Question:
Rumor has it Adidas is going to be taking over from Official Sports soon. Is this true. People say that we will have the new jersey style MLS shirts with clima cool and dry fit technology. Can you provide any answers to this rumor
.
USSF answer (September 22, 2008):
We are unaware of any plan for adidas to become the Federation’s supplier. The arrangement between adidas and the MLS is strictly between them and does not involve the Federation.…
Month: September 2008
Question:
I recently attended a soccer match where the following occurred:
A player on the attacking team was injured in the penalty area of the defending team during a corner kick. The center referee only noticed the injury after it occurred due to the number of players in front of the goal. Both the center referee and the AR did not call a foul. It was realized after that the girl had been kicked in the throat during a scramble for the ball. The injury was tended to, but no foul was indicated and the restart was a free kick to the defending team, which she was instructed to kick directly to the opponent’s goalie as a sign of sportsmanship.
Later in the match a corner kick was taken by the other team. A defender stopped this ball by actually catching it with her hands (in the penalty area). No foul was called and the coach went ballistic (understandably). The Center referee indicated that he did not call a foul (which would result in a penalty kick, i.e. a sure goal) because he did not call a foul in the previous incident… in essence he was calling it a “wash”.
Is this something that referees do? Can they have discretion when calling fouls if they feel a mistake has been made in a previous call?
USSF answer (September 19, 2008):
We are stumped on this one, because you have not told us how play was stopped. If the game was not stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — and referees should stop the game ONLY for SERIOUS injuries — and no foul was called, then the correct restart is for the reason that the ball went out of play. If the game was stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — see above — then the restart would be a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped. The indirect free kick might have been correct under high school rules, but certainly not under the Laws of the Game. Another inventive referee at work.
Yes, a very inventive referee — and a referee who cheats on the Letter of the Laws and the Spirit of the Game. Soccer referees do not do “make-up” calls. This referee should be reported to the competition authority and to the referee authorities in your state, so that he can undergo some additional instruction.
If a referee makes a mistake, he or she should NEVER do a “balancing of calls” by making another bad call for the opposing team. Two wrongs do not make a right and the referee must always make the best possible decisions within the framework of the Laws.
Nor do mistakes by referees give the coaches permission to rage at them. We are concerned about you (and others, you are not alone) saying that the coach “went ballistic” and then in this case adding “(understandably).” No coach has a right to “go ballistic” — if they have a concern about a referee’s decision, they should suck it up and follow through with the sort of report we described above. We don’t want anyone believing that we would condone such behavior (any more than we condone the referee’s egregious errors in this situation).…
Question:
A while back I was the AR on a girls U16 premier match and a situation came up that neither I nor the CR knew exactly how to handle. An attacker from team A gained possession well inside her own half of the field and began to make a run down the field. She passed it on to a teammate who continued the run down the field and caught the defense off-guard.
About ten yards past the half-line a defender from team B got directly behind the attacker and apparently decided that the best option to stop the attack was to dive toward the attacking player from behind, grab a handful of shorts on either side of the attacker and pull them down around the girls ankles. The attacker obviously tripped and fell, then pulled the shorts up quickly and ran off the field.
The CR came to me as I was up near the half-line and about 20 yards from the incident. We had a short discussion and he decided to caution the defending player for unsporting behavior and awarded a DFK.
I was of the opinion that a red card could easily have been issued for Serious Foul Play or an Abusive Gesture. Was the CR’s decision the correct one?
USSF answer (September 18, 2008):
This act would seem to have involved a reckless foul (holding), for which the correct referee action would be a caution of the team B defender for unsporting behavior — the defender was not competing for the ball, but was instead playing the player — and the award of a direct free kick to team A.…
Question:
In the league I referee in, a yellow card sends the player off the field temporarily. Then the coach can sub him in at the next substitution opportunity. My question is, if the goal keeper commits a cautionable foul and is sent off with a yellow card while the other team is awarded a penalty kick, can there be anyone defending the net for the kick?
USSF answer (September 19, 2008):
We are less concerned about your question than about the reasons that occasion it. Before answering your question directly, please allow us to state that the league in which you referee may be operating in contravention of a FIFA directive forbidding such “temporary expulsion.” This may also put the league in contravention of the stated policies of the U. S. Soccer Federation. As we mention often, if the referee accepts an assignment in a competition that uses rules that contravene the Laws of the Game, he or she must follow those rules; however, we recommend against taking such assignments.
In 2002, a directive from the International F. A. Board stated:
TEMPORARY EXPULSIONS
The Board strongly supports FIFA’s concern that some national associations continue to use temporary expulsions in lower leagues. The Board confirmed in the strongest terms that this procedure must cease immediately, otherwise disciplinary sanctions will be applied against the offending federation.
In 2002 we informed all USSF referees: The referee must be aware that leagues or other competitions which use the “hothead” rule, temporarily expelling players for whatever reason, are not operating with the authorization of the United States Soccer Federation. The U. S. Soccer Federation has no power to authorize modifications to the Laws that are not permitted by FIFA. This is a FIFA directive that must be followed by members of FIFA. There is less concern over this issue in recreational-level youth and amateur leagues, but it can certainly not be permitted in competitive-level youth and amateur competition. A referee who takes assignments in higher-level competitions that require temporary expulsions does so knowing that he will not be following the guidance of the Federation and may jeopardize his standing within the Federation.
The International F. A. Board reaffirmed in 2003 its instructions that no rules permitting temporary expulsion (being forced to play short for an infringement of the Laws) may be used. Here is an excerpt from USSF Memorandum 2003:
TEMPORARY EXPULSIONS
The Board re-affirmed the decision taken at its last meeting that the temporary expulsion of players is not permitted at any level of football.
USSF Advice to Referees: This instruction, which was first discussed in Memorandum 2002, is not subject to implementation by the referee: it is a matter for the competition authority. “Temporary expulsion” in this context refers to a rule purporting to require that a player leave the field temporarily under certain conditions (e.g., having received a caution – a so-called “cooling off” period) and does not include situations in which a player must correct illegal equipment or bleeding.
The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” tells referees (in Advice 5.17):
//deleted//
There can be no “temporary expulsion” of players who have been cautioned, nor may teams be forced to substitute for a player who has been cautioned.
//deleted//
And the answer to your question: If a goalkeeper has been termporarily removed from the field in compliance with the rules of the competition, there must still be a goalkeeper on the team. Another player must assume that role temporarily, but must first don the correct equipment. When the goalkeeper is ready to return to the field, he or she must have the referee’s permission to do so and must be in full uniform.…
Question:
I was the Referee for a U-17 F Premier game this weekend. I made a call for a corner kick on the same side as AR1 but on the far end of his side ( he was a good 60-70 yards away ). I was on top of the play and only 15 yards or so from the corner flag. AR1 raised his flag and proceeded to tell me that the call should be for a goal kick. I didn’t concur. However, the AR1 has quite a bit of officiating experience (many more years than me) and holds a prominent and longstanding position with our local association, but I have been playing for all my life with NCAA Division 1 playing experience, Nationally licensed coaching experience at a high level and, what I believe, excellent judgment as a referee.
I changed my decision and awarded a goal kick. I immediately regretted that and the coaches began to harass me about the change. At the conclusion of the game, the AR1 said we did the right thing by making sure the call was the right call. I didn’t argue but felt that my initial call was the right call.
What is your suggestion on how I should have handled this situation?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
As the referee, you are in charge of the team of officials. It means little that the AR may have considerable experience and makes even less difference that he holds office in your local association. The AR’s job is to give you the best information he or she can, but to remember that the final decision is yours. Your job is to make that decision and stick with it.
If you feel you were pressured into taking the AR’s information as the ultimate word, then you might consider taking appropriate measures. No one should use his or her political position to gain his or her way — or do we learn about doing that sort of thing from the professional politicians?…
Question:
I have two different variations of the same question that occurred this weekend in a U16 boys match:
1. My AR was standing near the center line and heard a player on the bench farther away from him say “[CENSORED]” after his team scored a goal. Is the proper response that he brings it to my (center) attention before restart and if he knows which player it is I red card the player for Violent Conduct or offensive language?
2. Same as above but it is the opposing coach who hears the same words and reports to the AR closest to him what was said and by whom?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
1. When deciding what to do about either dissent or the use of offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures, the referee must analyze the situation and apply The Three Ps. Was the language Personal? (I. e., directed at someone in particular.) Was the language Public? (I. e., was it loud enough to be heard by others on the field and in its vicinity?) Was the language Provocative? (I. e., could it have led to player management problems involving the other team.) If the answer to these questions is yes, then the matter must be dealt with by the referee and the nearest official to the referee must make sure that he or she learns of it as quickly as possible. (Violent conduct would not apply to either of your situations.)
In this particular case, if the AR can reliably identify the “player” in the bench area who would have to be sent off for using offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures and shown the red card, with full details included in the referee’s match report.
2. The referee cannot take any action (except perhaps a general “talking to” in the direction of the bench) based solely on the word of anyone other than a member of the officiating team.…
Question:
This past weekend I ref’d a U19G D2 game. Two girls from the home team had either a number or symbols painted on their face on the cheek under the eye. I asked the coach if they were tatoos. He said they were not. I told them that although anti-glare paint or strips under the eye would be OK, face painting for merely ornamental reasons would be considered adornment and would not be allowed. He became somewhat indignant and stated that he would get a clarification on the rules before he told them not to paint numbers/symbols on their face.
Questions: Can players wear anti glare paint/strips under the eyes? Can players paint numbers or symbols on their face?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
Law 4 – Player Equipment – tells us:
Safety
A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewelry).
The basic compulsory equipment of a player is:
– a jersey or shirt
– shorts — if thermal undershorts are worn, they are of the same main color as the shorts
– stockings
– shinguards
– footwear
The referee must enforce the Laws of the Game, particularly as they apply to the safety of players. In other words, the player must not wear anything that is dangerous to anyone on the field and must not wear jewelry. The only players allowed — by custom and practice, rather than by the Law — to wear any other items of clothing are goalkeepers. It is up to the referee to determine what is dangerous to the players in the game being refereed on this particular day at this particular field. The Federation cannot set separate guidelines for different age groups. There is no difference between under-tiny soccer, under-16 or -19 soccer, amateur soccer, professional or international soccer.
Anti-glare strips or paint on the face might be considered acceptable, as might paintings of flowers or the team mascot, but some face painting — combat camouflage, stripes, etc. — is clearly intended as an attempt to intimidate the opponents and is thus unsporting behavior, rather than simply a matter of “building spirit,” the reason usually offered for the practice.
If questioned by players, the referee should simply refer them to Law 4. If they do not wish to remove items that are unacceptable to the referee and thus to conform with the Law, inform them that the only alternative to removing the unauthorized equipment is not to play at all. Safety and common sense must be the referee’s guideline.
If leagues or tournaments wish to prevent problems, they should adopt rules of competition which take the burden of determining that certain items are not acceptable in their competition. Referees should not be forced to make all the decisions in this area and thus become the target for player, coach, and spectator abuse.
And as a well-known former FIFA Referee would say: “Only in America!”…
Question:
This happened in a U9 boys game.
Ball is shot to the goalie, who mishandles it. The ball bounces off of the post and rebounds toward middle of the goal. Before any part of the ball crosses the line the goalie dives on the ball. His momentum carries his legs into the box but NOT the ball (the ball never crosses the line). The referee says that it is a goal because the goalie is an extension of the ball and his legs went into the goal.
Was the referee correct?
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
Inventive referees seem to be multiplying by leaps and bounds. No, there is no such rule and the referee was wrong to award a goal based on that reasoning.…
Question:
This is our son’s first year to play goalie, and in his last game there were some questionable calls. If a goalie dives on a ball, and when he lands on it his foot crosses the goal line, but the ball never does it that a goal? This happened twice during the game, and the refs called them goals.
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
There are way too many inventive referees out there! This is the second question we have had this week on this topic and the answer is the same in all cases of this nature: It is not the location of the goalkeeper’s body, arms, or feet and legs that matters; it is the location of the ball. If the ball has completely crossed the entire width of the goal line, between the goal posts and beneath the crossbar, then it is a goal. Body parts are unrelated to the scoring of a goal.
You may flourish this response under the eyes of the next referee who does this.…
Question:
Obviously some things have changed in the last year concerning misconduct (violent conduct) by players on and off the field. Would you please correct or clarify two examples that may have changed and what the correct restart (and by whom) should be:
1. The classic example of the goalkeeper that steps into the goal and over the goal line while the ball is in play to strike an opponent who is caught in the goal net due to momentum. The previous restart would have been a dropped ball. It seems the new restart is now an indirect free kick at the point of the ball. Correct?
2. A player on the field of play is guilty of violent conduct while the ball is in play against a substitute or substituted player. I find an answer (AIG 08; FIFA LOTG 2009) as an indirect free kick… but for whom? Chronologically the substitute or substituted player has entered the field of play illegally (caution; unsporting conduct) before the player misconduct which would be an indirect free kick for (and sent off) for violent conduct with and indirect free kick awarded to the opposing team. Pulled in both directions.
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
Considering the amendments to and revision of the Laws of the Game for 2008/2009, you may have a point here.
In the first scenario, the IFAB has now made it clear that referees have to decide if the player left the field for the purpose of committing the misconduct or whether the player left the field (or was ordered off — blood, equipment — or was given permission to be off) for some other reason and happened to commit misconduct while off the field. Indirect free kick for the former, dropped ball for the latter.
In the second scenario, the change in emphasis occurred at the same time as the change in restart. After declaring that the restart for an illegal entry by a substitute or substituted player was indirect free kick rather than dropped ball, the Board made it clear that restarting for the illegal entry was the referee’s only choice — i. e., it didn’t matter what the substitute/substituted player did while on the field illegally or what a player did to the substitute or substituted player who was on the field illegally, the restart would still be the indirect free kick for the illegal entry.…