YES, THE GOAL IS GOOD!

June 10, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A recent Internet video clip shows a kick being taken during KFTPM, in which the ball strikes the crossbar, rebounds high into the air, and lands (with lots of backspin) about 7-8 yards out from the goal line. While the ‘keeper is paying no attention to it, having already begun celebrating the save (and presumedly returning to the instructed position, to allow the opposing ‘keeper to prepare for the next kick), the ball slowly bounces and rolls across the goal line, between the goal posts and under the cross bar.

Since this is during KFTPM, not at a penalty kick, is there a “time limit” on how long the referee should wait before deciding that this kick has been completed? It seems that the governing authority (not under USSF) has declared that, since the referee allowed this goal, the match must be replayed.

What is the USSF position on this?

USSF answer (June 10, 2011):
We are unaware of any ruling on this play by a “governing authority,” but the PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF A MATCH OR HOME-AND-AWAY, listed at the end of the Laws of the Game, tell us, “Unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game and International F.A. Board Decisions apply when kicks from the penalty mark are being taken.” The decision for a kick from the mark should be treated exactly like a penalty kick in extended time. Under the Laws of the Game the ball remains in play until the referee determines that it has gone out of play. See Advice to Referees 14.13 which states “So long as the ball is in motion and contacting any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored.”…

"Inventive" Refs

TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY, THAT IS THE QUESTION

June 6, 2011 by Jim Allen

Wurdyion:
Hypothetical situation:

A U14 Girls game is scheduled to start at 6 pm and it will be dark not too long after 7:30 pm. It has been raining for quite some time. There are T-storms in the area but no visible lightning. The radar shows that the rain will continue through at least part of the game.

The league rule is that once at the field, it is the referee’s decision regarding unsafe playing conditions and if the game should be postponed.

During warm-ups, both coaches talk to each other and both approach the main referee and share that they both have concerns for their players’ safety and ask the referee to postpone the game.

Should the referee honor this request even if he/she isn’t convinced that unsafe playing conditions exist?

If I understand the reasoning for giving the referee the ability to postpone a game correctly, it is because 1. he/she is impartial and can either decide to play or not if the coaches disagree on playing conditions or 2. to protect the players if both coaches are insisting the game be played.

But I am not sure if a referee’s discretion should trump a situation where both coaches agree that unsafe conditions exist.

In other words, if the 2 coaches agree that unsafe conditions exist, should that be enough to get the game postponed? Being youth soccer, shouldn’t player safety be first and that it is better to err on the side of caution?

If there are any published guidelines on this type of situation, please let me know where I can find them.

USSF answer (June 6, 2011):
The Spirit of the Laws should be clear enough for everyone and at every level of play: The safety of the players comes before anything else. However, once he or she has arrived at the field, only the referee has the right to declare a game suspended, abandoned, or terminated.

In addition, nothing in the Laws of the Game gives the referee the authority to “postpone” a game. The referee deals only with the case at hand, not any rescheduling issues.…

Advice to Referees

DISSENT OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE

June 1, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I refereed a Girls 17 game when out of my line of sight, an attacking player hit a defensive player in the face. An player on the attacking team ran up to me and started to scream at me. She was about a foot away from me. I cautioned the player for dissent. After the game, I was talking to a National referee, and he said that what the player did was abusive language (no cursing involved) and that he would have given the player a red card. Did I make the right call? What is considered abusive language? Thank you for your help.

USSF answer (June 1, 2011):
Under the Law, a player is sent off for using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures. That incorporates the whole of human communication. “Liberty” must be defined within the context of the particular interaction. The Laws of the Game do not care which language a player, team official, referee or AR speaks. What is important under the Laws is what that person actually says or means or understands. None of that is necessarily language-dependent.

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

“The referee should judge offensive, insulting, or abusive language according to its content (the specific
words or actions used), the extent to which the language can be heard by others beyond the immediate
vicinity of the player, and whether the language is directed at officials, opponents, or teammates. In
other words, the referee must watch for language that is Personal, Public, or Provocative. In evaluating
language as misconduct, the referee must take into account the particular circumstances in which the
actions occurred and deal reasonably with language that was clearly the result of a momentary
emotional outburst.

“Referees must take care not to inject purely personal opinions as to the nature of the language when
determining a course of action. The referee’s primary focus must be on the effective management of
the match and the players in the context of the overall feel for the Spirit of the Game.”

If you felt threatened or offended by the onslaught of language from the player, then the national referee was correct: the player should have been sent off for an infringement of the Law.…

Indoor

PUNISHING PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT IN INDOOR

May 30, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In indoor soccer, a subsititute dissents after getting a blue card, and a yellow card (2nd blue). The referee issues a red card, does the team play short?

USSF answer (May 30, 2011):
As we understand it, someone gets a blue card, and then gets a yellow card for misconduct. And then ,separate from the other 2 incidents (later in the game), is judged guilty of dissent as a substitute on the bench. That dissent is a caution, so it’s his 3rd card. He gets a red because it’s his 3rd card. No, his team does not play short, and nobody serves the 5-minute misconduct in his stead. The documentation on the ejected player should reflect a blue, yellow, yellow, and a red. The red is administratively issued for receiving 3 cards in the same match.

Just FYI, if the sequence is simultaneous, then the answer is different. Same at all levels.…

"Inventive" Refs

WHOM TO SEND OFF

May 30, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
While serving as an AR, I witnessed a flagrant foul in which an attacking player used his cleats to rake the back of a defending player’s calf & knee after a ball had been cleared away from the goal. The referee, having turned back up field to follow the developing play, did not see the foul. Of course, I (and the spectators) immediately got the attention of the referee, but as I took my eyes off of the player to make eye-contact with the referee, I lost the offending player in a crowd of players. What really complicated the issue was that both teams had uniforms with numbers only on the back of their jerseys and the offending player was facing me on the far side of the field so I was not able to get his jersey number before he intentionally ‘disappeared’ into a group of his peers. Obviously, this player should have been sent off and the team should have played short for the remainder of the game, but we didn’t know who to send off. The referee made the decision to award the direct kick (and a goal was subsequently scored), but did not send anybody off.

After discussing this incident with other referees after the game, there was a suggestion that, though we didn’t know who exactly committed the offense the team should still play short a player so, perhaps, we could have had the coach or team captain pick a player to be sent off and attributed with the foul. Would this have been an acceptable course of action?

USSF answer (May 30, 2011;
Although it seems unjust, the simple answer is, no, the referee cannot arbitrarily make a team play short under these circumstances. A team may voluntarily play short for as long as it wishes for a variety of reasons, but there is no authority under the Laws of the Game for the referee to enforce such an action except in the specific, limited circumstance of sending off a player from that team and displaying the red card.

Among other things, your loss of focus on the perpetrator (at least based on the description you provided) was due to taking your attention away from the participants in the foul and we trust you now understand that this is not a good idea. As an AR and in the absence of beeper flags, you “get the attention of the referee” by raising your flag and then relying on the AR on the other side of the field to do likewise (called “mirroring” or “cross flagging”) if the referee is not looking in your direction. It is one of the responsibilities of the referee to periodically make eye contact with either or both ARs to ensure that, at any given moment, one or the other of them is not trying to communicate a problem, and it is a good idea to discuss such situations in the pregame.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY TO GOOD DECISIONS!

May 26, 2011May 30, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
red – attacking
blue – defending
U-18 Classic play
one player from both teams were in a hard (FAIR) challenge for the ball in red’s defensive third (where both end up on the ground).
The ball, then was played all the way up to red’s attacking third (60-70 yards), i kept an eye on the players (once on the ground, now up and trotting up field) as long as i could before turning and sprinting to follow the break-away.
The blue defender was beat, red had only the keeper to beat, while ‘juking’ the keeper, blue was able to catch up just enough to put a leg in and trip red just before red scored on an empty net. No question that this was a send-off for DGF on the blue player.

I quickly run over and showed the red card to blue and send him off. I am setting up for a PK when i see my lead AR waiving his flag. As I go to him he points to a player on the ground in red’s defensive third. As I go over to the player my trail AR signals me that he needs to chat. I make sure the trainer and coach know they may ‘take care’ of the injured player, and then proceed to the trail AR. He tells me that as soon as i turned to sprint to follow play, words were spoken between the two players from the original hard challenge and that red, after the exchange of words, punched blue in the face. I asked him if this occurred before the goal or after. He said it occurred well before.

this is what i did… and my questions!!
i went to the coaches and explained that play was dead as soon as the ‘strike’ (VC) occurred; therefore, the blue player that was sent-off no longer was sent off and the card retracted, and that the red player who struck blue would be sent-off. After ‘sending back on’ blue and sending off red i restarted with a DFK for blue at the site of the punch. Even though i don’t think anyone was happy i believe my actions were correct.

Were they, and if not, what are the correct actions. I do know that before a restart a ref can change a caution to a sent off if, in reflection, he deems it necessary, but can he change a red to a yellow or a yellow (AFTER THE CARD HAS BEEN SHOWN, BUT BEFORE THE RESTART) to ‘a nothing’ just a foul?

USSF answer (May 26, 2011)
This response is based on the assumption that the trail AR actually signaled at the moment of the infringement and you agreed with the information. (More on that in the final paragraph.)

As long as there has been no intervening restart of play, the violent conduct committed by the red player takes precedence over what has gone on in the other end of the field. The restart for that foul (and serious misconduct) is a direct free kick from the place where the infringement occurred. That leaves you to deal with the action that occurred while you were unaware of the violent conduct in the other half.

There can be no denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity because the ball was technically out of play (even though you had not called it yet). The blue player is cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for violent conduct, according to the nature of the contact. (Yes, if there has been no restart a send-off may be converted to a a caution — or vice versa.)

Restart is as stated above, a direct free kick for blue where the original violent conduct occurred in the other half of the field.

The problem mentioned at the beginning of the answer is that if the trail AR did not in fact signal for an offense not seen by the referee, but simply tells the referee later, this makes it very difficult to rewind the action back to that point. If the AR signals and the referee agrees with the AR’s advice, thus implementing the “sequential fouls” scenario that we talk about in other documents, then all is well.…

Kicks from the Mark

KICKS FROM THE MARK SNAFU

May 23, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Two questions about KFTM: 1) What determines which AR will supervise the players in the middle of the field and which will accompany the referee to the goal, and 2) what is the correct action in the following circumstance? Team A wins the toss and chooses to kick 2nd. A player from team A is mistakenly allowed to kick 1st. The coach of team A brings this error to the attention of the referees before a player from team B is sent to the PA for his/her kick.

USSF answer (May 23, 2011);
1) The decision as to which assistant referee takes charge of the players in the center circle and which AR works along the goal line is up to the referee.

2) This is an error by the referee and AR, who should know which team kicks first — as should the teams themselves. Cancel the goal and begin the kicks in the proper order. The referee should apologize profusely to both teams and must include full details in the match report.…

"Inventive" Refs

ASSORTED REFEREE MISTAKES

May 23, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A coach relayed an incident to me this morning:

Summary:
Loose ball in the box in front of Woodbury goal. Referee blows whistle, having seen a handball. The Woodbury goalie hears the whistle, stops playing. A Watertown player shots and scores. Referee allows goal; begins setting up for kickoff. Upon questioning, referee says he allowed advantage to play out. Woodbury argues misblown whistle, so referee waves off goal and conducts penalty kick.

Obviously Watertown now questions awarding and disallowing of goal.

Questions: Is it correct that: 1) if the referee was going to allow advantage to play out, he should have not blown the whistle; 2) if the kick came less than a second or two after the visual on the handball, the ref should have waited to see if the ball went in and whistled the handball only if it had not gone in; 3) if the ref blew the whistle, even though a shot was happening, or about to happen, the correct thing is to award the PK?

USSF answer (May 23, 2011):
Yes on all counts.…

"Inventive Coaches"

WHEN IS DECEPTION REWARDED?

May 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a recent viral video of a Conway AR high school match shows the center awarding a free kick to Conway and the Conway players setting up. Two players approach the area of the ball as if both are going to initiate the kick with one passing by the ball and then colliding with the other approaching player and both collapse on the ground while a third player initiates the kick. A score resulted.

Question is, has an offence been committed? My input would be yes that it is unsporting behavior in that the collision was set up as a distraction that is staged, much like a player taking an obvious dive after contacting a player of the opposing team. I can’t see the trickery rule applying because it only addresses playing the ball back to the keeper and trying to circumvent a law of the game. I believe the goal was awarded. Not that it matters to me being I have no interest or contact with any team in Arkanas. Just discussing it with some current officials on how we would have called it. I am a laspsed official (not one of the choices below)

USSF answer (May 19, 2011):
Ah, deceit, the mother of legal gamesmanship. The kicking team is allowed to engage in its little bit of deception at almost any restart. Provided that the players who collide don’t turn the event into a moaning, groaning, shrieking distraction, this was likely legal. Some playacting is certainly acceptable, but when an event is played to the hilt it could be seen as constituting either (a) exaggerating the seriousness of an injury or (b) the equivalent of shouting at an opponent to distract (either of which would be unsporting behavior). It all depends, of course, on the opinion of the referee, which would be based on how out of the ordinary the actions of these players were.

The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players, in this case the defending team that did not continue to pay attention to the subsequent kicker, the runner, and the ball itself.

CAVEAT: Please note that this is a high school game played under NFHS auspices, and not necessarily in accordance with the Laws of the Game. And the referee might be especially cunning and preempt any problems by stopping play for the “injury,” which occurred before the ball was in play, have the players attended to, and restart with original free kick.

A video clip of this incident may be seen at this URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haxdJT6MBoE&feature=player_embedded…

Law 15 - Throw In

RETAKING THE THROW-IN AT U8 LEVEL

May 18, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a U8 game, players get to redo a throw in if there is an infraction. This player lifted his foot the first time and was given a second chance. On the second chance, the ball never came in. Does he get a THIRD chance or does the other team get the throw in?

USSF answer (May 18, 2011):
According to the USYS U8 small-sided rules, this is the procedure:
Law 15 The Throw-In: some U8 players do not yet have the eye-hand coordination to execute a throw-in to the letter of the law. However, some U8 players have sufficient eye-hand coordination to attempt the throw-in. One ‘do- over’ per thrower should be the normal response if the throw-in is incorrect. The adult officiating the match should explain to the child how to execute the throw-in correctly.…