Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 - Common Sense

WHEN TO START AFTER SUBSTITUTE ENTERS FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
There is much written about Substitution Procedures under Law 3 about players leaving and entering the field and about referees being diligent about players being completely off the field before allowing the substitute to enter. 
However, one (this referee) cannot find any information about the responsibilities of the referee in allowing that said substitute, who is now the player of record, being allowed time to take position on the field before the referee allows the restart. One would think the center referee has the responsibility to determine the new player be allowed to be properly positioned before the restart. Is there anything written or “understood” about this scenario? 
Allowing a free kick to be taken before a player is properly placed is sure to cause a problem. An assessor told me allowing the player to access their proper position before the restart whistle is a mere courtesy. This cannot be correct.

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
Common sense and tradition dictate that the referee delay the restart until the newly-entered player has reached a reasonable position on the field.  The need for such a delay is obvious in the case of a substitution for a goalkeeper, but is less obvious for players who have no set position on the field.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

NEW PLAYER ENTERS EARLY AT SUBSTITUTION

Posted on by

Question:
If a substitute enters the field of play before being beckoned, and while the player is still on the field, can the referee force the player off the field and mandate the team play short until the next substitution opportunity?

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
The substitution procedure is quite clear: A substitution is not complete until each step has been properly executed. Before a new player may enter the field, he or she must be given permission by the referee. If that new player enters the field without permission, the process and thus the substitution has not been properly completed.

It would seem to be a bit extreme to force the player to wait until the next valid substitution opportunity. The Law states only that 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. (See Interpretations, Law 3.) In your scenario, the referee should stop play, if it has restarted, require the player who entered early to leave the field and then return and only then allow the restart to be taken.

In short, then, the onus falls on the referee, who must use common sense in dealing with this problem.  The substitute can enter the field this way under only two scenarios — either he enters before his player has left and without being beckoned, or he has been beckoned to enter before the player has left. In the latter case, it is the referee’s fault and the referee must bear the entire burden of sorting out the consequences.  This includes NOT punishing either the substitute or the substitute’s team for the referee’s screw-up.

In the former case (which is the scenario described here), the substitute has entered the field illegally and could therefore be cautioned for unsporting behavior.  Even if the substitute is not cautioned, however, it remains the referee’s fault if play is restarted because, according to the Interpretations, play cannot restart except by a whistle signal by the referee.  That is likely one of the reasons why the Laws now specify that the restart has become ceremonial whenever a substitution has been requested — so that play CANNOT restart until the referee has sorted out all the issues of a substitution which has not gone accordingly to the correct procedure. Again, common sense is the key to solving the problem.

See earlier questions and answers for the hornet’s nest that can be stirred up by allowing this to happen in a fast-moving game.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

REFEREE AND PLAYER EQUIPMENT

Posted on by

Question:
I was watching a game on TV from England’s premier league and was surprised to see a player with a diamond on each ear lobe during the whole game. I’m concluding the center referee didn’t care about this infraction because it was obvious that four officials couldn’t possible have missed this glaring jewelry. I suppose he thought it was not hazardous.

It was demeaning to the game to see a player in repeated closeups flashing his elegance right at the referee team. Then I thought assisting the assigned referee does not mean capitulation to his peculiar whims. So, what course is available to the assistant referees and fourth official? Can they refuse the assignment until the center referee gives way or should they just take it in stride and report it in their game report?

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
The longer we live, the more we see — and the more we notice that both players and referees sometimes flout the Laws of the Game, or at least fail to follow them clearly and logically.

No, the assistant referee and the fourth official may not boycott the game for referee failures of this sort. They can certainly make their observations known and must then cooperate with all instructions from the referee that do not cause the assistants or fourth official themselves to violate the Laws. If the failure by the referee is an egregious one, then the assistant(s) or fourth official should report it to the appropriate authorities.…

Law 11 - Offside

APPLES AND APPLESAUCE

Posted on by

Question:
I recently took a 50-question USSF recertification test. Two of the “official” answers seemed to deviate from statements made by you on this column.

The first question involved OS or not by two attackers standing apart at the top of the goal area during the taking of a free kick just off-center and outside the PA. The question stipulated that they did not move. Nonetheless the “correct” answer was OS, presumably for visual obstruction of the keeper. See your answer of 3/4/08 on this column.

The second question involved the r/s, if after a goal and before the k/o, it is discovered that one team had an extra person on the FOP.

The “correct” answer was no goal, if the extra person was on the goal scoring team, and goal, if extra person was on the other team. The question made no mention of any involvement in play by the extra person. In the absence of the latter it would seem to me that the answer is goal in either event. See your answer of April 2, 2008.

Thank you in advance for your assistance on this query.

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
In the both your questions you are talking apples and applesauce, in other words, two totally different situations. The two questions on the recert test are not affected by the two answers on Ask A Referee or Ask a Soccer Referee. The one in your first test question involves players standing at the top of the goal area, and the scenario does not tell us where they are in relation to the goalkeeper. More specifically, we fail to see how an answer about jumping up and down in a “wall” or in front of a keeper can have anything to do with a recert test question about offside. The question in the item dated 4 March 2008 involved a player who stood directly in front of the goalkeeper and who, IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE, did so to block the goalkeeper’s view. And there was a caveat in the 4 March question involving “merely standing.” It was stated that “this would be acceptable behavior unless (a) the attacker moves as the goalkeeper moves (which makes it similar to such behavior at a corner kick) or (b) is so close physically to the goalkeeper that it could be interpreted as an aggressive occupying of ‘personal space.”” Neither is the question regarding the extra person in any way related to what was discussed in the 2 April answer, which dealt with an outside agent entering the field. Apples and applesauce; related, but not related, made of the same materials yet totally different.

Finally, without knowing exactly (a) what level test you took (7/8 or 5/6) and (b) the questions whose official answers you question, there is little we can do. There is no such thing as an “official” 50 question recert test — there is only a 100-question grades 8/7 test — if a state association chooses to pull only 50 questions out and use them for recertification purposes, there isn’t anything we can (or should) do about it, but who knows what other changes might have been made. On the surface, the official answer on the first question (whatever it is) sounds acceptable — if they were just standing but still obstructing the keeper’s view while in an offside position, then they were clearly in violation of Law 11 and should be declared offside. On the second question, the situation again seems straightforward and not contradicted by anything we have said — namely, if a goal is scored but before the kick-off restart is taken, it is determined that the scoring team had an extra player illegally on the field, then the goal would not count regardless of what role (if any) the “extra” player had in the scoring of the goal.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT; SOLVING A WHODUNNIT?

Posted on by

Question:
The game was getting rougher as the boys kept missing their scoring opportunities and their frustration began to escalate. I made a decision in my head that I was going to have to card the next foul as persistent infringement in an attempt to settle the game down.

There was a poor choice of a tackle on the white team about 7 yards before the penalty area when they were attacking the black goal. I went to blow for the whistle when the ball went straight to an attacking white player who was wide open and did a few dribbles and took a good shot on goal. The keeper did deflect it and it went out of touch for a corner kick.

In the melee of players and from deciding to follow the player with the ball, I lost sight of the black player who made the foul. I went to chat with my AR and he didn’t see who it was either since he was watching else where on the field. So I went to the black teams captain and asked who made the tackle. He said he didn’t know. I then explain to the captain that this isn’t for him specifically, but it was for persistent infringement and I wasn’t sure who made the tackle either.

Besides making a better effort to try to pick out what player it was (the obvious answer) next time, what should my actions have been if how I handled it wasn’t correct.

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
We are not sure that your decision to punish just any foul by just any player as persistent infringement was the right decision to make, as it does not follow the traditional order of things. For there to be persistent infringement, a pattern of either of two things must occur: (1) one player fouls a number of opponents or (2) members of one team foul one opponent. These are destructive tactics aimed at destroying the rhythm of the game. Note: The actions described in (2) would be punished with a caution for unsporting behavior, not for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game.

If you feel that the game is getting out of hand and simply calling the fouls and giving stern talking-to’s to the players is not working, then just caution the next reckless foul as unsporting behavior. Don’t philosophize, act. And a cautionary note: If you don’t know and can’t get reliable information from other members of the officiating team, the only thing you can do is resolve not to make this mistake again. Although we have advised it in the past, asking captains, or players generally, to name a miscreant is not good policy.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

Posted on by

Question:
U 17 higher level girl’s game. Ball is played toward the goalkeeper and it is obvious that the goalkeeper will get the ball although there is an attacking player in an offside position a substantial distance away from the goal area. As ball is going toward the goalkeeper referee is distracted by other events taking place on the field and looks away and does not notice that the assistant referee has signaled offside although the attacker clearly was not going to get the ball and was not attempting to play the ball. Whistle is not blown and offside is not signaled by center referee. When center referee looks back, goalkeeper in reliance on the assistant referee’s signal has carried the ball outside the penalty area in line with the assistant referee, placed it on the ground and is preparing to take kick. Attacking team wants hand ball called for carrying the ball outside the penalty area. Your opinion on the proper way to have handled the situation?

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
The principal error here was the mistake was made by the player — taking the assistant referee’s signal as an indication that play has stopped (particularly given the “U 17 higher level” of the competition). We can apply these ancient words of wisdom to the situation: “The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players.”  The referee should either drive this point home to the goalkeeper by calling deliberate handling or, if feeling kindly at that time and perhaps a bit embarrassed, the referee could whistle to stop play, declare that the whistle was inadvertent, and restart with a dropped ball (because of the stoppage with no accompanying infringement or, as in this case, a trifling violation).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DGF or SFP?

Posted on by

Question:
Attacker A has beaten the 2LD and has only the GK between himself and the back of the net. Attacker A moves along the 18 in a fashion parallel to the goal line. GK “takes him out” (match referee’s description of the foul). Is this DGF (apart from possibility that it may also be SFP)?

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
You don’t tell us if Attacker A has the ball. If he does, it might or it might not be denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick (aka DGF). If the referee determines that the that the player was able to shoot — which is not clear from your question — then the correct call could be DGF. If not, there is always the possibility of serious foul play.…

Coach

EXERCISE CONTROL OVER ALL PARTICIPANTS

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent U13 girls soccer match, a coach (on the losing team) was actively abusing the center referee. As a result, spectators from the same team followed suit; in essence causing a free-for-all of verbal abuse. With 20 minutes left in the match the same coach’s daughter was (slightly) injured. The reaction to this, by the coach, was a slew of curse words as he proceeded to step on the pitch and remove his daughter. When told by the center referee that the coach’s behavior would be outlined in the match report, the coach proceeded to “abandon” the match; instructing his team to gather their belongings and leave. The referee did not abandon the match so would that mean that the team “forfeited”? To give some background, the match was not particularly physical and there existed no calls by that center referee which warranted this reaction. I couldn’t find anything in the LOTG which covered this, could you please give me some guidance? Thank you so much!

USSF answer (November 10, 2008):
Guidance: The result of the match is not the referee’s problem. Full details of everything that occurred must go into the referee’s match report. The competition authority resolves the problem and the referee has done his/her job.

The guidance you request was quick and simple, but the entire problem could have been avoided by doing something fundamental early on. If, after issuing a warning to the coach about his behavior, he persisted, then he should have been expelled from the game for irresponsible behavior. The referee seems not to have given that warning and then allowed the problem to become worse.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

THE SIX-SECOND RULE

Posted on by

Question:
I would like to know when FIFA adopted the rule which requires an indirect free kick to be awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession. My reason for asking is that I recently refereed a tournament in which I awarded an IFK in two separate matches. The reaction by the coaches clearly indicated their displeasure with my call, even though in my pregame routine I have made it a practice to remind the coaches, captains and the goalies directly to be aware of the six seconds and to release the ball from their possession within that time frame. To be honest I do not count just to six seconds and then blow the whistle. I count slowly to eight seconds and then blow the whistle. This assures me a high level of confidence that the six seconds have passed without resorting to watching my watch which would take my eyes and concentration away from the field and the players.

My other concern is that while I was watching other matches or when I was an assistant referee in other matches I noticed throughout the matches goalies keeping possession well beyond the six seconds and the referee paying no attention to it. As an assistant referee is it also my responsibility to enforce the rule and should I have raised my flag?

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
The six-second rule was introduced into the Laws of the Game about 20 years ago. This particular portion of the Law is noted for its not being called strictly to the rule — and there is a reason for that. The six-second count does not begin until the goalkeeper is clearly in possession of the ball and ABLE to think about releasing the ball into general play. Not while the goalkeeper is on the ground; not while he or she is recovering from a fall; not while he or she is rising: Only after the goalkeeper is clearly alert and ready to function.

Anything beyond that time is a matter for the individual discretion of the referee, who is the sole judge of the passage of time in a soccer game.

Using the guidelines above, you can mention this in the pregame conference to the ARs who work with you or to the referee when you are AR, but never, never make calls on situations that are clearly visible to the referee.

Finally, a point we emphasize in our answers to this and similar questions about goalkeeper release of the ball: Most of the time the offense is trivial as long as you are seeing an honest effort to put the ball back into play. We also recommend that the referee warn the ‘keeper about the time on the first offense before we do anything more about it.…

"Inventive" Refs

VIOLENCE, “MY SPACE,” AND COMMON SENSE

Posted on by

Question:
An offensive player, with control of the ball, runs hard into a defensive player – literally taking the player off his feet and on his back. The player maintained control of the ball. If in the view of the referee it was unsportsman like conduct – essentially targeting the player – what and how would the call be handled? The confusion was since the player maintained control of the ball, you could not call it then since the ball would change teams. Another person said, a hit is a hit…the defensive player should have moved.

Any ideas.

USSF answer (November 4, 2008):
You need to stop talking about the Laws of the Game and their proper interpretation and application with people who clearly use illegal substances.

Let’s see if we have this right: A player violently runs over an opponent who refuses to relinquish his space on the field. Despite committing this premeditated mayhem, the player manages to maintain control of the ball. We wouldn’t want to call this a foul and serious misconduct, because then possession of the ball would change from the assassin’s team to that of the innocent victim, who clearly should have moved out of the killer’s way. Hmmm.

We hope the answer is now clear to you: No player is allowed to use violence while playing the ball or attempting to play the ball and/or the opponent. No player is required to give up space which he or she has taken legally simply because someone else wants it; rather, other players are required to go around a player in such a position. The fact that a player has committed violent conduct does not mean that his act is okay because he retained possession of the ball. Send off the attacker for violent conduct; restart with a direct free kick for the opponent’s team at the place where the foul and the violent conduct took place.

And please encourage your colleagues to read the Laws a bit more carefully.…