US SoccerUS Soccer

August 2006 Archive (I of II)


Recently, at a USSF clinic, a questioned was asked about a scenario in which a 12th player on the field is being cautioned and he has already been cautioned earlier in the game for another offense. The response from the instructors was that the player now had two cautions so he would be shown the red card and expelled from the game. However, they added that since he was an extra player on the field, an additional player now had to be removed because the team would have to play short a man. This didn't make sense to me but they assured the class that this was the proper procedure. Is this really correct?

Thank you for your time and the great service you provide.

Answer (August 3, 2006):
No, that is not correct. If this player was truly the "extra" player, then his second caution and expulsion were all that was necessary.



Could you tell me if the FIFA disciplinary code, or something similar, applies to games/tournaments that operate under USSF rules. I am specifically talking about the code relative to intentionally losing a game so as to gave some benefit in future opponents or seeding. The FIFA code says:
"Anyone who conspires to distort the result of a match in a manner incompatible with sporting ethics will be sanctioned with a match suspension and a minimum fine of CHF 15,000. The body will also pronounce a ban on performing any football related activity; in serious cases this sanction will apply for life."

Would this or something similar apply to a USSF competition if it can be shown that a team deliberately loses a game?

Answer (August 3, 2006):
The United States Soccer Federation embraces all elements of the FIFA Disciplinary Code. However, the enforcement of such a provision would be the responsibility of the competition authority (i. e., the organization under which the match in question was played).



This week I was CR at a U14 girl's game - travel teams with a fair degree of experience and skill. As they game began, I tried to set the tone by some verbal statements, "Ladies, watch your arms please" perhaps two other remarks. It did set the tone and the ladies responded with respect and paid more attention to the game.

Near the end of the first half, two players were contesting for the ball in front of one AR. One fell to the ground and was beginning to place herself in a position of being involved in dangerous play. She was preparing to play the ball - and place herself at some risk. At that point, the AR said with some force, "Get up. Get up. Get up." The player jumped to her feet and the game continued.

At the interval, I asked the AR to be careful that his comments not be heard, perhaps as coaching by either teams or coaches. He replied that I had done the same with my "arms" comments - I had given comments that could be understood as coaching. We discussed more at the post game review. He stated his role was to maintain safety for players, and his call to get up was to put them in a safe position. I replied that there were times to be teacher and policeman on the field. That was not a time to teach, but a time to allow the play to develop and enforce the rules. I was concerned that his instruction created an advantage for the non near fouling team as they did not get the ball when play continued.

I know a player can play the ball while on the ground. My question is one of the propriety of instructing a player of an action to take to, essentially, get them away from a fouling situation. Was I right in questioning this action or I am being my all too typical legalistic self? My verbal comments seem different - they are aimed at the field, at all players, and not at one.

I'd appreciate your help. AlsoŠthe AR wanted to discuss this at the interval, and I asked that we delay it until the review. I was afraid of any tension that might get created. Does that make sense?

Answer (August 1, 2006):
Neither one of you was doing any coaching as such, nor were you violating any laws or covenants, written or unwritten. However, and there is always a "however," this is the sort of issue that needs to be discussed in the pregame meeting of the officials. There should be a clear understanding of the extent to which the referee expects and relies upon the AR to talk with players (about anything), and it must be consistent with what the referee is doing.

There does seem to be a fairly clear distinction between the two comments (assuming they were said as described). The referee's remark is a general cautionary comment, applied broadly, and rather equivalent to ET's "Be good." The AR's comment, was a command, directed to a specific player, which carried the implication that the player's behavior was concretely wrong and might potentially subject her to punishment if the AR's command were not heeded. Nevertheless, you were both supplying valuable information to the players, suggesting that they play the game properly and within the Spirit of the Laws and of the Game.



My question for you involves an issue that came up at an advanced referee clinic recently. The situation involves the interpretation of law 14 in the case where a teammate of the kicker enters within 10 yards of the ball before it is kicked. Our clinic director told us that according to the latest modifications to the laws of the game for this year, that if the ball goes directly into the goalkeepers' hands after the kick where he could easily play it out, play must be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick from the place where the infraction occurred. Someone asked if it is possible to apply advantage in this situation and the instructor said that based on changes to the laws of the game last year that it was not. I know that in France, their version of "Advice to referees on the laws of the game" for 2006 says that this scenario should result in in the referee allowing play to continue under the application of advantage. Since I didn't want to publicly argue issue at the clinic before doing my homework, I decided to write the director of instruction in the Ligue Rhone-Alpes in France to ask if the French federation still maintained that position. He emailed me back and said that nothing has changed other than the location of the restart (at the location of the infraction) but that advantage is still to be applied in the case where the goalkeeper easily collects the ball after the kick. In the end, I think there is a misinterpretation of law 14 in this case by someone, either by the Federation Francaise de Football (FFF), US Soccer Federation (USSF), or the clinic's instructor. I don't want to cause any problems and just want to make sure that I know what the correct answer is since it involves either stopping play or not stopping play.

Answer (July 29, 2006):
Without going into whether or not the application of the advantage clause would apply or not, we can say that the infringement by the teammate was trifling, because the ball wound up in the hands of the 'keeper. In other words, the intrusion had no impact on the play and thus should be ignored.



At kickoff is it legal for a player to rake the ball forward then rake it back to a teammate having his foot never leave the ball during the maneuver. Was the ball put into play because it was moved forward? If it is not a legal play what would the call be?

Answer (July 27, 2006):
We all need to remember that the kick-off is simply a way to get the game restarted after one team has scored a goal. While the requirement is indeed to kick, not "rake," the ball so that it moves from "here" to "there," referees over the years have been so lax in enforcing the Law that players have taken advantage of this laziness and invented their own methods of kicking off, including the "raking" and having the kicker's teammate clearly in the opponent's end of the field at the time of the restart. The intelligent referee will catch this foolishness the first time it occurs (for each team, of course) and have the players take the kick correctly. As the ball is not in play, the kick-off cannot be given to the other team instead.


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