Question:
i saw this school game when the referee given the Blue Team number 9 a yellow in the 1st Half. During the 2nd Half, the Red Team number 9 committed a foul and the referee give him a yellow card, but referee thought that the number was given the 2nd yellow card, he gave him the red card. That direct free kick resulted as a goal. The referee realised the mistake after the coach complaining and ask the Red Team number 9 to continue with the play. The referee restart the ball with a centre kickoff.

I understand that the referee made the mistake for allowing the goal as the goal scoring team has more players on the field due to the referee mistake. In the case, the goal should be disallowed, but the restart will be that direct free kick again?

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
Under the Laws of the Game, once the referee has restarted the game, he or she cannot change what happened before the restart. Therefore the Red number 9 remains sent off and his team must play short for the rest of the game. j The referee must include full details of the entire incident in the match report.

The goal stands and the restart is a kick-off, at least in the United States of America.…

Question:
In regards to Law 12, awarding an Indirect Free Kick to the opposing team when the goal keeper “. . . takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession”, there was a situation on a recent adult match.

During “active play”, the ball is picked-up by the goal keeper legally within his penalty area, and upon realizing that he was taking a bit long in releasing the ball back into play, I announced “six-seconds, keeper”. The keeper then drops the ball in front of him and begins to move the ball with his feet while still inside his own penalty area. The keeper was still trying to find one of his teammates to pass the ball to, and I announced “six-seconds” once again.

The two announcements of the six-second warning happened in about a four-second window, and then the keeper kicked the ball outside the penalty area.

After the second verbal announcement I made, one of the goal keeper’s teammates told me that the keeper was not in violation of the six-second rule because the keeper had released the ball from his position, thus the ball now being in active-play.

I was not sure if the actions explained here that the keeper took to not be in violation of the six-second time-limit was valid, thus avoided being cautioned for wasting time.

Could you please elaborate if in this situation the goal keeper violated the six-second rule, or not?

USSF answer (June 16, 2008):
Technically the goalkeeper must release the ball within six seconds of having established full control, which would not count rising from the ground or stopping their run (if they had to run) to gain the ball. However, goalkeepers throughout the world routinely violate the six-second rule without punishment if the referee is convinced that the goalkeeper is making a best effort.

Your warning to the goalkeeper was correct, at least on the first offense. However, once the ‘keeper has released the ball from his or her hands, the ball is now available for anyone to play with their feet — including the goalkeeper.…

Question:
At a recent tournament in San Francisco, I was working with a State referee. He was the referee of the match. The pre-game went like this. “I am going to make your job very easy. You are not to call any fouls. The only job that you have is to monitor the offside. The new mandate on a professional level and MLS is to have the referee call all the fouls so we don’t have three different types of foul calls on the pitch.” I have a hard time believing this guy. I have not seen any memorandum indicating such suggestions. If this is a new thing that I am not aware of please show or direct me to such mandate. If is pure fabrication on this referee/assessor/instructor part then we have a problem. If his pre-game/assessment/instruction to young referees of such then this horse pucky is being passed on to other poor referees that only going to believe such non-sense.  

To what extent does USSF allow referees to massage laws of the game and make up their own ideas and rules as they go along? Please advise.

USSF answer (June 4, 2008):
The Federation does not do any such thing. Current guidance for referee working games under the aegis of the U. S. Soccer Federation is covered comprehensively in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials.”

This “State referee” would seem to be doing what was common practice throughout the world 30-40 years ago, Things have changed a lot since then, as those of us who were around at that time are happy to testify.…

Question:
Please go over the following for me kindly..

During the FIFA World Cup matches, it appears the referee and possibly the AR’s the 4th man appears to have had a small head set (like one may use for our cell phones for hand free use) who had access to the this communication link..and was it like a conference line bridge between all the referees and a major FIFA official “upstairs in stands”?

Also Are you aware of any proposals being put forth on the Agenda for the Football Board meeting next year in Early 2009   that would make use of replay for limited situations like in the NFL?

USSF answer (May 19, 2008):
The system is used by the working crew only, with no other people plugged in. We have no idea whether video replay will be on the IFAB agenda for 2009 — but would tend to doubt it. We have heard nothing one way or the other.…

Question:
My U10 daughter is a type 1 diabetic and needs to wear a medical braclet. What is the rules about wearing jewelry or medical braclets. Can she wear a nylon band braclet with the standard round metal medical tag?

USSF answer (May 19, 2008):
Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment states very firmly in its very first paragraph: “A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewelry).” This means that all items of jewelry are normally considered dangerous. There are only two permissible exceptions to the ban on jewelry: medicalert jewelry that can guide emergency medical personnel in treating injured players and certain religious items that are not dangerous and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage.   Anything that is decorative or possibly dangerous to the player or to others is not permitted, but no referee should refuse to allow a medicalert bracelet to be worn if it is properly taped.

While jewelry is not allowed, there are two permissible exceptions to the ban on jewelry: medicalert jewelry that can guide emergency medical personnel in treating injured players and certain religious items that are not dangerous and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage.

For further information on the requirements of the Law for player safety, see the USSF National Program for Referee Development’s position papers of 7 March 2003 on “Player’s Equipment” and 17 March 2003 on “Player Equipment (Jewelry).” These papers are available at the ussoccer.org website via the referee home page.

One solution to your dilemma might be the nylon band bracelet you suggested yourself, with the standard round metal medical tag (provided it was not considered to be a danger). Another might perhaps be a tennis armband with the words MEDIC ALERT on it and the actual bracelet beneath it.

The U. S. Soccer Federation cannot give blanket permission for any item of non-standard equipment. This band would still have to be inspected and approved by the referee on each game in which your daughter plans to participate. It is our position that jewelry worn solely for medical purposes may be permitted but only if, in the opinion of the referee, the item is not dangerous. Such items can often be worn safely if appropriately taped.  If the referee does not approve the band, because it does not appear to be safe for all participants, then your daughter will not be able to play. As stated in Law 4, the decision of the referee is final.

Question:
The question concerns what constitutes a foul with regard to an attacking player “marking up” the goalkeeper.

A typical scenario would be a a corner kick by team A.

Goalkeeper for team B is well postioned just in front of the goal line inside the posts, facing the corner the kick is coming from. A player from team A marks the keeper and positions themselves either directly infront of the keeper (literally with their back pressed to the keepers chest) or shoulder to shoulder.

As the keeper moves to clear some space, the attacker adjusts and maintains a similar posture, shadowing the keeper in what seems to clearly be an attempt to distract the keeper or impeed the keeper’s ability to see or play a ball without having to move around player A.

Does this constitute a foul by the marking player, perhaps as misconduct or can it be considered impeding the progress of a player?

In short, is it a foul? And if so, what steps can the keeper take to counter the tactic and not be consider guilty of pushing or dangerous play?

USSF answer (May 14, 2008):
If the referee sees the situation developing, there are two choices: wait until the ball has been kicked to see what happens or step in proactively.

1. If the referee waits until the ball has been kicked to see what happens, there are two possibilities. If the player who is posting on the goalkeeper is attempting to play the ball, his tactics are legitimate. On the other hand, if the player is clearly attempting to interfere with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball, the tactics are not legitimate and the referee should call the player for impeding the goalkeeper and award an indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team from the point of the foul — bearing in mind the special circumstances applying to infringements within the goal area.

Unless this tactic is repeated, there is no need to caution the impeding player.

As to countermeasures taken by the goalkeeper against the marking player, they should be punished only if the opposing player is clearly attempting to play the ball and not playing the goalkeeper. The referee must exercise common sense.

2. If the referee decides to be proactive, he or she may stop play before the kick takes place and step in immediately and prevent a foul or even misconduct from occurring by having a word with the prospective perpetrator, whether it is the marking player or the goalkeeper. This keeps the ball with the team that won the corner kick (or other restart) and should defuse a potential escalation of the action into misconduct.…

Question:
During a U16 game, I was center and had a team that was two goals behind. The team behind scored and the defensive player from the winning team (2 goals) was taking the ball out of the goal when the player that scored (1 goal) — tried to grab the ball out of the hands of the player. Both were trying to get the ball to the center, the offensive player, in my opinion “felt” the defensive player was not fast enough. So — a pulling match began. I was close enough to control the issue and give both a “yellow” card for Delays the Restart of Play (DR), I thought both were in the wrong, even if the one player initiated. After the match, the coach from the winning team (defensive player) argued that the offensive payer cannot touch the ball after a goal and I should not have given a “yellow” to his player. Was his statement correct about who can touch the ball after a goal and was I incorrect to give the “yellow” to his player?

USSF answer (May 8, 2008):
After the referee has stopped play for a goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Team A). A player who provokes confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (See the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2007/2008.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (B) who was interfering with the Team A player carrying the ball to the center of the field.

The team which has possession (A) may “allow” the opposing team to hold/transfer/carry/etc. the ball by acceding to the action (i. e., not disputing it). However, the opposing team does this at its peril. In your game, Team B, perhaps believing that A was moving too slowly to carry the ball back to the center circle for the kick-off, tried to take the ball that “belonged” to Team A. Team B has no right at any time to request that the ball be given over to it (including such childish behavior as attempting to grab the ball or punch the ball out of the Team A player’s control.

Rather than immediately cautioning either player, the true owner (against whose team the goal was scored) and the “wannabe” owner (whose team will be defending at the kick-off), it would be better if you simply spoke quickly to both players, admonishing the wannabe owner to leave the ball alone. You could also tell the player that you will judge whether there is any “delay” in getting the ball back to the center spot and will, if necessary, add time to make up for any time lost.

There is little reason to immediately caution either player if you do what we suggest above. In any event, the possibility of a caution would depend on HOW the defender attempts to gain possession (i. e., how aggressively, how prolonged, etc.). We cannot see how the mere fact of attempting to gain possession is itself cautionable.…