Category: Procedure-Ref

Procedure-Ref

Handling

GOALKEEPER DROPS BALL, PICKS IT UP

Posted on by

Question:
Today’s question involves the goalkeeper releasing the ball from their possession.

Situation is U15Gs, travel, but really just above recreational in skill. Early morning game, grass is wet, ball is wet. Goalkeeper is wearing gloves and long sleeve jersey.

Goalkeeper picks up a ball, is moving towards edge of penalty area to release. In some combination of fumbling, squeezing, and the ball being slippery, the ball slips out of her possession and onto the ground. Goalkeeper picks the ball back up immediately.

Does this constitute a second touch by the goalkeeper?

My first thought is I’m asking a question with an obvious answer — yes, this is a second touch. Accidental or deliberate, the ball was released, and picked back up again without an intervening touch by another player.

If so, can you then explain the rationale that allows the goalie to toss the ball into the air and catch it, or bounce it and catch it, and not count as a second touch? I certainly understand why we dont allow the opponent to challenge in those conditions, being potentially dangerous. But why cant we expect the goalkeeper to just put the ball back into play without any intervening tosses or bounces?

And does this not then put us referees in the position of judging a deliberate, allowable “second touch” vs. an accidental release and recovery, which is not allowed? Why cant it just be a release is a release is a release?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
Of course there was a foul, but read on. There is no analogy with tossing the ball up in the air and catching it, because that action has ALWAYS excluded the ball hitting the ground (which is what happened here). All the offense takes is deciding that the goalkeeper had possession in the first place.

The entire refereeing system puts referees in the position of judging whether or not an offense has occurred. We make thousands of decisions of this nature during a game, even those involving “Under-tinies.” In this particular situation, the referee must make the judgment based on the skill level of the players, the conditions on the field, and any other considerations that occur during the game.

Of course, the referee could always decide that there wasn’t any initial possession (i.e., control) and so there wouldn’t be an offense, but the scenario says that the ball “slips out of her possession” so, again, obviously there was a “second touch” offense.

But deciding there was an offense is only the first (though necessary) step in deciding if the offense should be called by stopping play and punishing the foul with an indirect free kick. For that, the referee must decide that the offense was not trifling — in other words, wasn’t important, didn’t affect the course of the game, didn’t unfairly prevent an opponent from challenging for the ball by taking possession a second time. Given the description in the scenario, this seems very likely.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

BLATANT CHEATING ALLOWED BY REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
The grass on the field is “tall” at the start of the game. At halftime the socre is tied 0-0. Out of the parking lot mowers appear and cut the grass only on one half of the field. This half turned out to be their team’s attacking half of the field. The opposing team files a protest with the referees and league officials that this is not fair. They play the second half but under protest. The team whose offensive side of the field was mowed wins the game. What is your opinion? Should the game have been satrted at all? Was it fair that the grass was cut on only one half of the field? Did the team prostesting gave up their right because they played anyway?

USSF answer (August 22, 2008):
The first response that comes to mind is to wonder why the referee allowed the mowers on the field at all until after the game was over. If they were to be allowed, which is certainly up for debate, both halves of the field should have been mowed. The Spirit of the Game requires that conditions be equal for both teams throughout the match, not simply in the first half.

The referee should be ashamed for having allowed this travesty to take place. The competition authority should require that the game should be replayed in full.…

"Inventive" Refs

IDENTIFYING THE EXTRA PLAYER

Posted on by

Question:
I was in a recent over-30 game I was in had the referee stop play when he noticed there were too many men on the field. A correct call. However, in this particularly league there is no 4th official and there were no AR’s. No one from either team knew who or when the extra player entered the field but all parties thought it happened during a recent substitution several minutes prior when several players came onto the field and several came off. Since the referee did not know who the extra player was that entered illegally, he gave the caution to the player that was closest to him. However, this player had a previous caution and thus just earned a red card for his second yellow and was sent off. Was the referee correct in this situation?  He claims that it’s the player who is closest to him who gets the caution.  I am a referee as well and I think it’s up to the captain of the team to pick the player to receive the yellow card. The referee is not the one to make this call.

USSF answer (August 19, 2008):
No, the referee was not (and would not be) correct in automatically cautioning the player nearest to him. Another case of inventive — and really silly — refereeing. The entire problem was the referee’s fault for not paying attention to how many came out and how many entered the field. Referees cannot caution willy nilly, as this would likely destroy what little remained of their credibility after the initial error of failing to pay attention. There was no need for a second caution to an apparently innocent party, which could and should have been avoided. The referee’s third lapse was in not considering what possible good a caution would serve, regardless of who got it.

There is at least one thing that might be done, such as asking of the captain (or even the coach) who the last substitutes coming in were and which players were supposed to have left. That will usually find the player who was also not paying enough attention.…

Law 8 - Start/Restart

DROPPED BALL

Posted on by

Question:
Last few minutes of the Brazil/Norway women’s game on 15 Aug… A Brazil player is asked to leave the field for a likely injury/blood situation. The referee then indicates that a drop-ball will be the restart (I believe we’re all good to this point.) A Norway player steps-up and plays the ball long to 2 attacking teammates. The referee then calls BACK the ball and does a drop-ball AGAIN…

How could this have been a valid 2nd restart with a drop-ball?

Obviously, the referee indicated drop-ball the first time, the ball touched the groud and the ball was played. There may have been some confusion on what the referee had really wanted to happen, but the ball did seem to be legally and correctly put back into play…

How could the referee justify the 2nd drop-ball restart?

USSF answer (August 18, 2008):
On the surface your response to the situation would appear to be correct. Once the referee has dropped the ball and it is in play — as soon as it hits the ground — that would seem to end the matter. However, we cannot second-guess a referee at an international tournament. There may have been other circumstances that neither you nor we are aware of.…

Advice to Referees

OFFSIDE: INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
My question relates to the AR’s mechanics of signaling for an offside offense.

Attacker #1 is in an offside position when the ball is played (for this instance he is very close to the 2nd to last defender so the AR is also at the same relative location on the touch line).
Attacker #2 is in an onside position when the ball is played.

Both attackers are making an effort to play the ball along with a defender, but it is not yet clear which attacker (if any) will play the ball first. Also, attacker #1 is not interfering with (impeding) the defender’s ability to play the ball. Obviously, if either the defender, or attacker #2 play the ball first, there is no offside to call. However, if attacker #1 plays the ball first, then it is an offside offense.

The question is on mechanics. Which of the following would be correct?

#1 – The AR stays in position when the ball was played and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact w/ the referee and points to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#2 – The AR runs down the touch line maintaining proper position with either the ball or 2nd to last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact w/ the referee and points the flag to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#3 – The AR runs down the touch line maintaining proper position with either the ball or 2nd to last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee, lowers the flag and runs up the touch line (maintaining eye contact with the referee) to the initial position attacker #1 was at when the ball was played (the time he was determined to be offside) and points the flag to the correct far side, middle, or near side. The position of the restart is where the AR is standing.

#4 – Do you have another option ?

The problem with #1 is that the AR will be out of position should either attacker #2 or the defender have the first touch. The AR would be out of position to possibly actually see who had the first touch. The AR would be out of position to possibly see a subsequent offside offense or any other fouls or misconduct in his/her end of the field.

The problem with #2, which I believe is the most common performed (and I am also guilty of performing), is that the restart is not in the correct location. Depending on the initial location of attacker #1, the size of the field, and the ages of players, this could actually result in an advantage for the attacking team. For example, the initial position of attacker #1 was only 3 yards into the attacking half, and the next touch of the ball is just at the top of the penalty area, and the players are 12 years old (or even adults for that matter).

The problem with #3, which I believe is the right thing to do, is that it would most likely create much discussion (and yelling from sidelines).

There is no advice on this topic that I can locate.
Thank you for your opinions / advice.

USSF answer (August 18, 2008):
The correct option is none of the above, although #2 is the closest of the bunch.

The AR runs down the touch line, maintaining proper position with either the ball or second-last defender, and then raises the flag when attacker #1 touches the ball or it is clear that attacker #2 cannot get to the ball ahead of attacker #1. When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee and points the flag to the far, middle or near side, whichever is correct. The AR then moves back down the touch line to a point in line with the correct spot for the restart.

A quote from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful:

“Interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate. A player can be considered playing the ball even without touching it if, in the opinion of the referee or assistant referee, that player is making an active play for the ball and is likely to touch it. If contact is likely, the offense (offside) can be called when the official makes that determination, even if there is no contact with the ball.

An attacker in an offside position is not considered to be interfering with play (and, therefore, is not judged offside) if, in the opinion of the referee, another attacker starting from an onside position will clearly make first contact with the ball. In this situation, officials must refrain from calling an offside offense until they make this determination.

Note: There is no specific advice on the matter because it is left to the discretion of the referee to cover the issue in the pregame.  The issue, simply put, is that the AR must continue to maintain proper position during the period of time between when an offside position is noted and when the offside violation is clear enough to be flagged.  The AR’s position must be maintained in this scenario because of the possibility that an offside violation may not occur.  The issue outcome hinges on identifying the correct location of the restart.…

"Inventive" Refs

WHEN MAY A CARD BE SHOWN TO A SUBSTITUTE?

Posted on by

Question:
In a game I played yesterday, one of the substitutes was verbally advised by the referee that as soon as he came onto the pitch to play that he would give him a yellow card.

The incident came about as the subsitute said something to the linesman during the 20th minute of the game. The referee did not show a yellow card at the time, but advised the player that as soon as he did come into the game that he would give him a yellow card. The substitute came into the game in the 75th minute and as soon as he entered was shown a yellow card.

Can the referee do this, or does he have a time limit on when to show a yellow card?

USSF answer (August 11, 2008):
Another inventive referee! If it was going to be done at all, the referee should have cautioned the substitute at the moment of the misconduct — or at least prior to the next restart. Under these conditions, i. e., the referee was aware of the misconduct (dissent, we presume) and had not received any later signal from the assistant referee, the referee must caution at the next stoppage following the misconduct or he or she no longer has that privilege. The referee can, of course, still include details of the misconduct in the match report, but it cannot be considered to be a caution.…

Law 17 - Corner Kick

DO I NEED A WHISTLE FOR A CORNER KICK?

Posted on by

Question:
before a player kicks for a corner kick, is he or she signaled to kick by a referee with a whistle?

USSF answer (August 11, 2008):
Under normal circumstances, there is no need to wait for the referee’s signal. If the referee wants the kick to be delayed, he or she will let the kicking team know in plenty of time.…

"Inventive" Refs

COIN TOSS PROCEDURE

Posted on by

Question:
Is there a procedure that is to be followed?
I have heard in the past Spring season:
* Do not bend over to pick up the coin. You shouldn’t bow down to “the captains”
* Do not let the coin hit the ground. You will bear your hind quarters to half the stadium.
* Do not catch the coin and flip to the back of your hand. You “reverse the outcome”.

Yet, in the recently concluded Euro 2008 Tournament, I witnessed all three of the above examples in various matches.
This is only trivial. You just hear so many different “you should do this and not that” from various referees.
Thank you for your time and attention regarding this question.

USSF answer (August 6, 2008):
No, there is no set procedure for the coin toss.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
i did a veteran game and a few players of a team is not satisfied with a two decisions against them within minutes.

a while later, i feel that particular player defender is trying to test me. a long ball is send towards him from the opponent, and when he clear the ball, an opponent was trying to block the clearance. i saw no contact or late tackle, so there is no foul. at the same time, he shouted for pain and holding his ankle. i knew that it is fake.

after a second or so, he shouted “good call, referee”, which definitely not a praise.

is this unsporting behavior? what should i do if i encounter such acting again? i know that simulation in the penalty area appealling for penalty is a caution, but this is different situation.

USSF answer (July 30, 2008):
No matter how hard we try, not all players will be satisfied with our decisions. What the player did was to express his dissatisfaction openly. The first act, simulating a foul, with a slight hint of feigning injury by crying out in pain, is a cautionable offense (unsporting behavior). The second act, “Good call, referee,” was dissent, also a cautionable offense. How you deal with these situations is a measure of your ability to manage players.

Much of it depends on how confident you are in dealing with such situations. You will find that this varies from game to game, from team to team and from player to player. Caution this player if need be, but if the rest of the players seem satisfied with what you are doing, then simply have a quiet word with the dissenting player. Remind him that he has committed two cautionable offenses and could already have been sent off. Then warn him that further acts like these will not go unpunished. Finally, do not forget to follow through if these or similar acts occur again.

Finally, just to make it clear to other readers, it is not only simulation in the penalty area, but simulation anywhere in the field in an attempt to influence any decision by the referee (is or is not a foul, is or is not misconduct, is or is not a red card instead of a yellow card) is itself misconduct.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

“RIGHTS” AT A FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
What rights do the kicking team have in the wall during free kicks?
If the defending team sets the wall and a member of the attacking team wants in the wall too, where can he go?
This is usually done to duck under or jump over the free kick.
Must they set up on the ends? Are they allowed to get between the defenders?
I see them pushing for position and am not sure what their rights are since it is their team that is being penalized.
thanks

USSF answer (July 25, 2008):
The defending team has only two rights at a free kick:
(1) The right to retire immediately a minimum of ten yards away until the ball is in play, i. e., is kicked and moves. Any player who fails to do so runs the risk of being cautioned and shown the yellow card for failure to respect the required distance at a free kick, no matter what they may see in professional games.
(2) The right not to be diverted by the referee interfering with the action in other than a ceremonial free kick situation. This is what the referee is doing when he or she starts talking with the opponents — even if saying nothing more than to back away — or, worse, when the referee is actively engaged in being “the first brick in the wall” while still allowing the kicking team to kick whenever it wishes. The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” lays out a fairly simple set of rules for the referee — keep your mouth shut unless you have to or are asked to step in — in which case the free kick automatically becomes a ceremonial restart and the first thing out of the referee’s mouth had better be an admonition to everyone that the free kick cannot now be taken without a signal by the referee.

The kicking team has rights too: the right to a “free” kick, free of interference from the opponents and, if they wish to take the kick quickly, free from the interference of the referee. The referee cannot abdicate the responsibility to ensure that the free kick is indeed “free.”

No member of the kicking team may force his or her way into the wall set by the defending team. If there is a hole in the wall, the player may go there, but may not then interfere with the ability of the defending team to play the ball. Such players may go to the ends of the wall or set up in front of the wall, paying heed to the caveat in the first sentence — no interference with the wall once the ball is kicked.…