Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 - Common Sense

PRIORITIES OF THE REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
Hello, I have a question related to the priority of the duties of the referee. I have searched US Soccer and the position papers and noticed there is a position paper related to the duties of the Assistant Referee, but nothing as to the referee’s priority. Now I understand that this forum may deal with generally higher level questions, but when you (as a lone referee) are assigned to a match (more typically a low competitive youth match, but not unheard of to reach mid-level youth matches) what is the priority of responsibilities to the teams/players and the game. From my understanding if you are to use “Club Linesmen” then they are limited to only calling the ball in-and-out of touch. This would put the burden of responsibility for “Enforcing the Laws of the Game” solely onto the referee. In a perfect world we, as a referee culture, would like to have 3 USSF Certified Referees on every match and be in 100% perfect position 100% of the time and make 100% perfect calls. However, as a referee of nearly ten years I know that is not always possible, especially when there is only one referee to cover an entire match. One such example would be, when a lone referee has to position themselves close to the penalty area during a corner kick and the ball is cleared up field quickly to an attacker who may, or may not, be in an offside position.

Now since the primary function of the referee is to ensure the safety of the players (through the Safety – Equality – Enjoyment Philosophy) I would believe that direct free kick fouls and misconduct would be the most important duty of the referee, then followed by offside (Law 11 violations) then followed by ball in-and-out of play (Law 9). I understand that offside violations can be game critical decisions, but ultimately no one can be physically harmed by an missed offside violation; whereas, a foul can have lasting physical problems for a player for years to come (ie knee injury).

Thank you for your time.

USSF answer (September 17, 2010):
SAFETY first, but the FAIRNESS and ENJOYMENT of the players are ensured by calling what NEEDS to be called. At any given moment, virtually anything might impinge on fairness or enjoyment, so the referee must be prepared to call ANYTHING. However, a referee can only call what he (or she) sees and the fact that, as a lone official on the field, it is more difficult to see things depending on what is going on doesn’t change this principle. That said, we must add that, after a long enough time doing this game, one begins to “see” things that mere mortals in the exact same position on the field might not. Finally, let us close with the reminder that, according to Law 5, all decisions of the referee regarding matters related to play are final. Period. No argument allowed.…

Insurance

SCRIMMAGE: AFFILIATED OR NOT?

Posted on by

Question:
An answer of November 19, 2007, states:
If the scrimmage appears as part of the regular assignment process and is listed by the league assignor, it should be considered by the referee to be officially sanctioned. The teams did not call the referees directly to make the arrangements, but went through the official assignment procedure with the league assignor.

My question: What if the referee for the scrimmage was not assigned by the league assignor, is the referee covered by USSF insurance. In my case the coach went out and obtained the center referee. I was not aware of the assignment but the referee was paid by the league coach

USSF answer (September 17, 2010):
Even if both teams are affiliated with US Youth Soccer, the game itself would not appear to be affiliated if it does not occur within the framework of an affiliated organization. If the teams did not go through the official procedure, we suggest that the referee check with local refereeing authorities to avoid possible problems with liability and insurance coverage.…

Advantage

ADVANTAGE AND MISSED SHOT

Posted on by

Question:
This week’s Week 23 USSF Week in Review features Brian Hall discussing the concept of advantage in the penalty area (referring to the 8 minute mark of the audio portion).

Mr. Hall states that advantage on a DFK foul by the defending team in its own PA can only occur if a goal is scored almost immediately; if not, the foul should be called an a penalty kick awarded.

Here is my theoretical situation. Let’s say a GK commits a DFK foul on an attacker, who releases the ball and the ball rolls to a teammate who now has a shot from 2 yards away on the 8-foot by 24-foot goal frame. It’s a “can’t miss” opportunity. But amazingly, the attacker somehow manages to mis-kick the ball and chips it wide of the post or over the crossbar (this is not impossible… a search of “Missed goals” on YouTube will turn a few of these up).

Clearly it behooves the referee to play advantage and give the golden scoring chance. But, according to Mr. Hall, once the shot misses the PK should be awarded. This is going to seem like double jeopardy for the defense, and will undoubtedly result in much angst and potential dissent from the defense.

The missed goal is not the fault of the foul or any play by the defending team; it is due to the technical inadequacy of the attacker.

I’m fine with following this directive, but I want to make sure that this is what is truly intended. I can sense situations developing in which we are following this direction and have to deal with subsequent dissent for the interpretation.

USSF answer (September 17, 2010):
For something over a year now, the Federation has espoused precisely the line expressed in the Week in Review. This line distinguishes between the concept of advantage anywhere else in the field and how the concept differs in the penalty area. What it comes down to is this:

As regards procedures, the mechanics of advantage in the penalty area would be to keep your mouth shut and the whistle down, no matter what. No referee should ever be caught on tape giving the non-PA advantage signal for something that occurred inside the penalty area.

As regards the substance of advantage, inside the penalty area advantage is defined solely in terms of scoring a goal “immediately” (i.e., within a play — roughly — a pinball-type carom off one player to another player and then into the goal would be included). If a goal is scored “immediately,” count the goal and card only if the original offense by the defender deserved it outside the context of S4 or S5 (Law 12 reasons for sending-off). If a goal is not scored, regardless of the reason, whistle and call for a penalty kick.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

MISCONDUCT WELL AFTER THE GAME HAS ENDED

Posted on by

Question:
Is there a period of time before and after a match whereby an incident involving a player and ref is no longer related to the match. An example would be where a player swore at a referee two hours after the match had ended.

I understand the Respect element however I want to ensure the disciplinary is dealt with in the correct context.

Many thanks.

USSF answer (September 14, 2010):
The referee’s authority ends after he (or she) and the players and other team personnel have left the vicinity of the field. Any misconduct committed by players or substitutes after the field has been cleared must be described in the game report and reported to the competition authority. The referee may display cards as long as he or she remains on the field of play after the game is over. Referees are advised to avoid remaining in the area of the field unnecessarily, as this can lead to the sort of situation you describe.

After two hours, the statute of limitations on including this matter in the match report has run out. We would suggest that you submit a separate report on the matter to the competition authority and to the state association.…

"Inventive Coaches"

“TAG UP” OFFSIDE AND PLAYER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS

Posted on by

Question:
I was an AR in a Division 2 adult match this yesterday. At around the 75th minute, near my touchline, the ball was played forward to a player in an offside position. That player ran into an onside position, then turned around and chased after the ball that had been played. No player, opponent or teammate, touched or played the ball from the original play of the ball until he played it himself. When he “interfered with play,” I raised my flag for offside. The center referee blew his whistle. The offending player originally didn’t hear the whistle and proceeded to kick the ball into the goal. As this would have leveled the game 1-1, he was understandably upset when he saw that the goal was being disallowed for offside. He came over to me and asked why I called him offside. I answered, quite simply, “You were in an offside position when the ball was played.” He asked, “Did I run into an onside position after that?” I replied, “I believe so.” He asked, “But I was still offside?” I answered, “Yes, you committed an offside offence since you were in an offside position when the ball was played to you.” He then summoned the center referee, saying, “Ref, your linesman doesn’t know the rules!” The center official came to me and I clarified what happened. As my call was correct, the defending team restarted play with an IFK.

I take from this that the attacker thought there was some sort of clause in Law 11 allowing a player in an offside position to avoid committing an offside offence by “tagging up” in an onside position prior to running onto the ball. Obviously, there is no such clause. But I’ve heard this sort of thing before from a few players and coaches. In my situation, the offending player’s words and actions contributed to an eventual caution for dissent after he got upset over another offside call I made two or three minutes later. (The second call wasn’t protested due to a misunderstanding of the Law; it was simply a mistimed run on his part) This caution is something that could have been avoided if the player had a better understanding of the Laws of the Game. As referees, I feel it is our duty to educate the interested public about the Laws. So what is the origin of this “tag up” misconception, and what can we as referees do to combat further misunderstandings about the Laws? Could I or my center referee have handled the situation better?

USSF answer (September 14, 2010):
The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players (and undereducated coaches). The attacking player was clearly wrong, despite his notion that, if he returned to a supposedly “onside” position to play the ball, he was doing the right thing. Clearly he, his coach and those other, similarly rule knowledge-challenged coaches and players need to review Law 11.

Let it be clear to all: A player may not return from an offside position to play the ball last played by a teammate.

And, finally, to the point of how the officials should handle such a situation: First, your discussion was FAR too extended. Second, you should never have stated that the player was called for offside because “you were in an offside position when the ball was played.” The player was called for offside because he did one of the three things he is not permitted to do while in an offside position. Third, the referee should NEVER have let a player even approach an AR to debate a decision — the response should have been “If you want to discuss a decision, you talk to ME!”…

"Inventive" Refs

PARRYING THE BALL; DIFFERENT RULES IN THE UNITED STATES

Posted on by

Question:
First question:
I’ve been taught that referees, for good management of a game, for players and spectators will enjoy the game, have to “sell their calls.” (For example, don’t lightly blow your whistle for a penalty kick. Blow the whistle like you know for sure!) My question is, what is the best way to “sell” the second touch call by a keeper after parrying a ball? Its a rule that many (or I should say EVERY) senior referees and assignors have advised I don’t call, a rule players are not aware of because it is never called. I am not afraid to have the conviction to call tough calls, but I need advice on this one. Would a pregame warning to keepers help? Maybe I can get petition for the rule to change to make it so that it applies to the spirit of why the rule was made (prevention of time wasting)? A wink and a nod to use discretion and to think that every shot, no matter how soft, will knuckle and might need to be knocked down?

Second question:
This is about the politics of FIFA, NFHS, and NISOA. Why don’t they have the same rules? Is any party trying to unify with the other?

USSF answer (September 7, 2010):
First question:
a) Never, NEVER lecture the players before the game. Why? Because they will then expect you to live up to every word, something you cannot possibly do.
b) Don’t call a foul because the players don’t know that this is a violation? Please! That is the most idiotic bit of sophistry we have ever heard! If no one ever calls the foul, how will the players ever learn? Pay no attention to such “old referees’ tales.”

We might add that this is one of those calls that you need to be sure about and, particularly, that it made a difference in the run of play (i. e., the keeper took second possession in order to prevent an opponent from challenging for the ball).

Second question:
There are no politics involved here. The NFHS and the NCAA (not NISOA, which is simply a referee organization) do not belong to the U. S. Soccer Federation and are thus not bound by the Laws of the Game, the rules the rest of the world plays by.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
I am grade 8 referee with about a years experience. I am getting progressively assigned to more competitive games. As a result I am seeing things/tactics I have not been exposed to and was wondering how to handle them. I was recently the center referee on a U14 competitive girls game where one team had a tactic of a quick, light pull on the sleeve of the player they were defending if they got beat. It did not seem to affect the direction or speed of the offensive player so I dismissed it as trivial. However, the girls started to get irritated by this tactic and were bringing this to my attention. I called a few fouls on different players but the tactic did not stop. The team that was the recipient of this tactic was also winning handily so I just let it go. Looking back at this I think these were tactical fouls and I should have cautioned players. How should this tactic have been handled? Call a foul the first time and tell the team that if it happens again the player will be cautioned?

Caution the player the first time it happens? What happens when the player cautioned quits the tactic but the other players on the team continue? Would you caution the other players as they commit the tactical foul as well? What would you do if other players continue this tactic until they were cautioned? I like to reflect on or analyze my games to see what I could do better so I can continue to improve so feedback would be appreciated. Thanks

USSF answer (September 7, 2010):
Depending on the age/skill level, warn the first (and possibly the second) time this holding occurs with younger/less-skilled teams, but call the foul (or apply the advantage) immediately with older, more skilled players. If the tactic continues after you have called the holding foul, caution that player for persistent infringement. Do not permit this or any other delaying or harassing tactic to continue without acting decisively to rein it in.…

Law 1 - The Field

SANDBAGS AS GOAL ANCHORS

Posted on by

Question:
Last night [a local administrator] instructed our officials that the sand bags out at [a soccer complex] which anchor the goals are not sufficient. Since these are the same sand bags used for Regionals, I am certain they would not have been used if they were not acceptable.
Can you please clarify?

USSF answer (September 6, 2010):
As we stated on March 15, 2006, this is a matter of player safety. There is no reason to look beyond Law 1. In describing the field and its appurtenances, Law 1 tells us, under “Goals”: “Goals must be anchored securely to the ground. Portable goals may only be used if they satisfy this requirement.” Using sand bags is one way of doing this, but even they present some danger. The decision can be made only by the referee on the spot.…

"Inventive" Refs

“LAST DEFENDER!”

Posted on by

Question:
I am currently a coach, parent, and member of our local soccer club board of directors. I have been around soccer most of my life. Our local youth premier league had their opening weekend recently, and I saw 4 occasions of what I would I thought was a strange call. This happened in U11 girls, U13 girls, U11 boys, and U12 boys.

The call as stated by the referee in all occasions was simply “last defender” One coach asked the referee what this meant, and was not answered beyond those words. The call incurred a yellow card in each case.

The first instance was in U11 boys. One of our defenders was playing catch up with a break away, and was just about to gain the goal side on the other player. The other player tried to take a quick shot, and kicked the turf and went tumbling. No contact happened, but I chalked it up to a center ref not leaving the center circle.

The second instance was in the U12 boys game. This time our player was making a run on the goal, and the opposing defender made a perfect tackle on the ball. Surprisingly there was no body contact, or slide involved. It was just a good solid tackle of the ball. The kind of defensive save that makes you cheer even when it prevented your team from scoring. The referee was at a very good vantage point to make this call.

The third was in U11 girls game. This time the defender was containing the girl nicely. Had per pressed to the outside, making a shot difficult at best. The girl took a sweeping kick, and the defender made her tackle on the ball at this time. The ball shoots out along the goal line.

The fourth instance was in the U13 girls game, and the offensive player came from the corner into the penalty area, and tried to make a move past the defender. Her move took her straight into the stationary defender, and she fell.

In all these case the ruling of the referee was “last defender”, and a yellow card was issued. It appears that in our league this year, it is illegal to be the last defender, but I was wondering if there were a better explanation for these calls.

USSF answer (September 1, 2010):
We see two possibilities here for the totally non-standard term “last defender.”

1.It could possibly have been the referee’s way of saying that the player who was cautioned had committed what used to be called a “professional foul,” usually committed as a last resort to stop a promising attack.

2. Or, rhis was a foul committed by a defender against an attacker under circumstances in which all the elements (the “4 Ds”) of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity have been met, in particular including the number of defenders where the referee has judged that there was only one or no defender between the location of the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the offense. Of course, given this, the card should have been red, not yellow.

We are aware of no possibilities beyond these and can only say that some referees, just like some coaches, are very inventive.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

RENTERIA

Posted on by

Question:
During the Concacaf Champions League game between Santos Laguna and the Columbus Crew on Tuesday August 24th a goal for the Crew was disallowed. Renteria, the Crew player who assisted on the goal, was not wearing a jersey with name or number, having had to change it due to the presence of blood. After treatment he was waved onto the field at least twice by the center referee which is clear from replays and the fourth official made no attempt to stop him from entering the field. The goal is scored almost immediately. It is only then that the coaching staff of Santos besiege the fourth official (who is Mexican as well). After a conference between the center and the fourth the goal is disallowed, Renteria is cautioned and has to come off to change his jersey. restart is a goal kick.

USSF answer (September 1, 2010):
Your description of the situation seems to suggest that the game was stopped because the player had no numbers or name on his shirt, not because he entered the game without the referee’s permission. That is a matter regarding the rules of competition, not the Laws of the Game and interpretations thereof, and thus falls outside our competence to answer.…