| Dave, a U13-U19 referee, asks:
I have been searching for an answer to my question and I can’t find one anywhere that addresses what I’m asking. I have read that “It is not a foul if a sliding tackle is successful and the player whose ball was tackled away then falls over the tackler’s foot.” What if the slide tackle is successful and the player doesn’t fall over the tackler’s foot, but instead, falls over the tackler’s upper leg or body that has slid in front of the player’s path after the successful tackle? Is it a foul if a player falls over some body part other than the tackler’s foot after a successful tackle? Answer: The criteria for a foul which is associated with a sliding tackle is pretty straightforward. Three major initial issues are (a) what was the direction of the slide, (b) what is the speed of the slide, and (c) what did the slider follow up doing immediately after the slider’s contact with the ball. Regarding the first item (direction of slide), there is basically a “sliding scale” (no pun intended) regarding the degree of potential Law violation. In short, all other things equal, the farther away from coming in directly in front of the slider’s target of the slider, the more likely the slide is potentially dangerous and thus at least a foul if not both a foul and misconduct. The most common element generally is the degree to which the action of the slider is known or knowable by the target. This means that the slide tackle from behind is the most likely to result in a foul and a misconduct (though it can be done legally if it is done perfectly). One of the critical elements here is the degree to which the target can see or be aware of the slide. On the other hand, all other things equal, the slide from the front of the target and assuming the target is also looking at a forward direction, the less likely the action would involve a violation. Regarding the second element (speed of the slide), the issue is generally fairly simple – the fster the slide, the more likely it will result in a violation and an assessment of danger. Again, note that any slide necessarily carries an element of danger by itself if for no other reason that a slide on the ground generally involves less control by the slider … but adding speed increases this danger. Finally, regarding the completion of a slide, what happens after the slide has contacted the ball and/or the body of the opponent carries its own set of criteria. For example, the slider comes from the front and not at a high speed, and doesn’t makes contact with the ball or the opponent in any way, it is almost certain that there is no likelihood of a violation. But, change any one or more of these three elements (slow speed, frontal direction relative to the opponent, and contact only with the ball over the duration of the slide) and you have a series of issues which individually will likely involve at minimum a foul and potentially misconduct also. For example, making contact with the ball is, by itself, nothing more than the objective of the slide tackle but, add any (much less more than one) of the following and there is almost certainly a foul and/or in addition a misconduct – the misconduct element is already primed to be an element because sliding on the ground is almost inherently dangerous to begin with. Perhaps the slider makes contact with the ball and then the slider’s foot continues over the top or from the side of the ball to the opponent’s foot. Perhaps one foot clearly and otherwise legally makes contact with the ball but the other foot is placed higher and makes contact with the opponent. Not surprisingly, the single most dangerous sliding tackle (foul plus misconduct, with the latter being usually at the red card level) is from behind, at high speed, with one or both feet making contact with one or both legs (or higher) and with studs up. |
Mel, an adult-pro fan, asks:
| If a referee cautions a player on the field of play, does he have to show a yellow card – or can it be verbal? If the answer is yes, they have to show a yellow card, and if that player then receives a second caution, must a second yellow card be shown before the subsequent red card is shown? |
Your question is not easily answered but we will try to clear up some issues. The cards (yellow and red) are not the issue, they are a form of communication. If a player does something that comes under the category of misconduct, the showing of the card (yellow or red) is merely the public statement that a misconduct has occurred. Red cards are rarely the issue because, if a player commits a red card offense, the player has to leave the field and the card itself is merely the official statement. Yellow cards are a different matter because in the large majority of cases, the player’s action is dealt with and, with few exceptions (mostly limited to the commission of a second yellow card offense in the same game), the failure to show the card does not by itself change the fact that an offense has been committed.
Keep in mind that the use of cards in soccer is actually a fairly modern event – they were created by Ken Aston (a British referee) and were first used in 1970. They were almost immediately accepted as a means to “announce” that an offense had occurred which was serious (yellow) but the player is not sent off the field or was serious enough to warrant the removal of a player from the field for the remainder of the game (red). In other words, they were a signal used to warn (yellow) or remove (red) a player for serious misconduct. Aimed initially at a player who had committed an offense, it additionally became a public statement to all the players plus their teammates on the bench and their coaches and persons attending the game. Ultimately, the use of these cards was incorporated into the Laws of the Game (followed, in the US, by high school and colleges/universities). Their use was for publicly advising everyone that a player had been warned (yellow) or kicked off the field (red). Not too long ago, the use of these cards was extended to a team’s coaches!
The point of all this is that the cards themselves don’t do anything but announce to a player (and everyone else) that he/she has been warned (yellow) or is being permanently sent off the field for misconduct (red). The point, however, is that the real issue is not the cards but what they have announced. Failing to publicly announce the relevant behavior doesn’t change the fact that the behavior has been committed. If a player has committed an offense that would otherwise have warranted a yellow card, doesn’t change the fact that the offense has been committed. This is one of the reasons that red cards are very rarely forgotten to be shown because they specifically involve a player being sent from the field for the rest of the game with no replacement. Most problems with cards involve the failure to display a yellow card because a player who has committed a yellow card offense has still committed the offense – the problems arise when the player, who was whistled for a cautionable offense, may not realize that the offense was, indeed, cautionable and thus a warning that, if repeated during the same game, would lead to dismissal from the field. Unfortunately, very often the failure to show the signal for a caution may result in the referee forgetting about the first misconduct which could then lead to the failure to remove the player from the game if the previously uncautioned player commits a second cautionable offense.
So, coming back to your specific question, the failure to show a yellow card (forgetting to show a red card still results in the player being sent from the field) is serious but usually not fatal. One of the jobs of both assistant referees is, as quickly as possible, to remind the referee to show the appropriate card before play restarts. The failure to show a red card is rare and usually “fixes” itself but failing to show a card (or failing to record the giving of a card) can lead to problems. Unfortunately, the problems fall on the referee. Remember, soccer existed and was played for more than a hundred years without the display of any cards – we survived – but the card system made the referee’s job (and that of the players) easier. The major problem for a referee is not whether he/she forgot to show the card for the first cautionable offense but whether he/she forgot the offense in the first place!…
John, an adult amateur player/referee, asks:
I supervise in an 8 v. 8 league with no offsides. Otherwise, all rules follow the laws of the game. In one game I was observing, Team A was taking a direct kick. A player from Team A was instructed to stand immediately in front of the Team B’s keeper to impede his vision (his team literally told him to stand in front of the keeper), occasionally raising his arms to make himself bigger/constantly checking over his shoulder and adjusting to ensure he was blocking the keeper’s vision. They did this for nearly every kick and the official afterwards asked how I would have handled. For one kick, there was a clear impeding that prevented the keeper from playing the ball, so the ref whistled the obstruction, but from a game management, it started to get chippy and seemed like a problem I’d have preferred to nip in the bud (either with an unsporting behavior stoppage or required distance) before the inevitable elbows and shoves and dives happen.
Of course, the quick remedy is to clarify this rule in our league, but wanted to get your take. I’m pushing for unsporting behavior because it is a safety of play issue (keeper being unable to see) for us. We have 11s as well, but typically offsides takes care of this issue (except on a corner or direct kick down the line.
Answer
What you describe is and has always been considered to be interference with the goalkeeper, It is poor sportsmanship and, though it does not appear explicitly in the Laws of the Game, this situation is generally met in either or both of the following actions.
The referee should be on close alert anytime the goalkeeper has the ball, is in a possible situation to gain possession of the ball, or is in the process of initiating release of the ball. The referee should be in a good position to monitor potential interference by one or more opponents who are clearly interfering with or blocking the position of the goalkeeper and/or the goalkeeper’s release of the ball and/or positioning to clearly attempt to gain possession of the ball. One of the most typical scenarios is at a corner kick and the goalkeeper is attempting to place him/her self to protect against a goal.
In a corner kick situation of this sort, it is almost certain that one or more opponents will attempt to arrange themselves to block the goalkeeper’s ability to defend. In such situations, it is recommended that the goalkeeper be protected from such close interference by talking to the opponents or, in more serious cases, formally ordering the corner kick to be delayed (and only restarted upon approval of the referee) until the appropriate space is achieved around the goalkeeper. Of course, there must not be any direct physical contact with the goalkeeper.
If needed, the referee has the ultimate authority to caution any opponent who has failed to follow the referee’s space requirements or who rushes into blocking the goalkeeper’s space just as or after the kick is taken. In short, the Law implicitly requires that opposing players have no right under any circumstances to be so close to a goalkeeper who is placed to receive the ball, has received the ball, or is in the process of releasing the ball.
The referee needs to monitor closely situations where one or more opponents are too close to the goalkeeper, to advise players who are clearly moving closer to the goalkeeper or hindering her/his movements, to watch carefully any opponents who appear to be charging a goalkeeper who is in the process of receiving the ball, or to charge with such speed toward a goalkeeper that it is obvious there will be a collision.
The younger the players, the more carefully these issues must be monitored and quickly resolved.…
Jay, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:
| I was a middle school coach and now turned referee and have a question regarding coaches shouting verbal instructions from the technical area. For example, opposing team errantly plays the ball which is headed out of touch. An opposing player is racing after the ball, but my player is closer. I realize it will be our throw in (or corner, or goal kick) if it goes out, so I and yell out, “let it go, let it go, let it go!!!!” Under the LOTG, is this permissible? As a former coach, in one game, I was asked by the official to use the player’s name in conjunction with the instruction, if I’m going to yell it. “Sally, Let it go, Let it go Sally!!” So there is no confusion and the opposing player will know the instruction is not coming from her coach. I understood the point he made as to not be unintentionally deceptive. Now as a rookie referee, I am looking in the LOTG for where this is covered and if it is something that needs enforced during games. |
Answer
It’s not impermissible. However ….
Depending on the age of the player (say, roughly 14 and above) coaches should not be shouting guidance of the sort you described. This is what practices are for. This is what studying the game is for. This is what a player learns by doing. And this is what working with the bench players is for. If there is any guidance that is desperately needed with respect to your players on the field, make it short (2-3 words) and always focus it on the target player rather than shouted across the field (preface the 2-3 words after the name of your target player on the field).
Better yet, use time off the field and focus on the substitutes off the field — this enables you to not shout but to focus what you feel needs to be said to the subs for when they are on the field. Use the half to deal with events that you feel should have been handled differently. If you have players mixed between those who have played for several years and those who have had more experience, try to bring them into a discussion at the midgame break. If you want to focus on a specific player who has made several mistakes (every player has made at least one error), don’t throw out a litany of critical observations (no matter how correct your words may be) but ask if the player remembers the event and then see if you can get him/her to figure it out or see what the other players might offer.
Really good coaches (handling 14 and above age players) rarely say anything toward the field during active play time that is negative – positive comments are great and a player understands the underlying point better than some complex (more than 2-3 words) speech. Frankly, it is a well-established fact that even a moderately experienced player rarely hears, much less captures the meaning of, more than a word or two shouted from the sideline (particularly if there are family members also shouting at them).
Finally, consider and take into account the possibility that the player may already know what to do and why – shouting advice that the player already knows or has already considered can be embarrassing, particularly if he/she turns out to be, on balance, correct (being on the sideline does not always give you a better view of what is going or about to go on).
Short of seeing an immediately approaching dangerous event (regardless of who it is) that might be mitigated by shouting about the almost-certain collision, the rest of the game should be left to the players you have trained, who have gotten experience, and/or who have learned by making a mistake. The above advice also saves you a lot of dry throat problems.
As for the last issue at the bottom of your question, there is nothing in the Laws of the Game on this subject. That’s one of the reasons we have offered this website for more than 20 years.…
Mike, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:
While play is going on, is it legal for players to get water bottles from the bench and drink from them if they stay on the field. How about if they get involved with the play while still carrying the bottle?
Answer
Interesting question, and a very likely event in a game.
The formal Laws of the Game do not allow a player on the field to either bring a water container onto the field or to exit the field for the purpose of getting/drinking water off the field unless via the formal process of requesting approval from the referee to exit the field temporarily. That said, it is common in lower-level games to allow a player to approach a touchline for the purpose of getting a drink provided that this player would not block an opponent or himself engage in any challenging contact with an opponent or attempt to play the ball in any way. A player in this situation would be expected to avoid any and all actions which could/would conceivably be considered active play involving any other player and/or the ball.
If it even appears advantageous to participate in any way, the player with the water must quickly and totally remove from the field all contact with the source of water prior to attempting any participation in the action on the field. Failure to do so should lead to an immediate stoppage of play, a caution for this player (unsporting behavior), and an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the misconduct occurred.…
Lucian, a referee, asks:
What does this part of Law 14 mean — “If the goalkeeper offends and if the ball misses the goal or rebounds from the crossbar or goalposts, the kick is only retaken if the goalkeeper’s offense clearly impacted on the kicker”? What if the keeper is just a little bit over the goal line?
Answer
Your brief question is fraught with “ifs” all over the place and is why you get the big bucks. As is often the case with the International Board, you have to read into the few words which compose the scenario and imagine mentally what is happening and what could have happened. The importance of a phrase like “clearly impacted” cannot be understood unless compared with what was not said – such as wondering if the goalkeeper’s offense possibly had not impacted on the kicker at all or perhaps only a little. It comes down to what does “clearly” mean.
In the real world (as opposed to the world of merely reading the Laws of the Game handbook), words mean different things and the referee’s job is to figure out what, in practice, the word or phrase actually intends for you to figure out. We can only offer some scenarios.
Here, for example, the core question is whether or not the kicker was adversely affected by the goalkeeper’s action. The analysis you as the referee has to consider (with, perhaps, supporting input from either or both of the ARs) is whether or not the ball would have entered the net regardless of the goalkeeper’s violation of Law 14. Clearly, if the ball did enter the net despite the goalkeeper’s Law violation, you would have given the goal and done nothing to the goalkeeper for his/her early exit off the line between the two goalposts. A different way of looking at the issue is whether or not the goalkeeper’s behavior caused (in whole or part) the kicker to miskick the ball such that the ball, which would otherwise have gone into the net, rebounds instead from the goal frame or misses the goal frame altogether.
As you can see, a decision as to the above possibilities cannot be detailed specifically in the Law without using a lot of words so the IFAB states simply that, although the goalkeeper did step forward illegally into the field, a goal would still be given despite this violation if the ball had gone into the net. If, however, the ball which arguably could have gone into the net but did not because of illegal behavior by the goalkeeper, then the goalkeeper is toast (and the kick retaken). Or, finally, if the kicker kicked the ball badly and would have missed going into the goal anyway, then the PK is over and the infraction by the goalkeeper is either ignored or not punished (or, if way too egregious, merely cautioned). The difference among these three possible events, of course, is “in the opinion of the referee” (i.e., you) – have fun.…
Stephen, a referee, asks:
I see plays like this a lot, and I don’t know what to do, or better, what to consider when evaluating this stuff. Can you enlighten me? Can a keeper make a save and then go hurling into the player? Can a player get a last touch and go hurling into the keeper? What gives?
Answer
The answer is simple but you may not appreciate what follows. The way the answer is implemented “depends” on a host of factors which are totally dependent on what you see. Indeed, to a degree, you have complicated the otherwise simple answer by using a couple of words which, individually, have a significant impact on how you implement the “simple answer.”
Players in general make contact with each other on a regular basic throughout a game. And your specific scenario offers the arguably most difficult example.
In general – using, for example, a much easier scenario — say you have a team A field player and a team B field player who make contact with each other. Is there an offense? Could be but probably not. Let’s complicate things — suppose A runs into B. Also possibly not an offense but is a bit more complicated – we now have a scenario which, by the words we used, changed the scenario importantly because now A as done something clearly to B. As a result, we now have to decide why it happened (accidental or deliberate) and whether (either accidental or deliberate) it happened for a reason. What kind of reason – an inability to stop in time and/or a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage. If it was deliberate and for a purpose which is illegal, then we have grounds to punish A (or not depending on the flow of the play at that moment).
Now complicate things significantly and consider the same two opponents, one of whom is a keeper and the other an opposing attacker. Adding a keeper into the scenario complicates the scenario greatly but for reasons which do not appear at all in the Laws of the Game despite having a long and/or practical history. The main factor favoring the keeper is that, first, keepers often are forced to engage in actions which are inherently more dangerous than a challenging attacker and, second, keepers are more likely to draw support from teammates who are more likely in turn to increase the perceived level of possible danger, which leads to a greater likelihood of becoming more angry with the attacker. Unfortunately, the reversal of this lays a greater burden on the attacker if he/she is the one being “touched” by the keeper. Historically and manifestly, keepers gain an advantage even if their behavior is comparatively the same.
The only positive thing we can do as a referee when contact seems likely between an opposing forward and a defending keeper (with the ball on its way to one or both of them) is to quickly go to high gear to get closer and to a better line of sight on: (1) who is moving toward the other (perhaps both simultaneously), (2) who jumps (maybe both), (3) who makes contact first, (4) who uses greater force with respect to the contact, (5) what direction is each party looking just before the impending contact, (6) whether the keeper is going to ground or jumping up higher in order to gain possession of the ball, (7) the immediately following action by both A and B, (8) who is focusing attention on the ball (both or mainly one), (9) which of A or B is making an attempt to avoid impending contact (or whether both are attempting contact), and finally (10) whether contact by one is visible to the other or was out of the other’s view. These ten elements can involve even greater complications if either (or both) are joined by one or more teammates added to the fray.
As you can see, the impending contact between keeper and/or attacker is simple in terms of specifying the parties involved but extraordinarily more complicated when it comes to a decision as to what exactly happened before, during, and immediately after the contact or possession of the ball. Overall, however, there is a general and commonly held opinion that, of the two opponents we are considering here, the one who gains firm possession before any subsequent contact between the opponent (attacker or keeper) has the stronger case prior to the other player’s attempts to challenge for the ball. However, there is an equally common opinion that the keeper encounters more personal danger in the process of challenging for the ball than does the attacker if both otherwise have a comparable likelihood of possessing the ball.
Note, however, that younger players require an even closer look and greater care because they generally lack the ability to understand “danger” — the older and/or more experienced the player the easier it is to take into consideration the ten elements offered above.…
The item below is our first Q&A since the system encountered problems and had effectively been shut down until the problems were fixed. We invite referees, assistant referees, players, coaches, and fans to pass the word that we are now open to questions. After the system had been largely repaired, several earlier messages involving a question or issue were handled privately without converting the matter into a formal Q&A posted to the public website. We will continue with our commitment to send short responses directly to questioners and to publish Q&As which are more complex. By the time of the next Q&A appears, this message will no longer matter and will be removed permanently (we hope).…
Ritchell, a fan, asks:
I’ve been watching the Premier League and the Champions League. I’m a little confused as to when the assistant referee raises his flag to indicate offside. More often then not, they wait an exceptionally long time before they raise the flag. When should the AR signal offside?
Answer
Well, you are wording the question in a way that presumes that there ARE “exceptionally long” delays in flagging an offside . The problem is that being “offside” is not an offense and does not violate the Law! The offense only occurs if the player in an offside position acts to interfere with play or an opponent (which IS an offense). Depending on the circumstances, the AR should not flag an offside offense unless and until an attacker actually commits (not merely “might commit” or “could could” or “looks likely to commit”) any of the specific circumstances that turn an offside position into an offside offense.
Does it happen? Yes, of course. But is it common or endemic? No. We say this regarding the games we watch but we are more involved with matches in the US and/or involving US teams rather than elsewhere.
Here are several things to think about, though. If we were to see an offside offense on the field, we would rather that the AR signals after seeing it than signaling before it happens! And here lies something that watchers do not realize – the main reason for an apparent delay in signaling an offside offense is that ARs are trained throughout the world to withhold the flag until an otherwise valid offside offense is “worth” the flag. In other words, officials – both referees and ARs – are guided (in the great majority of cases) to wait until the offense has actually occurred and the offense is going to continue to the benefit of the offender. Raising the flag is NOT a race but a measured attempt to decide if the offense occurred and was not going to immediately disappear due to a seconds-later action which would benefit the non-offending opposing team.…
[Special Note: For a long while, we have not been posting publically any “answers” for two reasons. First, there have been many fewer questions offered for consideration. Second, many of them have been very brief, relatively simple queries, the answers to which have been offered privately because the issues raised were narrow and/or not of significant interest. Hopefully, as soccer’s seasons nationwide are returning, questions are returning as well, including some that need considering under the current special circumstances. We consider the following question below to be clearly in that category and therefore are launching a return to more frequent public postings!]
Jeremy, a U13-U19 referee, asks:
Now more than ever with the shortage of referees available across youth soccer games, what are some tips and tricks to enforce Offside as fairly as possible with only a Center referee and no ARs?
Answer
We don’t have any “tried and true” suggestions regarding your question … because there are none. Back when we started to referee (1985), it was common for youth games to be officiated with only one, or at most two, officials (the old ”two man” system!). It didn’t take long for US Soccer to remind us that the “two man” system was not allowable under the Laws of the Game which allowed only a single referee or three officials (a referee and two ARs). Since then, of course, soccer had grown to the point that the supply of officials also increased. In games involving older youth players, it eventually became common to see 4th officials.
Your question is very pertinent now because many officials have been lost, fewer new referees have gone through training, and many of those who remained have lost their “edge” due to more than a year or more of no active officiating. Further, there have now been two cycles during which new Laws of the Game changes have been published but have not been tested in significant numbers of actual games at all levels.
The only solution to your challenge is to make it clear that players, coaches, and fans MUST accept that close calls with only one official are going to be wrong at least some of the time and must be accepted. Amusingly, this has always been the case no matter how many officials there were. The problem is that, now and for the immediate future, not only are errors going to be more common but the participants are going to be more uptight when, in the cases where they are in fact right, it simply won’t matter. The referee is always the one to make the decisions and those decisions have to be accepted even when, from the point of view of others, some of them might be clearly wrong. Remember, this is a game, not something on which life or death depends. Offside issues are only some (though often the most contentious) of the challenges faced under these circumstances.
Ironically, players who have not continuously maintained their talents for as much as a year or more, are more likely as the sport resumes to make errors that would not have occurred but for the temporary cessation of soccer at all levels.
At the same time, we can all respond meaningfully to this obvious challenge by encouraging youngsters (plus young adults, old adults, and retired referees) to acquire or reacquire their credentials to help solve this situation. The officials of all local soccer associations can also do their part by making it clear to everyone that errors are going to happen and they will need to accept them in the spirit of the game. This is when teams, their local associations, coaches, soccer organization officials, and parents need to focus on supporting officials whose job has become much more difficult across the board as the sport regains its legs and moves forward. If this doesn’t happen, the sport will be significantly harmed.…