Category: “Inventive” Refs

“Inventive” Refs

"Inventive" Refs

COMPETENCE OF THE REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:

During a recent away game for a U-14 boys team, both teams arrived at the field in time, but the referees did not show up. Us being the visiting team, waited about half an hour for them to contact other referees. They showed up close to an hour later, after the coaches from both teams agreed to forfeit the game.
The referee that showed up told the teams that there was no special provision in the rules as to how long should a team wait before conceding the points, and therefore, the game had to take place of be rescheduled for a later day.
My question is: is there an specific amount of waiting time for this, and how the league should handle such a matter according to the rules?
Thank you.

USSF answer (July 21, 2009):
We wonder at the referee’s audaciousness in saying that the teams had only a choice between playing the game that day or rescheduling for another day.  This is far outside the referee’s level of competence.  Only the league (or other competition authority) can make specific decisions rules on situations like this.

What bothers us is the failure of the referees to turn up on time.  No team can be forced to forfeit a game when the referee and assistant referees are late.  This would appear to be a problem of communication between the league and the assignor or between the assignor and the referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

THROW-IN AND HANDLING

Posted on by

Question:

During an over 40’s mens’ recreational league match this weekend, there were 2 issues that another referee who is an assessor, told me I did incorrectly that surprised me.

1. During a throw-in, the player raised the ball just above his head and threw it in. Since law 15 states that the thrower delivers the ball from behind the head, I awarded a throw-in to the other team. After some discussion, it does raise the question, how far behind the head does the ball need to go before being a legal throw in?

2. During play near mid-field, a blue team player kicks a hard ball at close range (about 2 yards) from the white player who is running toward the ball. The white team’s player, in a flinch reaction, puts his hand up to protect his face and the ball hits his hand. He does not direct the ball after the contact. At the time, I did not consider it deliberate, and let play continue. This “no call” decision was based on the Advice to Referees as well as the 2009 Referee Program Directive on Handling the Ball, Part 4, where it talks about a purely instinctive reaction to protect sensitive areas of the body. This is consistent with the Advice to Referees. The other referee told me that not only should I have called handling, I should have given a yellow card because he considered it a tactical foul. I believe that it was neither a foul nor a misconduct.

USSF answer (July 14, 2009):
1. Referees need to remember that, in addition to the Letter of the Law, they need to be in tune with the Spirit of the Laws.  A throw-in is simply a way of restarting the game.  The decision on how far behind the head the thrower must bring the ball is a matter for the referee to decide.  While the requirements of Law 15 are pretty specific, not bringing the ball fully “behind” the head is a relatively trivial infringement of those requirements.

2. Many referees have yet to learn that refereeing is not a case of “us” against “them,” but a matter of finding the best solution to a problem by balancing the Letter and the Spirit of the Law.  As you describe the situation, and remembering the sources you have cited, we believe that you reached the correct decision in this case.…

"Inventive" Refs

SAFETY FIRST, PLEASE!

Posted on by

Question:

On 6/16/06, you wrote the following:

“In those competitions that do not provide for water breaks, the spirit of the game requires the referee to ensure the safety of the players. Preventing injury from heat exhaustion would fall into that aspect of the referee’s duties. The answer may be summed up in two words: common sense.

“In fact, both the referee and the team officials share in the responsibility to protect player safety. The referee could, at a stoppage called for any reason, “suggest” the taking of water by any players interested in doing so. The timing of such a break and its length would be at the discretion of the referee. Obviously, the referee could decide to take this approach on his or her own initiative, with or without prior consultation with the coaches.

“However, either or both coaches could approach the referee prior to the match and suggest the need for extra hydration, in which case the intelligent referee would be well advised to listen and act accordingly.”

– –  In the past few days, a referee has claimed that these instructions have now been superseded by the USSF and that a referee cannot suggest a water break or even allow a break when the ball is out of play – no matter how hot the day or how young the players – unless it is in the tournament rules. Is he correct that things have changed or is the opinion from June of 2006 still valid?

I hope that you can address this quickly with the hottest part of summer approaching. The health or even the lives of some young players might be at risk.

Thanks.

USSF answer (July 13, 2009):
The opinion of the United States Soccer Federation remains the same as it was in 2006:  The safety of the players comes first and referees are expected to see to it that players are protected in every way possible.

Addendum:  It is possible that you may have been distracted by some controversy over an incident in a professional game.  Those are adults, playing other adults, all of them aware of what is going on.  Referees are not to order water breaks at professional games and should apply common sense at other levels.…

"Inventive" Refs

“FACTUAL DECISION” AND “TECHNICAL ERROR”

Posted on by

Question:
I was wondering if you knew the official definitions of the refereeing notions: “referee’s factual decision” and “referee’s technical error” as per the examples below:

“the factual decision taken by the referee has to be accepted, even if it is wrong.” http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/kind=2/newsid=151.html

“taking into consideration that the referee in the match in question had indeed committed a technical error.” http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/news/newsid=27212.html

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
The Laws of the Game define “the factual decision” in this way (Law 5):
QUOTE
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, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.
END OF QUOTE

and
“Decision 3
“Facts connected with play shall include whether a goal is scored or not and the result of the match.”

As pointed out in the UEFA decision, it makes no difference if the decision was correct or wrong, it was the decision and must therefore be respected as such.

A technical error occurs when the referee recognizes an infringement of the Laws but restarts the game in the wrong way (as in your example of the penalty kick in World Cup qualifying game). Such a decision is correctable by the competition authority.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY

Posted on by

Question:
I saw this situation in the recent Far West Regionals during pool play.

One defender and one attacker are battling for the ball. The defender slips and falls with her legs over the ball. Defender tries to get away from the ball and does not attempt to play the ball. The attacker holds her down by her shoulder and jersey not allowing her to get away from the ball. Referee calls dangerous play on defender. The sideline discussion: is the girl allowed to hold the defender down (some argued this is a smart play) and others argued she was holding and that the call should have been holding versus dangerous play. What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
Based solely on your description (the only evidence we have), we suspect that the referee has no courage and blew the call. It should have been called holding and the restart should have been a direct free kick for the defender’s team.

Some referees still seem to have the wrong idea about playing dangerously; to wit, they wanted a call for playing dangerously (and the referee on this game obliged, albeit erroneously). Nothing in the Laws of the Game forbids a player on the ground from playing the ball.  As long as the player on the ground does nothing to endanger herself or other participants, there is no dangerous play. Let it be clear that it is dangerous for a player to hold the ball (lying on top of it, holding it with the legs, etc.) when on the ground. But it is not dangerous to make a legal play of the ball.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO OGSO POSSIBLE IF THE BALL IS NOT IN PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
In a fast break away one player with the ball makes an attack. About two yards outside the top of the penalty area the goal keeper fouls the attacker. Advantage is not applied. In the opinion of the referee, the foul (a DFK) does not merit a card of any type. The whistle is blown, the restart of a direct free kick is announced by the ref, the ball is placed, and the whistle is blown to restart play. Before other defenders can arrive the attacker starts to take what seems to be a certain goal scoring opportunity at an unguarded net.

Before the shot is taken the goal keeper places his foot on the ball, stopping any chance for a quick shot. Other defending players then arrive, making an advantageous quick restart impossible.

In the opinion of the referee the keeper has clearly denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be sent off. The referee believes that by every standard of common sense and of Fair Play the goal keeper has breached the Spirit of the Laws, and that the Laws were written to prevent and to punish this very type of misconduct.

But by the letter of the Law, the referee is not sure that he has the power to do so. As the ball was not in play when the event took place, there was not & could not be an “opponent moving towards the player’s goal”. Although the goal keeper’s action will cause him to be cautioned, he will not have caused “an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Because the ball was not in play when the keeper broke the Law(s), his act of misconduct will not nor could not cause a free kick or a penalty kick to be taken. That is, when the ball is out of play the restart will always remain unchanged.

The referee knows that the world is an imperfect place, that life can be hard, and sometimes bad things happen to good people; but it seems egregious if the LOTG allow the keeper to remain in the game.

Your views?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
No view, simply the Law: The goalkeeper cannot have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as the ball was not in play when he committed his misconduct. Sometimes life is not fair. Caution the goalkeeper for failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a free kick; show the yellow card and restart with the original direct free kick, ensuring that all opponents are at least ten yards away when the ball is put into play.

We might also have hard words with the referee for not being proactive in the first place and preventing the goalkeeper from doing what he did.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO ADVANTAGE BY THE ASSISTANT REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
What is the proper way to apply advantage as an Assistant Referee? Or is advantage generally to be applied only by the Center?

Do I signal the foul and allow the center to determine advantage? Or may I, as the AR, keep my flag, run with the play to see what develops, and if no advantage materializes in 2-3 seconds then raise my flag and call the previous foul?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
In general, the AR should flag only for fouls or misconduct that the referee cannot see. However, that does not give the AR the right or privilege or power to invoke the advantage clause; that is reserved for the referee. In addition, a late flag by the AR for a foul in which the AR him- or herself might have “invoked” the advantage earlier is problematic. In the unlikely case that it might need to be done, this is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference. …

"Inventive" Refs

DIAGONAL SYSTEM OF CONTROL

Posted on by

Question:
While using the diagonal system of control is there anything that prevents a referee from using a right diagonal instead of a left?

While working a tournament I was told by a referee that has been in USSF for a while that I can not choose to run a right unless there is a good reason such as deteriorated field conditions where the AR’s would run in a left diagonal. Supposedly there was a directive put out by USSF on this matter but with about an hour or 2 of reading and searching couldn’t find anything on it. I did find one question on here that mentioned an EPL game answered on July 22, 2006 but it didn’t really answer it.

I had been choosing to run a right number 1, because I feel more comfortable in that pattern. The other reason I do it is players arent used to me being there and it keeps them on their toes by me being there when they don’t expect it.

Is there any documentation to support my preference or am I doing something that is prohibited.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The “standard” diagonal for the referee is the one that runs from bottom right to upper left of the field, just as shown in the diagrams in the back of the Law book. However, there is no “rule” that says the referee cannot run the other direction instead. And that other diagonal may be the one best suited for either the personality of the referee and the conditions of the field, as you point out. If you wish to use the opposite diagonal, you are more than welcome to do so.

Referees should remember there is no actual fixed diagonal run. The “diagonal system of control” is simply a name for a way of ensuring proper coverage by the referee and the assistant referees for management of the game. According to the 2009-2010 edition of the Guide to Procedures, the referee’s positioning during play is flexible, using the diagonal system of control. The referee:
• Follows positioning diagram guidelines during play and at restarts but uses discretion to choose alternate positions when needed
• Able to observe active play and lead assistant referee
• Remains close enough to observe important aspects of play without interfering with player or ball movement
• Understands that attention may be needed elsewhere on the field to monitor behavior of specific players not actively involved with playing the ball

And, as you mentioned in your question, it is also practical to use the reverse diagonal due to the condition of the pitch (particularly the status of the AR’s patrol area) or, occasionally, to take an AR away from people (spectators or team).…

"Inventive" Refs

LYING DOWN ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS

Posted on by

Question:
Can the player from the opposing team lay down on the ground in the path of a player to try and impede him? Is it a penalty if he does?

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
Surely you jest! We find it hard to imagine a player lying down in the path of an opponent, much less trying to hinder or delay the opponent that way. Way too dangerous a thing to do. However, if a player were indeed crazy enough to do it, the foul would be playing in a dangerous manner, punishable with an indirect free kick for the opposing team at the place where the foul occurred. Or, as you suggest in your question, it could also be “impeding the progress of an opponent” (particularly an opponent so lacking in athletic ability as to be unable to jump over someone on the ground).…

"Inventive Assessors"

CHECKLIST FOR KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK

Posted on by

Question:
At a recent tournament we had a kick from the mark situation. The state referee (AR1) set up the the players as follow: Five identified players from each team outside of the center circle in a group, approximately 20 yards from the center half way line and the rest of the players inside the center circle. Furthermore he placed himself between the the identified players and the rest of the players. I was assessing the referee and DDA indicated that he liked this set up which I disagreed. My reasoning were; number one that is not what the book said, secondly since AR1 back was to 10 other players, he would not be able to see if there was any misconduct that could occur behind him and lastly this sort of self proclaimed bending of the procedure would deteriorate the consistency that federation would like to uphold. Please give me your thoughts on this matter.

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
The procedure followed by the AR stationed at the center circle was not correct and is not endorsed by the Federation. A complete checklist for kicks from the penalty mark was published on April 2, 2009. Referees may download the checklist from this URL:
http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13664259.html…