"Inventive" Refs

WHEN MAY A TEAM SUBSTITUTE?

Posted on by

Question:
When are teams allowed to make make substitution?

I am a new referee at the Recreational level. I am confused as to when teams are permitted to make substitutions. Having heard conflicting responses from the referees I work with, I want to ask the question on here, because I am serving as central referee for the first time this weekend. I could not find a clear answer in the publications “Laws of the game,” or “Guide to Procedures.” However, a common pattern of answers where I work is that you can sub at most stoppages but not during corner kicks or opponent throw-ins. Yet other claims are that you can only make subs when the restart is in the advantage of your team. If you could clear this issue up for me, I would be very pleased and would educate refs and coaches alike in my league.

Thanks in advance for your help!

USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
Actually, you will find the procedure for substitutions in two separate places in the Laws: In Law 3 (The Players) itself and in the back of the book, under Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees. We include here only the latter, as it is more complete:
Substitution Procedure
– A substitution may be made only during a stoppage in play
– The assistant referee signals that a substitution has been requested
– The player being substituted receives the referee’s permission to leave the field of play, unless he is already off the field of play for reasons that comply with the Laws of the Game
– The referee gives the substitute permission to enter the field of play
– Before entering the field of play, the substitute waits for the player he is replacing to leave the field
– The player being substituted is not obliged to leave the field of play on the halfway line
– Permission to proceed with a substitution may be refused under certain circumstances, e. g., if the substitute is not ready to enter the field of play
– A substitute who has not completed the substitution process by setting foot onto the field of play cannot restart play by taking a throw-in or corner kick
– If a player who is about to be replaced refuses to leave the field of play, play continues
– If a substitution is made during the half-time interval or before extra time, the process is to be completed before the second half or extra time kicks off.

You will find, as you progress up the refereeing ladder, that many competitions (leagues or tournaments, etc.) make up their own rules for substitution, many of them not quite in agreement with the Laws of the Game — the Laws allow for different rules only for players below the age of 16, “veterans” (over 35), female players, and disabled players. If you accept a game in such a competition, you are bound to follow their rules.

Most of the local substitution rules are at least partly consistent with the Laws of the Game, but are valid ONLY if the players are below the age of 16, veteran (over 35) or female footballers, or disabled.…

"Inventive Coaches"

LEAVING THE FIELD OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
On the occasion of a goal kick from Team A the coach is instructing his outside mid-fielders to step off the pitch about 1/3 of the way down, proceed in the direction of the kick while still outside the pitch then enter the pitch to make the play. It took me awhile to realize what was going on. After the game I asked the referee if this was leaving the field without permission and she agreed that they weren’t leaving the field to play the ball as allowed. Also note that the player was not reentering the field at the point at which they left. I also contend that this was done to deceive and thus would be considered unsporting behavior.

USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
Players are allowed to leave the field without permission only during the course of play — to avoid obstacles, such as an opponent, and to play the ball in the possession of an opponent on the line.

Players are not otherwise allowed to leave the field of play without specific permission of the referee. Doing so and then re-entering without permission is at least a cautionable offense.

This has nothing to do with trickery or deception. It is, plain and simple, the offense of leaving the field without permission, an act of misconduct in itself.…

Law 3 - Players

NOT SEEN? NOT AN INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
A team has 12 players on the field and scores a goal, the CR doesn’t recognize number of players is 12. The CR sets the ball at center field to restart the game when the opposing coach tells the referee there was 12 players on the field for the team that scored.

By this time the opposing team has taken the extra player off the field.

What should be done?

USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
If the referee and the assistant referee have not seen the incident, it did not happen and nothing can be done. The match officials need to be more observant of things beyond the play around the ball.

If there were a reliable witness to this incident — and that could only be a member of the officiating crew — the answer depends on whether the “extra” player belongs to the team that scored.  If it did, the goal is canceled and the restart would be a goal kick; otherwise proceed with the kick-off.  Furthermore, in either case, the “extra” player would be cautioned for USB and required to leave the field.…

Advice to Referees

DOGSO; SIGNAL TO DISALLOW GOAL

Posted on by

Question:
1. Why are there two DOGO’s?
Handling is also punishable by a free kick or penalty kick so wouldn’t dogf be sufficient?

2. Signal by AR for goal to by disallowed is to stand at attention with flag straight down, but doesn’t say anything about the signal after eye contact with CR. Why doesn’t AR follow the same procedure as signaling a foul or offside as soon as he see’s it? Standing at attention with flag straight down to signal a person interfering looks the same as a foul, but the restart is IFK, not DFK. It seems like a conference is needed to get the correct restart, when giving the signal as soon as it becomes an offense gives all the necessary information. I see no reason to wait to give the flag a waggle or indicate offside. Can you explain the reasoning?

USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
1. The International Board wanted to make it clear that these were two different situations in several important respects.  First, DG-H has a goalkeeper exception, DG-F does not.  Second, they use a different standard — DG-H = but for the handling, the ball would have gone into the net;; DG-F = in the opinion of the referee, the opportunity was disrupted.  Third, DG-H does not involve any of the “4 Ds” (they are applicable only to DH-F).  Fourth, DG-H applies to a substitute who has illegally entered the field, DG-F does not.

2. Yes. But we assume you want more than this clear and simple answer.

It is presumed that the referee will have seen enough of the events occurring just in front of the goal to differentiate among the three different possibilities for canceling a goal even though the ball is in the net (offside offense by the scorer, offside offense by a teammate of the scorer, foul by an attacker) and that the AR’s signal is primarily a further confirmation.  To that end, the procedure for the first is to signal the offside offense in the usual way but to simply stand still (“at attention”) for the other two.  The referee, seeing the latter signal, therefore knows that there are only two possibilities — offside offense by a teammate of the scorer or a foul by an attacker.  This is usually sufficient for most experienced referees.  If it is not for some reason, then the referee and AR can confer briefly.  As for differentiating between an indirect free kick versus a direct free kick restart for the two offenses indicated by the AR standing still, most experienced referees would again recognize that, so close to the defending team’s goal, it rarely matters which will occur.…

Advice to Referees

RESTART WHEN PLAYER INTERFERES WITH THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
This question has come up three times in the last 5 weeks of our adult amateur soccer league play. Each time, there has been controversy over the re-start, so we are submitting this to the “experts” for final adjudication in writing.

Red Team player #1 is taking a throw-in in accordance with Law 15.

Blue Team player #2 decides to move to a position where he is standing in front of the thrower, clearly less than 2 yards away.

Before the Referee can warn Blue player #2 to move back, the ball is thrown in by Red player #1, and the Referee blows his whistle to caution Blue player #2 for Failure to Respect the 2 yard Distance on the throw-in.

In reading the new FIFA Laws of the Game (on page 125), we believe that play is restarted with a throw-in for the Red Team. This appeared to the correct restart and was the restart employed in each of the three games. This past weekend, two Assessors and an Instructor (along with many other referees) proclaimed that the correct restart should be an Indirect Free Kick. The logic given was that the ball had already crossed the plane of the Touch Line so it should be deemed to be “in play”.

It appears to me that the restart for this “Failure to Respect the Distance” violation should be treated the same as any other. If there were a “FRD” violation on a corner kick, we would re-take the corner kick. If there were a “FRD” violation on a direct free kick, we would re-take the direct free kick.

What is the correct restart for a “FRD” violation, for which a yellow card is shown, on a Throw-in?

USSF answer (April 28, 2009):
The correct restart in this case is a retake of the throw-in. The ball was not in play when the infringement occurred. The Advice to Referees makes it very clear that failure to withdraw the required distance on a throw-in (or a corner kick) is to be handled the same way as would be the case on a free kick.…

Law 5 - Referee

CHARLES W. FLEISCHER, JR., MAJOR USMC (RET.)

Posted on by
This is a departure from our normal format of questions and answers, but all referees in the United States need to know of and mourn the loss of our colleague, Charles W. Fleischer II, Major USMC, Ret., who lost his final battle with cancer on 25 April 2009. Chuck was a valued friend, close associate, and a true believer in The Beautiful Game. He was also an heroic helicopter pilot (callsign Chatterbox 16) in Vietnam, where he completed many missions under heavy enemy fire.

Chuck may not have pleased all his audiences, but he believed in telling the truth, telling it straight, and taking no prisoners in his battle to raise the level of skill and professionalism in refereeing. He remained a steadfast warrior in this fight to the very end.

I, for one, will miss him greatly.

Jim Allen

…
Law 11 - Offside

OFFSIDE IN U8 GAMES?

Posted on by

Question:
I am going to be reffing my first game on Saturday. It is a u8 game. Is it true that u8s don’t play with offsides? Thanks for the help.

USSF answer (April 23, 2009):
According to the USYS rules for U8 small-sided soccer, there is no offside at the U8 level.

You will have to check the local rules of competition — what the league your are refereeing in wants to have called (or not) — to know for sure what to do in the game you will be working.…

Coach

GOALKEEPER CHANGE

Posted on by

Question:
Attacking team had possession of the ball near the defending team’s goal. Meanwhile, way back at the attacking team’s goal area, with play still in progress, the attacking team’s coach had come onto the field and helped his GK take off his shirt and put it on one of his defenders

USSF answer (April 23, 2009):
And where were the referee and the assistant referee(s) and fourth official (if assigned) while all this was going on?

Law 3 (The Players) tells us what to do if a team official enters the field of play without permission:

Team Officials
If a team official enters the field of play:
– the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the team official does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)
– the referee must have him removed form the field of play and if his behavior is irresponsible the referee must expel him from the field of play and its immediate surroundings
– if the referee stops the match, he must restart play with a dropped ball in the position where the ball was at the time when the match was stopped, unless the ball was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.

We must emphasize how significant a factor in this is the age of the players.  No need to get upset about this, but we suggest “educating” the coach at the first opportunity) for kids in the below 8 or 9 year age range.  We might be tolerant eveh at an age level 1-2 years older than this if it was apparent (out of the corner of my eye) that the GK had become so hopelessly entangled in his jersey that he was virtually wrapped up in a straight jacket.  Anything older than this or short of these circumstances, the players get cautions, the coach is informed that it is entirely his fault, and full details of the incident are included in the game report.

We also suggest that the nearer assistant or fourth official commit seppuku for allowing this to happen.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

GOALKEEPER INJURY

Posted on by

Question:
I just accessed the U.S. Soccer web-site to be sure I had your up-to-date contact information and to browse the questions and answers before I sent my question, to make sure it wasn’t already answered. Lo and behold, the April 14 posting “Role of the Goalkeeper” opens up the topic that I want to address, albeit a different aspect of it.

I observed a game where the goalkeeper got injured. The near assistant referee and the center referee clearly saw what had happened and had no doubt that the goalkeeper would not be able to participate in play for a little while at least. They let play continue and the attacking team score. Then the center referee called the coach out to attend to the goalkeeper.

My question is this (and it may be that I misunderstand the intent of the law): The law states that one player on each team is a goalkeeper. If the goalkeeper has been incapacitated so that he/she cannot play, in effect the team does not have a goalkeeper, that is they do not have a functioning goalkeeper. What should the referee do if that happens – stop play? If you give an answer that is not just a straight “yes” or “no”, please give some guidance: Does it make a difference as to the age of the players or the level of play, or the circumstances of the game. I’m looking to clear up my own murky thinking in this area and to share your answer with colleagues, too. I know there is a risk of cynical goalkeepers feigning injuries to get play stopped and I have a bit of a soft heart, so I could get suckered into stopping play inappropriately. While you can deal with the goalkeeper’s simulating an injury, the effect on the game itself may not be remedied. Similarly, if a goal is scored and allowed to stand while the goalkeeper cannot play, the effect on the game is also profound.

USSF answer (April 23, 2009):
Let us start with several premises:
(a) All players are perfect angels until they prove otherwise.
(b) While the team is required to have a goalkeeper, there is no requirement that that goalkeeper be on the field nor able to participate in play.
(c) The referee is directed by Law 5 to stop play only if a player is seriously injured. If, in the opinion of the referee, the player (goalkeeper or field player) is not seriously injured, there is no need to stop play and have the player treated. (We could point to an October 2004 incident in an English Premier League match between Manchester City and Bolton Wanderers in which the referee allowed the goalkeeper to lie on the ground unattended for well over a minute; the goalkeeper, who had fallen without any contact from either opponent or teammate, finally got up. Luckily for him and his team no goal was scored.)
(d) The Law also allows the goalkeeper (or any other player) to leave the field during the course of play and if, after the restart (typically a throw-in), the goalkeeper has not returned and a goal is scored, life is hard.

Given that the goalkeeper is often the last line of defense against a goal, referees should interpret this to mean that they should stop play more quickly in the case of a goalkeeper injury when the players are young, unskilled, and inexperienced.  Furthermore, if, as you said in your question, the referee “had no doubt” that the injury precluded the goalkeeper from participating in play, this certainly sounds like it should have been considered a serious injury at just about any level of competition.…

"Inventive" Refs

INEFFECTUAL REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
High level U15 girls national championship series preliminary match. To set the scene – Game is tied 0-0 in the second half. White goalie comes out to near 18 and makes a save. Ball comes loose and blue forward hits ball off goalie. Goalie jumps on ball outside the 18 and is called for handling. Goalie then proceeds to argue with CR for 30-45 seconds (I believe stating that she had control when the blue player hit the ball which is not what I saw or what the CR saw). CR does not issue caution and says after the game that “this was a high level state cup game and emotions were high” so she did not issue a caution (AR stated during game that he would have cautioned keeper).

With 4 minutes left in game and white winning 1-0, white keeper makes another save and trips blue player just inside the 18. CR blows whistle and issues keeper (who is still holding the ball) a caution.

After a short discussion with keeper, CR backs off and allows keeper to punt. After the game, CR states that caution was for dissent and that she would have just dropped the ball to the keeper and allowed her to punt and since there was not much time left, she just allowed the keeper to punt.

How should this have been handled?

USSF answer (April 21, 2009):
While we might agree with the referee’s initial decision not to caution the goalkeeper for dissent because of the high emotional level of the game, we do not recommend allowing protracted sessions of “discussion” with any player. The referee should state her decision, take care of business (if any), and get on with the game. (And the AR should have kept his mouth shut unless speaking directly to the referee.)

The second decision raises three areas of concern.
– First, the caution for dissent may or may not have been correct, but if the referee saw it that way, then it was correct. We wonder if it should not have been for unsporting behavior (reckless play in tripping the opponent).
– The second area of concern is the possibility that there was an obvious goalscoring opportunity — we don’t have any details to determine one way or another.
– The third area of concern is the way the game was restarted — or “continued,” as a punt is definitely not a way to restart the game. A dropped ball is not possible. A punt is clearly an abomination. If the caution was for dissent, the only legal restart is an indirect free kick (not a dropped ball) for the opposing team where the goalkeeper committed the dissent.  However, if the caution was for the goalkeeper tripping the opponent, then the correct restart is a direct free kick or, in this case, a penalty kick.…