Category: “Inventive” Refs

“Inventive” Refs

"Inventive" Refs

SCORE GOAL AFTER WHISTLE?

Posted on by

Question:
in a recent high school game. the ball was kicked before time expired but enter the goal after time had expired. it was a 2 man ref. system. I was not the head ref. so i had look to the main for help. He counted the goal saying its like “basketball” once its kicked b4 time expires it counts.

do you happen to know the if this answer is correct? i thought as time expires, the game ends no matter where the ball is.

USSF answer (April 7, 2009):
We don’t do high school rules here, but under the Laws of the Game you are absolutely correct: No goal, as time had expired. Soccer is not like basketball in that regard. And high school rules are the same as the Laws of the Game with respect to when time expires.…

"Inventive" Refs

FOLLOW-UP TO “REFEREE SIGNAL VS. ASSISTANT REFEREE SIGNAL”

Posted on by

Question:
There is a question and answer provided on the USSF website which asks, and then confirms, that in the event of a throw-in in the area of the AR, the referee does not need to signal if the AR’s signal is correct. However, this reminded me of a situation that was brought up in the Recertification Class I just recently took. In the example given, the AR raised the flag for offsides, but was waved down by the Referee a few seconds later, because the keeper ended up getting the ball. However, as the AR was in the act of lowering his flag, the keeper dropped the ball to the ground, assuming it was offsides, and the opposing attacker ran in and took the ball and scored. The correct answer in this situation, we were told, is that the goal should stand, since the AR does not actually have the authority to make calls, and since the referee had not called the offsides, the game was officially still in progress when the keeper dropped the ball. They also told us that the keeper should be clearly instructed not to pay attention to any calls made by the AR unless the referee has called them.

However, this seems to contradict the answer given in this question. In the example given in the question of a throw-in, the referee makes no signal or acknowledgement that the ball is out of play, and the only figure signaling the proper restart is the AR. This seems to imply that signals given by the AR CAN be considered valid, even with no signal from the referee. Telling players to follow signals given by the AR in some cases, but ignore them in other cases, is quite confusing and could easily and understandably result in an example such as the one I have provided.

So, what is the proper decision? Should the referee signal for all restarts of play, or should the players be conditioned to follow the signals given by the AR, potentially resulting in situations that could significantly affect the outcome of the game?

USSF answer (March 31, 2009):
Perhaps you have misread our answer of 24 March 2009.  It is not simply a case of the referee not needing to signal at those times when the assistant referee is right, but of the referee NOT NEEDING TO SIGNAL UNLESS A SIGNAL IS NEEDED.  The controlling source here is the Guide to Procedures, which clearly states that the referee does not need to signal when the ball has left the field where the AR is expected to give the signal “unless necessary” — which makes the real question, “When might it be necessary?”  It might be necessary if the AR is incorrect (the referee saw a touch on the ball which the AR did not or could not see); the players are continuing to play the ball despite the signal by the AR; the players acknowledge that the ball left the field, but are disputing the AR’s signal as to which team has possession, etc.  All referees should note that, technically under the Law, the players are required to stop playing the ball when it leaves the field and this does not take any signal by the AR or referee (yet we often hear coaches, somewhat cynically, tell their players to keep playing the ball until there is a signal, even when they know absolutely that the ball has left the field.  The AR’s signal merely confirms a fact — it does not create it.

With regard to the offside situation, let us remind you of the old saying: “The Laws of the Game are not intended to compensate for the mistakes of players.”  The ball leaving the field is a physical fact (see above) whereas offside, fouls, etc. are pure judgment calls, which is why it takes the referee’s signal to actually create the conditions for a stoppage.  Here, the referee DID signal — he waved down the AR’s flag — which every player should have taken to mean that the AR’s prior signal is to be ignored.  The fact that the goalkeeper failed to understand this is the goalkeeper’s problem, not a problem in mechanics.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO SUBS AFTER “TWO-MINUTE WARNING”??

Posted on by

I’ve been enforcing the no substitution after the 2 minute warning has surpassed. I was question by a U-15 coach of why I do that and ask if he could see it in black and white. Can you assist me please? I’ve searched the “Guide to Procedures”, “Laws of the Game” and FIFA’s website and still have nothing to show. If I’m wrong then I’m wrong but I know I’ve seen it before in writing but can’t seem to remember where I saw it. Can you please assist?

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
We are unaware of any rules that do not allow substitution in the last two minutes of any game. Several possibilities come to mind that may have confused you on this matter:

1. Could this be a local rule of competition, something imposed by the league or local association?

2. Are you thinking of the instruction in high school soccer for a “two minute warning” prior to the end of each half (and before the halftime break is over) to mean that no substitution can take place? This rule does not forbid substitution during that period of time.

3. Are you thinking of the requirement in college soccer that the clock be stopped for any substitution occurring within the last five minutes of play in the second half but only if the substitution is being made by the team winning at the time? Even that rule does not forbid substitution during the period in question.

None of those rules except, perhaps, your local rules of competition, forbids substitution in the waning minutes of play.

4. Or, most likely of all, have you fallen for the myth propagated by many older referees — those people who always tell you how the game should “really” be refereed, because “We don’t follow the Laws of the Game, which are dead wrong” — that referees should prevent substitutions during the last “x” (usually 2) minutes of play because, by their definition at least, this is being done solely to waste time? That, too, is wrong, and we deal with that in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

3.5 PREVENTING DELAY DURING SUBSTITUTION
Referees should prevent unnecessary delays due to the substitution process. One source of delay is a request for a substitution that occurs just as a player starts to put the ball back into play. This often (incorrectly) results in the restart being called back and retaken. Another common source of delay is a substitute player who is not prepared to take the field when the request to substitute is made. In each case, the referee should order play to be restarted despite the request and inform the coach that the substitution can be made at the next opportunity.

The referee shall not prevent a team from restarting play if the substitute had not reported to the appropriate official before play stopped.

During the pregame discussion, the role of each official in managing the substitution process should be discussed in detail. Every effort should made to ensure awareness of local substitution rules, to follow procedures which facilitate substitutions with a minimum of delay, to avoid overlooking valid substitution requests, and to prevent the substitution process from being abused by teams seeking to gain an unfair advantage.

3.6 ALLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADDING TIME
Except for situations described in 3.5, referees may not ignore or deny permission for a legal substitution that is properly requested. Although Law 3 requires that the referee be “informed before any proposed substitution is made,” this does not mean that the referee can deny permission for any reason other than to ensure that the substitution conforms to the Law. Even if it seems that the purpose is to waste time, the referee cannot deny the request, but should exercise the power granted in Law 7 to add time lost through “any other cause.” (Rules of those competitions that permit multiple substitutions and re-entries can sometimes lead to confusion. Study the Advice under 8.3 regarding the start of the second half.)

If, before the start of a match played under the rules of a competition, a player is replaced by a named substitute without the referee having been notified, this substitute, now a player, is permitted to play, but should be cautioned for entering the field of play without the permission of the referee. This is considered to be an improper manipulation of the roster, rather than a substitution, and does not count against the number of substitutions the team is permitted to use.…

"Inventive" Refs

“NOT A FOUL”

Posted on by

Question:
I’ve been seen more professional referees making a gesture (and probably saying something too) to indicate that while a player may have expected a call, the referee wants to say/indicate that it was “not a foul.”

The gesture is usually a pointing with an outstretched arm to the spot or person. Sometimes there seems to be a motion with the hand to perhaps indicate “get up” to the “non-fouled” player.
Occasionally a more emphatic “baseball-ump-safe” signal is used.

Since I’m seeing these on TV and not hearing what’s being said, I’d like to know what verbalization is suggested for “not a foul.” I’ve used “play on” in these instances especially with younger players, but know that phrase should more be reserved to indicate “advantage.” I’m aware that the upswept arms and “play on” or “advantage” should be only used to indicate the application of “advantage” relative to what would have been actually a foul. I’m looking for clarification on the best way to indicate a true “non foul” situation.

I also believe and have been instructed that “purists” would rather never say anything nor gesture for a “non-call.” But at many levels of the game, both teams may almost stop expecting a call that is not made, so it seems that the referee needs to somehow indicate to “keep playing; I’m not calling anything there!” And, it does seem that more referees are providing some sort of verbal and/or gesture.

What can you recommend for these situations?

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
The referee should constantly interact with the players to let them know that he or she is in touch with the game and what is going on. This interaction can take the form of speaking, gesturing, always making the correct call or simply “being there” for all the action. (Position is almost everything in refereeing.) How this is accomplished is part of the referee’s personality. Some referees speak with the players all the time, praising them for sporting or good athletic play, or mildly admonishing them for borderline behavior. Some referees will use gestures such as you describe, asking the players to get up when it is clear they are not seriously injured or telling them that no foul has been committed.

When no foul has been committed, the referee should use every reasonable means to inform the players that there was nothing illegal there. This can range from saying “No foul” or “Go on!” or “Nothing there!” or, as you suggest, “Keep playing!” or something similar to get the message across. What a referee should NEVER do in this situation is make the mistake of suggesting that there is an advantage either by saying “Play on” or giving the upswept arms signal for the advantage. The referee who does this dilutes the importance of the advantage signal and confuses the players as to what is a foul (or misconduct) and what is fair play. That makes it harder for the rest of us in managing the match in the next game these teams play.

We are not sure who these “purists” are, who would not keep the players informed of the state of the game, but they do not belong in the refereeing corps.…

"Inventive" Refs

USING TIME

Posted on by

Question:
Under what circumstances would a goalkeeper’s delaying picking up the ball until seriously pressured by an opponent be classified as “taunting?”

My son was verbally warned by the AR to pick up the ball lest he be cautioned. (This was a high-school game where taunting is stressed more than in normal FIFA-governed situations.) My son made no overt gestures and said nothing to the opponent. He was trying to (legally) waste a few seconds since we were ahead. An opponent approach and my son reached down as if to pick up the ball. When the opponent retreated, my son just stood up until the opponent approached again -much closer this time!

In the event that nothing other than standing over the ball occurred, could this be classified as taunting? How would this be different from taking the ball into the corner or passing the ball around without pressing any attack?

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
We are not aware of any reason why a player who is clearly “using” time, rather than wasting time, should be harassed by an assistant referee. We cannot speak to what might be called in a high school game, but your son has not committed any infringement of the Laws of the Game.…

"Inventive" Refs

DROPPED BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I recently observed a tournament game where the keeper on the defending team was on the ground holding the ball between his legs. The referee stopped play, ruled it a dropped ball, told the keeper “I am going to drop the ball and you pick it up.” Everything I have read and on the couple of incidents I have refereed and have had to call a dropped ball situation, the call was correct, in that is should have been a dropped ball situation, but the way in which the referee allowed it to play out was not correct. He did not have any member of the attacking team involved with the drop ball and should not have told the keeper he was going to drop it and for him to just pick it up.  Both teams should have been involved. The keeper could legally be involved with the drop ball but the attacking team should have had an opportunity to play the ball after the drop.

USSF answer (March 18, 2009):
You have not given us enough information for a single answer. There are at least two reasons that the goalkeeper might be on the ground with the ball between his legs: Either he is (a) injured and thus unable to rise or is (b) committing dangerous play and withholding the ball from play by others.

If the referee has had to stop the game because the goalkeeper was injured, then the correct restart is a dropped ball. If the referee has had to stop play because the goalkeeper was playing dangerously, then the correct restart would be an indirect free for the opposing team, from the place where the infringement occurred.

As to the manner of the dropped ball restart in the game you observed, you may have confused the Laws of the Game with the rules of high school soccer, which differ greatly regarding the dropped ball.

There is nothing in the Laws of the Game to specify that a dropped ball must be dropped between two opposing players.

Here is the text of Law 8 regarding the procedure for dropping the ball:

Dropped Ball
//snipped//
Procedure
The referee drops the ball at the place where it was located when play was stopped, unless play 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 located when play was stopped.

Play restarts when the ball touches the ground.

You will note that no number of players is specified. While it is usual for the ball to be dropped between two opposing players, there is no requirement that this be the case at every dropped ball.

This differs from high school rules (National Federation of State High School Associations), which specify that the dropped ball must be taken with one — and only one — player from each team participating.…

"Inventive" Refs

IF YOU INTERFERE AT FREE KICKS, THEY BECOME “CEREMONIAL”

Posted on by

Question:
The following happened late in the season in a U16 boys travel game. Experienced, skillful teams. With about 5 minutes left in the game, I whistle a tripping foul on the defense (who is leading 2-1) about 5 yards out from the left corner of their penalty area. The attacker who is going to take the kick places the ball where I indicate, and a 3-man defensive wall quickly forms approximately 10 yards in front of the ball. The attacker positions himself to take a quick free kick, but a fourth defender strolls in front of him, walking slowly towards the defensive wall. The attacker stares at me, knowing (from what my practice in the game has been so far), that if he asks for 10 yards, I’m going to make the kick ceremonial, which he clearly doesn’t want. So he says nothing. At this point, it seems that I am hamstrung. If I don’t do anything, the attacker is unfairly denied a quick unobstructed free kick. If I whistle to caution the fourth defender, the kick becomes ceremonial, which the attacker didn’t want (and this late in the game and the season, a caution would be a very small price to pay for denying the quick free kick). If I move to actively manage the wall, the kick also becomes ceremonial.

What I did was to say sharply to the fourth defender, ‘Back up!’. He took one more step toward his defensive wall, whereupon the attacker blasted the ball into the upper right corner of the net, tying the game.

The defending team was of the opinion that my two words to the fourth defender were sufficient to make the kick ceremonial, they protested, and lost the protest. But the protest committee thought this was a close case, noting that generally anything a referee says in this situation tends to make the kick ceremonial. I don’t disagree, but am at loss as to how best to manage this situation fairly.

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
You did not commit any breach of the Laws, so we cannot comment on the advice of the protest committee, although they are correct in that by saying those two words you did interfere in the taking of the free kick, thus turning it into a ceremonial free kick. However, we are at a loss to design any other way for you to accomplish the end you had in mind, short of immediately stopping the game, cautioning the defender, and then signaling for the kick to continue. Given that you made a different choice, the only other thing we could suggest for your consideration would be a caution to the defender for unsporting behavior, administered after the kick.…

"Inventive" Refs

PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
This is a question related to the throw-in. I have seen this called, and called it myself many times, but as I now look over the LOTG again, as well as advice, I find no backing for it. It could be that this is one of those that has historical significance and is no longer written, or I may have just been doing it wrong.

The LOTG states that a player must throw the ball with two hands, starting from behind the head. I have seen an addition, in practice, in which the thrower must throw the ball straight in the direction they are facing. For example, a red player taking a throw against blue team. Red player is facing towards blue team’s goal, but angles his arms during the throw to send the ball towards his own defensive player, the opposite direction that he is facing. I have also heard that it is illegal to throw the ball in a way that causes it to spin sideways. What is the correct ruling on this? I look forward to your answer before spring season starts in a couple of weeks.

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” 2008-2009 edition, lifts the veil from the mystery of the throw-in. Read the first sentence of Advice 15.3:

15.3 PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN
A throw-in must be performed while the thrower is facing the field, but the ball may be thrown into the field in any direction. Law 15 states that the thrower “delivers the ball from behind and over his head.” This phrase does not mean that the ball must leave the hands from an overhead position. A natural throwing movement starting from behind and over the head will usually result in the ball leaving the hands when they are in front of the vertical plane of the body. The throwing movement must be continued to the point of release. A throw-in directed straight downward (often referred to as a “spike”) has traditionally been regarded as not correctly performed; if, in the opinion of the referee such a throw-in was incorrectly performed, the restart should be awarded to the opposing team.  There is no requirement in Law 15 prohibiting spin or rotational movement. Referees must judge the correctness of the throw-in solely on the basis of Law 15.

The acrobatic or “flip” throw-in is not by itself an infringement so long as it is performed in a manner which meets the requirements of Law 15.

A player who lacks the normal use of one or both hands may nevertheless perform a legal throw-in provided the ball is delivered over the head and provided all other requirements of Law 15 are observed.

…
"Inventive" Refs

WEARING SPIKES FOR FITNESS TESTING?

Posted on by

Question:
While taking the fitness test for recertification and during the Pro Clinics (now know as Referee Seminars) I’ve noticed that some referees will wear track spikes while running the 200m and 50m sprints. 

While I’m getting up in age I still feel that I can run with my much younger brothers and sisters with whistles. However if every second counts in determining the types of matches one will get for “pro assignments”, it might be in my best interest to follow in their footsteps and wear spikes as well.

What are USSF’s thoughts of this practice?

USSF answer (March 6, 2009):
At present there is no written policy. The Federation will review the matter and make a decision in the near future. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. …

"Inventive" Refs

POSITION FOR RESTART ON OFFSIDE

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question about the placement of the free kick following an offside infringement.

Law 10 states “In the event of an offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick).”

Advice to Referee’s (section 11.13) says the restart should be where the offside player was when his teammate played the ball. The kick should not be taken from the position of the second to last defender.

OK – here’s my question. Why is the kick always taken at the position of the second to last defender? Granted, sometimes the offside player and the second to last defender are very close so it doesn’t matter. But when they are not close – one always sees the ball moved up to the position of the AR.

Isn’t this wrong? It seems to me the general practice and the laws are not in synch. Comment?

USSF answer (February 25, 2009):
You quote correctly both the Law (though you should be citing Law 11, not 10) and the Advice, and then ask why is the kick always taken at the position of the second-last defender. In point of fact, the kick is indeed taken from the place where the player was when his teammate played the ball, even though the player may have moved elsewhere by the time he becomes involved in play.

If the kick is taken from the place where the second-last defender was, that is because of sheer laziness on the part of either the assistant referee or the referee. The AR is expected to stay with the second-last defender or the ball, whichever is nearer to the goal, but must remember where the player in the offside position was when it comes time to flag for the offense. Too many ARs take the easy way out, but you should not allow that to influence how you officiate the game.…