Question:
If an action is deemed a foul and except for that action a goal would likely have been scored, and whistle is blown and free kick or PK given, MUST the offending player be sent off if the 4D’s are satisfied?
Does score, time left, severity of foul, etc enter into the thought process?
U19 boys game, score is 6-0 late in second half… another breakaway by the team ahead, who happen to be far superior in skill level. The last defender is chasing the striker and trips him about 12 yards from mouth of goal. Only frozen Keeper to beat. Center blows whistle and awards PK. Looks to AR and pats right hip with questioning look. AR shakes head no. (FYI, he missed the PK)
In the Spirit of the Law this is the correct decision in my opinion. But the Letter of the Law seems very clear on this matter. It was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity with a penal foul. no doubt about it.
It didn’t appear to be a tactical foul, it wasn’t reckless, but was careless. If the foul is given isn’t the red card almost mandatory? Is the only way to avoid the send off to not call it a foul?
Is there something in the Laws that allows for leniency? A send off and missing next game seemed too harsh in this situation. If the game were tied and hotly contested would that make a difference? (I probably would have sent offender off in this case). Does asking AR for opinion show indecision and little courage or good team work?
I’ve seen this breakaway situation several times and most of the Center Referees I’ve asked admit they didn’t even go through the thought process of a send off. Does anything in the Laws support that? Is it the standard, unwritten law to only send off for severe or tactical fouls, or game changing fouls, or worse when the coach yells for a red and reminds the CR to consider a send off? Thanks for your answer.

USSF answer (January 21, 2009):
The only possible response to the question posed in the first paragraph is yes. If a player, through carelessly fouling an opponent, has, in the words of Law 12, denied “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick,” then the player must be sent off for that reason. There is no room for dithering or taking counsel or pushing the decision off onto another person.

We are concerned about what appears to be the central assumption of your questions — that the determination of misconduct is based on how the referee feels about the severity of the foul.  This is very dangerous thinking and can lead to exactly the sort of issues you describe, none of which are relevant to the discussion.  A foul is a foul and misconduct is misconduct.  These are two separate things which only occasionally intersect.  In the case of “OGSO,” the only place they intersect is that a decision about a send-off for OGSO requires first that a defender has committed an offense (not even necessarily a foul, and certainly not necessarily what you call a “penal foul” — we stopped using this term a long time ago) inside the penalty area which is punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.  Once that has been decided — and the requirements for committing a foul are well known — the referee need only turn to the entirely separate question of whether the “4 Ds” requirements for the misconduct were also present.  It is a serious mistake to mix these requirements, for example to apply any of the “4 Ds” to the issue of whether a foul should be called or to apply the requirements for a foul to the issue of whether a defender should be sent off for OGSO.  The only other issue that might arise here is if the foul itself warranted a red card, in which case the red card for SFP or VC takes precedence over the red card for OGSO.

All decisions of the nature you have described must be made “in the opinion of the referee.” However, the referee him- or herself must make this decision; it CANNOT be left to the opinion or discretion of the assistant referee. Referees must have the courage to make the correct decision immediately and then live with it. If they cannot do that, they might consider getting into officiating tiddlywinks.…

Question:
I have become frustrated on many occasions when an opposition player, after going down feeling he was fouled, has place his arms around the ball to stop it from moving. It often seems to be the case that before this happens, the referee allows play to continue, but when the player handles the ball, gives the free kick in that players favour.

Recently in a game I was watching, the opposite of this happened, and when the player handled it, a free kick was given the other way. The only obvious reason for this would be hand ball. In this case, why was a yellow, or even red card not given, since it was a deliberate hand ball?

The only other reason that a free kick was given was because of simulation, and in that case, what could be the reason for a yellow card not to be given?

USSF answer (January 18, 2009):
Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees. It would appear that there is a vast difference between what you see happening on the field and what the referees see.

In the first case you cite, it would seem that the referee him- or herself was not certain what was happening and allowed the player to determine the call. We do not like this.

In the second case, it would seem that the referee made a partially correct decision. Several possibilities exist for solutions to this situation: (a) The referee decides it was deliberate handling, pure and simple, and awards the direct free kick. (b) The referee decides it was deliberate handling and dissent, and cautions the player and then restarts with the direct free kick. (c) The referee decides it was dissent and cautions the player and restarts with an indirect free kick.

As to simulation, there is no reason not to give a caution, unless the referee decides that he or she knows better than the Law Givers and flouts their instructions in the Laws of the Game.

Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees.…

Question:
My players have recently been getting technical fouls called on them for saying “I go” or “Mine”. The referee was very unclear as to what can be said instead of “I go”. So my question is : What can be said? Is there a website where I can go to see official FIFA rules regarding proper and improper word usage?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
It is not clear why any referee would caution your players if they are indeed saying what they are saying and then following through. The only matter of concern here would be verbalizations intended to deceive the other team into misidentifying the miscreant as one of their teammates instead of a player on the opposing team. The reason “Mine” would be unobjectionable (unless screamed in the ear as a means of distracting rather than misidentifying) is because it is “team-neutral” — anyone who, upon hearing this, decides to back of from taking the ball deserves whatever happens next.

And referees do not — or certainly should not — call “technical fouls” in soccer. Those are reserved for basketball referees.…

Question:
What discretion, if any, does the referee have in deciding to call a foul as a dangerous play, which results in an indirect free kick, versus a reckless/careless foul, which results in a direct free kick. For example, a player carelessly raises his cleat too high, interfering with an opponent, versus the cleat making the slightest contact with an opponent, versus the cleat making solid contact with an opponent. What about a slide tackle that is whistled because it was careless under the circumstances, but not so dangerous as to warrant a direct free kick, according to the referee? Is there discretion under all circumstances of dangerous play and fouls/misconduct?

USSF answer (December 17, 2008):
We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.…

Question:
eam A is awarded a goal kick when the ball crosses over the goal line out of bounds by the attacking team B. Team A’s goal keeper takes the kick while a defender stays in the penalty area. The defender is only in the penalty area and not in the box directly in front of the goal. As soon as the kick crosses out of the penalty area the referee blows the whistle and stops play. Then awards Team B with a direct free kick on goal from outside the penalty box. I must add that no player touched the ball after the kick prior to it leaving the penalty box.

When asked to clarify the call after the game the explanation given by the referee was that no player other than the goal keeper may be in the penalty box unless they are in the box directly in front of the goal. If I read the rule correctly this is wrong and only the opposing players must remain outside the penalty box. In this case Team B.

Can you shed some light on this? Was this just a bad call or was there an infraction by having a player other than the goal keeper in the penalty box?

USSF answer (November 6, 2008):
Normally we would not offer an “official” response to this question, as it is something that every referee surely “knows.” However, it seems clear that at least one referee may not be aware of the fact that only the opposing team is required to remain outside the penalty area until the ball has left the penalty area. I think we all agree that the original decision about the supposed offense was crazy but the follow-up decision about the restart was outright insane.  I have to wonder how this referee would respond to a defender other than the goalkeeper preparing to take the goal kick (which is a common practice).  Is it possible that you may not have reported correctly the referee’s explanation? Maybe the referee was merely wrong rather than stupendously wrong.

Law 16 tell us:

Procedure
• The ball is kicked from any point within the goal area by a player of the defending team
• Opponents remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play

“A player” means any player on the team, whether the goalkeeper or a forward or a midfielder or a defender. “Opponents” means the other team, not the kicking team.

We might also reiterate, as it was asked in an earlier question, that the ball must leave the penalty area to be in play. It may do so either in the air or on the ground. There is no requirement that the ball must leave the kicker’s foot and remain in the air until it has left the area.…

Question:
I have a question about whether there is such a thing as referee interference.

My daughter scored her team’s third goal, just before halftime, in what turned out to be a very one sided game. The referee said that it didn’t count because he blocked the goalie’s view. And if that weren’t bad enough, he gave the other team a goal kick!

I know that a referee in American Football (NFL) as well as an umpire in baseball are considered part of the field. I would assume that the same would be true for soccer. I’ve never heard of a goal being disallowed because the referee was in the wrong place, and especially can’t understand why he would turn the ball over to the other team for a goal kick when my daughter was in control of the ball, and taking a shot on goal when she committed the supposed infraction.

My daughter feels confused and cheated of her goal. I am trying to explain the situation to her and am not sure what to say. I assume that since it was such an obviously one sided game, that he felt bad for the other team and tried to keep the game close. With the final score being 5-0 my daughter’s non-goal did not have an effect on the outcome of the game, but I feel she deserves an explanation of what occurred. Was this overturned goal an act of sympathy on the part of the referee towards an overmatched team, or is this an actual rule that she will encounter in her future games?

Thank you for your help

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
It is likely that your daughter will encounter this “rule” only if this extremely ill-informed referee is assigned to one of her games again. We often rail here against “inventive” referees, but this person carries the concept of inventiveness a bit far.

Yes, the referee is considered to be part of the field. No, the referee should not have taken away the goal and should certainly NOT have awarded a goal kick for this totally imaginary offense. Your daughter was cheated. If you will tell us privately in what state. league, at which field and on what date and time this occurred (and the referee’s name, if possible), we will ensure that your complaint is raised with the appropriate referee authorities.

We think — who can “know” in a situation like this? — we have figured out why the referee didn’t “call” an offense against your daughter (she should be consoled that nothing here was HER fault). Instead, he disallowed a goal (for an inventive reason) but then took it to the next logical step — the ball left the field, not counted as a goal, last touched by an attacker — ergo, goal kick.…