"Inventive" Refs

TAUNTING?

Posted on by

Question:
U14 Boys game Played under FIFA Laws with modifications for time and substitution.
Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D standing on 18 yard line 6 yards away, yells SHOT. CR says stop. In second half Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D, standing on the 6 yard line yells SHOT. CR referee stops game and gives Player D a warning for Taunting. Is this the correct call?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
“Shot”? What does that mean? Not sure how taunting would apply here. It seems to be essentially the same as yelling, “Ball!”

Players are allowed to communicate with one another, but not to act unsportingly. Yelling “Shot” would not seem to be unsporting, simply silly.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

FOOL ME ONCE, ETC.

Posted on by

Question:
Referee has stopped play for an injury and will restart with a dropped ball. A player from the Red team says, “drop it to me and I’ll kick it out of play” clearly in the interest of fair play. So the referee drops the ball to this player who then turns and mounts an attack on the opponents goal. That is to say, he doesn’t do what he told the referee he would do. I don’t think you can caution this player for USB even though he clearly HAS been unsporting. [A person from another country] says you absolutely caution the player for USB. I really don’t know. What sayest thou?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
Where the player kicks the ball is of no interest to the referee, whose sole job here is to get the ball back into play quickly and fairly to all participants. However, the fact that the referee was foolish enough to accept the word of a player that he would do thus or such is incomprehensible.

There is no basis for the referee to caution the player for unsporting behavior. However, the referee should quietly go soak his or her head and learn to face facts: All players will con the referee if given half a chance. In addition, we would further add a penance or two to the referee’s lot. We find it difficult to justify a caution for fooling the referee, but not if the player fools an opponent illegally.…

"Inventive Assessors"

THIRD MAN IN GETS RED?

Posted on by

Question:
I have a couple of questions about the following situation, which occurred at a U16 match.

Two opponents at midfield near the benches are mouthing off to each other, and some shoving is going on. A substitute comes off the bench onto the field, but nothing comes of it (everything settles down pretty quickly). I don’t know whether it is a factor or not, but the shoving/shouting happened behind the referee’s back while the ball was out of play, but once the assistant referee got the referee’s attention, the referee handled the situation and cautioned the two players and the substitute. From what I’ve been told, this was an isolated incident, and the referee had the match under control both before and after the incident occurred.

After the match, the assessor told the referee that ‘the third man in’ should have been sent off, even though he made no contact with anyone.

My questions to you:

1. Do you know where this mentality (third-man-in gets-a-red) came from?
2. What sort of feedback would you give to this assessor?

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
The assessor seems to be misreading and misquoting a USSF directive on “Game Disrepute and Mass Confrontation.” The actual directive states:

1. Third Man In
– If a third man joins the game disrepute and causes it to escalate to mass confrontation, this player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior.
– The third man in may be sent-off for violent conduct if his actions so warrant

There is certainly no suggestion in the directive that a third person to join any incident MUST be sent off, particularly if he or she has not done anything more than enter the field.

Our feedback to the assessor would be that he/she should thoroughly review the directives before making pronouncements on matters of this nature.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
An interesting question has arisen. After some searching I cannot find a similar situation covered in previous questions.

At a free kick, a defender is lingering within 10 yards of the ball.

The would-be kicker, rather than seeking the intervention of the referee, is irked at the opponent and kicks the ball as hard as possible at him.

Obviously the kicker could be sent off for violent conduct, or the referee could see it as unsporting behavior, depending on the speed and closeness of the kick. But what is the restart? Colleagues agree that it “feels like” this should be a foul. But if so, which foul is it? Kicking? Does the ball become an extension of the foot, similar to thrown objects being an extension of the hand? Or has the referee stopped play solely to administer misconduct, so the restart is indirect?

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
If throwing the ball is considered an extension of the hand and thus the action is striking, why can’t the ball be considered an extension of the foot and the scenario described would be kicking? We would have no trouble — assuming the referee is thorough in evaluating what happened — giving a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for kicking and a red card for violent conduct.…

"Inventive" Refs

BE CAREFUL OF HIGH KICKING!!!

Posted on by

Question:
A recent event during a local cup: Player A is defending a corner kick, facing towards the corner flag/goal near the opposite end of the box. The ball goes over the defence and player A, bounces, and he goes for the clearance. Player A, however, doesn’t notice player B (from the attacking team) coming from behind him to head the ball. When player A makes contact with the ball, it’s at head height (and hence, so is his foot), and he catches player B on the head/face with his boot. Player A did, however, make contact with the ball first (or roughly at the same time). This was all inside the box.

Should this play be a penalty or an indirect free kick for the attacking team?

Thanks!

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
We have a hard time buying the scenario completely. If player B is “coming from behind,” how then does A manage to kick B’s “head/face”? And it would be rare that a ball at head height is more naturally played with the head than with the foot. Any player playing a ball at head height with his foot must take more than average care that an opponent is not nearby and, failing that, has been CARELESS (which is what defends the minimum foul level — i. e., with no accompanying misconduct. The referee should look not at what a player INTENDS as a valid basis for judging a foul (other than handling) — but should look, instead, at the results of the player’s actions.

Only the referee on this game can make that call, whether in favor of player A or of player B.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

RIGHT OF DEFENDING TEAM AT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I was an AR during a tournament U14 Boys game. The ball as headed out of Red’s defensive end about 10 yards from the half line.

Red committed an IFK foul via dangerous play in my clear view, but could not be viewed by the referee. I raised my flag and gave it a wave, which the referee acknowledged and blew his whistle.

Unfortunately, this was about 5 minutes into the second half and therefore I indicated the incorrect direction for the restart (Red kick). BEFORE play was restarted, the direction was corrected, but Blue clearly recovered better than Red and quickly restarted play. The kick was made directly to another Blue player, who shot on goal and scored with the referee indicating a good goal and moving to the center circle for the restart. Red’s coach was understandably upset and complaining his boys did not have time to get back on defense.

Blue’s coach was saying nothing.

The referee came over to me to discuss the goal. We both agreed there was no misapplication of the LOTG, so a protest would not be upheld. We both agreed no matter what decision we made, one team was going to be upset. I asked the referee if he had signaled/indicated for Blue to wait for his whistle, and the referee said no. The final decision came down to this question – What is the right thing to do for the game? The answer was to not count the goal, and restart with Blue taking an IFK from the original spot of the foul. The confusion occurred due to our (mine for indicating incorrect direction, and referees for not requiring a ceremonial restart) error. Red of course was happy, and the amazing part was Blue’s coach made NO issue of the decision.

Our review of the incident yielded a learning point of making sure to use a ceremonial restart in future similar situations.

The question is, does USSF agree with our decision on the field?

Final note, Blue went on to win the game 2-1 and I made certain to greatly compliment Blue’s coach after the game for his touchline behavior (meaning he didn’t make any sort of scene or any display of dissent & Blue was on my touchline) as well has his team’s response which was to continue to put their energy into playing football, and not put their energy into the referees.

USSF answer (August 25, 2009):
Although normally we stress that the guilty team at a free kick has zero to very few rights, and thus neither deserves nor may demand any special treatment, in this case the officiating crew confused them and violated the defending team’s right not to be misled by the officials. Therefore, the restart must be ceremonial in nature.…

"Inventive" Refs

DEFENDER LEAVING THE FIELD (A TWIST)

Posted on by

Question:
A very interesting answer on Aug 20 re offside off the field of play.

I wondered at the wording IFAB put into the ILGGR this year to cover the ITA-NED game in 2008. (To cover something that IFAB thought “everybody knew”, but evidently was only found in documentation from USSF and the Austrian FA.) Specifically, that the player would be considered to be off the field until the next stoppage of play.

Would the Aug 20 answer change any if the defender who went over the touchline off the field went *closer* to his goal line? He could thereby entice an attacking player to go closer to the goal into an offside position (which remains at the fixed point of his departure).

There has been a question on AR mechanics – does he stay in position at the departure point? I suspect yes. But then another question if the defender is on the far side of the field from the AR, how does the AR know that the defender left the field? Also, how far “off” is “off”? – is it like other offside positions, that the arms and hands don’t count, but head torso and legs do, so if the toe is still on the line the defender is still on the field?

I guess all the above really isn’t a question per se, but I do have one question though; neither the Law Change memo nor the Aug 20 answer specifically states. Is it presumed that the defender who goes off the field stays off the field until the next stoppage? And if so and he returns, what happens then.

USSF answer (August 21, 2009):
The sense of the IFAB’s new wording in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidance for Referees (ILGGR) is that, for offside purposes, the player shall be considered to be on the touchline or goal line until the next stoppage in play. If the defending player returns to the field of play without the referee’s permission before the next stoppage of play and, in the opinion of the referee, thereby influences play, the defending player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the referee stops play to administer the caution, the restart is an indirect free kick for the attacking team at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.

During this action, the AR stays with the second-to-last defender (taking into account the defender off the field), NOT level with where the defender left the field.  These places may turn out to be one and the same place if the defender left across a touch line but would NOT be the same if the defender went off the field across the goal line (unless TWO defenders went off the field!).…

"Inventive" Refs

POSITION OF PLAYER WHO HAS LEFT THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Regarding the recent IFAB/USSF memorandum about Defenders Leaving the Field of Play:

A fellow referee recently told me that we should interpret the memo to mean that if the defender leaves the field along one of the touchlines, for the purpose of attempting to put an attacker in an offside position, that we should judge his position to be the point on the touchline where he/she actually left the field — not necessarily the closest point on the touchline to where the player actually is at the moment the AR has to judge offside position. What the ref is telling me seems like the fair thing to do, but I don’t see that wording in the memorandum. And it could make a big difference.

Example: The second-to-last defender leaves the field of play over a touchline some 20 yards out from the endline. The third-to-last defender is 30 yards out from the endline and on the field of play.

While play continues, the second-to-last defender who is now off the field of play begins to walk up the field, but off the field, away from his team’s own endline. He makes it to a point off the field that is 35 yards from the endline in an effort to make the teammate at 30 yards the new second-to-last. Now, an attacker, who has made it to the 25 yard mark becomes actively involved in play from a pass by a teammate who was farther from the goal they are attacking when it was passed. Offside or not? According to the memorandum, it seems yes.

According to the fellow referee I mentioned above – no.

Am I missing something?

USSF answer (August 20, 2009):
The defender who leaves the field in the normal course of play or in an attempt to make an attacker be in an offside position is to be treated as on the field at the point on the goal line or touchline closest to where the defender left.  

So, you ask, what happens if the defender moves while off the field, just as in your example?  For offside purposes, the player who has left the field over the touchline remains at the spot where he or she left. The same holds true if the player leaves the field across the goal line near the far post and, while the same play is continuing, comes around the far corner and is off the field (still) but now several yards up from the goal line.  In that case, too, the player remains “on the goal line closest to where he left the field” for purposes of determining the second to last defender.  In other words, the player’s movement while off the field makes no difference.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SPOT OF THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Near the end of a hard fought 1-1 game, I whistled a handling offense by the defense just outside the penalty area. At least 2 defenders remained in position for an instant just in front of the spot of the foul, but the momentum of the ball caused it to roll 3-4 yards to the side. An alert attacker set the ball at this new position and took a quick shot at the goal as this location was not obstructed by defenders. The quick shot went wide and so I indicated a goal kick.

However, had the shot gone in I had to wonder how I would have handled this volatile situation. The defense could protest that the kick was not from the proper spot (if they were alert). Or, if I disallowed the kick certainly the offense would protest.

I think the proper procedure would have been to be alert to this quick kick tactic and whistle a second time as the ball is set in the wrong location and before a quick kick is attempted, and insist the ball be placed at the spot of the foul. Then, if the player quick kicked anyway everyone has heard the second whistle as evidence that play was not properly restarted.

Had the kick scored in the original scenario and I had not time to whistle for proper placement of the ball, I think the proper but unpopular decision would be to deny the goal and retake the kick from the proper location. In this case a few yards from the spot of the foul is VERY significant to restarting play unlike a restart near midfield.

Please advise. Thank you, this site is the best.

USSF answer (August 19, 2009):
The farther the infringement (and thus the ball) from the goal being attacked, the less the referee cares about finding the exact blade of grass on which to have the free kick taken. As the infringement moves closer to the goal, the more exact the position of the ball for the free kick should be. Although in this case the ball does not seem to have moved appreciably closer to the goal, it may have given the kicking team a better angle, so the restart should be stopped immediately, if possible. If that is not possible, then have it retaken properly — and admonish the defenders (no caution necessary) for hanging around.

If all else fails, the key is making a decision and sticking to it. Your opinion is protected in Law 5, as quoted here: “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.”…

Advice to Referees

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
Does persistent infringement of the law applies to all of laws or just 12 and 14? I know it does not apply to Law 11.

USSF answer (August 18, 2009):
A complete explanation of persistent infringement appears in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT
Persistent infringement occurs when a player repeatedly commits fouls or certain other infringements. It is not necessary for the multiple fouls to be of the same type or all to be direct free kick fouls, but infringements must be among those covered in Law 12 or involve repeated violations of Law 14. In most cases, the referee should warn the player that the pattern has been observed and, upon a subsequent violation, must then issue the caution. If the pattern is quickly and blatantly established, then the warning should be omitted and the referee should take immediate action. In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

The referee must also recognize when a single opponent has become the target of fouls by multiple players. As above, upon recognizing the pattern, the referee should clearly indicate that the pattern has been observed and that further fouls against this opponent must cease. If another player commits a foul against the targeted opponent, that player must be cautioned but, in this case, the misconduct should be reported as unsporting behavior, as must any subsequent caution of any further foul against that same targeted opponent. Eventually, the team will get the message.

Examples of persistent infringement include a player who:

* Violates Law 14 again, having previously been warned

* If playing as a goalkeeper, wastes time, having previously been warned or penalized for this behavior

…