Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TWO INCIDENTS IN HIGHLY-CHARGED GAME

Posted on by

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.…

"Inventive Instructors"

TROUBLE-MAKING SPECTATORS

Posted on by

Question:
At a U15 Girls match this weekend, the game seemed to go without too much incident and not too many insults to the officiating crew.

It was IMMEDIATELY after the game that the situation eroded. The game was played on an outlying field that was away from the rest of the tournament and apparently no “field marshals” were assigned to the game.

Towards the end of the game, one of the parents from the team who was loosing positioned himself with the parents of the winning team.

Immediately after the game, he began to “start trouble” by provoking arguments with the winning team. The situation was volatile, but after a few minutes the winning parents seemed to leave the area before the incident could get out of control.

I have been taught that the referee is in charge of the game, technical area, the players and SPECTATORS from the time the referees arrive on the pitch until they depart (even before and after the game). I know exactly how to handle this DURING the game, but this was after the game had technically ended and while the referee crew was still on the pitch. (There were less than 50 spectators — of which only about 10-15 were involved)

It seems to me that a few well-placed words from the referee could have ended the situation rather quickly.

My question is, since there are NO other unbiased officials of the tournament, does the referee have any authority under the “laws of the game” to “persuade” the spectators that it is not in their best interest to continue their arguments.

Should I, as THE referee, get involved on a MORAL ground just to try to stop the situation from escalating? Obviously, I am not going to step into a fist-fight, but should I, as a 40-year old adult, step in to prevent the “arguing” that could lead to something stupid?

USSF answer (October 11, 2011):
The Laws ask only that the referee deal with situations in which someone unauthorized enters the field, in which case the referee should suspend play and perhaps terminate the game if the situation cannot be handled by the appropriate authorities. Unless there is some rule of the tournament that permits you to deal with spectators or anyone other than team officials, you have no authority to deal with such persons at any time, whether before, during, or after the game, unless there is some question of player safety off the field. Your job is to ensure that the players are safe, not Mom or Dad.…

"Only in America!"

THE FINAL WORD

Posted on by

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.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

LAWS OF THE GAME

Posted on by

Question:
1. A game was being played during hot weather. A player came to the sideline for a drink of water without leaving the field of play. As he was taking a drink the ball came his way and he took off dribbling the ball with water bottle (plastic) in hand.
Which Law has he broken?
Should the player be cautioned?
What would the restart be?

2. During a game the ball had been hit hard and was certainly going out of play with no players ever getting a chance of making it to the ball to stop it. As the ball headed towards a coach he put his foot on the ball to stop it from going way beyond the field of play. The problem is that the coach stopped the ball before it had gone out of play.
Has the coach entered the field illegally? And should he be cautioned as such? And a Free Kick awarded to the opposing team?
Is the coach treated as an “outside agent” in this instance and a drop ball used to restart play?
Or do we recognize it as a glaring error by the coach who had good intentions and award the throw as if the ball had gone out of bounds?

USSF answer (October 10, 2011):
1. As he had not left the field, the player committed no offense by playing the ball; however, by carrying the unauthorized bottle of water with him, he was playing in violation of the requirements of Law 4. If a player is discovered to be wearing (in this case “carrying”) unauthorized equipment during play, the referee need not stop play, but should immediately inform the player that the item in question must be removed from the field. The player must leave the field only if he is unable or unwilling to comply and could be cautioned if he willfully refuses to comply or, having been told to remove the item, is discovered to be carrying the item again.

2. No, the coach (or any other team official) is not regarded as an outside agent. Team officials are in a separate category under the Laws. (See the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the book.)

Despite the coach’s good intentions (keep this in mind), he has entered the field without the permission of the referee. Under the Laws of the Game coaches cannot and must not be cautioned or sent off and shown any card at all (unless the rules of the competition require it); however, they can be expelled for irresponsible behavior, one example of which is entering the field without permission. If, as in this case, we recognize the coach’s act as motivated by good intentions, rather than any base desire to aid his team (and his earlier actions in the game will provide a good gauge for this decision), the referee will stop play immediately, because the coach has interfered with play. If the coach’s behavior is irresponsible the referee must expel him from the field of play and its immediate surroundings. In this case, the referee will have a quiet word with the coach and restart play with a dropped ball in the position where the ball was at the time when the match was stopped.…

Guide to Procedures

REFEREE-AR COMMUNICATION AT A GOAL

Posted on by

Question:
If an attacking team shoots a shot on goal against the defending team and the ball bounces off the top goal post and straight down, clearly going over the line, but then spins back out of the goal and the AR signals that a goal has occurred, but the Referee yells play on because he either doesn’t believe it was a goal or didn’t look at the AR then what should the AR do in that situation if he is sure it was a goal but has not been acknowledged by the referee or fears the referee may be overruling him incorrectly and play continues?

USSF answer (October 6, 2011):
If the referee does his (or her) job correctly and the AR does his (or her) job correctly, there should have been no problem in awarding the goal immediately, provided they used the information supplied in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials.”

The referee’s job is to check visually with the AR and ensure that his view of the AR is maintained long enough to see a signal for a goal in cases where the ball is being played close to the goal and may have briefly but fully entered the goal. The AR’s job, if the ball briefly but fully enters the goal and is continuing to be played (and the referee’s view of the situation was obscured), is to raise the flag vertically to get the referee’s attention and then, after the referee stops play, to put flag straight down and follow the prescribed procedures for a goal (see the Guide). You do not tell us how you signalled the goal, but might it have been counter to the guidance given in the Guide to Procedures?

If the referee and the AR do not use the correct procedure and play continues, the AR’s next job is to get the information to the referee as quickly as possible. We certainly hope that the referee and the ARs discussed a suitable procedure for such events during their pregame conference. One way to do this would be to stand at attention at the goal line and not move with play; when the referee realizes that the AR is not moving with play, then he should stop the game and speak with the AR…

"Only in America!"

EQUAL AND SAFE PLAYING CONDITIONS FOR ALL PLAYERS

Posted on by

Question:
Earlier this month, I was refereeing [at a] Labor Day Cup. It was very, very windy. An attacker shot the ball from a far distance towards the goal. However, the wind pushed the net on the other side of the crossbar. The net shockingly prevented the ball from entering the net. (Did I mention how windy it was?) The net did NOT detach from the crossbar, but the wind was so strong the net was sitting in front of the goal.

What does the law say about the net? Well, from what I’ve researched, you do not have to have a net. From my perspective, the net (once it is pushed by the wind onto the field) becomes an outside agent even though the net is still connected to the posts. The referee should restart with a dropped ball from goal area line outside of where the contact was made. “Selling” this call would be nearly impossible, so I thought I would ask you guys on the best way to handle a situation like this.

USSF answer (October 3, 2011):
No, the net cannot be considered an outside agent in any game situation. In this case, referee failure to follow the dictates of Law 5 was the cause of the incident

As you say, the net is not required by the Laws of the Game; however, it is normally required by most rules of competition (such as the tournament at which the incident occurred). The organizers should have ensured that the net was firmly mounted on the goal and secured to the ground. The referee and the rest of the officiating crew should have inspected the field an all its appurtenances before the game began (and again prior to the start of the second half or any additional periods) and also ensured that the net was firmly mounted on the goal and secured to the ground.

Therefore, the fact that the net was blowing around must be regarded as a natural occurrence. There is no solution other than the one you suggest: once the net has been repaired, the referee must drop the ball from the spot at which the interference occurred (in accordance with Law 8): “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.”

The same logic could be applied to other situations caused by referee inattention to the Law and his or her duty to protect the players and, most important, to provide a “level” playing field so that each team receives fair and equal treatment. For example, suppose the scenario had involved a goal frame which, due to the high winds, was pushed forward toward the field such that the crossbar (though still attached) was ahead of the goal line rather than straight above it. Suppose further that a shot on goal was made at an extreme angle such that the ball struck the crossbar and the deflection enabled the ball to stay on the field whereas the ball would have gone into the upper left corner of the net if the crossbar had been properly positioned.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE DEAD HORSE REMAINS DEAD

Posted on by

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 14 - Penalty Kick

PENALTY KICK & A SERIOUS INCIDENT

Posted on by

Question:
A question came up in discussions about the PK whereby the signal was given and the ball actually kicked when a teammate of the kicker punched an opponent while the ball was in flight. The discussion was mostly to immediately blow the whistle, stopping the kick, deal with the violent conduct and retake the kick. Since the incident was serious and could have led to other issues, the feeling was stop play immediately rather than let the kick conclude. Then since the kick was stopped, to come back and retake the kick with the thought that the initial incident leading to the PK still needed to be addressed.
Comments?

USSF answer (September 28, 2011):
The ball is in play. The referee would deal with the serious foul play and, after sending off the kicker’s teammate, restart with a direct free kick for the defending team.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FLYING BOOT

Posted on by

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?!

Posted on by

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.…