Category: Law 5 – Referee

Law 5 – Referee

Advice to Referees

COMPLETING THE GAME

Posted on by

Question:
Can a match be restarted and completed even after the Center Ref has signaled it abandoned?

I was the center for a U16 Boys Classic 1 contest in which I expelled the loan team official during the 2nd half of a tied match (this decision was not done lightly and probably would have been done earlier if not for the circumstances)

When I expelled the coach, he confirmed there were no other team official present. I felt I had no option but to abandon the match and indicated that I was doing so by whistle and word. Within a very short time (not much more than a minute or so), while the teams were still on the field pleading with me to let the game continue somehow, the players indicated that a parent was coming to take responsibility of their team.

Because I wanted the boys to be able to complete their game I conferred with my ARs, and after speaking with the captains of both teams we restarted the match from the point the game had been abandoned (ball was in touch).

Since our state requires only that a team official be present to begin a match and allows for a responsible parent to take the place of the official during a match, my question is whether I had the authority to restart the match after I had signalled the match abandoned?

Thanks and I so much appreciate the service that your sight provides.

I only wish there were more questions/answers to read.

USSF answer (September 29, 2009):
1. Our job as referees is to allow the game to reach its natural completion whenever possible. The referee is permitted to change his (or her) mind on a decision of this nature only if the teams remain on or in the near vicinity of the field and the rules of the competition permit it. We might suggest that if such a situation should occur again — heaven forfend! — that you or whatever other person is refereeing first consult with the team(s) to determine if someone is available to take the place of the coach before abandoning the game.

2. You can find more questions and answers in the various archives on this site. They go back to at least 2000 — although some have clearly been rendered slightly less useful by changes in the Laws or in interpretations from the IFAB, FIFA, or the U. S. Soccer Federation. …

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SLOW BUT STEADY WINS THE RACE

Posted on by

Question:
As always, many thanks for the excellent resource you provide.

A question has arisen in another forum regarding how long the referee team has to make a call. Specifically, the scenario was given as:

a. During a play for the ball in the penalty area, there is a collision, with no foul committed at that time; three players simply tangle and go down, and the ball caroms away.

b. While the players are untangling and getting up, and the referee’s attention is on the next play some distance away, a still-sitting defender deliberately cleats an opponent in the thigh.

The referee does not observe this, but the AR does. However, the AR does not immediately recognize this for the foul and misconduct that it is.

c. While play continues, the AR is replaying the scene is his mind, and gradually comes to the realization that the incident deserves a send off, presumably for violent conduct.

d. No more than 15 seconds later, play is stopped for an injury.

The AR now has a moment to completely consider what he saw, gets the referee’s attention, and relates what happened. The referee sends off the defender.

Here is the point of dispute. I believe that, since this referee stopped play for the injury, and the AR made no decision at the time, but only after the fact, that the restart is determined by the reason the referee stopped play: a dropped ball. The other point of view is that, since play has not restarted since the incident occurred, the referee team is still empowered to punish the foul as well as the misconduct, and the restart should be a penalty kick.

I appreciate that making the correct call is always the primary concern, but I believe the referee needs to maintain some personal integrity here. This was not the case of an AR signalling for a foul & misconduct at the time it occurred, and not getting the referee’s attention until after play was stopped. The AR did not make up his mind until (in my opinion) it was too late to call the foul. For the misconduct, of course, it is never too late, at least until the match report is filed.

What do you say: dropped ball or PK?

USSF answer (September 15, 2009):
In this case, the original reason for the stoppage is irrelevant. The assistant referee is reporting serious misconduct in the play prior to the stoppage.

Send off the defender for violent conduct. Restart with a penalty kick for the foul against the attacking player.

Give the AR a magic pill to make him/her observe more closely and think more quickly.…

"Inventive Coaches"

INTERFERING COACH

Posted on by

Question:
I was refereeing a U12 rec game with 2 young AR’s (both were 14 yrs old – one boy & one girl). The girl was on the team side and the boy was on the spectator side during the first half. One of the coaches was constantly calling for offside (the players were in offside positions but were not involved in play – so no call, there was one offside that needed to be called and it was) and he was questioning some out of play calls. The girl AR requested to switch sides at halftime and I allowed it. I didn’t want the coach to start to influence her calls and I though the boy would be better able to handle it. About 10 minutes into the second half, the coach noticed the switch and called me over to complain that it was against the rules. I told him it was a rec league and really didn’t matter since their was nothing in the league rules. Is there any official FIFA rule on this? I checked my books after the game and could not find anything.

USSF answer (September 14, 2009):
Ah, those amazing and inventive coaches! The reason you cannot find any reference to switching the location of your assistant referees is that there is nothing in the Laws about it. Nor is there any position paper about it. There is no need for any rule, as the assistant referees are there to ASSIST the referee, who may ask his or her assistants to work on one side in the first half and on the other in the second half. If the circumstances require it, the referee may switch the ARs’ positions at any time during a period of play.

We cannot stress enough that most coaches know little or nothing about the Laws of the Game and how referees are supposed to work. (Note that this does not apply to all coaches; some, even though not referees themselves, know as much as most referees.) One thing many coaches do very well is how to manage the referees and their assistants. A question here, a niggle there. Anything to make the referee or AR upset and to affect their judgment.

The wise referee will nip this activity in the bud by taking the first opportunity to let the coach know, politely and professionally, of course, that such actions will not be tolerated. What is the consequence to the coach for interfering with the game and the officials? A nice seat well away from the field, out of sight and out of hearing.…

"Inventive" Refs

MISCONDUCT DOES _NOT_ CHANGE THE RESTART!!!

Posted on by

Question:
There is free kick outside the penalty area. defensive wall set inside the box. While defense setting their wall, defender push down an opponent into the ground inside the box at near wall. Referee changes the free kick call to the PK call. Is this a correct procedure?

If not what would you do?

USSF answer (September 9, 2009):
It is certainly not correct (or allowed under the Laws of the Game) to change the restart because of something that occurs when the ball is out of play. The defender should have been cautioned or sent off, depending on the nature of the push to the ground, and the restart should have been the original free kick.…

"Only in America!"

CARDING COACHES

Posted on by

Question:
During an U-15 boys game that became a phsyical “pushing” game between both teams and the referee let the physical game continue. The parents from both teams began to “voice” their opinions regarding the lack of calls by the referee. The center referee was visibly showing signs of being very emotional (crying), and stopped the game with about 10 minutes remaining. She blew the whistle and said “I’m stopping the game, its a tie”. She then left the field with the 2 assist. referee. The next day I received a call from my league that I was suspended for 2 games and that the referee from the game reported she issued me a red card after the game. She never spoke to me after she stopped the game and she just walked off the field. Can a referee do this? I spoke with the coach of the other team and he was not aware or told of a red card being issued to me or anyone.

USSF answer (September 8, 2009:
Unless the rules of competition for your league (or other competition) specifically allow it, the referee is not permitted to show a card of any color to a coach or other team official. Under the Laws of the Game (the rules we play by), coaches or other team officials cannot be shown cards or sent off for any reason, but may be expelled from the field and its environs for irresponsible behavior.

Given the circumstances you describe in this case, we recommend that you gather all the information you can from impartial witnesses and submit a report of your own to the league and the state youth soccer association. You should also understand that the officiating crew may, as a result, do likewise. Its better not to start this process unless you are convinced that you did no wrong in all this “voicing of their opinions,” and that rules of your competition do not hold you responsible for what the parents of your team may have said.

Further, while the referee has the right to terminate play for general disorder (based on safety considerations), the referee cannot determine the outcome of the match.  All the referee can do is report that a match was not played to its conclusion and to describe the circumstances (including any scores recorded prior to the termination).  Anything after that is up to the competition authority based on its local rules.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.…

Law 5 - Referee

SIMULATION AND THE UEFA RULING ON EDUARDO

Posted on by

Question:
I’m sure that you have gotten a number of these emails in recent weeks due to the Eduardo issue in the Champions League, and more particularly the ruling by the UEFA today. I would like to know what the rules are at the professional level on contact in the box by a keeper and what warrants a penalty and/or booking.

As I watch the limited replay views that I have of the Eduardo “Dive” I do understand that he went down exceptionally easy although at the same time I question whether the calf of his trailing leg was hit causing him to fall or at least causing him to have a warranted reason to attempt to dive. With that in mind I also notice that there was no Ball Contact by the keeper in the Eduardo case either. This makes me wonder does ball contact have anything to do with a ruling on whether or not a player should or should not be penalised?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
The following standard applies at all levels of the game: Simulation occurs when the player “attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled.” Whether the contact would or would not have caused the player to fall is relevant to a decision about a foul, but not to a decision about misconduct. In other words, the caution is for faking or exaggerating — where the faking is usually focused on whether a foul occurred whereas the exaggerating is often focused on whether a foul went beyond “careless” and should be carded. A player might well have been fouled (i. e., the contact did indeed unfairly cause him to fall), but if he then screams, moans, groans, rolls, etc. in an attempt to “sell” a card, then it is included as a cautionable offense. In all cases, we are punishing efforts to con the referee into a favorable decision — which could be to call a foul that wasn’t or to card for a true foul that didn’t involve misconduct. Of course no professional player would attempt to con the referee to gain a penalty kick from an opportunity that was clearly already lost, right?

The goalkeeper is liable to commit the same fouls as any other player on the field. If the goalkeeper trips or pushes or commits any other foul against an opponent, then he or she should be punished.

We could not possibly comment in any case on the UEFA ruling.…

Coach

COACH INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
I was watching a U-11 girls match last weekend. The red team was about to take a corner kick, one player (player 1) from the red team retrieved the ball and set it on the corner arc. As she was doing so the coach of the red team began to yell “NO I don’t want you to take the kick have (player 2) take it” Player one then apparently touched the ball with her foot and went into position while player 2 ran over and began to dribble the ball. The referee blew the whistle and indicated a IFK to the other team. The red coach began to scream at the referee that player one had touched the ball, and it was obvious that this was a designed strategy. The referee then changed his call and allowed the red team to retake the corner kick.

While the players certainly could have done this on their own, is the coach permitted to engage in intentional deception by his instructions as to who will take the kick? Would a caution to the coach have been proper?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Under the Laws of the Game, no team official may be cautioned or shown any cards. However, the (unauthorized) rules of some competitions may allow this. You would have to check the rules of the competition to see if this is allowed. The IFAB, the body that makes the Laws of the Game, does not permit it. Nor does FIFA, the body that administers the game and publishes the Laws, nor the U. S. Soccer Federation. Leaving aside any (unauthorized) rules of competition, if, in the opinion of the referee, the coach interferes with the game, that act becomes irresponsible behavior and the coach should be expelled (not sent off and not shown the card, but expelled) from the field and its surroundings. We should note that most instructions from coaches are simply noise and can generally be disregarded. However, if the behavior of the coach clearly distracts and misleads the opponents, or is loud, sudden, or abusive to anyone (his/her team’s players, the opponents, or the officials), that is the time to deal with the action.

The tactic in your scenario might be legitimate if the players had come up with it themselves. The critical issue to be resolved is whether the first player merely touched the ball (no kick, no movement of the ball) or actually “kicked” it so as to put it into play. If it was simply a touch, then the second player is the one who put the ball into play and then played it a second time — this is a second touch violation, whistle, indirect free kick to the opposing team where the second touch occurred. If there was at least some perceptible movement to the ball as a result of the first player’s contact, then what followed was entirely lawful.

As to the restart, if the referee stopped play for what he thought was a second touch violation but was then advised by the assistant referee that the first contact did indeed result in “kick and moves,” then the restart must be a dropped ball.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

FOOL ME ONCE, ETC.

Posted on by

Question:
Referee has stopped play for an injury and will restart with a dropped ball. A player from the Red team says, “drop it to me and I’ll kick it out of play” clearly in the interest of fair play. So the referee drops the ball to this player who then turns and mounts an attack on the opponents goal. That is to say, he doesn’t do what he told the referee he would do. I don’t think you can caution this player for USB even though he clearly HAS been unsporting. [A person from another country] says you absolutely caution the player for USB. I really don’t know. What sayest thou?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
Where the player kicks the ball is of no interest to the referee, whose sole job here is to get the ball back into play quickly and fairly to all participants. However, the fact that the referee was foolish enough to accept the word of a player that he would do thus or such is incomprehensible.

There is no basis for the referee to caution the player for unsporting behavior. However, the referee should quietly go soak his or her head and learn to face facts: All players will con the referee if given half a chance. In addition, we would further add a penance or two to the referee’s lot. We find it difficult to justify a caution for fooling the referee, but not if the player fools an opponent illegally.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SPOT OF THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Near the end of a hard fought 1-1 game, I whistled a handling offense by the defense just outside the penalty area. At least 2 defenders remained in position for an instant just in front of the spot of the foul, but the momentum of the ball caused it to roll 3-4 yards to the side. An alert attacker set the ball at this new position and took a quick shot at the goal as this location was not obstructed by defenders. The quick shot went wide and so I indicated a goal kick.

However, had the shot gone in I had to wonder how I would have handled this volatile situation. The defense could protest that the kick was not from the proper spot (if they were alert). Or, if I disallowed the kick certainly the offense would protest.

I think the proper procedure would have been to be alert to this quick kick tactic and whistle a second time as the ball is set in the wrong location and before a quick kick is attempted, and insist the ball be placed at the spot of the foul. Then, if the player quick kicked anyway everyone has heard the second whistle as evidence that play was not properly restarted.

Had the kick scored in the original scenario and I had not time to whistle for proper placement of the ball, I think the proper but unpopular decision would be to deny the goal and retake the kick from the proper location. In this case a few yards from the spot of the foul is VERY significant to restarting play unlike a restart near midfield.

Please advise. Thank you, this site is the best.

USSF answer (August 19, 2009):
The farther the infringement (and thus the ball) from the goal being attacked, the less the referee cares about finding the exact blade of grass on which to have the free kick taken. As the infringement moves closer to the goal, the more exact the position of the ball for the free kick should be. Although in this case the ball does not seem to have moved appreciably closer to the goal, it may have given the kicking team a better angle, so the restart should be stopped immediately, if possible. If that is not possible, then have it retaken properly — and admonish the defenders (no caution necessary) for hanging around.

If all else fails, the key is making a decision and sticking to it. Your opinion is protected in Law 5, as quoted here: “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.”…