Author: Jim Allen

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

LAZY REFEREES AND GETTING THE CALL RIGHT

Posted on by

Question:
I was reading through the May 2009 Archive about the goalkeeper injury. This brought to mind a situation that I witnessed at my son’s High School match. I am a recreational referee, and realize that the high schools here in Texas play under UIL rules, not the LOTG. Nevertheless, the situation seems clear-cut. During the match an attacking forward was 1 v 1 with our goalkeeper. The attacker was playing the ball a yard or two in front of him and as he approached the goal box, the goalkeeper reached down to pick-up the ball. The attacker continued through, while the goalkeeper had his hands on the ball, and kicked or kneed the goalkeeper in the head, causing both players to go down. The contact was sufficiently hard to knock the goalkeeper unconscious and he was totally immobile. A defender was able to clear the ball in touch. The AR was parallel to the incident and had a clear view, but the CR was about a yard out of the center circle (where he spent the majority of the match.) The CR allowed the throw-in and the opposing team finally put the ball in touch so the goalkeeper (who literally had not moved at all the entire time) could be attended to. The CR had never made any made a call, never took any disciplinary action, and never even stopped play to address what was obviously a very seriously injured player, in large part because failed to be in a position to follow the active play.

1. Should this not have been a foul for kicking?
2. Should it not have warranted Sending Off for Serious Foul Play (excessive force), or at least a Caution for Unsporting Behavior (reckless)
3. Should not have play been stopped immediately when it was obvious the goalkeeper was unconscious (he was actually unconscious for well over a minute. When he went to the hospital, had a serious concussion and was out for a month.)

I believe I know the answers, but would like to get your take and how culpable is the CR for not being in position to see and the AR for not making him aware of the situation.

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
If all was precisely as you describe it, then the following answers apply to your numbered questions.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, serious foul play.
3. Yes.

The referee is expected to cover as much of the field as possible to manage a game properly. Yes, the referee should have been close enough to play to see this incident and deal with it properly. In addition, the AR, given the poor positioning of the referee, should have passed the information to the referee. That point concerns us almost more than the referee’s dereliction of duty.

We recommend that this incident be reported to the authority that governs high school soccer in your area. The report should include date, place, time, teams, and a full description of the incident.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

MINIMUM AGE FOR REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
Can I get clarification for an ongoing question

Assuming a game is with U15 Players, and the referee is a Grade 8

What is the minimum age requirement for the Center Referee and AR’s?

Where can I find this information in the rules book?

USSF answer (June 30, 2009):
The USSF Referee Administrative Handbook tells us this: There is no minimum age requirement for referees and assistant referees. State associations may set the minimum ages for games played under their jurisdiction.

A rule of thumb is that the referee should be at least one year older than the players he or she referees, but it is not a requirement and you will not find it in any rule book that we are aware of.…

"Inventive Coaches"

COACH’S RIGHTS

Posted on by

Question:
During a referee meeting we had a lengthy discussion about the right of a coach to address, discuss with and question the head referee during a game.

In the opinion of the referee/coach (one party) the coach should be addressed and “catered” to by the head referee when he has an objection. In his logic the reasoning for this is, that FIFA has “invented” the fourth referee and USSF gives the advice (at the higher levels) that the fourth referee is there to be addressed by the coaches if they have any problems. This serves also avoiding any additional aggravation of the coach, if his objections are not taken serious. If there is no fourth referee than the coach has the right to address the referee, discuss and make his objections known. The referee can – if he does not want to discuss- tell the coach to be silent.

In the opinion of the referee / instructor (the other party) the rules and the administrative handbook is very clear about the fact that the coach does not have the right to address, discuss and question with the head referee (or the AR) his concerns, especially during the game. The danger of intimidation and gamesmanship from the side of the coach is big (and with this the “not re-registering” of a lot of young referees). Therefore the only course of action from a referee toward a coach that is questioning, commenting or trying to discuss can be –if the request is friendly- to answer friendly that his calls are not open for discussion. If it gets to or starts at a harder point of discussion, the points warning, caution and send off are in order towards the coach. No discussion at any time during the game.

The factor starting the discussion was a game on the same day where the referee/coach had a player that in his opinion was fouled by the goalkeeper. The referee saw this different and did not call a foul. The player got injured or injured himself. When the coach attended on the field to the injured player and the referee was standing by, he asked him “How can this not be a foul”.

The referee/instructor sees in this a clear violation of the rules by the coach; the referee/coach sees this as his right, especially as the “referee was one with experience and he can defend himself”.

Can you please comment? Thank you very much.

USSF answer (June 23, 2009):
Ah, coaches. Some of them are a pleasure to deal with (the ones who read our Q&As), while others are less aware of what their rights are. The answer? The coach has only two rights once the game begins: (1) to stand in his/her technical area (or team area) and offer advice to his/her team and (2) to set an example of sporting behavior for the players of both teams. And the right to do even those things must be exercised responsibly or the coach will be expelled from the area of the field. The coach has no right to speak to the referee, the assistant referees, or, if there is one, the fourth official, unless invited to do so by the individual concerned.

Referees do not have to defend their decisions to coaches. If the coach has complaints he or she should put them into a report and submit it to the league (or whatever authority governs the competition in which the game is played).

If you want further information on what the fourth official can do, please review to US Soccer’s 2009 directive on managing the technical area. It covers many issues regarding the handling of coaches including “ask, tell, remove.” You will find all the 2009 directives at http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13172742.html…

Interpretations/IFAB

SIGNALING A PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
What is the proper procedure for a referee to signal that it is OK for a player to take a penalty kick? The Laws of the Game say, “After the players have taken positions in accordance with this Law, the referee signals for the penalty kick to be taken,” but they don’t specify how the referee is to signal. It has always been my understanding that the referee is use his/her whistle to signal that it  is OK for a player to take the penalty kick. However, in a game earlier this month, no referee’s whistle preceded the a penalty kick. When I subsequently asked the referee, he said that a recent FIFA (or maybe US Soccer) referee advisory indicated that no whistle was required. He said that after ascertaining that all players were in the proper position, he told the player who was taking the penalty kick to proceed when he (the player) was ready. I was unaware of that rule, and I thought that the goalkeeper was somewhat taken by surprise – although it probably wouldn’t have mattered because the penalty kick was very well struck. In any event, what is the rule?

USSF answer (June 29, 2009):
Some referees like to make up their own rules as they go along. Others are quite inventive and also make up their own sources of information. Such is the case with your referee.

Here is what it says in the Laws of the Game, under Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidance for Referees (back of the book):

REFEREE SIGNALS
//snipped; not applicable here//

Use of whistle
The whistle is needed to:
* start play (1st, 2nd half), after a goal
* stop play
– for a free kick or penalty kick
– if match is suspended or abandoned
– when a period of play has ended due to the expiration of time
* restart play at
– free kicks when the wall is ordered back the appropriate distance
– penalty kicks
* restart play after it has been stopped due to:
– the issue of a yellow or red card for misconduct
– injury
– substitution

The whistle is NOT needed
* to stop play for:
– a goal kick, corner kick or throw-in
– a goal
* to restart play from
– a free kick, goal kick, corner kick, throw-in

The referee should NEVER advise a player at a restart to “Take the kick (or throw) when you are ready'”! What a can of worms that would open up.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

HOLDING HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
ast weekend I was the CR for a U12G game at a local tournament and had a situation that I had never seen before. Early in the first half. Red player has the ball and is attacking. Blue defender is trying to stay between the red attacker and the goal.

The odd thing was that both the attacker and the defender had interlaced their fingers to get a grip on the other player. The attacker appeared to be trying to hold off the defender and the defender appeared to trying to move the attacker away from the goal.

I stopped play, warned both girls, and restarted with a dropped ball (closer to the red player that had had possession). My theory was that both girls were equally guilty of holding.

What should the call and the restart have been? Would your answer change if this happened in the blue defenders penalty area?

USSF answer (June 28, 2009):
Unless there is some way of determining which of these “lovebirds” started holding first, then your decision might be correct. However, a viable alternative to the dropped ball would be to wait until the outcome of the “mutual holding” becomes clear.  The dropped ball is rarely a good solution for offsetting fouls.

Most important of all, please remember that in no case should the referee make a different call if this were to occur in the penalty area. We call a foul the same in all situations, no matter where it occurs on the field.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY

Posted on by

Question:
I saw this situation in the recent Far West Regionals during pool play.

One defender and one attacker are battling for the ball. The defender slips and falls with her legs over the ball. Defender tries to get away from the ball and does not attempt to play the ball. The attacker holds her down by her shoulder and jersey not allowing her to get away from the ball. Referee calls dangerous play on defender. The sideline discussion: is the girl allowed to hold the defender down (some argued this is a smart play) and others argued she was holding and that the call should have been holding versus dangerous play. What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
Based solely on your description (the only evidence we have), we suspect that the referee has no courage and blew the call. It should have been called holding and the restart should have been a direct free kick for the defender’s team.

Some referees still seem to have the wrong idea about playing dangerously; to wit, they wanted a call for playing dangerously (and the referee on this game obliged, albeit erroneously). Nothing in the Laws of the Game forbids a player on the ground from playing the ball.  As long as the player on the ground does nothing to endanger herself or other participants, there is no dangerous play. Let it be clear that it is dangerous for a player to hold the ball (lying on top of it, holding it with the legs, etc.) when on the ground. But it is not dangerous to make a legal play of the ball.…

Kicks from the Mark

COACH’S COMPLAINTS VS. REFEREE’S DERELICTION OF DUTY

Posted on by

Question:
In a penalty shoot out the referee places the ball for the first kick, blows the whistle, the kick is taken and saved. The field is muddied up and the penalty spot is not clearly marked. One coach complains that the ball was not placed in the correct position, the referee paces out and finds the correct spot is actually 1 yard closer to the goal. He makes the first kicker retake the kick. 1) Should the first kick have counted – if not what if the complaint about the ball position been made after, say, 3 kicks, would all 3 kicks have to be retaken. Perhaps the referee should have had the opposing player take from the incorrect spot to equalize the situation and then all other kicks should have been from the correct position.

My sons team lost on the penalty shoot out, it is too late now but I was curious what the correct decision should have been.

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
The coach has no right to complain about the distance of the kick. But the referee bears the responsibility — under the Laws and in the spirit of the Game — to ensure that the distance is correct. Yes, the decision to retake the kick was correct, but it would not have been necessary if the referee had done his job correctly.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO OGSO POSSIBLE IF THE BALL IS NOT IN PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
In a fast break away one player with the ball makes an attack. About two yards outside the top of the penalty area the goal keeper fouls the attacker. Advantage is not applied. In the opinion of the referee, the foul (a DFK) does not merit a card of any type. The whistle is blown, the restart of a direct free kick is announced by the ref, the ball is placed, and the whistle is blown to restart play. Before other defenders can arrive the attacker starts to take what seems to be a certain goal scoring opportunity at an unguarded net.

Before the shot is taken the goal keeper places his foot on the ball, stopping any chance for a quick shot. Other defending players then arrive, making an advantageous quick restart impossible.

In the opinion of the referee the keeper has clearly denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be sent off. The referee believes that by every standard of common sense and of Fair Play the goal keeper has breached the Spirit of the Laws, and that the Laws were written to prevent and to punish this very type of misconduct.

But by the letter of the Law, the referee is not sure that he has the power to do so. As the ball was not in play when the event took place, there was not & could not be an “opponent moving towards the player’s goal”. Although the goal keeper’s action will cause him to be cautioned, he will not have caused “an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Because the ball was not in play when the keeper broke the Law(s), his act of misconduct will not nor could not cause a free kick or a penalty kick to be taken. That is, when the ball is out of play the restart will always remain unchanged.

The referee knows that the world is an imperfect place, that life can be hard, and sometimes bad things happen to good people; but it seems egregious if the LOTG allow the keeper to remain in the game.

Your views?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
No view, simply the Law: The goalkeeper cannot have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as the ball was not in play when he committed his misconduct. Sometimes life is not fair. Caution the goalkeeper for failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a free kick; show the yellow card and restart with the original direct free kick, ensuring that all opponents are at least ten yards away when the ball is put into play.

We might also have hard words with the referee for not being proactive in the first place and preventing the goalkeeper from doing what he did.…

Interpretations/IFAB

LEAVING THE FIELD OF PLAY AND OFFSIDE

Posted on by

Question:
Two players (attacker and defender) momentum take them both out off the field of play by the goal line about 5 yards from the goal. Just prior to going off the pitch, the attacker saves the ball from going out and passes it back to a teammate just inside the box.

The attacker that saves the ball and passes it back goes off the pitch and then comes back on the field in a matter of 1-2 seconds. In the process the teammate that received the pass shots wide and to the feet of the first attacker that just came back on the field. When the ball is struck, he is in front of the keeper and the defender that followed him off the pitch (the defender is still off the pitch when the ball is struck and also received by the attacker). The defending team claim it is offside because the defender was not on the field of play. Then they complained that the attacker didn’t get permission to enter the field of play. What should the call had been? Was I correct by not calling offside and that there was no need to ask to re-enter the field when your momentum takes you off the pitch. Thank you for your help.

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of playing movement. Players who leave the field during the course of play are permitted to return without the permission of the referee and play the ball.

A recent change to the Laws of the Game (see Interpretations and Guidance for Referees, Laws 2008/2009) makes it clear that “Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee’s permission shall be construed to be on his own goal line or touch line for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage of play. If the player leaves the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.” You will also find this change in the Memorandum 2008, available through the referee page at the ussoccer.com website:

“USSF Advice to Referees: The new text more explicitly describes how referees are to consider the location of a defender off the field when deciding if an attacker is or is not in an offside position. A defender who is off the field with the referee’s permission (and thus cannot freely return to the field) is not included in determining where the last and second to last defenders are located. A defender whose position off the field was not with the permission of or at the direction of the referee is deemed to be on the goal line or touch line closest to where the defender left the field and must therefore be considered as though still on the field. Furthermore, if the departure from the field is “deliberate,” (i.e., other than during the normal course of play), the defender is to be cautioned for the misconduct.”

So, yes, your decision was correct. Well done!…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CAUTION FOR DELIBERATE HANDLING?

Posted on by

Question:
In U13 high level tournament last weekend a midfielder was running at a moderate pace and the ball crossed in front of her at waist height.

She seemed to reflexively slap it down, and then she stopped running as she knew she would get called for handling. She actually turned around and started walking backwards, anticipating the free kick from the opponent at the spot of her infraction.

The center ref had whistled the call, and then showed her a yellow card. She showed no disention, did not kick the ball again when it was on the ground, and did not complain.

Was a yellow called for? I don’t think I have ever seen it called like that, and the Laws don’t seem to indicate it was appropriate.

When questioned at half, the Ref confirmed he gave her the yellow for her “deliberate” attempt to handle.

What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
If the referee believed the act of deliberate handling to have been a tactical foul, then the caution for unsporting behavior was deserved.,…