YOU MUST CALL FOULS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ON THE FIELD!!

Question:
Do indirect free kicks in the penalty box still exist? So often penalties are awarded for fouls in the area that do not deny goal-scoring opportunities (players going away from goal etc), this leaves the ref in a catch 22 as if it is either/or as the punishment will not fit the crime. It seems that in taking subjective judgement away from the ref the laws tie the hands of the official, who sometimes even yellow-card an attacker for simulation when they were in truth fouled, but rather than give a soft pen the ref cards the striker for diving. Using the indirect free-kick in the box would empower refs to deal with the pushing etc from set-pieces, instead of forcing them to turn a blind eye on defensive cheating unless it is really flagrant and can justify a near-certain goal.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Wherever did you get the idea that the award of a penalty kick is limited to situations in which an obvious goalscoring opportunity is involved?!?!?! That is completely wrong!

The Laws of the Game have not changed in this regard for over one hundred years. There is no such thing as a “soft penalty.” If a direct free kick foul, in other words a “penal” foul, is committed on the field, it should be treated exactly the same in the penalty area as it would be at midfield. There is no “either / or,” there is only the correct call.

You will find a similar question and answer on the website now, dated December 17. The answer states:

“We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

“You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.”

Why is it so difficult for referees to understand that a penalty kick does not have to be “earned”? it is sufficient that a penal foul is committed in the penalty area against the attacking team.…

COLOR OF REFEREE SHOES

Question:
Regarding shoes: Is black shoe with black logo the only permitted style or is a black shoe with white stripe/logo permitted?

USSF answer: December 27, 2008):
Page 36 of the Referee Administrative Handbook 2008/2009 specifies shoe color: BLACK SHOES: (may have white manufacturers design) with black laces.…

DISSENT? VIOLENT CONDUCT? NOTHING?

Question:
Situation is this: Team A has a free kick in good goal 20 meters from team B’s goal. Free kick taker in Team A wants the referee to move the wall further from the ball. The referee says the distance is ok. The free kick taker in team A then shoots the ball with full power deliberately into the wall of team B players to demonstrate he considers the players are standing to close. Decision? Restart of play?

USSF answer (December 27, 2008):
Referees are not capable nor trained in reading the minds of the players. It is hard to accept the notion that a player who kicks the ball at full force at goal — with opponents happening to be standing in the way (regardless of the distance) — could be considered guilty of committing violent conduct or any other infringement of the Law. Asking the referee to decide that there has been an infringement, e. g., violent conduct, has meaning only if there is a possibility of it being true. Kicking the ball hard at goal, hopefully THROUGH the wall, is an understandable and acceptable tactic. The kicker may hope that the force of the kick will power the ball through the wall or that, in anticipation of the ball being kicked forcefully, an opponent in the wall may duck and allow the ball to go through. We see no reason for any stoppage in play, nor for any action against the kicker.…

REFEREE DISCRETION

Question:
What discretion, if any, does the referee have in deciding to call a foul as a dangerous play, which results in an indirect free kick, versus a reckless/careless foul, which results in a direct free kick. For example, a player carelessly raises his cleat too high, interfering with an opponent, versus the cleat making the slightest contact with an opponent, versus the cleat making solid contact with an opponent. What about a slide tackle that is whistled because it was careless under the circumstances, but not so dangerous as to warrant a direct free kick, according to the referee? Is there discretion under all circumstances of dangerous play and fouls/misconduct?

USSF answer (December 17, 2008):
We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.…

ANOTHER REFEREE UNIFORM QUESTION

Question:
Thanks again, for the forum this has been. Since my discovery of it a couple weeks ago, I have submitted questions on 3 separate occasions. I hope there’s no limit on these.

Here’s my question, brought about partially by a previous response regarding a referee covering tattoos. The Administrative handbook states that the referee crew must wear the same length of sleeves, but does not make mention of long sleeved undershirts. Is a referee allowed to wear a long sleeved undershirt (I would assume black would be the default) with a short sleeved jersey? Or are long sleeved undershirts only permitted under long sleeved jerseys? Also, if a referee chooses to wear a long sleeved black shirt (dri-fit style I would assume) under his short sleeved jersey, and the rest of the crew also wears short sleeves, is this acceptable? Thanks.

USSF answer (December 1, 2008):
Referees should strive for the most professional look possible. Wearing long-sleeved undershirts under a short-sleeved jersey does not meet the criteria for a professional appearance.

However, you might check to see if your local referee association has a rule on this (many do). For example, one local assignor we know of requires that all referees she assigns wear only black undershirts and under no circumstances combine a long-sleeved undershirt with a short-sleeved jersey.…

OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY?

Question:
I was the center for an adult mens game this week. The attacking team was on a fast break and the thru ball was deliberately handled by the defender to stop the attack. The defender was one of the last defenders (they were almost flat…in a straight line). The Attacking player who was to receive the ball would have been on his way to goal with no defender in sight. The deliberate ball handling took place about 35 yards from goal.

I blew the whistle and gave the defending player a straight red. The AR then called me over to tell me that the attacking player who was to receive the ball was in an offside position. At the half, my other AR said I should have considered the distance from goal that the handling occurred and thought I should have given a yellow card.

Does the fact that the attacking player who was to receive the ball was in an offside position change the card or scenario?

Does the fact that the handling took place 35 yards from goal change the card or scenario?

USSF answer (November 21, 2008):
Yes, as we have answered several times in the past, the fact that the player who might have scored was in an offside position does indeed change the card and the scenario. Although it’s a bit late to do anything about it now except remember it for the next time it occurs.

If the referee accepts the assistant referee’s flag for the offside — which he or she seems not to have shown in this case — that advice is then binding on the referee, who must decide for offside and misconduct. The correct decision is to caution the defender for unsporting behavior and restart with an indirect free kick for the defender’s team, taken from the place where the attacker was when his teammate passed the ball.

However, just to head off questions we know will come from others who read this particular Q&A, let us note several things.

1. if the offside is not accepted (and it is certainly difficult to accept an offense that wasn’t signaled by the AR in the first place) or if the attacker hadn’t been in an offside position, then the issue you raise boils down to this — but for the handling, would a goal have been scored?

2. And someone is bound to bring in the 4 Ds, which actually figure into that decision only marginally.

3. The referee can’t say that DGF occurred simply because, but for the handling, the attacker might have passed the ball to his teammate and his teammate in turn might have been able to take a shot on goal and the shot on goal might have gone into the net.  In this case, it is either a red for DGF because the ball would have gone into the net from the player’s shot on goal or it would be a caution for a tactical foul (illegally handling to prevent the ball from going to a teammate of the player).…

OBJECTS THROWN INTO THE FIELD

Question:
MLS Playoff game between NY and Salt Lake. Home team fans throw streamers at opposing players taking corner kicks or at the opposing goal keeper prior to a home team corner kick, yet, play is allowed to continue. Also, the throwing of smoke “bombs” onto the field, and again play is allowed to continue. My question is this.

“When is an ‘outside agent’ allowed to enter the field of play and the referee allowed to ignore it and allow play to continue?” I’m familiar with Advice to Referees Section 1.8 paragraph D. Streams and smoke bombs are both distractions not only to the fans but also to the players and (in my opinion) “interfers with the game”. I guess my position is obvioulsy the exact opposite as that displayed on the field during the game in question. So, which is correct?

USSF answer (November 18, 2008):
Under the Laws, an outside agent is a person, but that can be extended to other animate beings such as dogs. An outside agent is not a streamer or smoke bomb, although these things can occasionally cause problems. Much of this was covered in a Federation position paper of 3 April 2008 on “Objects on the Field”:

From the U.S. Soccer Communications Center:

To: National Referees
National Referee Candidates
National Instructors
National Assessors
State Directors of Referee Administration
State Directors of Referee Instruction
State Directors of Referee Assessment
State Directors of Coaching

From:  Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education

Subject:  Objects on the Field

Date:  April 3, 2008

Soccer matches are exciting events, attended by partisan fans who celebrate the successes and bemoan the reverses of their favorite team. They wave flags, blare trumpets, beat drums, swirl scarves, and, sometimes, they throw things onto the field. Usually, what is thrown onto the field (confetti and streamers) is inconsequential, at most a momentary distraction.

At times, however, what is thrown onto the field constitutes a serious interference in the match, either because of the specific nature of the object (e.g., bottles or lit fireworks) or because of the volume of the material covering the field and making the surface dangerously unstable. In such cases, the referee must suspend play, preferably at a stoppage called for some other reason but otherwise without delay if the issue is the safety of the players, the officials, or team personnel in the technical areas. Before play can be resumed, it is the responsibility of the home club (the organization sponsoring the match) to resolve the problem without undue delay. Under certain circumstances, the referee may consider removing players from the field for their safety during this time.

A more difficult case is presented when what is thrown onto the field is not intrinsically dangerous but carries the threat of interfering with play in some significant way. Referees are, of course, alert to such interference when a ball enters the field and comes close enough to play to be mistaken for the match ball. Another example that might be cited is an EPL match (Sheffield United v. Manchester City) in which, about 10 minutes into the first half, the ball was played into the attacking third of the field at a time when more than a dozen balloons were also in the area (it may be important to note that the balloons were generally similar to the match ball in size and color).

On a shot across the face of the goal, the ball hit a balloon, causing the former to be redirected slightly and the latter to be knocked toward the goal. Further play resulted in other balloons moving and bouncing in front of the goalkeeper. A goal was scored during what may have been a very confusing few seconds.

In these “gray area” situations, the referee must evaluate a number of factors in order to determine if and when play should be suspended until the problem is resolved.

• What is the likelihood that the foreign object(s) might interfere with the safe movement of the players?
• What is the likelihood that the foreign object(s) might confuse players and/or disrupt the flow of play?
• Is the problem with foreign object(s) primarily at one end of the field and therefore more likely to disadvantage one team over another?

Play should not be suspended for inconsequential reasons and the referee must remain vigilant to the possibilities of the match being disrupted by the sudden appearance of unwanted objects on the field. Match officials must be sensitive to things which interfere unduly with the beauty of the sport and make a mockery of skilled play.

We put your question to an authority at the Federation, who responds that professional-level referees are instructed to manage their games with an eye toward preserving the entertainment value of the game without sacrificing player safety. Streamers are not necessarily a big safety hazard, while smoke bombs are. The referee’s key to deciphering the mystery is player reaction. Players do not tend to mind streamers until they are being thrown in excess “at” the player. The authority also points out that material thrown at the goal is treated more seriously than material thrown around the corner flag. This is because of the possibility of interference with the last line of defense near the goal.…

OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE

Question:
During a recent match a parent wasn’t happy with the CR
lack of a call or a miss call. He happened to be a referee and the
league administrator. He requested that the ARs both be replaced and
wanted to replace the center referee. My question is what is the rule
for someone stopping play and what are the rules for changing out ARs?

USSF answer (November 18, 2008):
No spectator, not even a league administrator, has the right to interfere with the officials on a match.…

REFEREE AND PLAYER EQUIPMENT

Question:
I was watching a game on TV from England’s premier league and was surprised to see a player with a diamond on each ear lobe during the whole game. I’m concluding the center referee didn’t care about this infraction because it was obvious that four officials couldn’t possible have missed this glaring jewelry. I suppose he thought it was not hazardous.

It was demeaning to the game to see a player in repeated closeups flashing his elegance right at the referee team. Then I thought assisting the assigned referee does not mean capitulation to his peculiar whims. So, what course is available to the assistant referees and fourth official? Can they refuse the assignment until the center referee gives way or should they just take it in stride and report it in their game report?

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
The longer we live, the more we see — and the more we notice that both players and referees sometimes flout the Laws of the Game, or at least fail to follow them clearly and logically.

No, the assistant referee and the fourth official may not boycott the game for referee failures of this sort. They can certainly make their observations known and must then cooperate with all instructions from the referee that do not cause the assistants or fourth official themselves to violate the Laws. If the failure by the referee is an egregious one, then the assistant(s) or fourth official should report it to the appropriate authorities.…

REFEREE CAN DISMISS AN INTRUSIVE ASSISTANT

Question:
This happened while I was watching a U14B Class II select game prior to the one I was supposed to ref.

The CR was a very well respected guy that has a lot of experience in our league. One of the AR’s (on the coaches side) kept bragging about how good he was where he moved from (California, I think) and kept making really bad comments about the performance of the CR.

In my opinion, the CR was doing a pretty good job in a very physical game.

At one point in the game, the CR called a PK in the area that was on the other side from the AR I am talking about. Well, the AR went ballistic and ran all the way to the other side of the field and started arguing with ther CR on how that was not a PK, etc, etc…

From that point on, it turned really nasty as the AR kept making bad comments of the CR performance, very loud so everyone could hear. The CR acted very calmed and didn’t really paid attention to the AR comments, but certainly did not help with the game.

My question is: Can a CR dismiss an AR who is having this type of behavior and ask one of the clubs to assign a linesman?

I am hoping the CR wrote a very long report about the AR, and hopefully I won’t see that AR again.

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
Yes, a referee may indeed dismiss an assistant referee who is behaving in that manner. Here is the word, straight from Law 6:

In the event of undue interference or improper conduct, the referee will relieve an assistant referee of his duties and make a report to the appropriate authorities.

And the referee should report the AR to the state referee authorities for breach of the Referee Code of Ethics.…