Coach

COACHES HAVE NO AUTHORITY

April 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
On a free kick, a request comes from the coach to enforce the minimum 10 yard rule. Is this sufficient to bring the kick from the state of a QFK to a ceremonial free kick?

In the document “Free Kick and Restart Management” from the 2009 Referee Program Directives, there is a clause that a ceremonial free kick is to take place if the “attacking team” requests a CFK by asking the ref for enforcement of the minimum 10 yds.

This brings up a more interesting question: Is the coach, according to the rules, a member of the team?

USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
We realize this will come as a surprise to many coaches, but they have absolutely no authority in a game and cannot make requests of the referee, the assistant referees, or the fourth official (if there is one). They are not members of the team, but are either paid or unpaid advisers.

A free kick becomes ceremonial on any occasion when the referee believes that the kicking team is not interested in taking a quick free kick and wants the required distance to be established. Full details can be found under Law 13 in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.”…

Advantage

ADVANTAGE

April 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Is it right to conclude that if I call or indicate an advantage, I MUST (regardless of the result or outcome) punish the defense and/or reward a free kick to the offense, provided that the advantage is within reasonable time?

USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
No, you would not be correct to conclude this. You will find all you need on this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

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.

…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE: WHEN IN DOUBT, . . .

April 14, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a men’s division 2 game AR 1 is watching a group of attacking and defending players challenging for the ball about ten yards directly in front of the net. The ball is kicked out of the group to an attacking player in an offside position on the far side of the field. The AR’s view of exactly who kicked the ball is blocked.

The referee looks to the AR for a call but in the pregame the referee instructed the AR’s that they had the offside call. The referee allows play to continue. Can the AR signal for offside if he did not see that an attacking player kicked the ball to the player in an offside position?

USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
The rule for the assistant referee in possible offside situations: When in doubt, leave the flag down.

The problem suggests poor pregame instruction, with no donut for the referee. This is typical of the bad habits referees get into when they don’t THINK about their pregame instructions — the referee ALWAYS has the call, based on information provided by the AR. The WEIGHT the referee gives to the information depends on (a) the issue (i. e., position or involvement) and (b) the AR’s distance to the event. The referee might defer to the AR in the case of clear information from the AR and doubt on the part of the referee, but the referee cannot simply turn over to the AR all responsibility for making a potentially game critical decision if the referee has no doubt about what he has seen.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

IT’S ALL IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW

April 13, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’m sorry, I’m not one to typically question the foul recognition skills of a referee who has centered a World Cup match, but after listening to Brian Hall on the Week in Review podcast for Week 1, reading the comments in the text, and then watching the video clips, I guess I need some clarification here.

In the evaluation of the Kjelstan foul, Hall writes:

“The leg is down toward the ground and not aimed over the top of the ball. If the cleats were to go over the ball and direct contact made with the opponent’s leg, the tackle could be considered serious foul play.”

I’ve attached two screen captures from the replay of this foul by Kjelstan. [Editor’s Note: Screen shots not included here.] Color me crazy, but both of these screen shots show Kjelstan clearly going over the top of the ball, studs exposed, foot off the ground and making direct contact with force into Kamara’s ankle. Personally, I would say this is a send-off challenge, as it appears to fit the exact description that Mr. Hall uses in his comments to describe serious foul play.

If I’m wrong about this, by all means I have no issue with being told so and why. I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of working a game at the level of MLS or have the experience necessary to differentiate minor differences in what might define a send-off at that level as compared to a U16 match. I guess I would, however, like some clarification on the comments made that defined this as a caution rather than a send-off.

USSF answer (April 13, 2009):
Screen shots can be deceptive, but U.S. Soccer made the decision that the challenge was only a yellow card by reviewing the play at full speed as well as the replays. In both cases, it was felt that the player committing the foul made contact with the ball and not with the opponent. In the run of play, this is what the referee also saw. As stated, if contact was not made directly with the ball, the referee would be well within his rights to issue a red card for serious foul play. This is not an easy decision and is one of inches. Every decision made must be considered in context. If a similar challenge occurs in an U16 match, the referee can use his/her judgment in deciding whether the challenge meets the criteria for a red card.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

COACH’S INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAYERS

April 9, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a recent youth league (U10) our opponents used a tactic where to prevent a quick quick after a foul the coach instructed his players to line up within the required distance and “have the referee move you” Although you have answered a similar question, my question was if the coach is deliberately instructing players in an illegal tactic should the referee address the coach or the players? Also is each player involved cautioned or a single player cautioned (In the event the referee decides to issue a caution–At this level I’m sure rule 18 may imply some instruction first before penalty). I wanted to provide some (correct) insight in my referee report (we evaluate our referees and i take my role seriously to give them correct feedback so that they can improve).

USSF answer (April 9, 2009):
The referee cannot act on incomplete information. Unless the referee or one of the other officials hears the coach issue such instructions and judges that act to be irresponsible behavior, it did not happen. Unless a coach is inciting to riot, we can’t really penalize coaches for bad advice or bad judgment or ignorance of the Law — only players who make the mistake of taking the coach’s advice. If that is the way the coach is seeking to delay, then so be it. It either works or it doesn’t. In this case, this becomes a function of the referee’s knowledge of the Law, feel for the game, and competitive level of the match. No referee should hesitate to card a player for failure to retreat the required distance (FRD) — where it made a difference — despite the tactics of the coach, because it is the player doing it.

As to cautioning the players who are failing to withdraw the required distance from the spot of the restart, the referee should not issue cards willy-nilly, but should caution whichever player or players need the caution so that the referee can get the job done. This follows the fundamental principle of doing the LEAST necessary to accomplish the desired result. Usually, it only takes one, which is why we advise referees when faced with this sort of situation to single out ONE player by number and demand enforcement. THAT’s the player who gets the card if there isn’t compliance. Technically, of course, ALL players are subject to the same discipline. Whom do you single out? Doesn’t matter– though we would tend not to pick someone who had already been cautioned IF the prior caution was for something other than FRD. Now if it had been for FRD, hammer the sucker!).…

Law 18 - Common Sense

AR’S DUTIES

March 31, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There was an incident in a match I was recently AR for while the referee was distracted by an injured player from the play. I was the trail AR and the lead AR did not think a foul was committed. It happened on the far side of the field from the other AR. It was the center’s “quadrant”. I believed the offense was a foul and a send off for either serious foul play or the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The offense apparently was retaliatory. From my point of view the foul and misconduct was obvious. The other AR was parallel to the play and did not see the leg stick out as apparently as it did to me. The referee did stop play but he stopped play for the injury. Although I was far from the play I had a clear view. The coaches were on my side and the coach who saw the incident was yelling for a foul. I raised my flag. The center ran over to the other AR to discuss the incident. He then saw my flag and I waved him over. I asked him whether the other AR had seen the incident. “He saw nothing.” (which I later would learn meant he did not believe it was a foul but for the sake of this question we will assume the AR had been looking at the injured player too). I then advised the center that a foul had occurred and that there should be misconduct. He replied that it was not my call to make since it was not in my quadrant. I had a much clearer view then the other two officials on the field and I was told that this was not my place to make a decision because of how the decision would look. I thought that the duty of the AR was to advice the center when he/she has a better view of the incident which was obvious in this case. How should these incidents be handled and should the center take my advice even though I was a good 40 yards away from the incident.
The summary: Other officials were distracted, incident in the other half of the field and was near the 30 yard line, I had a clear view and believed it was a foul and misconduct. What should be the procedure for this situation?

USSF answer (March 31, 2009):
Some referees suffer from ego or insecurity problems. Do your job as assistant referee and let them do theirs.

You followed the correct procedure, but you need to remember that your primary role as an AR is to ASsist, not INsist. The AR provides information to the referee. If the referee fails to accept that information, no matter the reason, then the AR accepts the decision and gets on with the game. He or she has done his/her duty and the referee has made a decision and the referee alone bears the burden of living with the consequences.

You can run the line for us any time.

And, just to be certain that ALL referees and ARs are on the same page, we need to remind everyone that there is no such thing as an “AR quadrant” and a “referee quadrant” — Law 6 makes it VERY clear that the weighing of AR information should be based on who has the “better view” and that this applies not only to whether the referee or an AR has a better view, but also to which AR might have a better view. “Quadrants” went out of favor years ago.…

"Inventive" Refs

“NOT A FOUL”

March 30, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’ve been seen more professional referees making a gesture (and probably saying something too) to indicate that while a player may have expected a call, the referee wants to say/indicate that it was “not a foul.”

The gesture is usually a pointing with an outstretched arm to the spot or person. Sometimes there seems to be a motion with the hand to perhaps indicate “get up” to the “non-fouled” player.
Occasionally a more emphatic “baseball-ump-safe” signal is used.

Since I’m seeing these on TV and not hearing what’s being said, I’d like to know what verbalization is suggested for “not a foul.” I’ve used “play on” in these instances especially with younger players, but know that phrase should more be reserved to indicate “advantage.” I’m aware that the upswept arms and “play on” or “advantage” should be only used to indicate the application of “advantage” relative to what would have been actually a foul. I’m looking for clarification on the best way to indicate a true “non foul” situation.

I also believe and have been instructed that “purists” would rather never say anything nor gesture for a “non-call.” But at many levels of the game, both teams may almost stop expecting a call that is not made, so it seems that the referee needs to somehow indicate to “keep playing; I’m not calling anything there!” And, it does seem that more referees are providing some sort of verbal and/or gesture.

What can you recommend for these situations?

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
The referee should constantly interact with the players to let them know that he or she is in touch with the game and what is going on. This interaction can take the form of speaking, gesturing, always making the correct call or simply “being there” for all the action. (Position is almost everything in refereeing.) How this is accomplished is part of the referee’s personality. Some referees speak with the players all the time, praising them for sporting or good athletic play, or mildly admonishing them for borderline behavior. Some referees will use gestures such as you describe, asking the players to get up when it is clear they are not seriously injured or telling them that no foul has been committed.

When no foul has been committed, the referee should use every reasonable means to inform the players that there was nothing illegal there. This can range from saying “No foul” or “Go on!” or “Nothing there!” or, as you suggest, “Keep playing!” or something similar to get the message across. What a referee should NEVER do in this situation is make the mistake of suggesting that there is an advantage either by saying “Play on” or giving the upswept arms signal for the advantage. The referee who does this dilutes the importance of the advantage signal and confuses the players as to what is a foul (or misconduct) and what is fair play. That makes it harder for the rest of us in managing the match in the next game these teams play.

We are not sure who these “purists” are, who would not keep the players informed of the state of the game, but they do not belong in the refereeing corps.…

Advice to Referees

RETURN OF PLAYER OFF FIELD FOR BLEEDING

March 24, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
What is the proper procedure for a player who is bleeding or is seen with blood on his/her uniform? I know the player has to leave the field of play and can not return until the Referee or A.R. has inspected the player ensuring that the bleeding has stopped or blood removed but what about the stoppage of play and substitution? I’ve seen referees stop play, send the player off, allow substitutions then restart with a drop ball. I’ve seen other referees send the player off, allow play to continue and no substitution.

Thanks.

USSF answer (March 24, 2009):
See the Advice to Referees, Advice 3.13 and 5.8

3.13 RETURN OF A PLAYER TEMPORARILY OFF THE FIELD
//snipped//
If a player has been instructed to leave the field to correct bleeding, blood on the uniform, or illegal equipment, the procedure for permitting that player to return to the field is described in Advice 5.8.

5.8 RETURN AFTER BLEEDING OR EQUIPMENT REMEDY
If a player is bleeding or the uniform is blood-soaked, the player must leave the field immediately to have the bleeding stopped and his or her skin and uniform cleaned as thoroughly as possible (replacing the uniform may be necessary to meet this requirement). Before the player can return to the field, the correction of the situation must be confirmed by an official-the referee or, if delegated by the referee in the pregame conference, the fourth official or, if there is no fourth official, an assistant referee. Once the correction has been confirmed, the player can be permitted to return to the field if beckoned by the referee, even if play is continuing. The objective is to bring the team back to its authorized strength as soon as possible.

To the extent that your question deals with substitutions, the only answer we can offer is that you review the rules of the competitions in which you are working. For example, if the match is using the so-called “youth substitution rules,” then certainly the team will want to put a substitute in for one of its players who is off the field dealing with a bleeding/blood on the uniform problem. If the match uses full Law 3 substitution rules, then more likely than not the team will NOT want to substitute (thus using one of its limited substitutions) for a player who might otherwise be ready to play in a few minutes.

It also depends on whether the player in question was ordered off at a stoppage (which might then also be a substitution opportunity under the rules of competition) or whether the player was ordered off during play with no stoppage.…

Coach

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO COACHES

March 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Are coaches allowed to ask for clarification of a referees call that they did not understand.

Is it appropriate for a coach or player (besides a team captain) to approach a referee at say half-time or after conclusion of the game to ask a question for clarification of a call made by the referee during the game.

This goes to “are referees approachable” if so, when ?

USSF answer (March 18 2009):
Under the Laws of the Game, no coach or player may “question” the referee’s decision, nor must the referee provide any information other than what he or she puts in the match report.

That said, the referee could certainly respond to a reasonable approach by a coach after the game is over. The response should be succinct and polite. If the coach or any other person is not acting responsibly the referee should leave immediately and include pertinent details in the match report.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

REFEREE WEARING A KNEE BRACE

March 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
About five years ago while playing soccer I tore my ACL. I have yet to have surgery on it and recently became more accustomed to wearing my brace after having a bad incident while playing. My question relates to the uniform of the referee as the brace is rather large and cannot fit under the socks.

Should I referee with the sock pulled up and have the 3 white stripes hidden from view or should I have the 3 white stripes viewed from about halfway up the shin?

I would assume that hiding the 3 white stripes would be acceptable in this case as having the stripes in non-uniform positions would look awkward.

USSF answer (March 18, 2009):
The common sense answer would be to wear the socks at their normal level and wear the brace over the socks if this is possible. And the knee brace must be safe enough so as not to be a danger to any of the participants.…