PROTEST OVER REFEREE DECISION TO HOLD UP A RESTART

Question:
Referee decides goalkeeper has committed the offense of touching ball with hands, after ball was deliberately kicked to her by a teammate. Referee signals for IFK inside GK’s penalty area, approx 10 yards from goal. Before attacking team has time to take IFK, referee tells both teams that restart will be ceremonial (on whistle).

Reason for ref’s decision to make the restart ceremonial is not obvious, and not clearly communicated by referee. Possible reason is that the referee decided to consult with lead AR, to get AR’s input regarding the offense. Attacking team is upset that referee took away quick kick opportunity, protests the game to the competition authority for that reason. Questions: (1) Does the referee need to have a specific reason, for requiring a restart to be ceremonial (taking away quick kick opportunity)? (2) Would consulting with an AR regarding the offense be a sufficient reason? (3) Could the ref’s taking away of the quick kick opportunity be considered a misapplication of the Laws, and a legitimate basis for requiring the game to be replayed?

Note: I’m an experienced referee, quite familiar with the ATR. I’ve looked, haven’t been able to find a source that gives me a clear definitive answer regarding this scenario. Hoping to provide some helpful input and guidance to a protest committee which must decide what to do about the protest. Thanks!

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
Law 5 is the authority here. See below:

Decisions of the Referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.
The referee may only change a decision on realizing that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.

See also Advice to Referees 5.7:

5.7 STOPPING PLAY
The referee has the power to stop the match for any infringement of the Laws, to apply advantage under the appropriate conditions, or to decide that an infringement is trifling or doubtful and should not be called at all.//rest clipped//

In answer to your questions:
(1) Yes. The referee made a decision to make the free kick ceremonial and announced that to the players. He (or she) need not debate that decision with anyone but himself.
(2) Yes, a conference with the AR would certainly be enough reason to hold up the kick and make it ceremonial.
(3) Absolutely not!…

GOALKEEPER SAFETY/POSSESSION

Question:
In a B14 match attacking Red player A takes a shot from 25 yards away that strikes the crossbar, and ricochets to the ground, and bounces up about waist high, about 3-5 feet in front of the Blue goalkeeper. Attacking Red player B is only 2 feet from the ball, and he swings his leg sideways to kick the ball back into the net just as the Blue goalkeeper swoops in to scoop up the ball. The blue goalkeeper never gets his hands on the ball but just as he is about to, Red player B’s foot strikes the ball and Blue keepers face simultaneously. The ball goes into the net. The keeper goes down but recovers and finishes the match. All parties…. the center referee, his assistant referee, the coach of both the Red and Blue teams agrees there was no intent by Red B to strike or injure the keeper.
However, the coach of Blue team argues that since player safety is a referee’s paramount concern that the center ref should have either: (1) blown his whistle to stop the play before the injury; or (2) stopped play, disallowed the goal and awarded an indirect free kick to Blue for dangerous play. The coach of the Blue team argues that the interpretation of “in the possession of the goalkeeper” be expanded to include those situations where in the opinion of the center referee, the keeper is in imminent possession of the ball, and due to the proximity of an attacking player, stop play with his whistle to protect the keeper, and restart the plate as if the attacking player had interfered with the keeper or fouled him. What is the proper decision for the center referee in these circumstances and if the coach is correct, what is the authority in the LOTG or ATR for his position?

USSF answer (November 5, 2010):
Let’s break this down into smaller parts to help make the entire problem understandable for referees, coaches, and players alike.

1. THE GOALKEEPER POSITION AND DANGER
Yes, safety is the referee’s first concern under the Laws. However, referees — and coaches and players — need to remember that the position of goalkeeper is inherently dangerous and the goalkeeper is allowed a bit more leeway than other players in placing him- or herself in danger and thus affecting how the opponents can act. Everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. Why? Because it is the ‘keeper’s job to stop the ball from going into the goal, no matter at what height above the ground it may travel. Unless the ‘keeper did something that was careless or violent or reckless, and you said that he did not, then there was no foul, but simply bad luck. This is one of the lessons referees, players, and coaches need to learn.

Would we allow this for the opposing attackers? Not if it places the goalkeeper in danger that he cannot avoid. Is this inconsistent? Yes, but it is the way the game has always been played.

2. GOALKEEPER POSSESSION
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e. g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. And the “hand” in this case can consist of as few as one finger of the ‘keeper’s hand.

The Laws do not grant the referee the power to extend the definition of goalkeeper possession, nor to legislate new meanings on the field of play.

3. PLAYERS’ RIGHTS AND FAIR CHALLENGES
The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the fairness is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

Any time a player (either a field player or a goalkeeper) raises his/her leg above knee level there is the likelihood that someone will be hurt. As age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more conservatively. Something an adult player might be allowed to do is not always the same as something a youth player (U14 for example) would be allowed to do.…

“TAG UP” OFFSIDE AND PLAYER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS

Question:
I was an AR in a Division 2 adult match this yesterday. At around the 75th minute, near my touchline, the ball was played forward to a player in an offside position. That player ran into an onside position, then turned around and chased after the ball that had been played. No player, opponent or teammate, touched or played the ball from the original play of the ball until he played it himself. When he “interfered with play,” I raised my flag for offside. The center referee blew his whistle. The offending player originally didn’t hear the whistle and proceeded to kick the ball into the goal. As this would have leveled the game 1-1, he was understandably upset when he saw that the goal was being disallowed for offside. He came over to me and asked why I called him offside. I answered, quite simply, “You were in an offside position when the ball was played.” He asked, “Did I run into an onside position after that?” I replied, “I believe so.” He asked, “But I was still offside?” I answered, “Yes, you committed an offside offence since you were in an offside position when the ball was played to you.” He then summoned the center referee, saying, “Ref, your linesman doesn’t know the rules!” The center official came to me and I clarified what happened. As my call was correct, the defending team restarted play with an IFK.

I take from this that the attacker thought there was some sort of clause in Law 11 allowing a player in an offside position to avoid committing an offside offence by “tagging up” in an onside position prior to running onto the ball. Obviously, there is no such clause. But I’ve heard this sort of thing before from a few players and coaches. In my situation, the offending player’s words and actions contributed to an eventual caution for dissent after he got upset over another offside call I made two or three minutes later. (The second call wasn’t protested due to a misunderstanding of the Law; it was simply a mistimed run on his part) This caution is something that could have been avoided if the player had a better understanding of the Laws of the Game. As referees, I feel it is our duty to educate the interested public about the Laws. So what is the origin of this “tag up” misconception, and what can we as referees do to combat further misunderstandings about the Laws? Could I or my center referee have handled the situation better?

USSF answer (September 14, 2010):
The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players (and undereducated coaches). The attacking player was clearly wrong, despite his notion that, if he returned to a supposedly “onside” position to play the ball, he was doing the right thing. Clearly he, his coach and those other, similarly rule knowledge-challenged coaches and players need to review Law 11.

Let it be clear to all: A player may not return from an offside position to play the ball last played by a teammate.

And, finally, to the point of how the officials should handle such a situation: First, your discussion was FAR too extended. Second, you should never have stated that the player was called for offside because “you were in an offside position when the ball was played.” The player was called for offside because he did one of the three things he is not permitted to do while in an offside position. Third, the referee should NEVER have let a player even approach an AR to debate a decision — the response should have been “If you want to discuss a decision, you talk to ME!”…

RETAKES OF PENALTY KICKS

Question:
We were in a PK situation to decide a match. One of the kickers placed the ball correctly then kicked it prior to the referee’s whistle. The referee warned the kicker to wait for his signal and allowed another attempt. The kicker replaced the ball correctly and proceeded to kick the ball again prior to his whistle.

Once again the warning and a third kick was allowed which eventually decided the game. Is this the correct ruling? I can see possibly allowing one restart but when the player repeats the offending action shouldn’t the kick be nullified?

USSF answer (July 2, 2010):
The referee has no choice but to allow the kicker to continue taking the kick. See below, taken from the Laws of the Game 2010/2011, Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees:

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
//deleted//
Preparing for the penalty kick
The referee must confirm the following requirements before the penalty
kick is taken:
* The kicker is identified
* The ball is properly placed on the penalty mark
* The goalkeeper is on the goal line between the goal posts and facing the kicker
* The team-mates of the kicker and the goalkeeper are
– outside the penalty area
– outside the penalty arc
– behind the ball

Infringements – After the whistle and before ball in play
Outcome of the kick
Infringement
for encroachment Goal No Goal
Attacking Player Penalty is retaken Indirect free kick
Defending Player Goal Penalty is retaken
Both Penalty is retaken Penalty is retaken

However, if the kicker repeats this after being warned, the referee has the option of cautioning ( yellow card) and, upon further repetition of the act, of sending the player off and showing the red card. Even though the kicker may be warned, cautioned or sent off for repeating his offending action, the penalty kick will still be retaken (by any player on the kicking team).…

TEAM INTENTIONALLY LOSES TO ADVANCE OPPONENT

Question:
A hypothetical question arose at our USYSA State Cup this weekend. Suppose two teams from the same club have advanced through their brackets to the state championship game, and are scheduled to play each other in the final. One team (the ‘A’ team from the club) has already qualified for Regionals via a regional league play-in, but the other team (the ‘B’ team) has not. If the club’s coaches want the ‘B’ team to advance to Regionals as well, is instructing the ‘A’ team to allow the other team to score on them for an easy win something the referee has the authority to act upon (presumably, by warning and/or dismissing the coach(es) of the ‘A’ team for bringing the game into disrepute)? Your answer of September 7, 2006 indicates that deliberately kicking the ball into one’s own goal is an example of bringing the game into disrepute (for which a player should be cautioned), yet your answer of October 2, 2008 makes reference to the rules of competition (as far as tournament standings and advancement) not being the referee’s problem.

Obviously, the club could just “forfeit” their better team by not showing up, thereby advancing the lesser team. But if the coaching staff decides to play the match as a farce, is it the referee’s issue to deal with? Or the competition authority?

As always, your guidance and direction is greatly appreciated!

USSF answer (June 21, 2010):
You would seem to have missed an answer from 2002 that states exactly what was in the IFAB Q&A of 1996 and 2000, as well as 2004, 2005, and 2006. Although it is no longer included in the Laws of the Game, the following answer from the IFAB Q&A 2006 remains valid:

Law 5:
13. How should a referee react if, during the course of a match, he realizes that one of the teams is deliberately trying to lose? Should he draw the attention of the team in question to the fact that if they continue to play in that way, he will terminate the game in accordance with the provisions of Law 5?

The referee has no right to stop the match in this case.

That, of course, does not prevent the referee from including in the game report any information he (or she) hears or learns of before, during, or after the game that substantiates collusion to “fix” a game.…

“I GOT THE BALL, REF!” “ALL BALL, REF!”

Question:
A defender slides towards an opponent running with the ball. The defender’s tackling foot pushes the ball away from the opponent but the force of the defender’s momentum causes him to collide heavily with the opponent below the knees. The opponent tumbles to the ground. I adjudge the defender to have used excessive force and to have been reckless with regard to injury, and to have tripped the opponent (or attempted a trip) because the opponent’s feet were impeded in such a way that he fell heavily. I award a direct free kick.

I have been told by many players, fans, and coaches that this could not be a foul because the defender didn’t trip the player – he “got the ball”. I have heard commentators on TV say that a referee is wrong in calling a foul when a player “gets the ball”. I have never seen it written down in the Laws of the Game that if a player “gets the ball” he cannot at the same time be guilty of tripping or using excessive force. Am I missing some directive about the interpretation of Law 12?

USSF answer (May 18, 2010):
Saying that a player “got the ball” is meaningless in a tackle. What the referee must be concerned about is what happens during and after the tackle.

DURING
• If the tackler uses excessive force, he or she is sent off immediately for serious foul play and the game is restarted with a direct free kick or a penalty kick, if the foul and misconduct were committed in the tackler’s penalty area).
• If the tackler is reckless, he or she is cautioned and the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackler is careless, the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackle is committed fairly and there is incidental contact, there is no foul.

AFTER
If, after the tackle is fairly made, the tackler uses the foot or body in a careless or reckless way or with excessive force, see DURING.

Coaches will always protest an act that disadvantages their team, no matter that it was done legally. As for commentators on television, many of them actually know little or nothing of the game and how it should be played or refereed, no matter what their accent or “credentials.”

Only the referee on the game can make that decision, applying The Seven Magic Words, “If in the opinion of the referee, . . ..”…

COACH PROVIDING TACTICAL ADVICE DURING AN INJURY STOPPAGE

Question:
My understanding is during a stoppage for an injury a coach (the team not with the injured player) is not allowed to call his players over to the bench area (technical area) and provide coaching instruction. Likewise, the coach of the injured player who comes on the field with permission cannot gather his field players and provide coaching /tactical advise. I cannot find this in the Laws, Guide to Referees, and Advise to Referees.

Can you direct me where in the USSF I can find this? Also, what is the ruling and where is it for NISOA and NFHS?

USSF answer (May 3, 2010):
We cannot provide official answers for NISOA or NFHS games. However, we can provide official answers regarding the Laws of the Game.

There is no rule against either coach or other team official calling his or her players over to the touch line to discuss tactics during a stoppage for injury. However, if a coach or other team official is permitted on the field to see to the status of a seriously injured player — the only reason for stopping play for an injury is if the referee believes it to be serious — he or she may not share any information with any players of that team who are on the field. That would be regarded as irresponsible behavior, forcing the referee to expel the coach.

However, the intelligent referee will preempt the coach from coaching by stopping him early and letting him know that coaching on the field is not permitted. If the coach persists, then the referee should take more drastic action.…

LEAVING THE FIELD OF PLAY

Question:
The attacking team is awarded a corner kick. Player A from the attacking team lines up to take the corner kick. Player B from the attacking team leaves the field of play – about three yards past the touch line. Player A taps the ball from the corner kick and Player B runs from his position off the field of play onto the field of play and kicks the ball towards the goal.

Has Player B infringed on the laws of the game by leaving the field of play without the permission of the center referee and then played the ball. Leaving the field of play has allowed Player B to develop more speed at the point he plays the ball from Player A and perhaps also involves some trickery as the other team might not have accounted for this player to defend.

USSF answer (February 5, 2010):
Players are permitted to leave the field without the referee’s permission (1) during the course of play to avoid an obstacle (opponent, teammate, referee), (2) to retrieve the ball when it has left the field, (3) to put the ball back into play at a throw-in or a kick restart, (4) to signal that they are not involved in play during a possible offside situation.

Players are not allowed to leave the field of play simply to station themselves conveniently for a restart being taken by another player. As we said in an earlier response, with the exceptions noted above, players are expected to be and remain on the field of play. Leaving under the circumstances described would NOT be in the course of play and, if the referee decided that it was being done for unfair tactical reason, the action would be cautionable.…

FIELDS FOR SMALL-SIDED GAMES

Question:
what are our (referees) responsibilities regarding the field of play itself? Specifically I am referring to a field I work occasionally that is small-sided, yet it appears to be smaller than most standard small-sided fields. During the fall season, both the coach and various parents from the “away” team challenged me regarding its size. It was safe in all aspects; these folks were questioning dimensions.

I’m not sure if what I said was correct, but I told the coach that the field was safe and playable and that I was not responsible for dimensions. Also, I believe the markings (lines) were reasonable for a small-sided field.

USSF answer (January 8, 2010):
In general there are different dimensions for different age groups in small-sided soccer. USYS has defined these at its website. If the competition in which you referee has set its own standard for small-sided fields, then you must be aware of the specific dimensions that standard calls for and ensure that the standard is met. If there is no standard, then the reasoning you followed in the situation you describe is absolutely correct.…