Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

"Inventive" Refs

SAFETY FIRST, PLEASE!

Posted on by

Question:

On 6/16/06, you wrote the following:

“In those competitions that do not provide for water breaks, the spirit of the game requires the referee to ensure the safety of the players. Preventing injury from heat exhaustion would fall into that aspect of the referee’s duties. The answer may be summed up in two words: common sense.

“In fact, both the referee and the team officials share in the responsibility to protect player safety. The referee could, at a stoppage called for any reason, “suggest” the taking of water by any players interested in doing so. The timing of such a break and its length would be at the discretion of the referee. Obviously, the referee could decide to take this approach on his or her own initiative, with or without prior consultation with the coaches.

“However, either or both coaches could approach the referee prior to the match and suggest the need for extra hydration, in which case the intelligent referee would be well advised to listen and act accordingly.”

– –  In the past few days, a referee has claimed that these instructions have now been superseded by the USSF and that a referee cannot suggest a water break or even allow a break when the ball is out of play – no matter how hot the day or how young the players – unless it is in the tournament rules. Is he correct that things have changed or is the opinion from June of 2006 still valid?

I hope that you can address this quickly with the hottest part of summer approaching. The health or even the lives of some young players might be at risk.

Thanks.

USSF answer (July 13, 2009):
The opinion of the United States Soccer Federation remains the same as it was in 2006:  The safety of the players comes first and referees are expected to see to it that players are protected in every way possible.

Addendum:  It is possible that you may have been distracted by some controversy over an incident in a professional game.  Those are adults, playing other adults, all of them aware of what is going on.  Referees are not to order water breaks at professional games and should apply common sense at other levels.…

Interpretations/IFAB

INTERFERING WITH PLAY (THE FINAL ANSWER)

Posted on by

Question:
I’m sure you’ve seen this and I’m sure someone somewhere has said something to the Federation, but in Interpretations it absolutely positively says you don’t have to wait for contact with the ball to put up the flag for interfering with play if you think no onside player has a chance to play the ball. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the 3/29 memo which is just as clear that you DO have to wait until contact is made with the ball.

So we seem to have a clear case of USSF policy contradicting LOTG. Do you have any idea what is going on?

USSF answer (July 8, 2009):
The intent of the language associated with diagram 4 under the interpretations for Law 11 —

A player in an offside position (A) may be penalized before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

— is the IFAB’s typically roundabout way of saying precisely what we have always said in this regard; namely, that the race between an attacker in an offside position and one or more attackers in an onside position can only be resolved by seeing which one gets to the ball first and touches it. In the absence of any onside position attacker who is judged clearly unable to get to the ball before any of his onside position teammates, the offside offense may be called. This is NOT the same situation as when a ball is played toward an attacker in an offside position attacker and the only way to tell if that attacker will interfere with play is to see if that attacker touches the ball. In the absence of touching the ball, we cannot make any inference that the attacker could or might interfere with play because he or she could, right on up to the last moment, not touch the ball.

NOTE: In other words, there is no contradiction of the March 29, 2009, position paper.

Further, even if this is taken as a digression from the IFAB interpretation, this would not be either the first nor the only place where such a divergence has occurred. We remain, for example, at odds with the interpretations on such other matters as the AR’s signal for blatant goalkeeper movement at a penalty kick and whether a player who is off the field to correct an equipment problem can return to the field while the ball is in play (assuming the referee has given permission and the responsibility for checking if the correction has been made was delegated to the AR or 4th official).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“MAKING ONESELF BIGGER”

Posted on by

Question:
In Referee Week in Review – Week 15, the first video clip illustrates a deliberate handling foul (Colorado at Seattle, 32:00).

In the podcast discussion, the concept of “making oneself bigger” is emphasized. In the video, as the ball strikes the player, the player seems more to be making himself smaller, drawing his arms inward and slightly turning his body away from the ball.

I am not questioning the handling call itself, as it is easy enough to argue that the arms were deliberately moved into the path of the ball. But could you explain further how the concept of making oneself bigger applies to this particular incident?

The player taking away the kicker’s passing lane using hands/arms is also discussed. Prior to making contact with the ball, the player does leap with arms stretched upward–is this where making oneself bigger applies? And if so, how does this factor into the foul since no contact with the ball occurred while the arms were outstretched?

Thanks much.

USSF answer (July 8, 2009):
Referees at all levels must understand the criteria and the context in which terms are used and must analyze how the term, concept or criteria should be extended to use in a game. This is the case with the criterion “making yourself bigger.” Remember, not EVERY example or use of a criterion can be mentioned. For this reason, the ability to analyze and understand how it should be interpreted or applied is critical to an official’s success.

Here is the full definition of “making yourself bigger” found in U.S. Soccer’s 2009 Referee Program Directives. The definition should answer your question.

This refers to the placement of the arm(s)/hand(s) of the defending player at the time the ball is played by the opponent. Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling. Referees should interpret this action as the defender “deliberately” putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent (like spreading your arms wide to take away the passing lane of an attacker).

• Does the defender use his hand/arm as a barrier?

• Does the defender use his hand/arm to take away space and/or the passing lane from the opponent?

• Does the defender use his hand/arm to occupy more space by extending his reach or extending the ability of his body to play the ball thereby benefiting from the extension(s)?

Nowhere in the definition does it state that “making yourself bigger” applies ONLY to the arms at your side. On the contrary, it merely covers “takes away space from the team with the ball…” and “deliberately putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent.” Notice, it does not mention only to the side nor how far from the body the arms/hands can be. The definition also says “LIKE spreading your arms wide….” Key is the word “like.” This means there are other reasonable answers.

So, in this case, think about what “bigger” means. When a person is said to be “bigger,” it does not mean only to the side. It means all around the body. This should include above the body as well. A player can clearly take away a passing lane or space from an opponent by extending his arm/hand directly in front of himself. This fits the definition of “making yourself bigger.” Think about the concept and draw a mental picture for yourself.

Concepts like “making yourself bigger” and “unnatural position” can overlap also. This is a case when both occur in the same action by the defender.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

NOTIFYING REFEREE OF GOALKEEPER CHANGE

Posted on by

Question:
My basic assumption about this was challenged this weekend by a seasoned referee. I realize that the ref must be notified if another player already on the pitch changes places with the goalkeeper during the game, lest the ref caution each player at the next stoppage. I had always been led to believe that this same rule applied to coaches changing keepers during the halftime interval, that if the ref is not notified of the change, then the cautions apply. I was told I was wrong on my understanding and that cautions could only be issued if the change happened during the run of play, not during halftime.

Keep in mind that the majority of my games are youth games with open, unlimited substitution permitted and have always chosen to “remind” coaches of this if I noticed a goalkeeper change at halftime rather than issue cards. Nevertheless, should it be desireable for me to do so, could I caution both players involved in a GK change at halftime if I were not notified, or does this apply only to a GK changing places with a field player on the pitch during the run of play.

Thank you for you assistance.

USSF answer (July 7, 2009):
Although that is no longer in writing, the Federation still recommends that the referee be proactive in such cases and ask if there will be/have been any substitutions at the halftime break, particularly at the youth level. The Law itself now requires that the full substitution process be completed before the half begins or any period of extra time begins. See the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees at the back of the law book. The final bullet point applies here.

LAW 3 – THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Substitution Procedure
– A substitution may be made only during a stoppage in play
– The assistant referee signals that a substitution has been requested
– The player being substituted receives the referee’s permission to leave the field of play, unless he is already off the field of play for reasons that comply with the Laws of the Game
– The referee gives the substitute permission to enter the field of play
– Before entering the field of play, the substitute waits for the player he is replacing to leave the field
– The player being substituted is not obliged to leave the field of play on the halfway line
– Permission to proceed with a substitution may be refused under certain circumstances, e. g., if the substitute is not ready to enter the field of play
– A substitute who has not completed the substitution process by setting foot onto the field of play cannot restart play by taking a throw-in or corner kick
– If a player who is about to be replaced refuses to leave the field of play, play continues
– If a substitution is made during the half-time interval or before extra time, the process is to be completed before the second half or extra time kicks off.

…
Law 18 - Common Sense

REFEREE-ASSISTANT REFEREE COMMUNICATION

Posted on by

Question:
1. Is there a proper way as an AR to signal the center referee over?

2. When an AR feels a necessity for a player to become carded, what way is the AR suppose to let the center referee know?

USSF answer (July 6, 2009):
This is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference. Normal procedure for dealing with situations of that nature are:
1. Stand at attention.
2. Stand at attention; when the referee looks over, indicate by patting the chest that a card is necessary.…

"Inventive Coaches"

PRESENCE OF THE GOALKEEPER ON THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Simple question, do you have to have a goalkeeper to start a game? Or can you use the minimum seven players as on field players.

Why I ask, while watching a game last week, the keeper walked off the field (with permission by the ref) and the team refused to put a keeper in as there was 10 minutes to go. The referee refused to start the match until a keeper was put in. Is this correct?

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
Simple answer: Yes, each team must have a designated goalkeeper on the field of play for the game to begin. However, that does not require that the goalkeeper be on the field the entire time nor present for every REstart.

While the team is required to have a goalkeeper, there is no requirement that that goalkeeper be on the field nor able to participate in play. (We could point to an October 2004 incident in an English Premier League match between Manchester City and Bolton Wanderers in which the referee allowed the goalkeeper to lie on the ground unattended for well over a minute; the goalkeeper, who had fallen without any contact from either opponent or teammate, finally got up. Luckily for him and his team no goal was scored.)

The Law also allows the goalkeeper (or any other player) to leave the field during the course of play and if, after the restart (typically a throw-in), the goalkeeper has not returned and a goal is scored, life is hard.

While off the field with the permission of the referee, the goalkeeper (like any other player) is still a player for purposes of determining the number of players on the team (the ‘keeper in your scenario remains legally allowed to be on the field, though in this case he requires the referee’s permission to return).  We would consider this as comparable to the decision process the referee must go through if a team has only seven players and one leaves the field:  If the departure is very temporary and in the course of play (no referee permission required to re-enter), play continues.  If the departure is temporary and the player needs the permission of the referee to return, the referee should not restart play until the player has returned with permission. If the player (whether goalkeeper or not) is not ready to return when the restart is able to be taken, why should the game wait for this player? That is not fair to the other team. In the case of a goalkeeper who is not willing to return within a reasonable amount of time, the team should then either substitute in a new goalkeeper or the game would be abandoned and a full report submitted to the competition authority.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

LAZY REFEREES AND GETTING THE CALL RIGHT

Posted on by

Question:
I was reading through the May 2009 Archive about the goalkeeper injury. This brought to mind a situation that I witnessed at my son’s High School match. I am a recreational referee, and realize that the high schools here in Texas play under UIL rules, not the LOTG. Nevertheless, the situation seems clear-cut. During the match an attacking forward was 1 v 1 with our goalkeeper. The attacker was playing the ball a yard or two in front of him and as he approached the goal box, the goalkeeper reached down to pick-up the ball. The attacker continued through, while the goalkeeper had his hands on the ball, and kicked or kneed the goalkeeper in the head, causing both players to go down. The contact was sufficiently hard to knock the goalkeeper unconscious and he was totally immobile. A defender was able to clear the ball in touch. The AR was parallel to the incident and had a clear view, but the CR was about a yard out of the center circle (where he spent the majority of the match.) The CR allowed the throw-in and the opposing team finally put the ball in touch so the goalkeeper (who literally had not moved at all the entire time) could be attended to. The CR had never made any made a call, never took any disciplinary action, and never even stopped play to address what was obviously a very seriously injured player, in large part because failed to be in a position to follow the active play.

1. Should this not have been a foul for kicking?
2. Should it not have warranted Sending Off for Serious Foul Play (excessive force), or at least a Caution for Unsporting Behavior (reckless)
3. Should not have play been stopped immediately when it was obvious the goalkeeper was unconscious (he was actually unconscious for well over a minute. When he went to the hospital, had a serious concussion and was out for a month.)

I believe I know the answers, but would like to get your take and how culpable is the CR for not being in position to see and the AR for not making him aware of the situation.

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
If all was precisely as you describe it, then the following answers apply to your numbered questions.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, serious foul play.
3. Yes.

The referee is expected to cover as much of the field as possible to manage a game properly. Yes, the referee should have been close enough to play to see this incident and deal with it properly. In addition, the AR, given the poor positioning of the referee, should have passed the information to the referee. That point concerns us almost more than the referee’s dereliction of duty.

We recommend that this incident be reported to the authority that governs high school soccer in your area. The report should include date, place, time, teams, and a full description of the incident.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

MINIMUM AGE FOR REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
Can I get clarification for an ongoing question

Assuming a game is with U15 Players, and the referee is a Grade 8

What is the minimum age requirement for the Center Referee and AR’s?

Where can I find this information in the rules book?

USSF answer (June 30, 2009):
The USSF Referee Administrative Handbook tells us this: There is no minimum age requirement for referees and assistant referees. State associations may set the minimum ages for games played under their jurisdiction.

A rule of thumb is that the referee should be at least one year older than the players he or she referees, but it is not a requirement and you will not find it in any rule book that we are aware of.…

"Inventive Coaches"

COACH’S RIGHTS

Posted on by

Question:
During a referee meeting we had a lengthy discussion about the right of a coach to address, discuss with and question the head referee during a game.

In the opinion of the referee/coach (one party) the coach should be addressed and “catered” to by the head referee when he has an objection. In his logic the reasoning for this is, that FIFA has “invented” the fourth referee and USSF gives the advice (at the higher levels) that the fourth referee is there to be addressed by the coaches if they have any problems. This serves also avoiding any additional aggravation of the coach, if his objections are not taken serious. If there is no fourth referee than the coach has the right to address the referee, discuss and make his objections known. The referee can – if he does not want to discuss- tell the coach to be silent.

In the opinion of the referee / instructor (the other party) the rules and the administrative handbook is very clear about the fact that the coach does not have the right to address, discuss and question with the head referee (or the AR) his concerns, especially during the game. The danger of intimidation and gamesmanship from the side of the coach is big (and with this the “not re-registering” of a lot of young referees). Therefore the only course of action from a referee toward a coach that is questioning, commenting or trying to discuss can be –if the request is friendly- to answer friendly that his calls are not open for discussion. If it gets to or starts at a harder point of discussion, the points warning, caution and send off are in order towards the coach. No discussion at any time during the game.

The factor starting the discussion was a game on the same day where the referee/coach had a player that in his opinion was fouled by the goalkeeper. The referee saw this different and did not call a foul. The player got injured or injured himself. When the coach attended on the field to the injured player and the referee was standing by, he asked him “How can this not be a foul”.

The referee/instructor sees in this a clear violation of the rules by the coach; the referee/coach sees this as his right, especially as the “referee was one with experience and he can defend himself”.

Can you please comment? Thank you very much.

USSF answer (June 23, 2009):
Ah, coaches. Some of them are a pleasure to deal with (the ones who read our Q&As), while others are less aware of what their rights are. The answer? The coach has only two rights once the game begins: (1) to stand in his/her technical area (or team area) and offer advice to his/her team and (2) to set an example of sporting behavior for the players of both teams. And the right to do even those things must be exercised responsibly or the coach will be expelled from the area of the field. The coach has no right to speak to the referee, the assistant referees, or, if there is one, the fourth official, unless invited to do so by the individual concerned.

Referees do not have to defend their decisions to coaches. If the coach has complaints he or she should put them into a report and submit it to the league (or whatever authority governs the competition in which the game is played).

If you want further information on what the fourth official can do, please review to US Soccer’s 2009 directive on managing the technical area. It covers many issues regarding the handling of coaches including “ask, tell, remove.” You will find all the 2009 directives at http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13172742.html…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

HOLDING HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
ast weekend I was the CR for a U12G game at a local tournament and had a situation that I had never seen before. Early in the first half. Red player has the ball and is attacking. Blue defender is trying to stay between the red attacker and the goal.

The odd thing was that both the attacker and the defender had interlaced their fingers to get a grip on the other player. The attacker appeared to be trying to hold off the defender and the defender appeared to trying to move the attacker away from the goal.

I stopped play, warned both girls, and restarted with a dropped ball (closer to the red player that had had possession). My theory was that both girls were equally guilty of holding.

What should the call and the restart have been? Would your answer change if this happened in the blue defenders penalty area?

USSF answer (June 28, 2009):
Unless there is some way of determining which of these “lovebirds” started holding first, then your decision might be correct. However, a viable alternative to the dropped ball would be to wait until the outcome of the “mutual holding” becomes clear.  The dropped ball is rarely a good solution for offsetting fouls.

Most important of all, please remember that in no case should the referee make a different call if this were to occur in the penalty area. We call a foul the same in all situations, no matter where it occurs on the field.…