Entries related to Illegal Gamesmanship
September 15, 2008
Both the LOTG and Advice to Referees state that a player who accidentally goes out of the field of play while contesting for the ball or to beat an opponent should not be considered as having left the field without the referee’s permission. Is there any time or space limit that could apply to this ruling, as if a player runs (uncontested by an opponent) for 10, 20 or 30 yards totally outside the touchline?
This appeared to be the case in a recent game, although the reason for the actual call was not clear. My opinion was that the call would not have been for leaving the field but for some other infringement.
However, I would like a definitive answer.
USSF answer (September 15, 2008):
The Laws tell us: “If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of playing movement.” But they also tell us that any players who do so are expected to return to the field as quickly as possible. The player in your situation would seem to have infringed on the Law.
September 5, 2008
I have a question about a restart off a free kick.
Recently, I was coaching a game and a young referee called a hand ball right outside the penalty area. My players lined up a wall right behind the ball so the other team could not take a quick free kick. The referee was moving back the wall when the other team set the ball and scored while the referee was moving back the wall. I quickly yelled and protested to the referee that a whistle was needed because he was moving the wall. He agreed and a re-kick was ordered and the other team did not score. The opposing coach protested saying a whistle was not needed.
USSF answer (September 4, 2008):
Let’s do a little analysis here on the true state of the situation that concerns you.
First, if your team actually “lined up a wall right behind the ball so the other team could not take a quick free kick,” this is a blatant violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Laws of the Game. The referee should immediately have indicated that the restart could not occur, cautioned one of your players, advised the other players to quickly retreat to the required minimum distance, and then signaled for the restart. There would then have been no question that the kick could not be taken until the referee signaled — your team would have (as it did) successfully prevented a quick restart, but it would have paid at least some price for this obvious misconduct.
Second, assuming the referee failed to understand the need to deal with the misconduct and proceeded to move the wall back, the attacking team was still free to take an quick kick because they had not been ordered by the referee to wait. Clearly, the referee was distracting the opponents but, frankly, this was their own fault. None of this would have happened had they not violated the Law by being closer than the minimum distance. In short, what the referee did was bad mechanics but not a violation of the Laws of the Game.
Lessons to be learned from this:
The defending team has only one right at a restart, not to be distracted by the referee. They have no right to form a wall nor to prevent the opponents from taking a position anywhere on the field. In this case, you are correct about the referee: Because he was pushing your team back, this required a clear indication to the kicking team to wait for his whistle to restart. The referee should have called the kick back and had it retaken, but the referee should have been astute enough to notice that the kicking team wanted to take a quick free kick. That would have solved every problem.
If your team insists on engaging in illegal gamesmanship, they must be prepared to assume the consequences, regardless of whether the referee uses recommended mechanics or not.
Who is correct? What is the correct ruling?
August 22, 2008
The grass on the field is “tall” at the start of the game. At halftime the socre is tied 0-0. Out of the parking lot mowers appear and cut the grass only on one half of the field. This half turned out to be their team’s attacking half of the field. The opposing team files a protest with the referees and league officials that this is not fair. They play the second half but under protest. The team whose offensive side of the field was mowed wins the game. What is your opinion? Should the game have been satrted at all? Was it fair that the grass was cut on only one half of the field? Did the team prostesting gave up their right because they played anyway?
USSF answer (August 22, 2008):
The first response that comes to mind is to wonder why the referee allowed the mowers on the field at all until after the game was over. If they were to be allowed, which is certainly up for debate, both halves of the field should have been mowed. The Spirit of the Game requires that conditions be equal for both teams throughout the match, not simply in the first half.
The referee should be ashamed for having allowed this travesty to take place. The competition authority should require that the game should be replayed in full.
May 9, 2008
I watched this one from the side line and wanted to know the correct application of the rules.
During a U13 girls match, the referee awarded a penalty kick. After the referee gave the signal but before the girl kicked it, the coach of the kicking team yelled out for the team to “watch #2″. The entire team turned to the coach and yelled, “got it, watch #2″. As they yelled, the girl took the penalty kick and scored while the referee and everyone on the defending team was confused and distracted by the yelling. The referee allowed the goal.
I thought the correct call should have been to stop the play, award a yellow card to the team captain (caution the coach as well) for unsportsmanlike conduct, and make the girl retake the penalty kick. I spoke with other refs and they disagree and would have awarded the yellow card to the coach, taken away the kick and awarded a IFK to the defending team. What’s the correct call? I see too much gamesmanship starting to creep into these youth games
USSF answer (May 9, 2008):
Some aspects of gamesmanship are perfectly legitimate, such as players from the team with the ball feinting at free kicks or giving misleading information to deceive or distract their opponents during the attack. Giving misleading information would be when a player calls for the ball, knowing full well that the teammate will not pass it. (Although it does not apply in this situation, the defending team is NOT allowed to do the same thing. That would be unsporting behavior.) The referee must learn to differentiate between those tactics which are legal and those which are not.
This orchestrated shouting, clearly an unfair tactic and counter to the Spirit of the Game, was a violation of the penalty kick procedure by a teammate of the player taking the kick. The referee should have disallowed the goal, certainly warned and possibly cautioned at least one of the kicking team players, and at least warned if not expelled the kicking team’s coach for behaving irresponsibly. Because the ball entered the goal, the kick would be retaken. (If the ball had not entered the goal, the referee would still have warned or cautioned the kicking team player, warned or expelled the coach, and would then have awarded an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the infringement occurred; in this case at the place just outside the penalty area where the player had been.)