Entries related to Procedure-Ref
July 1, 2008
1) In a recent game, a player was quite disrespectful towards me, and even twice, in the same conversation, used foul language (“F” word), as well as asked “have you ever refereed before?” I was extremely nice, as I only cautioned him, given that it was his first time playing in the league. I simply asked that he act maturely like all other players in the league (who for the most part respect my calls, given that most think I’m a good ref who properly knows/enforces the Laws of the Game). When I asked his name (we’re required to obtain the name in this league–unfortunately, no ID cards are issued), he refused to give it to me (simply laughed and again mocked me). I strongly suggested he provide it unless he wanted to see a red card. After the game, and over the course of the next few days, I’ve become upset with myself for not issuing a red card during the match for his various acts of dissent, as well as for a lack of any signs of contrition (no apology by him, only by his captain). My question to you (I’m sure the answer is ‘no’): I know that one can ‘downgrade’ a card from red to yellow, but is there precedent for one to ‘upgrade’ a card from yellow to red? If so, please point me directly to the source (couldn’t find it on your or FIFA’s website), so that I can show the commissioner, as well as his captain. This guy needs to learn a lesson.
2) If a player like this shouts dissentful remarks while the ball is in play, I just want to make sure of where the restart is (near him or where the ball was when the whistle was blown) supposed to take place. Alternatively, shall I wait next time until play stops (out of bounds) until issuing a card? His words were so egregious that I stopped play immediately.
3) In a recent game, a goalkick was started with the FB passing wide to the GK. The GK became nervous with pressure by the opposing FW, and simply dribbled back to his box, where, once inside, he fell on the ball and used his hands. This incident isn’t your normal passback situation where it leads to an indirect free kick. My question: is such a play permissible, or should it also lead to an indirect free kick for the other team? Thank you.
USSF answer (July 1, 2008):
1) When a player clearly “uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures” toward the referee or any other participant in the game, that player is sent off. No cautions, and no ifs, ands, or buts. If the player will not give the referee his/her name, then the referee should get it from the captain. And no, once given, a send-off cannot be downgraded to a caution if the game has been restarted. Nor may a caution normally be changed to a send-off once the game has restarted. The referee must simply include all pertinent details in the match report.
2) If the referee stops play for misconduct while the ball is in play, the restart is an indirect free kick from the place where the offense occurred. In this case, where the player uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures.
3) This situation is indeed the classic offense of the goalkeeper playing the ball with his hands after it was kicked deliberately to him by a teammate. The restart is an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the goalkeeper played the ball with his hands (bearing in mind the requirements listed in Law 13 regarding indirect free kicks inside the goal area.
July 1, 2008
When a goal is scored, do you blow your whistle and point up field running backwards to the center? Or just point up field and run backwards to the center line – no whistle.
This topic comes up by our junior refs as they maintain that the Pro refs on TV never blow the whistle when a goal is scored.
USSF answer (July 1 2008):
Referees on the professional game do this because they are following the instructions in the Laws of the Game (Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees in 2007/2008; Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in 2008/2009).
Use of whistle
The whistle is needed to:
• start play (1st, 2nd half), after a goal
• stop play
– for a free kick or penalty kick
– if match is suspended or terminated [Note: For 2008/2009 "terminated" has been changed to "abandoned"]
– when a period of play has ended due to the expiration of time
• restart play at
– free kicks when the wall is ordered back the appropriate distance
– penalty kicks
• restart play after it has been stopped due to
– the issue of a yellow or red card for misconduct
The whistle is NOT needed
• to stop play for:
– a goal kick, corner kick or throw-in
– a goal
• to restart play from
– a free kick, goal kick, corner kick, throw-in
A whistle which is used too frequently unnecessarily will have less impact when it is needed. When a discretionary whistle is needed to start play, the referee should clearly announce to the players that the
restart may not occur until after that signal.
June 24, 2008
I know that extra signals are something that is frowned upon by the games under the aegis of the USSF. However, would it be appropriate in the pregame discussion as a assistant to let a center know that you are going to put your flag halfway up; that is running with it slightly raised as opposed to down at your side? The biggest trouble I am having with players or fans is when I am waiting to determine if the player in an offside position or the player who was not in an offside postion(at the time the ball was played to them by a teammate) will make the next play on the ball.
USSF answer (June 24, 2008):
We are not certain that this unofficial signal would do much to help you. Our fear is that it might confuse everyone, the busy referee, the players, and those wonderful spectators, by suggesting that the flag was about to be raised the entire way in the next instant. We recommend a wait-and-see posture instead.
The Federation does not necessarily frown on unofficial signals, but the USSF Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees provides a set of standard signals that should not be changed lightly — other signals may be used provided they meet certain criteria (spelled out in the Guide itself).
June 23, 2008
i saw this school game when the referee given the Blue Team number 9 a yellow in the 1st Half. During the 2nd Half, the Red Team number 9 committed a foul and the referee give him a yellow card, but referee thought that the number was given the 2nd yellow card, he gave him the red card. That direct free kick resulted as a goal. The referee realised the mistake after the coach complaining and ask the Red Team number 9 to continue with the play. The referee restart the ball with a centre kickoff.
I understand that the referee made the mistake for allowing the goal as the goal scoring team has more players on the field due to the referee mistake. In the case, the goal should be disallowed, but the restart will be that direct free kick again?
USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
Under the Laws of the Game, once the referee has restarted the game, he or she cannot change what happened before the restart. Therefore the Red number 9 remains sent off and his team must play short for the rest of the game. j The referee must include full details of the entire incident in the match report.
The goal stands and the restart is a kick-off, at least in the United States of America.
June 23, 2008
The various scenarios about the Holland-Italy goal put forth on “Referee Week in Review” are very thorough and I hope every referee is aware of each of them. However I do have some questions on Scenario 5. It addresses the hypothetical that “the Italian defender is clearly injured and off the field of play,” and states:
“The referee makes a decision that the defender is seriously injured and cannot return to play by himself. Once the referee has acknowledged the seriousness of the injury, the player may not participate in the play and must not be considered to be in active play (at this point, he would not be considered in determining offside position and should not be considered in the equation as either the first or second last opponent). For purposes of Law 11, the defender is considered to be on the goal line for calculating offside position.
This player, however, may not return to play without the referee’s permission. Remember, the referee is instructed in Law 5 to stop the game only for serious injury.”
Under this scenario, the referee must “acknowledge the seriousness of the injury” and, once this is done, the player cannot participate in the play nor return to play without the referee’s permission. My question is how, in a situation as we had in Holland-Italy, the referee could inform the downed player or anyone else that this player no longer counted for any offside determination and also could not re-enter the field. If play continued upfield, the referee could not possibly get near enough to the downed player to issue any instructions and, even if he could, most players on the field likely would be unaware of the exact situation. How would the attackers know where to line up to stay onside? How would the downed defender, if he got up and was able to continue play, know that he was not allowed to re-enter the field?
Any clarification of what to do in this situation – both for the U15-18 level and for higher level games – would be much appreciated.
My instinct would be to either count the downed player or else decide his injury is severe enough to stop play.
USSF answer (June 23 2008):
In the case under discussion, the goal was scored within three seconds of Panucci leaving the field after being pushed by his teammate, Buffon. That was not enough time for the referee to make any determination as to whether or not an injury existed, much less to judge its seriousness.
Soccer is a contact sport. The referee is required to stop play if, in his or her opinion, a player is seriously injured. He or she does not stop play for a slight injury. Remember that referees will rarely stop play within three seconds. If it’s clearly a severe injury, such as to the head, then yes, there should be an immediate stoppage. However, referees will usually take more than three seconds to make a judgment on the extent of a player’s injury. Panucci was at most slightly injured, if at all. He got up after the goal and did not need any treatment. In addition, it makes little difference whether he fell on or off the field of play. He could have fallen in the goal area. He had been part of the defense and still was part of play, part of the move, part of the game, when the goal was scored.
June 16, 2008
In regards to Law 12, awarding an Indirect Free Kick to the opposing team when the goal keeper “. . . takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession”, there was a situation on a recent adult match.
During “active play”, the ball is picked-up by the goal keeper legally within his penalty area, and upon realizing that he was taking a bit long in releasing the ball back into play, I announced “six-seconds, keeper”. The keeper then drops the ball in front of him and begins to move the ball with his feet while still inside his own penalty area. The keeper was still trying to find one of his teammates to pass the ball to, and I announced “six-seconds” once again.
The two announcements of the six-second warning happened in about a four-second window, and then the keeper kicked the ball outside the penalty area.
After the second verbal announcement I made, one of the goal keeper’s teammates told me that the keeper was not in violation of the six-second rule because the keeper had released the ball from his position, thus the ball now being in active-play.
I was not sure if the actions explained here that the keeper took to not be in violation of the six-second time-limit was valid, thus avoided being cautioned for wasting time.
Could you please elaborate if in this situation the goal keeper violated the six-second rule, or not?
USSF answer (June 16, 2008):
Technically the goalkeeper must release the ball within six seconds of having established full control, which would not count rising from the ground or stopping their run (if they had to run) to gain the ball. However, goalkeepers throughout the world routinely violate the six-second rule without punishment if the referee is convinced that the goalkeeper is making a best effort.
Your warning to the goalkeeper was correct, at least on the first offense. However, once the ‘keeper has released the ball from his or her hands, the ball is now available for anyone to play with their feet — including the goalkeeper.
June 4, 2008
A fourth official observes an offense worthy of a send-off during play, but it is not seen by either the referee or ARs. What can the fourth official do?
USSF answer (June 4, 2008):
We know from the Laws of the Game that the fourth official “assists the referee at all times.” The fourth official must also “indicate to the referee when the wrong player is cautioned because of mistaken identity or when a player is not sent off having been seen to be given a second caution or when violent conduct occurs out of the view of the referee and assistant referees” and also “has the authority to inform the referee of irresponsible behavior by any occupant of the technical area.” So it is clear that the fourth official has the authority to advise the referee in matters of game management and player control.
This is reinforced in the Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials, where we learn that the fourth official “Notifies the referee as quickly as possible if a player or substitute has . . . committed violent conduct out of the view of the referee and assistant referees.”
The answer is analogous to the situation of the assistant referee who observes serious misconduct and begins to flag it before the ball next goes out of play; even though the game may have restarted before the referee sees the flag, the AR must keep the flag up (and call out, if necessary) to gain the referee’s attention.
In the situation you cite, the fourth official must do whatever is necessary and possible to gain the referee’s attention as quickly and expediently as possible. Depending on where each of the members of the officiating team is at the moment, it might be best for the fourth official to call to the referee directly, if he or she is nearby, or, if the senior AR is nearby, to use the AR’s means of communication to get the referee’s attention. Allowing too much time to pass while being polite and circumspect in notifying the referee would only worsen the inevitable tension between the players and lead to loss of control by the referee.
June 4, 2008
At a recent tournament in San Francisco, I was working with a State referee. He was the referee of the match. The pre-game went like this. “I am going to make your job very easy. You are not to call any fouls. The only job that you have is to monitor the offside. The new mandate on a professional level and MLS is to have the referee call all the fouls so we don’t have three different types of foul calls on the pitch.” I have a hard time believing this guy. I have not seen any memorandum indicating such suggestions. If this is a new thing that I am not aware of please show or direct me to such mandate. If is pure fabrication on this referee/assessor/instructor part then we have a problem. If his pre-game/assessment/instruction to young referees of such then this horse pucky is being passed on to other poor referees that only going to believe such non-sense.
To what extent does USSF allow referees to massage laws of the game and make up their own ideas and rules as they go along? Please advise.
USSF answer (June 4, 2008):
The Federation does not do any such thing. Current guidance for referee working games under the aegis of the U. S. Soccer Federation is covered comprehensively in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials.”
This “State referee” would seem to be doing what was common practice throughout the world 30-40 years ago, Things have changed a lot since then, as those of us who were around at that time are happy to testify.
May 19, 2008
Please go over the following for me kindly..
During the FIFA World Cup matches, it appears the referee and possibly the AR’s the 4th man appears to have had a small head set (like one may use for our cell phones for hand free use) who had access to the this communication link..and was it like a conference line bridge between all the referees and a major FIFA official “upstairs in stands”?
Also Are you aware of any proposals being put forth on the Agenda for the Football Board meeting next year in Early 2009 that would make use of replay for limited situations like in the NFL?
USSF answer (May 19, 2008):
The system is used by the working crew only, with no other people plugged in. We have no idea whether video replay will be on the IFAB agenda for 2009 — but would tend to doubt it. We have heard nothing one way or the other.
May 19, 2008
My U10 daughter is a type 1 diabetic and needs to wear a medical braclet. What is the rules about wearing jewelry or medical braclets. Can she wear a nylon band braclet with the standard round metal medical tag?
USSF answer (May 19, 2008):
Law 4 – The Players’ Equipment states very firmly in its very first paragraph: “A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewelry).” This means that all items of jewelry are normally considered dangerous. There are only two permissible exceptions to the ban on jewelry: medicalert jewelry that can guide emergency medical personnel in treating injured players and certain religious items that are not dangerous and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage. Anything that is decorative or possibly dangerous to the player or to others is not permitted, but no referee should refuse to allow a medicalert bracelet to be worn if it is properly taped.
While jewelry is not allowed, there are two permissible exceptions to the ban on jewelry: medicalert jewelry that can guide emergency medical personnel in treating injured players and certain religious items that are not dangerous and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage.
For further information on the requirements of the Law for player safety, see the USSF National Program for Referee Development’s position papers of 7 March 2003 on “Player’s Equipment” and 17 March 2003 on “Player Equipment (Jewelry).” These papers are available at the ussoccer.org website via the referee home page.
One solution to your dilemma might be the nylon band bracelet you suggested yourself, with the standard round metal medical tag (provided it was not considered to be a danger). Another might perhaps be a tennis armband with the words MEDIC ALERT on it and the actual bracelet beneath it.
The U. S. Soccer Federation cannot give blanket permission for any item of non-standard equipment. This band would still have to be inspected and approved by the referee on each game in which your daughter plans to participate. It is our position that jewelry worn solely for medical purposes may be permitted but only if, in the opinion of the referee, the item is not dangerous. Such items can often be worn safely if appropriately taped. If the referee does not approve the band, because it does not appear to be safe for all participants, then your daughter will not be able to play. As stated in Law 4, the decision of the referee is final.
May 14, 2008
The question concerns what constitutes a foul with regard to an attacking player “marking up” the goalkeeper.
A typical scenario would be a a corner kick by team A.
Goalkeeper for team B is well postioned just in front of the goal line inside the posts, facing the corner the kick is coming from. A player from team A marks the keeper and positions themselves either directly infront of the keeper (literally with their back pressed to the keepers chest) or shoulder to shoulder.
As the keeper moves to clear some space, the attacker adjusts and maintains a similar posture, shadowing the keeper in what seems to clearly be an attempt to distract the keeper or impeed the keeper’s ability to see or play a ball without having to move around player A.
Does this constitute a foul by the marking player, perhaps as misconduct or can it be considered impeding the progress of a player?
In short, is it a foul? And if so, what steps can the keeper take to counter the tactic and not be consider guilty of pushing or dangerous play?
USSF answer (May 14, 2008):
If the referee sees the situation developing, there are two choices: wait until the ball has been kicked to see what happens or step in proactively.
1. If the referee waits until the ball has been kicked to see what happens, there are two possibilities. If the player who is posting on the goalkeeper is attempting to play the ball, his tactics are legitimate. On the other hand, if the player is clearly attempting to interfere with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball, the tactics are not legitimate and the referee should call the player for impeding the goalkeeper and award an indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team from the point of the foul — bearing in mind the special circumstances applying to infringements within the goal area.
Unless this tactic is repeated, there is no need to caution the impeding player.
As to countermeasures taken by the goalkeeper against the marking player, they should be punished only if the opposing player is clearly attempting to play the ball and not playing the goalkeeper. The referee must exercise common sense.
2. If the referee decides to be proactive, he or she may stop play before the kick takes place and step in immediately and prevent a foul or even misconduct from occurring by having a word with the prospective perpetrator, whether it is the marking player or the goalkeeper. This keeps the ball with the team that won the corner kick (or other restart) and should defuse a potential escalation of the action into misconduct.
May 9, 2008
The match requires a winner. Regular and Extra time have expired and the score is tied. A blue player received a send off and the referee correctly reduces to equate leaving each team with 10 players. Kicks commence with no team gaining advantage. After the 9th kicker for each team the score is tied. Neither goalkeeper has kicked. The referee signals for a field player (blue) to be sent from the center circle and allows this player a KFTPM and the player scores. The referee then signals for a white field player to be sent from the circle.
At this time the white team coach notifies the 4th official that not all of the players have taken a first kick before his white team player is about to take a second. The 4th realizes there is a mistake before the white team player kicks. He is unable to get the referee’s attention and the white player takes the KFTPM and misses. Blue thinks they have won the match. 4th correctly does not allow any players or bench personnel onto the pitch and calls the referee over to consult. Referee decides to disallow both of the two kicks from players who had kicked twice and have the goalkeepers take their first kick instead.
You can probably guess what happens. White wins.
In conversation with other referees the difference of opinion lies with whether it is permissible for the referee to disallow the two kicks and then permit other kickers to take their first.
One group maintains that once the blue player takes the kick, on a signal from the referee, there is no going back as the match has been “restarted” when the ball is put into play. Since the restart was taken at the instruction of the referee once the ball is kicked and moves the outcome counts (barring any misconduct) and the referee, and the teams, must live with the outcome. (and the referee must make a full report to the competition authority) This opinion is further supported when the referee instructs the white team’s kicker to take their kick. The match has been restarted improperly after a goal is scored. No goal can be disallowed after the next restart.
The other group maintains that ‘fair play’ mandates that the two ‘second’ kicks be disallowed and that the referee correctly decided that the “restart(s)” had been improper.
Which would be more correct?
USSF answer (May 9, 2008):
In this case it is not a matter of fairness, but of fulfilling the requirements for properly executed kicks from the penalty mark — all players on the field must take their kick before any player may take a second kick. Despite the referee’s and other officials’ initial error in failing to keep a proper count of the kickers, the referee finally made the correct decision in voiding the two kicks taken in error and having them taken in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Laws of the Game. The officials will have a lot to talk about and learn from after this experience.