SORTING OUT THE MARCH MEMO

Question:
Still trying to sort out the March memo.

Attacking team sets up for a DFK from mid-field near the touch line.

Defending team sets their line along the 18. In the corner diagonal from the spot of the DFK, one defender positions himself between two attackers. Prior to the kick, the two attackers move (or are trapped) into an offside position. Kick comes across the field and into the corner where the defender heads the ball out of touch. No other players touch the ball and all other players (both attackers and defenders) are at least 15-20 yards away. What is the correct restart?

USSF answer (June 1, 2009):
If by “out of touch” you mean into touch, i. e., over the touch line rather than over the goal line, the answer is throw-in — unless, in the opinion of the referee, the defender was “distracted” by the two attackers, in which case you have an indirect free kick for offside. The latter does not seem likely, at least not from your description.…

WHERE TO RESTART?

Question:
In a 3-on-2 situation, attacker A1 for Team A is fouled from behind at the 20 yard line, near the corner of the penalty area.

Before falling, he manages to play the ball ahead, just outside of the penalty area, to teammate A2, so the referee applies advantage, thinking that the teammate may be able to cross to an unmarked third attacker who is wide open in line with the far post. However, before A2 can cross, he too is fouled at the 6-yard line – just outside the penalty area.

So there are two possibilities for the CR: (1) make the decision that advantage never materialized and award a DFK at the 20-yard line, near the corner of the penalty area; or (2) decide that having a DFK at the six, just outside the penalty area, is more advantageous to the offense and thus have the DFK taken from there. The problem is that it is unclear which spot is better for the offense. If they have a skilled free kicker who plans to try to score directly off the DFK, they are better kicking from the 20. If they prefer to cross, and have some good players in the air, they may prefer to kick from the six.

In this scenario, would the referee be allowed to give the offense its choice of spots for the DFK? If not, should he use his judgement as to which spot is better based on his analysis of which spot is better for Team A based on their personnel? Also, could the CR (under “Law 18”) hesitate once the whistle has been blown and see if the attackers, by their actions, give him a clue as to where they would rather take the kick from?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
In brief: It’s the referee’s job to apply the Law correctly, not to decide which of several locations is better for the attackers. A1 was fouled, advantage was applied based on the ability of A1’s team to continue the attack credibly via A2 receiving the ball from A1. This occurred, advantage realized. Then A2 is fouled with no adequate basis for applying advantage, so there is the location of the restart.

You can find a lengthier explanation in the Advice to Referees, 2009/2010 edition, not yet published:

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again.  Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct .  Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage.  As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play).  For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players.  Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.

In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

One way to determine when to invoke the advantage is to apply the Four Ps: Possession, Potential, Personnel, and Proximity. Possession means active and credible control by the player who was fouled or a teammate. Potential means the likelihood of continuing an immediate and dangerous attack on the opponents’ goal. Potential is evaluated by judging the Personnel involved (the number and skills of the attackers relative to the number and skills of the defenders within 2-3 seconds of the offense) and Proximity (the distance to the opponents’ goal; the less the distance, the greater the potential).

GOALKEEPER CONTROL

Question:
A keeper goes up in the air and establishes control , grabbing a high ball with both hands, and then as he brings it down, it hits a head or shoulder of a defender who is making no overt play on the ball and the ball goes into the goal. Goal scored or indirect kick coming out?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
By “defender” you mean a teammate of the goalkeeper, right? If so, then score the goal. There is no reason to stop play or to award an indirect free kick if a teammate interferes with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.

If it had been an opponent (not playing the ball, as you state) who interfered with the goalkeeper, then the award of an indirect free kick for the goalkeeper’s team would be justified in most cases. The referee would certainly not award a goal in this case.…

REFEREE UNIFORMS (YET AGAIN)

Question:
I have a question regarding uniforms. I am a newer ref, but have been advancing and now am starting to ref some “bigger” tournaments and matches. Due to finances early on I bought several jerseys from places other than OSI (ie: Sator). They all have the approved design, but from a different manufacture. Is this acceptable, or do I need to replace the other manufacturer jerseys with the OSI ones? It hasn’t seemed to be a problem with the local tournaments and matches, but I just want to be sure I’m properly equipped as I continue to advance and ref at higher levels.

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
Of course the Federation would prefer that referees bought our sponsor’s products, but as long as your uniforms meet the same design requirements as those sold by OSI, then you may wear them. See this FAQ on the new uniforms:

MISCONDUCT VS. FOUL AND “NATURAL” STOPPAGE

Question:
Three questions about the same incident. The comprehensive answer is, as usual, at the bottom of the item.

A. Please evaluate the actions taken by the referee in the following scenario:

As red #6 makes a pass from the middle third of the field, blue #8 comes in late with a clearly reckless tackle. The pass finds red with an excellent attacking opportunity with pace toward the blue’s goal and numerical advantage. The referee opts to invoke the advantage clause.

The attack ends when red #10 takes a shot on goal which is handled and held by blue’s goalkeeper.

At this point, the referee stops the match to deal with blue #8’s misconduct, and awards red an indirect free kick from the point of the original offense.

Has the referee taken appropriate action in this case? If not, what are the referee’s options?

B. UEFA Champions League Final…

I realize you can’t officially comment on what FIFA referees do or don’t do, but if this were to occur in a USSF-sanctioned match…

2nd half, Barcelona player gets recklessly fouled by a Man U player in Barca’s defensive half. Referee plays the advantage for Barca.

Attack is continued while fouled Barca player is down and injured.

Shot on goal is eventually taken by Barcelona but saved by Man U goalkeeper, who then distributes ball to Man U teammates. Barca player is still down and referee still plans on issuing yellow card to original Man U player that committed the foul. Man U eventually plays the ball into touch, but is this sequence of events a good candidate for applying the fact that fouls and misconduct are two separate things by stopping play to deal with the misconduct once the advantage had been “spent” so to speak?

C. The referee has applied advantage to a foul that also involves a cardable offense, and plans to award the card after the advantage has dissipated. The resultant attack ends with a save and possession by the ‘keeper. The questions are: 1. Can the referee stop play at this time (to give the card), or must the referee wait until the ball next goes out of play before giving the card? 2. If the answer to #1 is the first option, is the restart an IFK or dropped ball? 3. Where?

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
The referee has a very brief span of time in which to decide whether or not the advantage has been realized, no more than 2-3 seconds. If the advantage was not realized within the 2-3 seconds, then the original foul gets called, the yellow card is shown to Blue #8, and the restart is a direct free kick where the tackle occurred.

However, if the advantage was realized and maintained but then lost (as it clearly was when the GK saved the shot on goal), then the referee’s actions were entirely correct — the foul tackle is gone, the referee stopped play solely to handle the misconduct (reckless foul), and he restarted with an indirect free kick (stoppage for misconduct committed on the field during play by a player) where the misconduct occurred.

The only thing worth additional comment (simply because most referees would have failed to recognize what this referee recognized) is that the referee stopped play to deal with the misconduct when the advantage disappeared, rather than waiting for the so-called “natural” stoppage (the ball leaving the field) in order to come back to #8. There is no need to wait for a “natural” stoppage to come back and punish the miscreant.…

ASSISTANT REFEREES (MISSED FLAGS)

Question:
I actually have two questions for you.
1.) During a High School match a player struck an opponent right in front of the Assistant Referee which resulting a broken nose. Instead of the Asst. Referee raising her flag immediately, she insisted on waiting for the next stoppage of play. When the ball did go out of play for a throw in, the opponents quickly threw the ball back into play. The Center never saw the A.R. until later after play had restarted. Once the Center realizes the A.R. he then checked to see what she needed. There was no red card administered for the fact that he said that play had been restarted? I tried to inform him that this does not matter, that play is stop until the center recognizes the A.R.. Under Law 6 Assistant Referee (6.4 Missed Assistant Referee Signals and under Law 9 Ball Out Of Play 9.1 ) was I correct are not?
2.) Offside is called by the A.R. for offside the defending team kicks the ball out for a throw in. The attacker than quickly threw the ball in quickly and continued their attack, which the A.R. kept the flag up during this time. The Center recognized the A.R. and then called offside. Was this the correct procedure? Under Law 6 Assistant Referee it says you hold your flag until the defending team either gains clear possession are the defending team wins a throw in are goal kick.

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
If the events had occurred in a game played under the Laws of the Game, correct procedure would be to follow the guidance given in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” 2009/2010 (not yet on the street):

6.4 MISSED ASSISTANT REFEREE SIGNALS
If the assistant referee signals a ball out of play but the referee does not see the signal for an extended period, during which play is stopped and restarted several times, the assistant referee should lower the flag.  The FIFA Referee Committee has declared that it is impossible for the referee to act on the assistant referee’s signal after so much play.

If the referee misses the assistant referee’s signal for offside, the assistant referee should stand at attention with the flag raised until the defending team gains clear possession or until a goal kick or throw-in is awarded to the defending team.  

Although the general rule is that a card for misconduct must be given at the next stoppage of play and that, if this does not occur, the opportunity to punish the misconduct has passed, the International Board’s “Interpretations” section has stated that this does not apply to serious foul play.  However, in order to make handling such incidents credible, certain conditions must apply.  The most important requirement is that the assistant referee must have signaled the original misconduct and maintained the signal despite it not being seen by the referee.  USSF has indicated that this requirement should be discussed thoroughly in the pre-game and that the referee should clearly indicate what sorts of misconduct would qualify for this treatment.  The International Board spoke specifically of “serious foul play” but USSF guidelines include any form of violence (including “violent conduct”).  If the referee becomes aware of the assistant referee’s signal for misconduct at a subsequent stoppage of play, the restart (after the misconduct is handled) would remain the same based on what stopped play in the first place.  If, upon becoming aware of an assistant referee’s signal for misconduct, play is stopped solely for this reason, the restart is an indirect free kick where the an indirect free kick where the original offense occurred.*

To avoid such situations, the referee should make eye contact with the assistant referees as often as possible.  In addition, the assistant referees must be alert for and mirror each other’s signals if needed to assist the referee.

THOSE NASTY RULES OF COMPETITION

Question:
I made a very controversial call this past weekend in a tournament that caused a lot of controversy both on the field, and with some referees. Here is the situation.

Tournament game, 14 year old boys game. The competition rules stated no stoppage time except for the case of an injury. There had been no injuries in the second half, and the score was tied 1-1. An attacker has the ball in the corner close to the flag and I glance at my watch to see that the time has just expired. I begin to blow my whistle as he crosses the ball into the goal area where it slips past the keeper and is tapped in by a teammate, after the first whistle to end the game had been blown. I did not allow the goal, because time had expired. Needless to say, the coach of the team who was on the attack was not happy. I know it was a controversial decision, and I keep running it in my head. Would it have been more fair to extend play for the extra 2-3 seconds needed for the team to score? Or would that have been unfair to the defending team to give up a goal after the time had technically run out? I spoke with a state level referee who said I should have let the play continue for a couple seconds. If the attacking team scores, then end the game, or if the defending team collected the ball, then end it at that point. This seems to be a letter of the laws versus the spirit of the laws issue. What would have been the correct call according to US Soccer?

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
A point we make consistently is that if the referee accepts an assignment in a competition, the referee also accepts the rules of the competition. Please note that the dynamics change when operating under a rule that gives the referee flexibility (unlike the tournament rule here).…

CHECKLIST FOR KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK

Question:
At a recent tournament we had a kick from the mark situation. The state referee (AR1) set up the the players as follow: Five identified players from each team outside of the center circle in a group, approximately 20 yards from the center half way line and the rest of the players inside the center circle. Furthermore he placed himself between the the identified players and the rest of the players. I was assessing the referee and DDA indicated that he liked this set up which I disagreed. My reasoning were; number one that is not what the book said, secondly since AR1 back was to 10 other players, he would not be able to see if there was any misconduct that could occur behind him and lastly this sort of self proclaimed bending of the procedure would deteriorate the consistency that federation would like to uphold. Please give me your thoughts on this matter.

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
The procedure followed by the AR stationed at the center circle was not correct and is not endorsed by the Federation. A complete checklist for kicks from the penalty mark was published on April 2, 2009. Referees may download the checklist from this URL:
http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13664259.html…

OFFICIAL REASON FOR CAUTIONABLE OFFENSE / DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL PLAY

Question:
1. During a recent U19 boys’ match, team A scores a goal with 10 minutes left, but are still behind 3-2. Team B’s defender picks the ball up out of the goal. Immediately after leaving the inside of the goal, one of team A’s players tries to grab the ball out of team B’s hands. Knowing the game situation, I had recognized this as soon as the goal was scored and was sprinting, blowing the whistle and telling team A’s player to get in position for kick off. I got there quickly enough and there was no other issue other than the initial grab for the ball. I decided to caution team A’s player for provoking the confrontation that could have easily escalated. I believe that the official reason be “Unsporting Behavior”. Is that correct?

2. During a tournament this past weekend, I refereed a U16 boys’ game. I did some research on the teams before the game and determined that one of the teams was a top level youth (premier- team A) and the other was an entry /silver level select team (team B). It became apparent very early in the game, that team A was much more physical and stronger than team B. Team B was getting frustrated because team A was legally charging them off the ball. In the middle of the 1st half, I sent off a player for team B for grabbing a player from behind who had the ball with both arms wrapped around his chest area and then wrapping his leg around his leg and throwing him to the ground much like a player would in the other kind of football. This was after he had the ball taken away through legal charging. After he left the pitch, my AR on that side observed him receiving “high fives” from several substitutes on the bench which he mentioned at half time. I tried to explain to team B’s captain that team A was charging legally, but there were several other issues especially in the first half. Based on this, I have a few questions.

A. Other than communication with the captains and players, what else can a referee do to manage these differences in physical play? How can a referee prevent a misconduct rather than just punish and still be fair to both teams in this scenario?
B. Would the “high fives” be cautionable offenses for the substitutes as unsporting behavior? If so, would cautioning one of the substitutes be sufficient for this action? I also explained to my AR that he should have mentioned this at the time it happened. I also noted the high fives in the match report.

Thanks for your advice.

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
1. After the referee has stopped play for the goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Team B). A player who is “provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play” may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2008/2009.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (A) who was interfering with the Team B player carrying the ball to the center of the field. (And don’t forget to add the appropriate amount of time for the delay.)

2. A. It is not fair to team A to punish them for the lack of skill of team B by calling the game in a way that would benefit B, nor is it fair to B, whose players will clearly learn nothing beneficial from being given an advantage of this sort. Call the game in accordance with both the Letter of the Laws and the Spirit of the Game — insofar as the players allow you to do that. It would seem that team B was not interested in a challenging game.

2. B. Your AR should have alerted you immediately about the “high fives,” so that you could have addressed the matter at the time. A strong dressing down and possibly at least one caution (you pick the substitute) would have been good. Then supply full details in the match report (as you did).…

MISCONDUCT WHILE BALL IS OUT OF PLAY

Question:
I was working as an AR for an under-17 boys game a few weeks ago.
Ball is rolling through the penalty area and defender for Team A is legally shielding forward from Team B until the ball goes out for a goal kick.

Team B forward is clearly frustrated with the defender’s shielding tactic, and, after the ball rolls out, the forward picks up the ball and does a basketball-style chest pass at the feet of the defender, who is now running back onto the field to his position for the goal kick and his back is turned to the forward. The ball struck the defender on the feet. The defender did not appear to react to the ball hitting him.

The center referee did nothing. I would have at least shown a card, but I cannot decide if it would have been yellow or red. The ball definitely struck the defender, but not with much force. To the letter of the law, this is striking an opponent. But would it have been too harsh to send off the player in this instance?

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
Only the referee on the game can determine whether the act was reckless (caution) or done with excessive force (send-off). If, in the opinion of the referee, the act constituted misconduct or serious misconduct, then a caution or send-off (depending on the nature of misconduct) would be warranted.

We see no reason for a send-off in this situation (with these circumstances), but either a strong dressing down (which wasn’t mentioned) or a caution would be warranted.

The restart — after the caution or send-off — will be for the reason the ball was out of play, a goal kick.…