August 2006 Archive (II of II)
INSTRUCTORS: PLEASE GET IT RIGHT!
I'm [an instructor]. [We] have a question about the 2006/2007 State Referee Exam, which we administered today at our Fall re-certification run and refresher exam clinic.
Question 23 paints a scenario where a substitute enters the field of play and violently tackles an opponent about to take a shot from 2 yards inside the goal area. The question asks whether it is true or false that the Referee should restart with a dropped ball at the edge of the goal area. The answer on the USSF answer key is FALSE.
What are we missing??? If the referee stops play due to the actions of an outside agent, the restart should be a dropped ball, and the special circumstances of Law 8 specify the location of the drop.
We considered that perhaps the reasoning was that the referee stopped play to issue a Send-Off, and the restart would be an Indirect Free Kick, but that should apply only to players who are being cautioned or sent-off for misconduct.
Answer (August 29, 2006):
You seem to have missed the changes in the 2005 Laws of the Game, which include making the restart for illegal entry by a substitute an indirect free kick. Here is the quote, direct from Law 3:
If a substitute enters the field of play without the referee's permission:
- play is stopped
- the substitute is cautioned, shown the yellow card and required to leave the field of play
- play is restarted with an indirect free kick at the place the ball was located when play was stopped * (see page 3)
This was also recognized in the IFAB/FIFA Q&A 2006, Law 3, Q&A 5. The Board has, in effect, laid out the general proposition that, if a substitute enters the field illegally, no matter what the substitute subsequently does or has done to him, the restart is ALWAYS determined by the offense that occurred first--the illegal entry onto the field.
UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR BY ENTIRE TEAM
A player from our team was in the process of taking a penalty kick when the entire opposing team, both on the field and on the bench started jumping up and down, waving their arms, and screaming at the top of their lungs. Our player shot the ball wide and the referee awarded a goal kick to the opposing team. Was this the correct call? My opinion (as a new grade 8 referee) was that the referee should have yellow carded one of the screaming players for unsporting behavior, warned the coach that a repeat performance would not be tolerated and allowed the PK to be retaken.
Answer (August 29, 2006):
While opposing players are allowed to jump up and down at the taking of a free kick, and a penalty kick would be included within this concept, they are traditionally not allowed to exhibit unsporting behavior. Shouting at an opponent is unsporting behavior. Before having the kick retaken, the referee should notify the captain that if this shouting and screaming is repeated at the retake, all players and substitutes will be cautioned and shown the yellow card and at least one of the coaches will be expelled for failing to behave responsibly--and the kick will be retaken once again. Then, if the shouting and screaming is repeated, the referee must follow through. If the unsporting behavior is repeated yet again, the referee will declare the match abandoned and submit a full report to the competition authority.
LET'S GET OUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT, FOLKS!
Recently I officiated at a youth tournament as both a Center and as an AR. The assignor for this particular tournament requires each Center to submit a game report that in addition to covering the game itself, also contains the Center's personal assessment of his assigned assistants Š everything from timeliness, uniform, foul recognition, field mechanics. The assignor uses this feedback to assist the development of the referees she assigns. Certainly a very commendable requirement and a great way to help all of our refs improve, particularly our younger refs.
However, one issue surfaced that I am unclear on. I Centered the first game and did a report on my assistants (one an adult, the other a Grade 8 teen). One of the questions I had to answer dealt with if the assistants were wearing the proper referee uniform. I reported that all was OK. But then my adult assistant in game 1 centered the second game of a 3 game set and marked this same teen down for wearing a pair of black shorts on which the Nike swoosh could be seen. I learned of this when the assignor asked me if I had seen the same uniform violation in the game I centered. I saw the swoosh but did not consider it a violation as the rest of the shorts were completely black and of the appropriate length, etc. So I did not report it as a violation. However, both the Assignor and the Center insist that the only proper referee shorts are those that are completely black period. I am not sure this is correct. See below.
The Administrative Handbook for Referees clearly indicates that black shorts are part of the approved referee uniform.
However, the handbook also states in part that "only manufacturer's logos and U.S. Soccer approved badges and/or emblems may be visible on the referee uniform."
The quoted portion above would appear to imply that it's okay for a manufacturer's emblem to appear on shorts so long as the rest of the garment is black. Thus no white stripes down the seam or anything like that.
I realize that this is hardly a question of monumental importance but the young teen is upset at being marked down for this on the Center's evaluation of her.
Once again, I applaud the assignor's desire to improve her stable of refs but believe the admin handbook could be interpreted as allowing the swoosh (or other manufacturer logo such as Law 5 brand name to be visible) on the shorts.
Would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Answer (August 22, 2006):
While the basic color of referee shorts is black, there is no statute compelling referees to wear any particular manufacturer's uniform. As you point out, the Referee Administrative Handbook does state, regarding Logos, Emblems and Badges: " Only manufacturer's logos and U.S. Soccer approved badges and/or emblems may be visible on the referee uniform." Even clothing supplied by the Federation's sponsor, Official Sports International, carries a logo.
A competition authority might certainly wish to regulate the uniform of its officials (just as it might the balls or nets used) if, for example, a major sponsor of the tournament or league were a manufacturer with a recognizable logo; however, if a tournament did that, it would be obliged to supply the required uniform, properly logo-ed, to all participating officials.
Apart from any competition authority regulation, evaluators should be more focused on providing feedback on matters that are of far more moment, those that relate to how well the official did the job, rather than on the wearing of a particular type of shorts.
BALL OF INCORRECT SIZE
In a B-14 match, after a goal had been scored and prior to the kick off, it was brought to the attention of the referee that the wrong size ball was being used. Apparantly, a size 4 had been thrown in from the bench area, after the size 5 The game had started with had gone over a fence behind the goal, and the referee had not inspected it. To compound the issue, the ball had last touched a defender before crossing the goal line.
In this instance the referee disallowed the goal, replaced the ball with a size 5, and restarted with a dropped ball at the six. Was this correct?
Answer (August 21, 2006):
Let's look at it from another angle: Nothing occurred in this situation of using a "wrong" sized ball that would have increased the likelihood of scoring. There was no illegal condition that could even possibly be related to the scoring itself. Score the goal and restart with a kick-off. Report full details to the competition authority.
The referee's failure to inspect the ball cannot be held against the team that scored the goal. After the game the referee should have begun memorizing Laws 2 and 5 verbatim, so as to remember the next time to always inspect all balls that are used in the game
I am getting sick of coaches that instruct their goal keepers' that it is Ok for them to raise their knees as protection, after catching the ball in traffic. I have maintained that this practice is unacceptable, citing the act as dangerous and unsporting behavior, punishable by a caution (verbal or with the show of a card). What is your take on this issue?
Another issue of contention involve a goalkeeper attempting to pick up a ball, arms stretched, fingers out, and someone (opponent) sliding or attempting to kick the ball. Some coaches' always screamed "oh,ref....he didn't have possession). I have always called it and cautioned the offending player. That has not made me very popular. Please advise. A lot is riding on this.
Answer (August 22, 2006):
We provided information on how and when goalkeepers may protect themselves and what they may not do back on January 31, 2005:
May a goalkeeper be called for playing dangerously or fouling an opponent? Surely, but it is a matter for the referee to decide on a case-by-case basis. There is no clear, black-and-white answer. Clearly, the referee's decision would have to be based on the specific level of risk involved and that, in turn, is a function of the age, experience, and skill of the players.
That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that goalkeepers are allowed to use their protection under the Spirit of the Laws to harm other players. When leaping for the ball, all players, including goalkeepers, should aim to play the ball at the highest point possible. The striker jumps as high as he can to get his head on the ball, but the goalkeeper has the advantage of needing only to have his hands high enough to play the ball.
If the goalkeeper's jump appears to be natural, with the knee lifted as part of achieving balance or additional height, then there is probably no foul on the part of the goalkeeper. However, if the lifting of the knee appears to be unnatural or contrived, or if the goalkeeper raises the knee only when the attacker comes near to the ball-this is a common goalkeeper maneuver to intimidate opponents rather than "self protection" or the equally facile argument that it is used to achieve greater height -- the referee may reach the conclusion that the goalkeeper is no longer protecting himself or attempting to gain greater altitude, but is attempting to send a message to the opponent. That sort of play must be punished.
END OF QUOTE
As to goalkeeper possession, we have also defined that many times, probably most clearly on February 12, 2004:
The goalkeeper establishes possession with as little as one finger on the ball, provided the ball is under his control (in the opinion of the referee) and the ball has been trapped against the ground or some other surface -- the 'keeper's other hand, the ground, or even a goalpost.
If a player attempts to kick the ball from the goalkeeper's hands, then the referee should stop the game for the foul of attempted kicking and caution the player for unsporting behavior (and show the yellow card), restarting with a direct free kick for the goalkeeper's team. If the player's foot makes contact with the goalkeeper during this action, the referee may consider sending the player off for serious foul play and showing him the red card.
The position of goalkeeper carries with it implicit dangers of heavy contact with other players. That is an accepted fact of the game. Other than being privileged to deliberately handle the ball within his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player.
END OF QUOTE
It is not clear from your question/statement just what the circumstances are when you caution players, but the goalkeeper should never be given more protection than he or she is allowed under the Laws of the Game.
I have a question prompted by the recent USSF Memorandum on "Fouls, Misconduct and the Restart of Play" combined with an actual incident that happened in a game yesterday.
In yesterday's game, Red had possession on the ball near midfield moving towards Blue's goal. A Blue player fouled a Red attacker in a manner that deserved a caution, but other attackers continued and advantage was applied (and realized). About 10 seconds later the Blue GK cleared the ball and the attack was over (although the ball was still in play).
As the referee, I then immediately stopped play due to two concerns: (1) the two players involved in the foul were still together and I was concerned about retaliation or further escalation of the incident; and (2) the Blue player had a number only on his back (which I could not see during the incident), and I was concerned I would lose track of the guilty party if play continued.
After cautioning the player, we were a little uncertain about the correct restart. Did we stop play to issue a caution (in which case the misconduct should be an IFK from the spot of the misconduct) or did we stop play for another reason (in which case the restart might be a drop ball at the location of the ball)?
It's been pointed put to me that the far easier solution would have been to allow play to continue until the ball went out of play, but the two factors cited above seemed of greater concern at the time and that stopping play was the better course of action.
Answer (August 22, 2006):
Many referees seem to believe that, when advantage is applied to misconduct, they must wait for a "natural stoppage." However, we need to remember that Law 9 defines how play stops: the ball leaves the field or the referee stops. Period. Neither is more "natural" than the other. The referee could stop play for an injury, another foul, because it is Tuesday, or because the advantage already applied no longer exists.
Yes, the far easier solution would have been to wait until the ball went out of play, but, as you point out, you had good reason to stop it when you did. Therefore, you must follow the instructions under Law 12, Indirect Free Kicks:
"- commits any other offense, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player
"The indirect free kick is taken from where the offense occurred.* (see page 3)"
CORRECTION TO "ADVICE TO REFEREES" 2006 EDITION
In the July ask the Ask the Referee it was stated: "Persistent infringement of the Laws refers to violations of Law 12--and not for offside, second touch, illegal throw-in, etc."
Also, in Advice to Referees it states in 12.28.3: "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.
Both statements seem to make clear the scope for which persistent infringement of the laws can be applied. However, later in 12.28.3 Advice states: "Examples of persistent infringement include a player whoŠFails to start or restart play properly or promptly, having previously been warned". This seems to contradict the two previous statements, as most restarts are not found under Laws 12 or 14.
The reason I ask this is that I refereed a game last year in which a team consistently on throw-ins ran five to ten yards beyond the point where the ball went out of touch. I pointed to where the throw-ins should be taken and warned players of what was required. I was generally ignored on most first throw-in and I spent a large amount of time stopping play and asking the throw-in be retaken at the appropriate spot.
As throw-ins (Law 15) do not fall under Law 12 or 14, I felt I could not give a misconduct for persistent infringement. Later a fellow referee showed me the example from Advice and said I should have used persistent infringement as the basis for a yellow card.
Could I have used persistent infringement as a basis for misconduct in this situation or is another area of the law applicable?
Answer (August 18, 2006):
The reference to cautioning for persistent infringement if a player delays the restart of play is an error which will be corrected in the next version. In this case you and other referees should take your cue from what is in the 7+7 Memorandum. The other two (persistent commission of Law 12 fouls and a repeated violation of Law 14 after a warning) are consistent with the Advice.
GAME MANAGEMENT TOOLBOX
In a men's open game as center referee I was repeatedly asked, "What's the call ref?". It was a type of gamesmanship. I was warned before the game by my AR that this team was a bunch of whiners, I wish he would have elaborated. How is best to handle this situation? It can start to throw you off your game.
Answer (August 14, 2006):
One of the referee's best management tools is selective hearing.
U.S. Soccer thanks Jim Allen (National Instructor Staff/National Assessor), assisted by Dan Heldman (National Instructor Staff), for their assistance in providing this service.
Submit your questions via e-mail to email@example.com.