Category: Procedure-Ref

Procedure-Ref

Law 18 - Common Sense

WHAT TO DO?

Posted on by

Question:
In a U-19 mens match, a player went in for a hard challenge, missed the ball and fouled his opponent. My immediate reaction was to caution him for the reckless foul but when the two players got up they started swinging at each other. The near AR and I quickly sorted things out, then I sent off (red carded) both of the players.

Now I wonder if I should have first shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior, then the red card for violent conduct. Since the player did not have a prior caution, that might seem confusing to the coach and spectators, but in some leagues disciplinary points are issued for every card.

What is the proper procedure in this case?

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
The referee should IMMEDIATELY think preventive refereeing and get between the players BEFORE they start swinging. If that fails, the showing of the yellow card first may be confusing but is the correct action. The referee should always punish the initiator first in these situations. After the caution, then send off both players. If there is any confusion, explain it in the match report.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE AND READING MINDS

Posted on by

Question:
Today I was a single ref in a youth soccer boys game. My question concerns an offsides call that I made.

The offensive player was bringing the ball into the PK area on the right side (near post). The goalie was approximately in the middle but favoring the far post a little. An offensive player was clearly in the offsides position about 4 feet inside the far post waiting for a pass. He didn’t get the pass. The player with the ball shot the ball on the ground at the near post and scored. I did not see the goalie move toward the offsides player who remained 4 feet inside the far post. Of course I couldn’t read the goalie’s mind and I don’t know if he was partially focused on the offsides player. I don’t know if the goalie would have moved closer to the shot if the offsides player wasn’t a threat at the far post.

As soon as the goal was scored I disallowed the goal and called offsides. (the coach opposed my call saying that his man was not involved in the play) I based my call on the possibility that, by necessity, the goalie was frozen and couldn’t move toward the player with the ball or couldn’t move toward the near post. In essence the off-sides player could have made the goal wider by making the goalie stay near to him. I thought that was an advantage. Again I didn’t see the goalie move toward the off-sides player and I couldn’t read his mind.

What call would you have made?

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
Not offside. Referees should not attempt to read the minds of players or attribute to them actions that are not clearly evident. Referees act only on facts and the results of player actions. In this case the opponent was in the offside position, but you present no evidence that the player acted to interfere with an opponent, so he could not be declared offside. (There is no such thing as “offsides” in soccer.)…

"Inventive" Refs

ACCURACY IN MATCH REPORTS

Posted on by

Question:
If a referee submits a referee’s report about an incident during a match and the date on the report is different from the the date the actual match was played, is this report valid? the report submitted by this referee gives a different date from the match day he was referring too.

Secondly can the match report contain incidents that he said alledgally happen. This refers to an incident he didn’t actually see him self. Should he just report the facts of the incident. Does this type of report make the match report invalid.

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Inaccurate data on a match report is generally unacceptable. The final decision on that rests with the competition authority and the panel it has appointed to review the matter.

That is the reason why we constantly stress that referees check their data several times and proofread their reports before sending them in.

As to incidents that the referee did not actually see, we submit that, as the referee is obliged to take into account any events seen by an assistant referee or fourth official, there is no reason why the same information (assuming it is relevant) should not be included in the match report.

Of course, if there was no AR assigned and the lines were run by club linesmen, then the referee can only report incidents he did not see as hearsay, not as fact.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELAYING THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
I am currently being told by higher level referees and the referee advisor for our area that I should not issue yellow cards for delaying the restart even though the laws say this is a yellow card offense. I tell the captains of both teams that I will issue a card if a player does not give 10 yards, or an attempt at 10, when i point to the spot for the kick. The players involved are all u-15 and above so they know the law but are being coached to delay the kicks so that their team can get into position. It is hard to enforce this rule when you see the upper division referees as well as the FIFA referees repeatedly telling players to move back and then marching off 10 instead of issuing a card for a player blocking a quick restart. What is the official position on this?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Well, right or wrong and based only on the information you provided, the official position in your area seems to be not to referee in accordance with the Laws of the Game. However, that is not the official position of the U. S. Soccer Federation.

The Federation encourages referees, ARs, and fourth officials to first ask the players to get into position and take the restart correctly. If the players do not respond to this verbal encouragement, then the referee must take action in accordance with the Law. You will find the procedure outlined in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees under Law 12:

Delaying the restart of play
Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by tactics such as:
* taking a free kick from the wrong position with the sole intention of forcing the referee to order a retake
* appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to one of his teammates to take
* kicking the ball away or carrying it away with the hands after the referee has stopped play
* excessively delaying the taking of a throw-in or free kick
* delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
* provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play

Referees who fail to follow this procedure do the game and the players a disservice.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INTIMIDATION OF OFFICIAL IS A SEND-OFF OFFENSE

Posted on by

Question:
The following occurred in a U15 elite boys match.

3 minutes into a match two players challenged for a ball on the touchline 3 yards up from where I was the AR. The player in white, slid in and was the last to touch the ball (in my opinion) before it went out of touch. I signaled a throw in for red. The white player who last touched the ball was on the ground about 2-3 yards from me.

He stood up and stepped forward a little. Clearly invading my personal body space his face was now about 10 inches from mine and he was about as tall as me. He looked me right in the eye in a clear intimidating fashion. I should have told him to immediately back off, but I was just shocked a player would do this 3 minutes into a game. He stood there 3-4 seconds, turned away and said, “Why don’t you watch the f***ing game”.

This was clearly a straight red card for vulgar language and I called the center over and told him what happened and he issued a yellow card.

My question is specifically this. If the player had done nothing more than standing up and stepping forward in an act of intimidation as I described, should this be a red card?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Yes — with some hesitation. We would really like to have been there to see the player’s manner — to see, for example, whether the player could argue that the act of getting up naturally put him in such close proximity to the AR, to see whether, having gotten up, the player moved closer, etc. A red card is a fairly stiff penalty for intimidation via occupying personal space with no touching, no language, etc., but only the referee or AR on the game would know which was most appropriate for this particular moment of truth. An immediate clear and concise verbal report to the referee would be most beneficial. In this case the referee chose the caution, an action he will have to live with.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CAUTIONING A SUBSTITUTE FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY

Posted on by

Question:
Is it true that there are only three cautions that can be given to a player on the bench? If that is true, is it true that entering the playing field without permission is not one of the three?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Yes, it is true (see below). The substitute who enters the field without the permission of the referee is cautioned for unsporting behavior.

Disciplinary Sanctions
The yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.
//deleted//
A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offenses:
* unsporting behavior
* dissent by word or action
* delaying the restart of play

You will find the notice about cautioning a substitute for entering illegally in the 2008 supplemental memorandum on law changes:

Law 12
The International Board has reconfirmed this year, by making no change in the list of reasons for which a substitute or substituted player may be cautioned, that a substitute or substituted player who illegally enters the field is to be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Law 12 The International Board has reconfirmed this year, by making no change in the list of reasons for which a substitute or substituted player may be cautioned, that a substitute or substituted player who illegally enters the field is to be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

. . . and in the Advice to Referees, Advice 12.28.1.…

"Inventive Assessors"

DANGEROUS PLAY VS. PHYSICAL CONTACT — OR NO FOUL AT ALL

Posted on by

Question:
is it possible to call dangerous play instead of direct kick foul when physical contact is made? ie: ball is rolling toward and near goal line, defender is 1 step ahead of attacker, both runner toward goal line, defender reaches around the ball to clear it back toward halfway line and kicks attacker in the process. not kicks toward attacker but makes physical contact, kicking the attacker on his follow through. my ar’s argued the defender didn’t see attacker gaining ground and didn’t intend to kick him, dangerous play. i believe as soon as physical contact is made, dangerous play is no longer an issue, it must be straight forward direct free kick for “kicking an opponent”. is it possible to call “dangerous play”?

USSF answer (April 17, 2010):
No, it is not possible to call playing dangerously when there is contact. In this situation we see no foul at all, simply incidental contact. No kicking or attempting to kick, no playing dangerously. It is simply a trifling contact that is not a foul, unless the referee believes in his or her heart of hearts that the act was premeditated — and your description of the situation does not suggest that.

Referees should not always be looking to call fouls in 50-50 or trifling situations. Furthermore, this is NOT what the “dangerous play” offense is all about! A referee CANNOT convert a player’s act to dangerous play simply because there was no intent.…

"Inventive" Refs

FOUL? PENALTY KICK? INDIRECT FREE KICK? NO FOUL!

Posted on by

Question:
Your site is a wonderful resource. Thanks for helping all of us become better referees.

I am the center ref at a U-18 USSF game. An attacker on a breakaway enters the box. The keeper hesitates, unsure whether to charge out or wait for the shot. Keeper decides to come out. Attacker gets the shot off and it slides under the keeper’s lunging body but goes wide of the goal. However, the keeper’s frantic attempt to stop or deflect the ball results in contact with the attacker, who goes down. I am in a very good position to see all this, and I note that at the time of contact the ball hasn’t crossed the goal-line. The keeper’s action, I decide is neither careless nor reckless vis-a-vis the attacker, but is dangerous (actually, to the keeper more than to the attacker). So I blow the whistle, show the keeper a yellow card and indicate an IFK within the box, where the foul was committed. The attacking team fails to score. At half-time, I am told by one of A/Rs, an experienced ref who I respect, that a PK should have been called because “you can’t have a contact IFK against the defence in the penalty box”. I maintain that, since the attacker got the shot off, and missed, awarding a PK against the keeper would provide the attacking team with two bites of the cherry(and might require sending-off the keeper as well) while, given the fact that the keeper was trying to get the ball rather than the player, albeit by playing in a dangerous manner, an IFK was appropriate. Was I wrong?

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
We would suggest that you are operating under a slightly “iffy” premise, that the goalkeeper’s action constituted playing dangerously. All referees need to remember that the job of the goalkeeper is inherently dangerous; everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. 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 we need to learn. There was no foul in this situation, at least not as you describe it. Not a penalty kick, not an indirect free kick.

No need to discuss the advice you were given by others in this case; just disregard it.…

Interpretations/IFAB

AR SEES WHAT REFEREE DID NOT

Posted on by

Question:
If an assistant referee witnesses a foul but does not call it because “he is not closer to the foul than the center ref” and the center ref does not call it, should the assistant notify the center as to what he saw or let the play continue?

USSF answer (April 8, 2010):
“Closer to the offense” is much less important than angle of view. If the referee cannot see the offense because his or her view is blocked, and the assistant referee can see the event clearly, then the AR must flag if the there is a definite foul or misconduct.

In this year’s copy of the Laws you will find this excerpt in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game, under Law 6:

Before signaling for an offense, the assistant referee must determine that:
* the offense occurred closer to the assistant referee than to the referee (this applies, in certain circumstances, to offenses committed in the penalty area)
* the offense was out of the view of the referee or the referee’s view was obstructed
* the referee would not have applied advantage if he had seen the offense

…
Injury

SHOULD THE REFEREE ADMINISTER FIRST AID?

Posted on by

Question:
During a match a while ago, a very unique situation occurred – one that I have never seen nor heard of before. I was observing a close under 14 girls mid-level match on a wet day while I waited for my ride after my last match of the day and I did talk to the Referee after the match to pin down some of the details.

So, here we go. A defender was dribbling at speed into her own penalty area playing for time to pass the ball to the outside to a team mate who was running into position to accept the pass. The dribbling defender had an attacker just off the back of her left shoulder. The defender touched the ball forward and then ran up on it. As the defender’s right foot moved forward to kick the ball, the attacker lunged forward with her own leg between those of the defender, missing the ball, and causing the defenders kicking leg to impact with the attacker’s ankle, at which point the defender tripped, and fell awkwardly with the attacker falling next to her.

The Referee blew the whistle, and awarded a direct free kick to the defender (for tripping) and pulled the yellow card from his pocket to award a caution for Unsporting Behavior.

Let’s leave questions as to the correctness of the decision up to now, because what occurred next was the strange part. The Referee had the card in his hand held straight down by his side, presumably to show to the attacker once she regained her feet. However, the attacker was more seriously injured than she had upon first glance, and she apparently had dislocated her knee when the defender’s legs scissored her own as the defender fell. Now to add to the strangeness of the situation, I know that the Referee, a friend of mine, is a certified Emergency Medical Technician in the State of Colorado. As such, when he observes a serious injury to someone, he is required by State law to render assistance to the best of his ability. To this end, he quickly stuck the card back into his pocket, called both coaches onto the field (the defender was shaken up on the play as well), yelled for the lead AR to enter the field to keep and eye on the players, identified himself to the running coaches as an EMT and knelt to begin examining the attacker. He quickly determined that an ACL tear was likely and had a parent call for an ambulance.

He remained with the attacker until the ambulance arrived and he could hand off custody of the case to the arriving paramedics. After the ambulance left, but before play was restarted, he informed the attacker’s coach that his player had been cautioned for UB, before restarting play with the direct free kick for the defender’s team.

Under these very narrow facts and circumstances, were the Referee’s actions correct? While his personally tending the player is not in line with USSF policy, State law regarding medical professionals clearly overrides USSF policy. Secondly, when the Referee officially removed his EMT hat and put back on his Referee hat, the girl was in the ambulance already. In both of our opinions, he would have looked foolish showing the yellow card to the back of a moving vehicle. He would have looked equally foolish, not to mention cruel and uncaring, if he had shown the card to the player while she was curled up on the ground in tears. He had already pulled the card out, and the foul, in his opinion, most certainly warranted a caution. Could he simply take no action at all? Or, as he actually did in this case, could he consider pulling the card out to be “showing” it and verbally inform the coach of the caution? We both agreed after the match that things would have been simplified if he had left the card in his pocket and used the “slow” carding method (book then show), in which case he would have seen the extent of the player’s injury before the card was ever out. However, he was still determined to caution the player, as in his (and my) opinion the self-injury did not wipe out the reckless tackle and injury to the defender. Had he gone the slow path, when would the correct time to show the card be? While the player was on the stretcher? Finally, a hypothetical situation – if a referee was not an EMT in this same situation, and therefore left the player to the attention of the local athletic trainers, when (if at all) should he or she show the card? In this case, there is not the eminently justifiable reason of needing to tend to the player’s injury, but there also does not appear to be an opportune moment to show the card. We both agreed that in a higher-level match we would just show the card in the general direction of the player while they were on the stretcher, but at this age, we both felt that such an action would necessarily outrage the protective instincts of the watching parents, and cause the referee an even worse headache in the long-term.

Hope you can help sort this one out with me.

USSF answer (March 31, 2010):
The referee’s grasp of procedure appears to be quite good. As to exercising his skills as an EMT, if it has to be done, it has to be done, particularly if by not doing so he would have placed himself in legal jeopardy. Clearly a quick request for someone in the crowd with similar skills would have been good, but, . . ..

The referee will normally wait until the player has been treated or has risen before showing the card, but each situation is up to the decision of the referee. There is no definite schedule of events here. In a worst case situation, the referee could do as he did, informing the coach of the caution, or less usual but still acceptable, show the card to the captain (but be certain to explain the action).…