ONLY TEAM OFFICIALS CAN COMMIT “IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR”

November 6, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
It’s very near the end of the game and Team A is losing to Team B.

Team A has a throw-in near the benches and is pressing very hard to equalize the score. As Team A’s player begins to take the throw-in Team B’s substitute goalkeeper, sitting on the bench, throws another ball into the field to prevent the restart.

The referee correctly identifies the goalkeeper, shows the red card, and sends him off for the misconduct. Now here’s the issue.

Some referees are opining that a substitute is considered “bench personnel” while at the bench. Therefore, the match report should say the GK is sent off for “irresponsible behavior.”

I argue that a substitute is a substitute, not bench personnel. As such the substitute GK can only be sent off for one of the seven reasons stated in Law 12 — and “irresponsible behavior” is not one of them.

Your response?

USSF answer (November 6, 2011):
Neither the substitute goalkeeper nor any other player may be sent off for the offense of “irresponsible behavior.” He may only be cautioned for unsporting behavior, unless something else occurs during the period following the initial cautionable misconduct of throwing the extra ball onto the field.

This was made clear in a position paper of March 22, 2006, on “Management of Behavior in the Technical Area.” The pertinent quote from that paper Is:
“,. . . in match conditions where spectators are not allowed near the immediate area of the field (for example, restricting spectators to stadium seats or behind barriers), the persons allowed in or near the field are strictly limited to players, substitutes, and team officials. For purposes of this memorandum, anyone officially allowed in the technical area who is not a rostered player or substitute (or substituted player) is a team official.”

Thus, no player (including substitutes and substituted players) may be sent off for “irresponsible behavior.” Such persons are not “bench personnel” and are thus not subject to the same treatment as team officials (coaches, trainers, medical personnel, etc.). Players (including substitutes and substituted players) may be sent off only for one of the seven reasons listed in Law 12, which covers players, etc:…

"Inventive" Refs

BE THE REFEREE!

October 24, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was reffing a recreational league the other day when something incredible happened that took me by surprise. The Blue attacker and Red defender were running after the ball and into the pk box, they were both legally shoulder charging each other, I was about 5 feet from the play (very close to miss) and saw the Red defender stumble (never fouled) and tumbled ahead of Blue attacker, when the Blue attacker jumped over the tumbling Red defender to get to the ball,The defender stretched his legs up deliberately and fouled the Blue attacker. I called the pk (no doubt) and proceeded to yellow card Red defender and red card him (second yellow). Blue attacker refused to take the pk stating he had committed the foul against Red defender instead of the other way around and his teammates retrieved along side him. I had never encountered this situation and proceeded to call back the ejected Red defender back and explained the strange situation and allowed him back in the game and let the Red team take an indirect kick from the place the Red defender had stumbled and fallen. Red and Blue are also friends, which has nothing to do with the game, but I suspect friendship had something to do with Blue’s decision to avoid getting his friend (Red) ejected. How should I have handled this situation better.

USSF answer (October 24, 2011):
The referee is certainly allowed to change a decision, even the awarding of a send-off (red card) if he does so before the next restart, but he needs to have an extremely good reason to do so. The referee also needs to stand by a decision to award a penalty kick if the foul occurred in the perpetrator’s penalty area and was clearly a direct-free kick foul, no matter that the player who was fouled objects.

If the player who was fouled does not wish to take the penalty kick, life is hard. In that case, another member of his team must take the penalty kick. If no one cares to take the penalty kick, then the game is abandoned and the referee submits full details of the reason in his report to the competition authority.…

"Inventive Coaches"

“MOTIVATION” ON THE FIELD

October 21, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Hi: I am a Boys U-12 coach and also an intermediate referee. I think the following is appropriate and I see no rule against it. But I need an opinion.

My team is names AC Milan. Throughout the game I usually scream “who are we?” My team on the field respond, “AC Milan”. I use this as a way to motivate my kids. Also to make sure we are a team. I do this every once in a while throughout the game.Not specifically when we score.

This is ok to do, correct?

USSF answer (October 21, 2011):
It is okay only if the referee on the game does not view it as an attempt to intimidate and/or distract the opponents. If he or she detects either intimidation or distraction, then the players doing the responses on the field could be cautioned for unsporting behavior and you, the coach, could be removed from the game (expelled) for irresponsible behavior. The referee must judge the appropriateness of both the WHEN and the WHY of the coach’s and players’ actions.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TWO INCIDENTS IN HIGHLY-CHARGED GAME

October 13, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’m a fairly new referee, and I’m hoping to get some insight into a particularly difficult game I was an AR for over this past weekend.

I’m writing to get an opinion regarding two incidents that occurred during a highly charged U15 game in [my state] over the weekend. First, I’d like to address the general atmosphere of the game. It was a very physical game with lots of bumping and jostling for position, and several cautions were issued in the first half. At one point during the first half I overhead the coach of the blue team instructing one of his bigger players that he should, to paraphrase, dish it back as hard if not harder than it was being served. I kept an eye on that player and did not notice any overly-aggressive behavior, so I thought nothing of it. Before the end of the half the red team, down 1-0, tied the game up through a fantastic half-volley from around 20 yards out. The goal scorer had been a threat all game and was clearly the red team’s most talented player. By the midpoint of the second half that same red player had been knocked around a bit, and the situation reached a boiling point when he was tackled by a blue player well after the ball had left his feet. The blue player was cautioned, but at this point in the game several red players pointed out that they had overheard the blue coach instructing his players to target the red team’s goalscorer. The players of both team were mostly Hispanic, and as such these instructions would have been given in Spanish. None of my crew spoke the language and, as such, we had no way of knowing if the red team’s claims were true. I called the center ref to my position and explained the first half incident I had overheard, but he decided to only warn the coach and not take any further action. While there was no direct proof that the coach was instructing his players to target the opposing team’s best player, the actions of his players on the field as well as the conversation I’d overheard earlier led me to believe that the Red team’s claims of deliberate targeting were substantiated. Were I in the center, I believe I would have dismissed the coach from the game. In this situation do I have enough evidence to do so? Would the correct call be a dismissal of the coach or, as my center did, simply offer a stern warning?

The second incident occurred with around 5 minutes remaining in the match. At this point the red team was winning 2-1, and the atmosphere had gotten even more difficult. Both coaches were being aggressive in their dissent of referee decisions and players were beginning to act similarly. A blue player played a through ball which was contested by a blue player and the red goalie. The two players slid feet first and collided at full speed. It was clear that both players were in a considerable amount of pain but it was also clear there were no severe head or bone injuries. With these two players down, the referee allowed play to continue around 30 seconds longer. I did not get a chance to ask him why he did not stop the game immediately, but I believe it was because the blue team had a clear advantage with the goalie down and the ball in the red penalty area. The ball was eventually cleared by the red team and the game was stopped. After a minute or two on the ground, the blue player was helped up and off the field by his coach and a teammate. The red team claimed that they had only one goalie, and as such the referee allowed them to treat their player around 5 more minutes. The blue team was furious that the game had been stopped for so long, believing that the goalie should have been substituted for one of the general players on the red team’s bench. They even went to far as to claim that the referee was required to have the goalie taken off the field and substituted. I have several questions regarding this situation. First, what is the suggested protocol for stopping play when a team has a clear advantage? In this case, the blue team had a clear advantage with the red goalie injured on the ground and the ball in the red penalty box. Should play be allowed to continue until the advantage is ended or is it the duty of the referee to stop play immediately when two players have sustained significant, but not severe, injury? Could the referee have stopped play immediately and determined the play reckless on the part of the blue attacker? It was a clear 50/50 ball, but had the goalie gone into the challenge head-first as opposed to feet first he would have certainly sustained a severe head, neck, or facial injury. This being the case could a foul be called on the blue attacker for a careless or reckless challenge? This call would have the advantage of stopping play immediately without regard to the blue team’s advantage. If a goalie is down for a significant period of time is the referee required to ask that he be substituted? The final question addresses the method of restarting the game had it been stopped immediately to address the injury on the field. In this case, play would have been halted by the referee when the blue team had a clear advantage. Is it the duty of the referee to restart the game in a manner that restores this advantage and, if it is, what would have been the best method of restoring such an advantage?

I apologize for the length of the email. I’m sure you guys get lots of these and I don’t mean to take up a disproportionate amount of your time. I’m anxious to hear the opinions of some experienced referees regarding these situations. As I said before, I’m very new to refereeing, and while I do have aspirations of reaching the highest levels, games like these make me wonder if I have the willpower to control highly intense games and make correct decisions that keep the match fair. I believe that, were I in the situations described above, I would have dismissed the blue coach for instructing the deliberate targeting of a player and I would have called the blue player for a reckless challenge. Both decisions would have been aggressively disputed, since the sending off of a coach is extreme and the blue player would have had to be cautioned for the challenge on the goalie. That caution would have been the player’s second caution and would have resulted in a sending off. I look forwards to hearing what you guys have to say about the situations. Thanks for listening.

USSF answer (October 13, 2011):
Incident 1:
If you did not understand the words of the coach’s message to the player, then you could not report it to the referee unless you had some other indication that the player was supposed to “take care of” his opponent. You might have mentioned it to the referee immediately if you had a suspicion, but that is not conclusive proof. By reporting it when you did, you at least provided some assistance to the referee for the match report.

By taking no action against the coach beyond the caution, the referee did not display the courage expected of a referee. We hope your rules of competition require this caution, as no team official may be cautioned (or sent off) for anything; they may only be expelled for irresponsible behavior, which this act certainly merited.

Whatever the coach may or may not have said or exhorted his players to do, the primary focus of the referee must be on what the players actually DID. They can choose to ignore their coach’s advice or they can be egged on by it – it is still their behavior on the field which determines the referee’s response to any particular incident.

Incident 2:
• Audible or visible dissent by a coach is irresponsible behavior, for which the correct punishment is expulsion. “Aggressive” dissent requires immediate expulsion.
• “Serious” is in the eyes of the beholder. If the referee believes the injury to be serious, he should stop the game immediately, no matter what the game situation. The referee’s primary job is player safety, not playing the advantage for a dubious reason. And in making this decision, the referee MUST take into account the age and experience of the players. Given this was a U15 match, there does not appear to be any reason to delay the stoppage.
• An injured goalkeeper may be treated on the field for as long as it takes to determine whether he or she can continue to play. The opposing team has no vote here.
• Any punishment for misconduct van be made only by the referee ont he spot. It’s a “youhaddabethere” situation. However, sliding in feet first against a goalkeeper warrants consideration of at least carelessness, if not actual recklessness, or even excessive force if the tackle were performed at high speed and/or two-footed and/or with studs exposed and/or with one or both feet raised above ball height.
• If play was stopped immediately to address the (serious) injury, the only possible restart — barring a foul — is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.. No, referees do not normally slant the restart to account for a possible “advantage’ for one of the teams.

Overall
We might suggest that the referee showed too little courage throughout the game. If a game starts poorly and becomes wild and woolly, then the referee must ensure that it slows down and remains a part of the beautiful game, not some sort of war.…

"Only in America!"

THE FINAL WORD

October 11, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
On 10/3/11 you said “In the scenario you present, the deliberate handling by the goalkeeper outside his own penalty area, no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied. There is no evidence that, but for the handling by the goalkeeper, the ball would have gone into the goal. The horse is dead. Long live the horse.”

Your second sentence has no bearing on the first sentence. The law says the offense is “denying . . . a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity.” While I agree that a goal has not been denied (as the ball was not moving towards the goal), I am shocked to hear that an attacker in the “D” with only the keeper to beat is not an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Which D is not ticked here?

Number of defenders: 0 not counting the offender.

Distance to goal: 20 yards. While not inside the area, it’s certainly closer than many breakaway OGSO I’ve seen called.

Distance to ball: Unclear in the scenario, but would the keeper have handled it if he wasn’t under pressure?

Direction of play: Not entirely clear, but I take “running onto play” to indicate he was in a position to shoot.”

I’m not saying it’s always a send-off when the keeper handles outside of the area (I’ve had 2 this season and not sent-off for either), but to dismiss it just because the ball isn’t moving is not consistent with the 4D philosophy.

USSF answer (October 11, 2011):
You seem to have missed the clear interpretation of DG-H provided in the original training materials for OGSO and confirmed clearly in Advice to Referees 12.37(a). Your argument is without merit.

We shall spell it out one last time (we have done this several times before). The elements of the 4 Ds may be used in determining if, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would have gone into the net but for the handling offense (e.g., the more defenders there are between the handling and the goal, the more likely it is that ONE of them at least would stop/redirect the ball on its path; the farther away the handling offense occurred from the goal, the greater is the distance the ball must travel in its path to the goal and so the more likely it is that its target area is so wide that it only encompasses the goal rather than being aimed at the goal itself; and so on).

However, the Ds when applied to DG-H are merely guidelines, not hard and fast rules as they might be when applied to DG-F. For example, the “D” related to direction of play is reduced to a simple linear vector decision — is the ball going into the net? Likewise, the “D” related to distance to ball is totally irrelevant.

The 4 Ds apply to DG-F precisely because it is an attacker who is being fouled whereas DG-H involves a foul committed WITH the ball, against the Spirit of the Game, rather than against an opponent. In the two “Ds” which were “not entirely clear,” this lack of clarity stems precisely from the simple fact that they don’t apply at all. You have defined them in a way that meets your needs, not the letter and spirit of the Law. For example, the “D” for distance to ball is DEFINED as the distance between the attacker who was fouled and where the ball was when the attacker was fouled. Because this attacker had not had possession of the ball, the question as to whether that distance was or was not great enough for the fouled attacker to continue his possession/control of the ball and thus to continue his attack is irrelevant.…

Interpretations/IFAB

HOLDING OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY

October 4, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A through ball is played to the vicinity of 1 attacker and 1 defender. Both players run to the ball, which the attacker gets to first. He manages to stop the ball on the goal line on the corner of the six yard box (the ball is in the penalty area), but both players momentum takes them off the field of play. When the attacker turns to try to get back onto the field, the defender grabs him, preventing him from regaining possession of the ball, which he obviously would have been able to do. This happens about 6 feet off the field. What action should the referee take in this situation?

This question came up during a referee meeting, and there were mixed opinions. Some said it should be a PK, others said IFK. There is also the question of red/yellow cards. I was just hoping to get some clarification.

USSF answer (October 4, 2011):
The defending player has held the opponent while both are off the field of play, a cautionable offense but not a foul.

Punishment:
• If the defender is already off the field of play and commits the offense, play is restarted with a dropped ball* from the position in which the ball 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 when play was stopped

Something else for you to consider is to “wait and see” if another attacker will get to the ball so that, despite the original attacker being held, his team could maintain the advantage – in which case, the referee could come back to the misconduct at the next stoppage.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE DEAD HORSE REMAINS DEAD

October 3, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I hope a dead horse but here goes anyway:

The ball is loose just outside of top of the penalty area, say in the D. And suppose that the ball isn’t moving at all. An attacker is running onto the ball and the only defender, say the keeper runs out and picks up ball outside the penalty area. Can the referee send the keeper off if the referee deems that this action denied an obvious goal scoring OPPORTUNITY?

USSF answer (October 3, 2011):
In the scenario you present, the deliberate handling by the goalkeeper outside his own penalty area, no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied. There is no evidence that, but for the handling by the goalkeeper, the ball would have gone into the goal. The horse is dead. Long live the horse.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“TRICKERY” AT A THROW-IN

September 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have a question about the trickery rule; there was a throw in to myself. My first touch i chested it up to a header back to the goalie where he picked it up with his hands. The opposite team was awarded a free kick at spot. I was told if i didnt chest it and just hit with my head it would of beeen fine just want to double check his call thanx

USSF answer (September 28, 2011):
The International Football Association Board (IFAB) changed Law 12 in 1992 in an effort to deal with trickery aimed at circumventing the requirement limiting the opportunities for the goalkeeper to handle the ball when it was deliberately kicked to him by a teammate. (Previously it had been legal for the goalkeeper to pick up the ball with his hands if the teammate had been outside the penalty area when he kicked the ball to the goalkeeper.) Players looked for and found crafty ways to get around the requirement and thus the IFAB adopted a new Decision 18 to Law 12 in 1993 (since incorporated into Decision 3 to Law 12). This Decision 18 specifically defined trickery as including (but not limited to) the teammate “using his head or chest or knee, etc.” That is now found in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees under Cautions for unsporting behavior: “uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick”

One clue to the correctness of the player’s action is whether it a natural part of play or is clearly artificial and intended only to circumvent the Law. In such cases, the action is considered misconduct whether it ultimately is touched by the goalkeeper or not. Indeed, the misconduct should be whistled before the goalkeeper even has a chance to touch it.

The defender who initiates the “trickery” is cautioned and shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior; the decision does not require that the goalkeeper actually handles the ball, and the misconduct can occur during dynamic play or at a restart. The question as to which defender in this case was guilty of initiating the deliberate trickery can be answered only by the referee who is on the spot. The referee must be sure that the sequence of play was indeed intended to circumvent the Law and to prevent opponents from having a fair chance to compete for the ball rather than have it unfairly handled by the goalkeeper. If, in the referee’s opinion, there was trickery, then it is the teammate who played the ball immediately prior to it going to the goalkeeper who would be cautioned.

The key to deciding whether or not a player is trying to thwart the Law by passing the ball to the goalkeeper without actually kicking it is whether the action is a natural one, a normal playing tactic, which is perfectly legitimate, or a contrived act, a “trick,” which must be punished with a caution for unsporting behavior.

You will also find the answer in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” It requires that the referee exercise a good sense of the game.

12.21 BALL THROWN TO THE GOALKEEPER
A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 by touching the ball with the hands after receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a teammate. The goalkeeper is considered to have received the ball directly by playing it in any way (for example, by dribbling the ball with the feet) before touching it with the hands. Referees should take care not to consider as trickery any sequence of play that offers a fair chance for opponents to challenge for the ball before it is handled by the goalkeeper from a throw-in.

…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FLYING BOOT

September 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Here is the situation: Red team is attacking just outside the penalty box when a red player try to hit the ball to goal,but it missed and in doing so, his shoe went flying straight to the goalkeeper face. At almost the same time, another red player hit the ball and was going straight to the net, but because the goalkeeper was busy protecting himself from the flying shoe,he lost track of the ball and the ball just past next to him and went inside the net. It was an easy stoppable shot. The ref,as soon as he saw the flying shoe,stop the play,barely before the ball hit the net…The reason? according to him, was interfering with play, and also a strange object in the field.. the goal was not allowed,and the game resumed with a ball dropped. Was he correct? Please clarify…Tanks.

USSF answer (September 28, 2011):
The referee was correct in not allowing the goal, as the Red player “threw” an object at the goalkeeper when the shoe went flying from the foot toward the ‘keeper’s face. It might be stretching the Law a bit to call it “interfering,” but the referee certainly exercised good sense in stopping play and restarting play with a dropped ball (for restarts not covered elsewhere in the Law). However, notice that we do not suggest that the Red player might be sent off for violent conduct.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE REFEREE DID WHAT?!

September 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a high school varsity game played under USSF rules (as opposed to NHSF) the attacking team plays a ball that rolls into the penalty area and is picked up by the goalie. After the goalie has possession, a defender running with the attacker chasing the ball plays the body and bumps the attacker in a significant manner. The referee (I was the AR) gave the defender a caution for UB, and then allowed the goalie to punt to continue play.

We discussed after the game as to whether, after the caution, he should have awarded the attacking team a penalty kick, an indirect free kick from the spot of the contact, or whether letting the goalie punt was appropriate.

We’d appreciate your feedback.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
If there was no injury or immediate exhibition of ill-feeling and the referee invoked the advantage clause and then cautioned the defending player at the next stoppage, that would be legitimate and proper. However, in this case, the referee did not stop play and appears to have cautioned the attacker “on the fly,” not something that is in accordance with the Laws of the Game. This shows either ignorance of the Law or willful disregard of the Law by the referee.

The correct course of action would have been to play the advantage and then, at the next stoppage, to caution the defending player for unsporting behavior.…