Question:
I was watching a taped World Cup match (2006, Ghana vs. Italy). An Italian player broke at the halfline for goal, but was called for offsides. Apparently, neither the attacking nor the defending player heard the whistle, as they continued toward goal. About 22 yards from goal, the defender committed a cleats-exposed tackle from behind on the Italian player. This cannot be a foul, denial of a goal scoring opportunity, nor serious foul play, since the ball was not in play due to the offsides. The referee for that match did not card the defender for that particular incident. At the level of play I normally work (local travel matches with teenagers) and had it been during the run of play, I would have considered the defender’s action to be both serious foul play and denial of a goal scoring opportunity. And yes, in that sort of a breakaway situation, I hope I would be blowing my whistle very loudly to stop play to prevent the problem in the first place. My first question is that if I judge the actions of the defender to have been with excessive force and endangering the safety of the opponent, even though it occurred after play was stopped, would it be reasonable to send the offending player off for violent conduct? My second question is what is your opinion about the match control aspects, in general, of sending off for violent conduct in such a situation?

USSF answer (February 12, 2008):
When the referee decides to call the offside, play has stopped. Anything that occurs after the game is stopped can be punished only as misconduct. The decision to punish for any misconduct must be in the opinion of the referee who is on that game, not an observer.

In lieu of a direct answer, let’s turn your question around: What would be the consequences for match control if the referee did NOT send off a player who clearly committed violent conduct?…

Question:
ATR 5.8 says that once a player who has left the field because of blood or an equipment problem has fixed the problem the player may return “even if play is continuing.” Guide to Procedures, in the section on the Fourth Official and equipment problems also talks about notifying the referee the player is ready to return, “whether during play or at a stoppage.”  I also found a 4/23/2001 position paper, Players Temporarily Off the Field Involvement of Fourth Official, that says for bleeding, blood on the uniform, or illegal equipment, the referee should grant permission to return “as soon as possible without waiting for a stoppage of play.”

How are the instructions in these sources regarding equipment problems squared with Law 4 which clearly states that for any infringement of this law, “the player is only allowed to re-enter the field of play when the ball is out of play”?

USSF answer (February 4, 2008):
Short answer: In a game situation, most referees should do it the way the situation is covered in the USSF literature.

Longer answer for this situation during a game: The Federation has officially recognized that a player ordered off to correct an equipment problem can return to the field during play if he (or she) receives the referee’s permission and if the equipment problem has been corrected (and verified by the assistant referee or fourth official), assuming this authority has been delegated by the referee. If the referee has not delegated the authority, then only the referee can inspect and the player must wait for a stoppage to return to the field.

Longer answer for a test:  Since the literature defines policy for referees in this country and since any test a referee in this country might take would be solely guided by such advice, saying the player could return during play (if the specified conditions are met) would be entirely correct.

Only our FIFA referees taking a FIFA-sponsored test would have to remember that our guidance on this differs from the strict requirements of Law 3.  This divergence has been in place from the very first moment that FIFA recognized the ability to return to the field during play for all other situations where the player has received permission to leave or been ordered off under Law 5 — we believe that the principle underlying FIFA allowing a player to return during play under all these other scenarios should apply equally to being off the field to correct equipment.…

Question:
Where should the AR stand when indicating a goal kick? The Guide To Procedures does not specify a position. In our training classes, the instructor said that it is customary to be standing in the corner behind the corner flag when signaling. The rationale given for this is that the AR should have traveled all the way to the goal line to verify the ball was out, and therefore that is where he is left standing and thus the signal should be given there. However, there are a few reasons to challenge this.

One reason is consistency. For all other indications of ball placement by the AR, the position is directed to be perpendicular to the point where the offense (foul, offside, misconduct) occured. In an offside situation where the AR is still moving with the players while waiting for active involvement, once that involvement occurs, the AR moves back to the point of the restart and indicates the restart by pointing his flag. So it would be more consistent to have the AR move to a point perpendicular with the top of the goal area and indicate the goal kick restart with his flag (acknowledging that while the ball can be placed anywhere in the goal area, in practice it is rarely placed far from the top of the goal area). This procedure would have the additional benefit of making the restart more clearÊto all participants and spectators who may have missed the flag signal: the restart is a goal kick when the AR is at the 6, and it is a corner kick when the AR is at the corner. As an aside, I have noticed while watching EPL games that the EPL ARs signal goal kicks when perpendicular to the top of the goal area.

Another reason to challenge this convention is that due to a shortage of referees, many refs are pressed into service to handle multiple games a day. A referee who wishes to follow the proper procedures finds himself running needlessly all the way to the corner to indicate each goal kick, even on blasts that are taken from 30 yards out. While it might seem trivial to save 6 yards on every run down the touch line to indicate a goal kick, it would serve to save energy that is wasted unnecessarily in the desire to follow the customary procedures.

USSF answer (December 19, 2007):
We see no reason at all to challenge your instructor’s statement that it is customary to stand at or very near to the corner flag. As your instructor said, the AR is expected to run each and every ball to the goal line, no matter how “certain” it is that it will either pass out of play or that the goalkeeper will get it before any opposing player does. The Guide does not give this guidance to the AR for ANY restart. Nowhere does the Guide specify this for either the referee or the AR, because where a restart is signaled is a function of positioning during the dynamic play which immediately precedes whatever event causes the restart.

Your point about consistency is actually apt — though not for the reasons you suggest — even though there is a major difference between fouls or misconduct and a ball passing out of play over the goal line. The AR must be at the place to indicate as closely as possible where the infringement will be punished or the restart will be taken. The only possible exception would be in the case of offside, which will often not be punished at a point perpendicular to the AR, but at a point farther back up the field. (Remember that the restart for offside is taken at the place where the player was when he or she was when the the ball was last played by a teammate, not where the ball was received or the player finally became actively engaged.)

What you describe as needless expenditure of energy is what we think of as doing the job right. If there is a shortage of referees, help out by doing some recruiting to make the job easier for you and your colleagues.…

Question:
When waving down an AR there is always the chance that the referee is making a mistaken assumption as to which player the AR is indicating. Most times it is clear what has happened. But in situations (usually near midfield) where there may be a lot of players who could become involved in play and/or who are blocking the referee’s peripheral vision, mistaken assumptions can be made. Here is a situation that leads to some questions.The attacking team kicked the ball in the air over midfield. When the ball was played, there was an attacker wide on the left side of the field and another in the middle, both just over midfield and in offside positions. As the ball passed over the head of the attacker in the center, angling towards the attacker on the left, the AR raised the flag. It was just a bit early since the wide player had not yet touched the ball, but it was clear he was definitely going to receive the ball. The referee, assuming that the AR was prematurely indicating the center attacker was participating in active play, waved the flag down. The AR lowered his flag and quickly returned to his proper position with the 2LD. The offside attacker wide on the left received the ball and play continued for 4 seconds until the ball was put out for a corner kick. Now, had the defending team cleared the ball, or if the ball had gone out for a goal kick or throw-in for the defending team, there would be no problem. But since the attacking team retained possession of the ball, they continue to gain an advantage from the miscommunication between the referee and the assistant.

Since the AR is the one that knows what has happened, what should he do about this situation? Should the AR “insist” that the attacker who eventually (1 second later) received the ball player is offside and refuse to lower the flag when waved down? Should he indicate to the referee immediately upon the next stoppage that he needs to speak to the referee and inform him of the facts (and if this is the correct action, would itÊmatter if it had taken much longer than 4 seconds before the next stoppage occurred)? Should the AR simply comply with the referee and take no action? Or is there another answer?

And if the referee were to have discovered the facts, what action can he take? Has the offside been canceled once the AR lowers his flag, thereby eliminating his options? Or can the referee (aware that he could make mistaken assumptions when lots of players are around at the point of attack) hold up the next restart, quickly speak with the assistant, discover that the attacker who received the ball was also offside, and restart the game with an indirect kick fat the point of the original offside infringement?

It could be argued that changing the decision could negatively impact the referee’s credibility and game control, but the alternative outcome could be much worse such as a goal scored off the corner kick. And if the referee is permitted to restart with the indirect kick for the offside, then what is the status of a foul or misconduct that may have occured in the intervening time between the offside infringement and the next stoppage of play? Would a subsequent foul have to be considered misconduct since, technically, play was stopped at the original time of the offside and the foul took place when play was stopped?

USSF answer (December 19, 2007):
If there has been no subsequent restart between the moment when the referee waved down the assistant referee’s flag and the next stoppage of play, in this case the corner kick, the AR may confer with the referee. If the referee accepts the information supplied by the AR, the ball is brought back to place where the player was adjudged to be offside — i. e., where the player was when his/her teammate played the ball — and the indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team.

To attract the referee’s attention at that next stoppage, the AR should give the signal for offside: flag raised above his/her head and, when the referee sees the signal, indicate position on the field of the offside; in this case, the far side of the field. If there is a need to confer, then the referee must come to the AR. To avoid such situations in the future, the referee should make eye contact with the assistant referees as often as possible and should wave off the AR’s flag only if the AR has shown him-/herself to be unreliable. Let us emphasize here that unless the referee has reason to believe that the AR’s judgment is unreliable, an AR’s flag for offside should not be waved down. The exception here is when the developing offside situation is in the far third of the field, in which case the referee needs to delay action long enough to make an independent judgment about involvement in active play as typically he would be in a better position to evaluate this than an AR who is 50-80 yards away.

We would like to remind all referees — yet again — that touching the ball is not required when there is an attacker in an offside position making an obvious play for the ball UNLESS there is also an onside position attacker also making an obvious play for the ball. According to your scenario, BOTH attackers (one in the middle and one on the far left) were in offside positions and so the AR should have signaled as soon as it became clear that EITHER ONE OF THEM was making an obvious play for the ball.…

Question:
I have a question for you. but first i will tell you about an incident that happened {supposedly} during one of my games. i caution a player for a foul in the penalty area in the first half. in the second half the same player does the same thing, this time last defender, in the penalty area again. denying goalscoring opportunity. i send off this player. now the game is over. i then find out from the parents of the team that did not get the red card that when the player got to the touch line he high fived his teammates. unfortunately i did not observe this as i was tending to the injured player that was taken down from behind. now my question for you is this: if i observed this behavior, would a caution to his teamates and or coach be in order. or would i be able to terminate the game. i would think that if i saw this happening i would say that it is unsporting behavior. thank you for your time and wisdom as i am getting different answers from different referees.

USSF answer (November 27, 2007):
Once you have sent off a player you may not then caution that player for anything he does. And don’t even think about sending him off a second time! Nor may you caution his teammates and certainly not his coach — coaches may not be cautioned for anything unless the rules of the competition specifically allow it; the Laws allow you simply to expel the coach or other team official for irresponsible behavior. The only option open to you is to include complete details of everything you observed and heard in your match report. As you did not observe the high-fiving, you might suggest that the parents of the other team also submit reports to the competition authority.…

Question:
My question is regarding a technical error made by the referee and the consequences from it. The referee in error ended a game 3-5 minutes early; this is a fact. The losing team protested the score.

What is the correct ruling?

The game has to be replayed in its entirety or the last (non played) minutes have to be played out to be considered a full game. Or are there any other options.

USSF answer (November 26, 2007):
There is no fixed formula for this situation and it is not covered in the Laws of the Game. Unless there is some other provision for this in the rules of the competition, tradition says that the game must be replayed in its entirety.

It would have been nice if the error had been caught immediately, in which case the game could have been completed on the spot, restarting with a dropped ball from the place where the ball was when the referee stopped play or, if the ball had already passed out of play, with the correct restart for the reason the ball was out of play.…

Question:
Scenario: (real adult game)
Blue team is attacking on the White’s team side of the field. With the ball in play, Blue defender outside his own penalty area, commits a misconduct (violent conduct – head butt) against on opponent in plain view of AR2..

AR2 raises his flag to gain the attention of the referee (sorry no electronic flags) that has his back turned to him. AR1 mirrors AR2 (the fans are also screaming). The referee turns and makes eye contact with AR2 but does not stop play. Play continues for several more seconds. Now the referee stops play for a foul committed against a Blue player near the touch line on the AR1 side of the field.

During the stoppage, the referee comes over to the AR2 side of the field, he is informed of the misconduct and issues a send off to Blue defender.

Question: Proper Restart
Is the game restarted with a free kick in favor of the Blue team since play was allowed to continue and the reason for the stoppage was the foul or bring the ball back to the spot of the misconduct and restart with a free kick in favor of the White team?

I read both the ATR and the Q&A but I could not find an answer that would clear my doubt.

Answer (November 1, 2007):
Even though the referee stopped play for the foul against the Blue player on AR1’s side of the field, rather than for the serious misconduct flagged by AR2 and mirrored by AR1, the correct restart, after the “conference” during which the referee accepts A2’s flag, is for the foul committed near AR1. The restart will follow the sending off of the Blue defender for violent conduct.

When the referee accepts the trail AR’s signal (and there is CLEARLY no basis for considering the offense either trifling or subject of advantage), then we would count the stoppage as being for the offense signaled by the trail AR. Just because the referee stopped play thinking at the moment that it was for the second offense occurring near AR1, there is no reason why this opinion cannot be changed after receiving more detailed information from AR2. It is often the case that the referee sees the retaliation and misses what causes it. If an AR is able to supply relevant information about the prior offense, the referee can now sort out what happened first and decide on the restart accordingly.

Finally, shame on the referee for not following through immediately on the foul and misconduct committed by the Blue player behind the referee’s back. There is absolutely no reason for a referee to look at an AR, see the flag, and continue the game without stopping — unless there has been some reason earlier in the game for the referee to be wary of the AR’s judgment.…