Question:
Rumor has it Adidas is going to be taking over from Official Sports soon. Is this true. People say that we will have the new jersey style MLS shirts with clima cool and dry fit technology. Can you provide any answers to this rumor
.
USSF answer (September 22, 2008):
We are unaware of any plan for adidas to become the Federation’s supplier. The arrangement between adidas and the MLS is strictly between them and does not involve the Federation.…
Category: “Inventive” Refs
“Inventive” Refs
Question:
I recently attended a soccer match where the following occurred:
A player on the attacking team was injured in the penalty area of the defending team during a corner kick. The center referee only noticed the injury after it occurred due to the number of players in front of the goal. Both the center referee and the AR did not call a foul. It was realized after that the girl had been kicked in the throat during a scramble for the ball. The injury was tended to, but no foul was indicated and the restart was a free kick to the defending team, which she was instructed to kick directly to the opponent’s goalie as a sign of sportsmanship.
Later in the match a corner kick was taken by the other team. A defender stopped this ball by actually catching it with her hands (in the penalty area). No foul was called and the coach went ballistic (understandably). The Center referee indicated that he did not call a foul (which would result in a penalty kick, i.e. a sure goal) because he did not call a foul in the previous incident… in essence he was calling it a “wash”.
Is this something that referees do? Can they have discretion when calling fouls if they feel a mistake has been made in a previous call?
USSF answer (September 19, 2008):
We are stumped on this one, because you have not told us how play was stopped. If the game was not stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — and referees should stop the game ONLY for SERIOUS injuries — and no foul was called, then the correct restart is for the reason that the ball went out of play. If the game was stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — see above — then the restart would be a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped. The indirect free kick might have been correct under high school rules, but certainly not under the Laws of the Game. Another inventive referee at work.
Yes, a very inventive referee — and a referee who cheats on the Letter of the Laws and the Spirit of the Game. Soccer referees do not do “make-up” calls. This referee should be reported to the competition authority and to the referee authorities in your state, so that he can undergo some additional instruction.
If a referee makes a mistake, he or she should NEVER do a “balancing of calls” by making another bad call for the opposing team. Two wrongs do not make a right and the referee must always make the best possible decisions within the framework of the Laws.
Nor do mistakes by referees give the coaches permission to rage at them. We are concerned about you (and others, you are not alone) saying that the coach “went ballistic” and then in this case adding “(understandably).” No coach has a right to “go ballistic” — if they have a concern about a referee’s decision, they should suck it up and follow through with the sort of report we described above. We don’t want anyone believing that we would condone such behavior (any more than we condone the referee’s egregious errors in this situation).…
Question:
This happened in a U9 boys game.
Ball is shot to the goalie, who mishandles it. The ball bounces off of the post and rebounds toward middle of the goal. Before any part of the ball crosses the line the goalie dives on the ball. His momentum carries his legs into the box but NOT the ball (the ball never crosses the line). The referee says that it is a goal because the goalie is an extension of the ball and his legs went into the goal.
Was the referee correct?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
Inventive referees seem to be multiplying by leaps and bounds. No, there is no such rule and the referee was wrong to award a goal based on that reasoning.…
Question:
This is our son’s first year to play goalie, and in his last game there were some questionable calls. If a goalie dives on a ball, and when he lands on it his foot crosses the goal line, but the ball never does it that a goal? This happened twice during the game, and the refs called them goals.
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
There are way too many inventive referees out there! This is the second question we have had this week on this topic and the answer is the same in all cases of this nature: It is not the location of the goalkeeper’s body, arms, or feet and legs that matters; it is the location of the ball. If the ball has completely crossed the entire width of the goal line, between the goal posts and beneath the crossbar, then it is a goal. Body parts are unrelated to the scoring of a goal.
You may flourish this response under the eyes of the next referee who does this.…
Question:
I am a coach as well as a referee (Grade 8). I was coaching a game where the ball did not seem like it was properly inflated. I asked the center referee about it and he responded that it was OK. At the half, I took an electronic pressure gauge to check the PSI and it registered 4.25 PSI, half the required minimum pressure according to Law 2. We notified the referee about this. Although we were the visiting team, we took one of our best balls, check the pressure which read 8.5 PSI – the minimum amount according to Law 2. We told the referee this as well but we felt he took it personally and it made the second half difficult for us. Did we do the right thing or should we have allowed the game to continue with an under inflated ball?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
A referee? Took something personally? One of the first things a referee is supposed to develop is his or her composure, taking nothing personally and certainly not making the game more difficult for one team than the other.
As to the pressure, only the referee can judge that. if he or she decided the ball was properly inflated, then it was properly inflated, no matter whether that was good for the game or not. You will encounter all kinds of people functioning as referees. Some are intelligent and some are not. Some care and some do not. Some are there only for the pay, but some (most, we hope) are there for the good of the game.
You will find an earlier answer (September 10) on the site that deals with the reasons for using various air pressures for the game ball(s).…
Question:
A case recently happened in one of my U19 games that I was playing in. In the 7th minute of play, one of my teammates was sent off for “making verbal threats to an opponent on the field” after telling an opposing player “don’t you dare go after my player #29”. I myself am a certified referee and looked through every single book I had and I could not find any ruling as far as how supposed “threats” were handled. The closest othing I could find for a send-off offense would be what was considered abusive language. However, I explictily remember during my recertification course that my instructor told us that you cannot give cards for threats and you must duly make a note of the player number and make sure that player stays under control. Is it possible or even legal for the referee to send off a player for making a verbal threat?
USSF answer (September 8, 2008):
Verbal threats are remarks that carry the implied or direct threat of physical harm. Such remarks as “I’ll get you after the game” or “You won’t get out of here in one piece” shall be deemed abuse.
This answer paraphrases an answer of April 1, 2002, which dealt specifically with the verbal abuse of referees by players. The principles expressed there are equally applicable to interactions between players.
The use of offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures is punishable by a dismissal and red card. Offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures that threaten physical harm are a step up and involve misconduct plus a threat. Behavior that involves “threats” pushes the act to the level of abuse and can carry not only a red card penalty but additional sanctions if the state association so chooses.
So, yes, the offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures could be construed as abuse, most especially if it is ongoing — more than just a word in the heat of anger. If there is a clear indication that some physical punishment will be extracted, even though there is never any explicit threat of physical harm (“Don’t you dare go after my player, #29!”, and on and on as an example), it could be considered to be abusive. In this instance, the key is whether or not it is ongoing or is a single word or phrase in the heat of the game. For the single word or phrase (depending on the circumstances) the caution or sending-off option is available; for a tirade or series that is ongoing, the situation clearly constitutes an instance of threat and abuse.
You might suggest that your instructor review this message.…
Question:
I noticed in one of the current issue responses “Putting the ball into play from a kick restart” that the situation is very similar to an indirect free kick restart. While the response was clear that it must be the decision of the referee as to what is a “kick” and what is not, ATR 13.5 makes it clear that “Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient”. It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion. My question is this…should the correct call be to (a) stop play for an improper restart, warn the players about the proper restart procedure (and subsequent caution for delay or persistent infringement if continued) or (b) allow play to continue, ignoring the tap, treating the subsequent kick as the “first touch” and maintain the indirect signal until a true second touch happens, thereby calling back any goal that might be scored directly from the improperly taken restart and continuing play with a goal kick restart?
USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The Law is clear: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves.” We have stated clearly in Advice 13.5 that there must be some “kicking motion” to put a kicked restart into play. The referee is the sole judge of what constitutes a kick.
Another point in your question needs to be cleared up: We would dispute that “It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion.” Some players may do it and some teams may use that as a tactic, but this does not mean that the definition in the Laws of how an indirect free kick (or any other kick restart) should be taken has changed. It is only referees who are reluctant to enforce the Law who have allowed this tactic to become “commonly accepted.” If the kicker fails to follow the Law and it makes a difference, then the referee must uphold the Law. If it didn’t really matter, then let it go (or perhaps give a warning). This is only common sense.…
Question:
I was in a recent over-30 game I was in had the referee stop play when he noticed there were too many men on the field. A correct call. However, in this particularly league there is no 4th official and there were no AR’s. No one from either team knew who or when the extra player entered the field but all parties thought it happened during a recent substitution several minutes prior when several players came onto the field and several came off. Since the referee did not know who the extra player was that entered illegally, he gave the caution to the player that was closest to him. However, this player had a previous caution and thus just earned a red card for his second yellow and was sent off. Was the referee correct in this situation? He claims that it’s the player who is closest to him who gets the caution. I am a referee as well and I think it’s up to the captain of the team to pick the player to receive the yellow card. The referee is not the one to make this call.
USSF answer (August 19, 2008):
No, the referee was not (and would not be) correct in automatically cautioning the player nearest to him. Another case of inventive — and really silly — refereeing. The entire problem was the referee’s fault for not paying attention to how many came out and how many entered the field. Referees cannot caution willy nilly, as this would likely destroy what little remained of their credibility after the initial error of failing to pay attention. There was no need for a second caution to an apparently innocent party, which could and should have been avoided. The referee’s third lapse was in not considering what possible good a caution would serve, regardless of who got it.
There is at least one thing that might be done, such as asking of the captain (or even the coach) who the last substitutes coming in were and which players were supposed to have left. That will usually find the player who was also not paying enough attention.…
Question:
Understand that substitution can take place during any stoppage.
I would like to check can the substitute which just come in, can he takes the penalty kick, corner kick, or throw in?
i saw my fellow referee did not allow the substitute player who just come into the field of play to take the penalty kick and sometimes do not allow the substitute player who just come into the field of play to take the throw in and corner kick.
please advise and clear my doubts.
USSF answer (August 14, 2008):
There is no reason that the new player cannot take the penalty kick or other restart as soon as he or she has entered the field in compliance with the requirements of Law 3.
Note:
The questioner and his colleague are not from the United States and thus are not confused by the high school rule that does not allow a newly-subbed in player to take a penalty kick. The high school rules do not place any other restrictions on newly-subbed in players taking other restarts.…
Question:
In a game I played yesterday, one of the substitutes was verbally advised by the referee that as soon as he came onto the pitch to play that he would give him a yellow card.
The incident came about as the subsitute said something to the linesman during the 20th minute of the game. The referee did not show a yellow card at the time, but advised the player that as soon as he did come into the game that he would give him a yellow card. The substitute came into the game in the 75th minute and as soon as he entered was shown a yellow card.
Can the referee do this, or does he have a time limit on when to show a yellow card?
USSF answer (August 11, 2008):
Another inventive referee! If it was going to be done at all, the referee should have cautioned the substitute at the moment of the misconduct — or at least prior to the next restart. Under these conditions, i. e., the referee was aware of the misconduct (dissent, we presume) and had not received any later signal from the assistant referee, the referee must caution at the next stoppage following the misconduct or he or she no longer has that privilege. The referee can, of course, still include details of the misconduct in the match report, but it cannot be considered to be a caution.…