RESCIND A GOAL BECAUSE OF LAW 4 VIOLATION? NO!

June 11, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A. An illegally-equipped player scores a goal. The illegality is 1. jewelry; 2. no proper shinguards.

B. An improperly-equipped player scores a goal. The improper equipment is 1. proper shinguards worn on the side of or behind the calf rather than the front; 2. undergarments that are a different color from all the other players undergarments.

Obviously, A should be corrected during pregame inspection, but some referees are less diligent. With regards to B, sometimes players move their shinguards to the outside because they’re more worried about challenges from the side rather than straight on. The mis-colored shorts were rolled up during pregame and then fall down during play and are not discovered until after the goal is scored.

The equipment is pointed out before the restart of play. In all cases, does the goal count? Is the player cautioned? If so, how is this misconduct characterized in the report?

USSF answer (June 11, 2011):
The referee and other officials on a game are expected to maintain vigilance at all times for violations of the requirements all the Laws of the Game. In these cases (both of which we sincerely hope are hypothetical), the requirement of Law 5 for a complete inspection of the players prior to the game was not fully met. The requirement for players to wear proper equipment continues throughout the game; it does not stop after the initial pregame look-see.

The purpose of the game is to score goals. In these particular cases, the referee should first be concerned with whether or not the irregular/illegal equipment had an effect on the opposition. In other words, did it lead to the goals? If not, then the referee should allow the goal(s) and punish the infringements of Law 4 with a caution for unsporting behavior.…

Kicks from the Mark

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.…

Law 15 - Throw In

PLAYER OFF THE FIELD WHEN RESTART IS TAKEN

June 6, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
1. The ball deflects over the goal line to give Team A a corner kick. Player A1 retrieves the ball, which is about 15 yards beyond the end line and in line with the side of the penalty area, and throws it to teammate A2 who is positioned by the corner flag. A2 quickly takes a corner kick while A1, who is still a couple of yards out of bounds, is running diagonally towards a position on the field in front of the near post. A1 enters the field unmarked as the kick is in the air, and he scores on a header. Even though he was off the field when the ball was initially played, is this a legal goal since he had a legitimate reason for being off the field? Does it matter that he did not re-enter at the nearest point of the field instead running diagonally towards a spot nearer the goal? Is there any reason that the referee should delay the corner kick until he returns to play?

2. Same general scenario, but the ball goes out of touch at the 35-yard line for a throw-in for Team A in its offensive end. A1 retrieves the ball in line with the 25 yard line – about 10 yards out of bounds – and throws it back to A2 to take the throw-in. A1 then runs diagonally towards the field, entering at the 18-yard line, behind the defense who apparently hasn’t noticed him. He runs onto a long throw-in and eventually scores. Good goal? Should the referee hold up play in a situation like this?

USSF answer (June 6, 2011):
1. If it is clear to the referee that there was no duplicity in this situation, then it was probably legal. To avoid such situations (and their concomitant problems) in the future, the referee should hold up play until the player has returned to the field of play. There is no requirement that the player must return to the field at the same point from which he left.

2. Same answer. Plus, the referee must be aware of this player’s position in situations where, depending on the sequence of play, the returning player might be in an offside position.

The referee should always ensure that all players (other than the taker) are on the field when play is restarted from off the field.

NOTE: The referee is not responsible for poor defensive play. The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of the players.…

"Inventive Coaches"

KEEPER KEEPS BALL AT FEET

June 2, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Ball enters PA of Team A by a pass by Team B. Ball is stopped in PA by Team A goalie with feet who never touches ball with hands. How long can goalie possess ball at feet prior to picking it up for a punt? This happens a lot in our high school games and is inconsistently dealt with by referees. Some believe 6 seconds while some believe it is poor play. Most want the game restarted quickly.

USSF answer (June 2, 2011):
We do not answer questions on high school rules in this forum. If your question involved the Laws of the Game, then this would be our answer:
The game has not stopped and the ball is still in play. The goalkeeper may keep the ball at his or her feet and kick it around as much as he or she likes; there is no time limit. However, if the other team wants the ball, then they should move toward the goalkeeper and force him or her to pick it up, at which point the ‘keeper has six-seconds to punt or throw the ball away into general pay.…

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.…

Advice to Referees

DEALING WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

May 26, 2011May 26, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Advice – dealing with Appurtenances – Pre-existing Conditions

Per Advice dealing with appurtenances, 1.8(c) -pre-existing conditions, specifically overhanging trees. We have several venues that have overhanging tree limbs on one end of the field that happens to behind the goal area/line. If the overhanging tree limbs ” do not affect one team or more adversely than the other are considered to be part of the field”. There have been two examples where the attacking team has to take a corner kick and the player taking the kick happens to kick it into the overhanging tree limbs, the referee then told the players that the ball is still in play because it did not leave the field of play. In another example, one team who was attacking their opponent’s goal had their player take a shot on goal, the ball was going over the cross-bar but for the tree limbs, the ball stopped and dropped in front of their opponent’s goalkeeper penalty area and the goal-keeper was able to retrieve the ball, since the ball was still in play, the goalkeeper then was able to punt the ball across the field and their forward was able to score a goal in a matter of seconds. A third example, occurred when the ball was kicked by an attacking team, the goal-keeper was out of position and the ball hit the tree limbs and the ball rolled across the goal-line and underneath the cross bar, thus a goal was scored. In the final example, the attacker took a shot and the ball hit the tree limbs yet the ball was still in play and the team-mate was able to score because the goal-keeper turned one way and the ball fell to the side of him inside of the goal area. In these four examples, how should the referee crew handle these examples. Should they tell the teams ahead of time, should they stop play and do a drop-ball or should the referee say “play-on” and where would play be restarted?

Thank you.

USSF answer (May 26, 2011):
Advice 1.8(c) is pretty clear and we believe it covers your situations fully::

(c) Pre-existing conditions
These are things on or above the field which are not described in Law 1 but are deemed safe and not generally subject to movement. These include trees overhanging the field, wires running above the field, and covers on sprinkling or draining systems. They do not affect one team more adversely than the other and are considered to be a part of the field. If the ball leaves the field after contact with any item considered under the local ground rules of the field to be a pre-existing condition, the restart is in accordance with the Law, based on which team last played the ball. (Check with the competition for any local ground rules.)

Note: The difference between non-regulation appurtenances and pre-existing conditions is that, if the ball makes contact with something like uprights or crossbar superstructure, it is ruled out of play even if the contact results in the ball remaining on the field. Where there is a pre-existing condition (such as an overhanging tree limb), the ball remains in play even if there is contact, as long as the ball itself remains on the field. Referees must be fully aware of and enforce any rules of the competition authority or field owner regarding non-regulation appurtenances.

There is no bias in this guidance toward one team or the other, as each team must play one-half of the game under these conditions.

As the competition appears to play many games at these fields, it would seem that all teams should already be well aware of the conditions before they get to the field. However, the referee could be proactive and remind the teams of the conditions and that the ball will remain in play.

The only permanent solution we can recommend to avoid such events is that the limbs might be lopped off by a trained tree-removal person (with the permission of the landowner, of course).

Finally, let us add that our advice applies only to those portions of the trees that actually overhang the field; not to other portions of the same tree.…

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.…