/redirect the ball on its path; the farther away the handling offense occurred from the goal, the greater is the distance the ball must travel in its path to the goal and so the more likely it is that its target area is so wide that it only encompasses the goal rather than being aimed at the goal itself; and so on).

However, the Ds when applied to DG-H are merely guidelines, not hard and fast rules as they might be when applied to DG-F. For example, the “D” related to direction of play is reduced to a simple linear vector decision — is the ball going into the net? Likewise, the “D” related to distance to ball is totally irrelevant.

The 4 Ds apply to DG-F precisely because it is an attacker who is being fouled whereas DG-H involves a foul committed WITH the ball, against the Spirit of the Game, rather than against an opponent. In the two “Ds” which were “not entirely clear,” this lack of clarity stems precisely from the simple fact that they don’t apply at all. You have defined them in a way that meets your needs, not the letter and spirit of the Law. For example, the “D” for distance to ball is DEFINED as the distance between the attacker who was fouled and where the ball was when the attacker was fouled. Because this attacker had not had possession of the ball, the question as to whether that distance was or was not great enough for the fouled attacker to continue his possession/control of the ball and thus to continue his attack is irrelevant.…