ADVANTAGE AND TIMING THE “PLAY ON”

November 16, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
An attacker is fouled, but the referee immediately (not waiting for 2-3 seconds to elapse) sees a clear opportunity for the attacking team to benefit from continuing play and calls out “play on” with the appropriate hand signal. Within 2-3 seconds an attacker (but not the attacker initially fouled) fouls a defender. The referee blows his whistle to stop play and calls the original foul for the attacker and has the ball brought back to the point of the original foul for a free kick to the attacking team; rather than a foul by the attacking team and a free kick for the defending team.

The question came up that calling “play on” is an immediate “calling the foul” and “instantaneous restart”. Therefore, the referee had made a decision and could no longer decide to call the original foul. Had the referee waited a bit longer before signaling “play on”, he could then appropriately call the original foul.

In other words, once the referee calls “play on” can the original foul still be penalized or has the opportunity “gone away” because the referee has indicated his decision? If the “play on” negates calling the original foul, when the referee blew his whistle to stop play the appropriate restart would have been a free kick to the defending team.

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
It is rarely a mistake for the referee to wait that 2-3 seconds to ensure that the advantage has been realized before announcing the decision to “play on.” By so doing, the referee can generally avoid awkward situations like the one you present.

Our recommendation in this specific situation is to forget the first foul and call the one that occurred after the advantage was announced, but to be prepared to handle any misconduct which may have attached to the first foul.

Signaling “Play on!” does not now nor has it ever “negated” the foul. That’s what the 2-3 seconds are for – to see if the proto-advantage we (in our wisdom and experience) saw as enough of a possibility that we were not prepared to blow the whistle immediately actually reaches some fruition. The theory, of course, is that the speed of soccer play (at the sort of competitive level where we would look to apply advantage) needs only 2-3 seconds to either resolve itself or not.

Over the years, two distinctly different approaches to operationally implementing “advantage” have developed.

Approach A – signal advantage as soon as the foul occurs in the presence of an advantage POSSIBILITY, and then come back to stop play for the original foul if, after 2-3 seconds, the advantage was neither realized nor maintained.

Approach B – observe the foul, decide if there is an advantage possibility, observe play for the next several seconds and then either comeback to the original foul if the advantage was neither realized nor maintained OR signal the advantage if it was.

Either is acceptable, both have pluses and minuses to their use (all of which are discussed in several position papers (on the US Soccer website). See also Advice to Referees 5.6.…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREES COACHING AND COACHES REFEREEING

November 16, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a recent U12 boys game we played a great team and lost.

The kids had lots of Fun, However my question is: How much Coaching should the Referee do during the game? He started out just commenting on fouls and explaining why he made a call or non-call. He did a fine job as a referee, but the Ref’s Coaching got progressively more in-depth as the game went on. How can a coach respectfully tell this kind of Referee to NOT coach at all. It was annoying and I wasn’t always able to hear what he was saying to my players. I think I deserve to Know if he is giving a warning or coaching. In my league in eastern PA we do have some fine Referees, But If I see this Ref again how do communicate to him that I don’t appreciate any instruction he has to offer. Referees should be impartial, right? I am not saying I want to argue his calls, I really don’t have any desire for that, but does the Ref have the authority to coach and advise players on the field? and what would be considered reasonable?

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
Other than in some youth competitions where the competition encourages it, the referee should avoid coaching altogether. The referee can give compliments, as long as he or she ensures that each team gets a fair share, and can do normal referee things, such as chiding or warning players who are behaving improperly.

Coaches don’t want the referee coaching and referees certainly don’t want the coaches refereeing. Both are troublesome.…

"Inventive" Refs

WE DON’T DO HIGH SCHOOL RULES

November 16, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
In tonight’s [state high school playoff game], the game goes into tie breaker using PK’s. The Goalie for team A stops the goal. The goalie does not leave the line early. None of the players leaves the line, no infractions. The goalie after stopping the goal celebrates by fist pumping and letting out a yell. The ref states it is taunting. The ref lets the same girl get another try. This time the goal goes in. Where is this in the rule book? How is this possible? The coach complains to the referee, the coach gets a yellow and is ask to leave the area.

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
Coach, we are NOT authorized to give answers on questions involving games played using the rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). If you can accept that our answer cannot be considered “official,” then here is our take on the matter. If you want an official NFHS answer you need to check with a high school rules interpreter in your area.

The only thing in the scenario which would be considered specific to NFHS rules is the decision about taunting. Of course, “taunting” is totally “in the opinion of the referee” but, if the referee decides a player’s action IS taunting, NFHS rules call for the taunting player to be disqualified (sent from the field) with a red card (Rule 12.8.3b). The referee might also choose to consider the action as coming under 12.8.2a which results in a yellow+red card (the so-called “soft” red — player can be replaced). In either case, the operative word is “disqualified,” which means that the goalkeeper HAD to be sent from the field. If not sent from the field, then it wasn’t taunting (or the less serious but, in our opinion, arguably more apt “delayed, excessive or prolonged act by which a player attempts to focus attention on himself and/or prohibits a timely restart of the game”).

Without any card shown (and none is mentioned), the referee has absolutely no basis in NFHS Rules for not accepting the result of the kick from the mark. Nothing the goalkeeper did is contrary to the NFHS kicks from the mark procedure. Furthermore, even if the goalkeeper WAS guilty of any sort of misconduct and was shown a card of any color, this does not affect the outcome or acceptability of the kick because it was behavior that occurred after the kick was over. In this, there would be no difference between NFHS Rules or FIFA Laws.

As for the referee’s subsequent action regarding the coach, the most that can be said here is that, once again, the referee has gotten creative.

Receiving a caution and being shown a yellow card is permissible under NFHS Rules but, absent the special circumstance of this being a SECOND caution for the coach, there is no basic in the NFHS Rules for ordering the coach “to leave the area.”…

Advice to Referees

THE SLIDE TACKLE

November 16, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
As I center ref older travel/elite club games, I’m increasingly confronted with judging the legality of slide tackles.

Can you tell if there is a set of criteria that I can use to help me in assessing whether a slide tackle is legal? Has USSF issued any directive or other document akin to their “Handling the Ball” directive that could provide me with helpful guidance?

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
One of the current sources is the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”; the 2010/2011 edition can be downloaded from the USSF website.

12.7 TACKLING
The referee must judge whether the tackle of an opponent is fair or whether it is careless, reckless, or involves the use of excessive force. Making contact with the opponent before the ball when making a tackle is unfair and should be penalized. However, the fact that contact with the ball was made first does not automatically mean that the tackle is fair. The declaration by a player that he or she has “got the ball first” is irrelevant if, while tackling for the ball, the player carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force commits any of the prohibited actions.

A foul committed while tackling an opponent with little or no concern for the safety of the opponent shall be cause for the player to be sent from the field and shown the red card for serious foul play.

In brief, there is only one way to slide tackle– safely. And when it is not safe, it is almost always so unsafe as to require a red card for serious foul play.

The term “slide tackle” refers to an attempt to tackle the ball away from an opponent while sliding on the ground. A slide tackle is legal, provided it is performed legally. In other words, there is nothing illegal about a slide tackle by itself–no matter where it is done and no matter the direction from which it comes. Referees (and spectators) should not get hung up on the term “slide” tackling. There is nothing in our concern regarding endangering the safety of the opponent which limits this to a slide tackle. In fact, if, in the opinion of the referee, the tackle endangers the safety of the opponent, it makes no difference if there is contact or not.

FIFA emphasized in the past the great danger in slide tackles from behind because, if this tackle is not done perfectly, the potential for injury is so much greater. Nowadays, if the referee decides that the foul while tackling from any direction–from the front, the side, or the rear–was done in such a way as to endanger the safety of the opponent, the proper action is to send the violator off the field with a red card.

How can tackles become illegal? Two of the most common ways are by making contact with the opponent first (before contacting the ball) and by striking the opponent with a raised upper leg before, during, or after contacting the ball with the lower leg. Referees must be vigilant and firm in assessing any tackle, because the likely point of contact is the lower legs of the opponent and this is a particularly vulnerable area.

The referee must judge each situation of a tackle from any direction individually, weighing the guidelines published by FIFA and the U. S. Soccer Federation, the positions of the players, the way the tackler uses his/her foot or feet, the “temperature” of the game, the age/skill of the players, and the attitude of the players. Only then can the referee make a sensible decision.

While one may (and should) sympathize with the injured player, soccer is a tough, competitive sport, and injuries can happen with no associated infringement of the Law. Players who act on the basis of the opposite presumption, abetted by like-minded spectators, do the sport no good.

For the sake of those who would punish any tackle, we ask that players and referees alike remember that it is not a foul if a sliding tackle is successful and the player whose ball was tackled away then falls over the tackler’s foot. It has to be in the opinion of the referee, but if the tackler accomplishes the objective of taking the ball safely and within the meaning of the Law, then it makes no difference if the player who was tackled then falls down. With a big “UNLESS”: if, in the referee’s opinion, the tackler has used excessive force, then the tackler should be sent off for serious foul play. Or, if the tackler makes the tackle and then lifts either the tackling foot or the other foot and trips the opponent, that is a foul. Simply because a player falls over the foot of the tackler is not a dangerous thing. It’s one of the breaks of the game.

Finally, an acronym to help you remember the elements of tackles that merit red cards: SIAPOA.
Red card tackles usually involve combinations of the following components:
1. Speed of play and the tackle
2. Intent
3. Aggressive nature
4. Position of the tackler
5. Opportunity to play the ball
6. Atmosphere of the game…

Interpretations/IFAB

PASS BACK TO ‘KEEPER

November 12, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a soccer game a player deliberately used his knee to pass the ball to the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper then picked the ball up with his hands. Does this count as a pass-back to the keeper?

What part of the body can a player use to send the ball to his/her goalkeeper and have the keeper pick it up with his/her hands? Or maybe I should ask what part of the body can’t a player use to pass the ball to the keeper if the keeper intends to pick it up?

USSF answer (November 12, 2010):
The Law is pretty clear. See the back of the Law book 2010/2011, Interpretations, 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

Even with that information, we would be remiss if we did not point out that, subject to the terms of Law 12, a player MAY pass the ball to his (or her) own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc., if he does NOT use trickery. Furthermore, just to lock it down tightly, for the misconduct offense to be called the referee must decide that the action was done to circumvent the Law. Merely observing that the ball was played from foot to head is not enough, even if the ball subsequently goes to or toward the GK. Because we are dealing with misconduct here (the “trickery”) and not the foul commonly referred to as “pass back to the ‘keeper,” we are required to evaluate the intentions of the defender.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently 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.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

ADDING TIME

November 10, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was the center referee in [a local] U-11 girls game. . . . Just was looking for your expertise in the matter of applied add-on time. I felt my actions were justified. Many referees do not add on time and to me, ruin the spirit of the game. I understand time constraints in tournaments and multiple games on the same field yet, this was not the case. What is your outlook on upholding add on time?
Thank you!

USSF answer (November 10, 2010):
Unless the local rules of competition specify otherwise (as in some tournaments, which do this counter to the Laws of the Game), there is no set or particular moment to end a game. Law 5 empowers the referee to act as timekeeper and to keep a record of the match. Law 7 instructs the referee to add time (at his discretion) for time lost in either half of a game or in any overtime period for the reasons listed in Law 7 (Allowance for Time Lost). Five minutes added time to U11G may seem a bit much at that level of play, but it can easily be justified.

Referees allow additional time in all periods for all time lost through substitution(s), assessment of injury to players, treatment of injuries on the field , removal of injured players from the field of play for treatment, wasting time, as well as “other causes” that consume time, such as kick-offs, throw-ins, dropped balls, free kicks, and replacement of lost or defective balls. Time must also be added for deliberate delays or other infringements of the Laws at restarts and for disciplinary matters.

Many of the reasons for stoppages in play and thus “lost time” are entirely normal elements of the game. The referee takes this into account in applying discretion regarding the time to be added. The main objective should be to restore playing time to the match which is lost due to excessively prolonged or unusual stoppages. Law 5 tells us that the referee’s decisions regarding facts connected with play are final. The only time lost that is normally not added to a period of play is ball retrieval for goal kicks, corner kicks, or throw-ins, unless they are extended through timewasting tactics by either team.…

Coach

INDOOR PLAYER/COACH EXPELLED

November 10, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
During a game I argued a call to the referee (no foul language)….I asked him what game was he watching? He came over to the bench (I was acting as a coach) and pointed to the door and said leave. So I left. He later took my player card and said that he is giving me a red card.

Can he give me a red card after the fact? He asked me to leave….no warning. Can he just decide that that is a red card offense after the fact? Plus we were not sent down a man (indoor) indicating an offense has taken place.

Is this a traditional banning then?

USSF answer (November 10, 2010):
In point of fact, the referee should not show a coach a card of any color in any form of soccer, indoor or outdoor; it is against the Laws. However, there may be some facility rule regarding this. Many indoor facilities have their own rules that take no notice of the Laws of the Game.

In your role as a player/coach, the referee could legally send you off and even show you the red card, because you were dressed as a player. In our opinion, the send-off as a player is extremely questionable if the situation was as you describe it, because your behavior does not seem to have gone beyond dissent (a cautionable offense). In our experience the red “after the fact” is not out of the realm of normalcy for indoor soccer — and the referee does not have to warn a player (or coach) at all, no matter whether indoor or outdoor. If you were expelled as a coach, there would have been no time penalty.

Under the Laws of the Game the only reason to send off a coach is for irresponsible behavior, and what you describe could fit that category, depending on your tone of voice and what else had been happening in the game. It would appear that the referee decided “that’s enough” and expelled you for exceeding the acceptable bounds of competitive enthusiasm.…

"Inventive Coaches"

GOALKEEPER SAFETY/POSSESSION

November 5, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a B14 match attacking Red player A takes a shot from 25 yards away that strikes the crossbar, and ricochets to the ground, and bounces up about waist high, about 3-5 feet in front of the Blue goalkeeper. Attacking Red player B is only 2 feet from the ball, and he swings his leg sideways to kick the ball back into the net just as the Blue goalkeeper swoops in to scoop up the ball. The blue goalkeeper never gets his hands on the ball but just as he is about to, Red player B’s foot strikes the ball and Blue keepers face simultaneously. The ball goes into the net. The keeper goes down but recovers and finishes the match. All parties…. the center referee, his assistant referee, the coach of both the Red and Blue teams agrees there was no intent by Red B to strike or injure the keeper.
However, the coach of Blue team argues that since player safety is a referee’s paramount concern that the center ref should have either: (1) blown his whistle to stop the play before the injury; or (2) stopped play, disallowed the goal and awarded an indirect free kick to Blue for dangerous play. The coach of the Blue team argues that the interpretation of “in the possession of the goalkeeper” be expanded to include those situations where in the opinion of the center referee, the keeper is in imminent possession of the ball, and due to the proximity of an attacking player, stop play with his whistle to protect the keeper, and restart the plate as if the attacking player had interfered with the keeper or fouled him. What is the proper decision for the center referee in these circumstances and if the coach is correct, what is the authority in the LOTG or ATR for his position?

USSF answer (November 5, 2010):
Let’s break this down into smaller parts to help make the entire problem understandable for referees, coaches, and players alike.

1. THE GOALKEEPER POSITION AND DANGER
Yes, safety is the referee’s first concern under the Laws. However, referees — and coaches and players — need to remember that the position of goalkeeper is inherently dangerous and the goalkeeper is allowed a bit more leeway than other players in placing him- or herself in danger and thus affecting how the opponents can act. Everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. Why? Because it is the ‘keeper’s job to stop the ball from going into the goal, no matter at what height above the ground it may travel. Unless the ‘keeper did something that was careless or violent or reckless, and you said that he did not, then there was no foul, but simply bad luck. This is one of the lessons referees, players, and coaches need to learn.

Would we allow this for the opposing attackers? Not if it places the goalkeeper in danger that he cannot avoid. Is this inconsistent? Yes, but it is the way the game has always been played.

2. GOALKEEPER POSSESSION
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e. g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. And the “hand” in this case can consist of as few as one finger of the ‘keeper’s hand.

The Laws do not grant the referee the power to extend the definition of goalkeeper possession, nor to legislate new meanings on the field of play.

3. PLAYERS’ RIGHTS AND FAIR CHALLENGES
The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the fairness is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

Any time a player (either a field player or a goalkeeper) raises his/her leg above knee level there is the likelihood that someone will be hurt. As age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more conservatively. Something an adult player might be allowed to do is not always the same as something a youth player (U14 for example) would be allowed to do.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PRESCRIPTION EYEGLASSES?

October 25, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
As a referee, how do you know if prescription eye glasses would be a problem as “Players may not wear anything that the referee considers dangerous to themselves or to their teammates or opponents.”

In a competitive u15 game last weekend the referee would not let a player play with his glasses, and while I understand it is the referee’s decision, what advice do I give the parents so they can get appropriate eye-wear?

USSF answer (October 25, 2010):
The USSF guidance is contained in the following position paper of March 7, 2003, on player’s equipment.

Memorandum

//deleted//

Re: Player’s Equipment

Date: March 7, 2003

________________________________________________________________________

USSF has received a number of inquiries recently about how officials should handle situations where players wish to wear equipment that is not included in the list of basic compulsory equipment in FIFA Laws of the Game. Referees are facing increased requests from players for permission to wear kneepads, elbowpads, headbands, soft casts, goggles, etc.

The only concrete guidance in the Laws of the Game is found in Law 4:

“A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player.”

This is followed by a list of required uniform items: jersey, shorts, socks, shoes, and shinguards. Obviously, this language is quite general. USSF suggests the following approach to issues involving player equipment and uniforms:

1. Look to the applicable rules of the competition authority.
Some leagues, tournaments, and soccer organizations have specific local rules covering player uniforms and what other items may or may not be worn on the field during play. Referees who accept match assignments governed by these rules are obligated to enforce them. Note, however, that local rules cannot restrict the referee’s fundamental duty to ensure the safety of players.

2. Inspect the equipment.
All items of player equipment and uniforms must be inspected. However, anything outside the basic compulsory items must draw the particular attention of the referee and be inspected with special regard to safety. USSF does not “pre-approve” any item of player equipment by type or brand — each item must be evaluated individually.

3. Focus on the equipment itself — not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player.
Generally, the referee’s safety inspection should focus on whether the equipment has such dangerous characteristics as: sharp edges, hard surfaces, pointed corners, dangling straps or loops, or dangerous protrusions. The referee should determine whether the equipment, by its nature, presents a safety risk to the player wearing it or to other players. If the equipment does not present such a safety risk, the referee should permit the player to wear it.

The referee should not forbid the equipment simply because it creates a possibility that a player could use it to foul another player or otherwise violate the Laws of the Game. However, as the game progresses, an item that the referee allowed may become dangerous, depending on changes in its condition (wear and tear) or on how the player uses it. Referees must be particularly sensitive to unfair or dangerous uses of player equipment and must be prepared to order a correction of the problem whenever they become aware of it.

The referee also should not forbid the equipment because of doubts about whether it actually protects the player. There are many new types of equipment on the market that claim to protect players. A referee’s decision to allow a player to use equipment is not an endorsement of the equipment and does not signify that the referee believes the player will be safer while wearing the equipment.

4. Remember that the referee is the final word on whether equipment is dangerous.
Players, coaches, and others may argue that certain equipment is safe. They may contend that the equipment has been permitted in previous matches, or that the equipment actually increases the player’s safety. These arguments may be accompanied by manufacturer’s information, doctor’s notes, etc. However, as with all referee decisions, determining what players may wear within the framework of the Laws of the Game and applicable local rules depends on the judgment of the referee. The referee must strive to be fair, objective, and consistent ˆ but the final decision belongs to the referee.

This, of course, includes eyeglasses of any sort.

Back in 2001 USSF gave this advice to all referees: “Referees must not interpret [a statement from the IFAB — the people who make the rules of our game] to mean either that “sports glasses” must automatically be considered safe or that glasses which are not manufactured to be worn during sports are automatically to be considered unsafe. The referee must make the final decision: the Board has simply recognized that new technology has made safer the wearing of glasses during play.”…

"Inventive Instructors"

NO CHANGE IN REFEREE UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS!

October 21, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
During our adult state cup our state instructor showed us page 37 of the 2010-2011 Referee Administrative Handbook, we were told that only the new style shirts (as shown) would be permitted for wear by USSF referees. Are the old style shirts on longer permitted? Also we were told that the three striped socks were not acceptable for wear anymore, the new “two stripe” sock along with the old “logo” sock are now the socks acceptable for wear.

Can we wear other badges with our new style shirts (special area badges, high school, college,)when not doing USSF sanctioned matches?

Can referee buy the MLS pro referee uniform or uniforms and do lower level games wearing them?

USSF answer (October 21, 2010):
We hope that you misunderstood the instructor, as there has been absolutely no change in the uniform requirements. The designs shown in the Referee Administrative Handbook (p. 37) are for the new design, but the old uniform may still be worn if it is presentable. Referees are still permitted to wear the three white-stripe sock or the black sock with the old U.S. Soccer Referee Department logo, as both are still USSF-approved.

As to wearing the uniform to officiate high school, college, or other competitions, referees must wear apparel that is approved for the competition in which they officiate. If there is no uniform requirement in a competition that is not affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, then referees may wear what they like, as long as they do not bring dishonor on the uniform or themselves. The uniforms worn by the professional-league referees are NOT approved for any USSF-affiliated competition other than those professional leagues.

The FAQ posted on the USSF website regarding the newer OSI uniforms remains in effect, referees can still wear the old and the new uniforms: http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Referee-Programs/2008/01/New-OSI-Referee-Uniform-Frequently-Asked-Questions.aspx…