Category: “Inventive” Refs

“Inventive” Refs

"Inventive Instructors"

OFFSIDE!!!

Posted on by

Question:
While an offensive player is in the offside position a defensive player attempts to clear the ball and kicks a low line drive about 15 yards and deflects off the leg of an offensive player to the offside player who scores.

The offensive player from whom the ball deflects does not play the ball, makes no attempt to play the ball and had no opportunity to play the ball. He was just unlucky that the ball hit him.

Rule 11 says that simply touching the ball is sufficient:

“Committing an Offside Offence A player in an offside position is only penalized if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:”

I’ve been told by [a senior-level] ref that a deflection by an offensive player is not offside. But Rule 11 says “touches or played.” It seems to me that if the rule only said “played” then an offensive unintentional deflection would not be offside. But the Rule 11 has the words, “touches or played.” So shouldn’t the offensive deflection to a player in the offside position warrant the offside call since the offensive player last “touched” the ball?

USSF answer (May 27, 2010):
The senior-level referee has his facts wrong. If the ball is played by a defending player and it bounces off one opposing player to another of his opponents who is in an offside position, that player in the offside position is offside because he or she was interfering with play. You will find this information in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees 2009/2010, under Law 11.…

"Inventive" Refs

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE DISTANCE REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
In the April 16 question about failure to respect the distance, my question is how do we call this at the lower levels when it is not called at the higher levels? I don’t think I’ve ever seen failure to respect the distance enforced in a professional match in spite of it occurring on nearly every foul called.

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
The argument given by those who are reluctant to enforce the distance at a free kick is that the players do not expect the rule to be enforced and are willing to put up with it. It is clear that this is not true and the Federation has launched a campaign on this problem. Ask your State Director of Referee Instruction to let you know when there will be a clinic on the “Managing the Free Kick” module.

In addition, please note that this is an important consideration at the professional level and is certainly called at every level of the professional game. However, we acknowledge that referees at all levels are sometimes a bit lax and need to be more forceful in enforcing the law.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE AND READING MINDS

Posted on by

Question:
Today I was a single ref in a youth soccer boys game. My question concerns an offsides call that I made.

The offensive player was bringing the ball into the PK area on the right side (near post). The goalie was approximately in the middle but favoring the far post a little. An offensive player was clearly in the offsides position about 4 feet inside the far post waiting for a pass. He didn’t get the pass. The player with the ball shot the ball on the ground at the near post and scored. I did not see the goalie move toward the offsides player who remained 4 feet inside the far post. Of course I couldn’t read the goalie’s mind and I don’t know if he was partially focused on the offsides player. I don’t know if the goalie would have moved closer to the shot if the offsides player wasn’t a threat at the far post.

As soon as the goal was scored I disallowed the goal and called offsides. (the coach opposed my call saying that his man was not involved in the play) I based my call on the possibility that, by necessity, the goalie was frozen and couldn’t move toward the player with the ball or couldn’t move toward the near post. In essence the off-sides player could have made the goal wider by making the goalie stay near to him. I thought that was an advantage. Again I didn’t see the goalie move toward the off-sides player and I couldn’t read his mind.

What call would you have made?

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
Not offside. Referees should not attempt to read the minds of players or attribute to them actions that are not clearly evident. Referees act only on facts and the results of player actions. In this case the opponent was in the offside position, but you present no evidence that the player acted to interfere with an opponent, so he could not be declared offside. (There is no such thing as “offsides” in soccer.)…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE? NO!

Posted on by

Question:
A long ball is played in to an onside attacker behind the defense about 40 yards from the goal. The nearest defender is in close pursuit and (unlikely to catch the attacker) and the GK is coming out to cut down the angle. On his next touch the attacker pushes the ball out just a little too far allowing the charging GK to get his foot on it. The GK strikes the ball into the defender and it bounces back behind the GK right to the attacker. The attacker had moved out of the path of the charging GK after the attacker has lost control of the ball. The referee whistled the attacker as offside stating the attacker had gained an advantage by being in an offside position. I was a spectator for this one but disagreed with the call because when the attacker received the ball from the deflection (GK to defender)it was not played to him by a teammate but rather the defense. It seemed to me, in order for the referee to be correct, the attacker satisfied the criteria for offsides all by himself and basically put himself offside. What is the correct ruling here?

USSF answer (April 22, 2010):
There is no offside violation possible here by the attacker because the attacker was never in an offside position at a time when the ball was last played by a teammate. The last time the ball was played by one of his teammates, the attacker was onside. Even though he was ahead of the ball and ahead of the second-last defender and the goalkeeper, that doesn’t matter, The attacking team player who last PLAYED the ball before it came back to our attacker from the defender was the attacker himself. In other words, he could not possibly be called offside.…

"Inventive" Refs

ACCURACY IN MATCH REPORTS

Posted on by

Question:
If a referee submits a referee’s report about an incident during a match and the date on the report is different from the the date the actual match was played, is this report valid? the report submitted by this referee gives a different date from the match day he was referring too.

Secondly can the match report contain incidents that he said alledgally happen. This refers to an incident he didn’t actually see him self. Should he just report the facts of the incident. Does this type of report make the match report invalid.

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Inaccurate data on a match report is generally unacceptable. The final decision on that rests with the competition authority and the panel it has appointed to review the matter.

That is the reason why we constantly stress that referees check their data several times and proofread their reports before sending them in.

As to incidents that the referee did not actually see, we submit that, as the referee is obliged to take into account any events seen by an assistant referee or fourth official, there is no reason why the same information (assuming it is relevant) should not be included in the match report.

Of course, if there was no AR assigned and the lines were run by club linesmen, then the referee can only report incidents he did not see as hearsay, not as fact.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELAYING THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
I am currently being told by higher level referees and the referee advisor for our area that I should not issue yellow cards for delaying the restart even though the laws say this is a yellow card offense. I tell the captains of both teams that I will issue a card if a player does not give 10 yards, or an attempt at 10, when i point to the spot for the kick. The players involved are all u-15 and above so they know the law but are being coached to delay the kicks so that their team can get into position. It is hard to enforce this rule when you see the upper division referees as well as the FIFA referees repeatedly telling players to move back and then marching off 10 instead of issuing a card for a player blocking a quick restart. What is the official position on this?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Well, right or wrong and based only on the information you provided, the official position in your area seems to be not to referee in accordance with the Laws of the Game. However, that is not the official position of the U. S. Soccer Federation.

The Federation encourages referees, ARs, and fourth officials to first ask the players to get into position and take the restart correctly. If the players do not respond to this verbal encouragement, then the referee must take action in accordance with the Law. You will find the procedure outlined in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees under Law 12:

Delaying the restart of play
Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by tactics such as:
* taking a free kick from the wrong position with the sole intention of forcing the referee to order a retake
* appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to one of his teammates to take
* kicking the ball away or carrying it away with the hands after the referee has stopped play
* excessively delaying the taking of a throw-in or free kick
* delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
* provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play

Referees who fail to follow this procedure do the game and the players a disservice.…

"Inventive Assessors"

DANGEROUS PLAY VS. PHYSICAL CONTACT — OR NO FOUL AT ALL

Posted on by

Question:
is it possible to call dangerous play instead of direct kick foul when physical contact is made? ie: ball is rolling toward and near goal line, defender is 1 step ahead of attacker, both runner toward goal line, defender reaches around the ball to clear it back toward halfway line and kicks attacker in the process. not kicks toward attacker but makes physical contact, kicking the attacker on his follow through. my ar’s argued the defender didn’t see attacker gaining ground and didn’t intend to kick him, dangerous play. i believe as soon as physical contact is made, dangerous play is no longer an issue, it must be straight forward direct free kick for “kicking an opponent”. is it possible to call “dangerous play”?

USSF answer (April 17, 2010):
No, it is not possible to call playing dangerously when there is contact. In this situation we see no foul at all, simply incidental contact. No kicking or attempting to kick, no playing dangerously. It is simply a trifling contact that is not a foul, unless the referee believes in his or her heart of hearts that the act was premeditated — and your description of the situation does not suggest that.

Referees should not always be looking to call fouls in 50-50 or trifling situations. Furthermore, this is NOT what the “dangerous play” offense is all about! A referee CANNOT convert a player’s act to dangerous play simply because there was no intent.…

"Inventive" Refs

MANAGEMENT OF “STATUES” AND CAUTIONS

Posted on by

Question:
I note that your answers regarding whether a “statue” standing in front of a free kick is “sporting” refers individuals to the directives to determine whether the referee should caution the player. Yet in one of the questions regarding a wall being moved back at which time the kicking team took a quick kick and scored, you unequivocally state that one of the players in the wall should have been cautioned for unsporting behavior and that this is the coaching of illegal tactics.

I completely agree with your conclusion but can find no substantiating concept in the directives.

I also find the “statue” situation to be commonly disregarded by virtually all referees and ask the question, “How did the statue conveniently happen to be standing right where the kicking team placed the ball for the free kick?” Immediately followed by, “Is the kicking team really silly enough to have intentionally placed the ball directly between an opponent’s feet?

I believe we both are aware that the “statue” has usually taken at least one step and therefore should meet the test of “deliberately” and therefore needs to be cautioned, at least verbally if not with a YC.

Your interpretation?

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
For the enlightenment of those referees and other readers who did not see the two references to the directive on Managing Free Kicks in the earlier answers, we repeat them here:

June 11, 2009:

Finally, as the directive implores officials, preventative measures should be utilized. Upon seeing players who act as a “statue” in front of the ball or who are less than 10 yards, referees should use presence to move the defender back and prevent further occurrences.

October 20, 2009:

A situation that may result in a caution for intercepting is the “statue” that is mentioned in the Directive. A player may move within several feet of the ball/restart and NOT “deliberately prevent” because he does not lunge at the ball with his foot but the referee judges his actions are cautionable because the player’s actions were, in general terms, preventing the ball from being put into play quickly. For example, a player who has been warned on prior occasions from running directly in front of the ball (thereby becoming a “statue”) to slow the restart. These involve situations in which the referee has, most likely, tried preventative measures and the player(s) have not responded because they are using it as an unfair “tactic.”

Opposing players who move to the ball and thus attempt to delay or otherwise interfere with the kick have been a problem for many years. Why? Because referees have failed to deal with them as the Laws require.

The directives are meant to give referees guidance on how to deal with the various topics they cover. If, as you point out, referees choose to not recognize the occasions for properly managing and educating players, that is poor refereeing and failure to enforce the Laws of the Game.

A final cautionary note to all referees:
“Should have been cautioned” does not equal “must be cautioned.” No caution is mandatory, all are discretionary, although some are less discretionary than others. The referee MUST recognize that this is misconduct — that is the first portal. The referee must also recognize that this form of misconduct has consequences that can be serious if the misconduct is not dealt with.

The referee must recognize that some misconduct is performed so obviously and blatantly that it would be foolish in the extreme to fail to caution.

The referee must recognize that the failure to give a caution for such an instance of misconduct is going to draw the attention of the assessor who will likely downgrade the referee’s performance evaluation in the absence of a really compelling argument from the referee who put serious thought into the matter and made a reasoned decision.…

"Inventive" Refs

FOUL? PENALTY KICK? INDIRECT FREE KICK? NO FOUL!

Posted on by

Question:
Your site is a wonderful resource. Thanks for helping all of us become better referees.

I am the center ref at a U-18 USSF game. An attacker on a breakaway enters the box. The keeper hesitates, unsure whether to charge out or wait for the shot. Keeper decides to come out. Attacker gets the shot off and it slides under the keeper’s lunging body but goes wide of the goal. However, the keeper’s frantic attempt to stop or deflect the ball results in contact with the attacker, who goes down. I am in a very good position to see all this, and I note that at the time of contact the ball hasn’t crossed the goal-line. The keeper’s action, I decide is neither careless nor reckless vis-a-vis the attacker, but is dangerous (actually, to the keeper more than to the attacker). So I blow the whistle, show the keeper a yellow card and indicate an IFK within the box, where the foul was committed. The attacking team fails to score. At half-time, I am told by one of A/Rs, an experienced ref who I respect, that a PK should have been called because “you can’t have a contact IFK against the defence in the penalty box”. I maintain that, since the attacker got the shot off, and missed, awarding a PK against the keeper would provide the attacking team with two bites of the cherry(and might require sending-off the keeper as well) while, given the fact that the keeper was trying to get the ball rather than the player, albeit by playing in a dangerous manner, an IFK was appropriate. Was I wrong?

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
We would suggest that you are operating under a slightly “iffy” premise, that the goalkeeper’s action constituted playing dangerously. All referees need to remember that the job of the goalkeeper is inherently dangerous; everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. 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 we need to learn. There was no foul in this situation, at least not as you describe it. Not a penalty kick, not an indirect free kick.

No need to discuss the advice you were given by others in this case; just disregard it.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLACE OF THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Do the laws specify where the ball is to be placed for restarts. I remember from my reffing days that the restart was supposed to take place within a yard from where the foul or ball was when the incident occurred. During a match the other day a foul occurred right at the half line and the referee let the player move the ball almost 10 yards closer to the goal and when I questioned him he stated that the ball had to be within 10 yards for the restart.

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
There is no “ten-yard rule” on free kicks. With certain specific exceptions, such as offenses within the goal area or penalty kicks or illegal entry onto the field by a substitute, free kicks are taken from the place where the offense occurred. The referee clearly cannot always expect to have the ball placed on the exact blade of grass upon which the foul or misconduct was committed, but every effort should be made to have the restart taken within a reasonable distance of that blade of grass. The accurate placement of the ball becomes more important the nearer the event occurs to the goal being attacked.…