Question:
If the ball is in play at one end of the field and I see a foul or a misconduct  at the other end or away from the play how should be ruled

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
Thank you for an excellent question. You should stop play and deal with the infringement in accordance with the Law, even if that means, for example, awarding a penalty kick at the far end of the field. Now, if only some of our more experienced referees would recognize this fact, we would all be better off.…

Question:
I recently officiated an Adult Men’s League game from my area in which a player received a red card for foul or abusive language toward the referee. When I was leaving I noticed the referee that had given the red card was not going to write a supplemental explaining the circumstances in which the card was given. I told him that when giving a red card in a USSF sanctioned game, a supplemental report was required. Another referee, who was on the game, said that in the USSF match report the type of misconduct was on the report itself, and the supplemental was only for “unusual circumstances”. I continue to disagree. Could you please inform me of the proper time to use a supplemental report?

USSF answer (April 10, 2008):
Much depends on the level of the match. For most youth/recreational matches, referees don’t even use the “official” USSF report form, much less the supplemental form. Same at the senior amateur level below Premiere. You start seeing official USSF forms being used in matches that are directly sanctioned by USSF (e. g., the new national youth academy league) or by sanctioned regional cup matches on up.

We suggest you become familiar with this recent position paper from USSF, issued April 7, 2008:

From the U.S. Soccer Communications Center:

To: National Referees
National Instructors
National Assessors
State Referee Administrators
State Directors of Instruction
State Directors of Assessment
 
From:  Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education

Subject:  Match Reports Involving Discipline

Date:  April 7, 2008

A Circular (No. 1137) recently received from FIFA’s General Secretary emphasized the importance of referee match reports in properly evaluating acts of misconduct for any further response by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. The issues raised by the Circular are equally important for the professional leagues, high level youth and amateur leagues, and major tournaments in this country. The same concerns are also felt in the regional and state associations.

Although all aspects of the referee’s match report must meet high standards of clarity, accuracy, brevity, and pertinence, those sections involving misconduct require special attention, and reporting on acts of misconduct leading to a send off merit the highest concern. The need for effective match reporting starts at the lowest competitive level and becomes ever more critical as the competitive level of the match increases. State Referee Administrators and State Directors of Instruction are strongly urged to ensure that effective match reporting is incorporated in their training of senior referees.

In order for Disciplinary Committees to evaluate serious misconduct, match reports must start with:
– The name of (and additional identifying information for) the player who was sent off
– The time of the send off
– The specific reason in the Laws of the Game for the send off (Law 12)
In addition, however, the referee must supply sufficient detail regarding the circumstances of the misconduct to aid in evaluating its level of seriousness. Among the factors that should be addressed, where relevant, are:

– Whether the action occurred during a challenge for the ball
– Whether the misconduct occurred at a stoppage of play or during play
If anyone was injured as a consequence of the misconduct
– Whether there was any prior incident that may have led to the player’s actions
– The demeanor of the player during the send off (including any difficulties in implementing the player’s removal from the field)
– The location of the action in relation to the goal line and penalty area being attacked at the time
– The subsequent intrusion of any other players (teammates or opponents) during the time the referee is managing the send off
– The specific words or gestures which were determined to be insulting, offensive, or abusive
– The identity of the opponent or official toward whom the misconduct was directed
– A summary of the prior misconduct (or a reference to the section of the report which detailed the prior caution) preceding the second caution for which the player was sent off
– The identity of the assistant referee, fourth official, or reserve assistant referee who provided independently observed facts to the referee regarding the misconduct
– All other details of the action which materially shaped the decision to send the player off
Any other facts which a Disciplinary Committee might decide it needs as a result of its review of the match report can be supplied by the referee on request of the Committee, but the most useful information will come from a properly completed, accurate, detailed, and clear match report. Match reports provided independently by assistant referees, fourth officials, or reserve assistant referees should follow these guidelines as well.

Question:
When the ball is shot or pass back to the keeper who plays it with his feet what is the rule for keepers (if he keep the ball at his feet), When does the time start for the keeper to release the ball I notice in games , that the keepers team doesn’t pick up the ball and lets the clock run, How much time does the keeper have to release the ball after he get possession of it?

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
There is no time limit. As long as the ball is at the goalkeeper’s feet, the goalkeeper may play it there for as long as he or she wishes. This is a traditional and normal way of using time and should not be considered as time wasting. “Possession” in the case of the goalkeeper means simply that the goalkeeper has control of the ball with the hands, not with any other part of the body.…

Question:
Team A is awarded an IFK at the 12 yard line, and Team B sets up a wall just in front of their goalkeeper. Team A’s kicker hits a hard shot towards the upper corner of the net and a defender (not the goalkeeper) reflexively reaches up well above her head to deliberately deflect the shot over the top of the goal.

1. Can DOGSO be called in this situation, given that the goal would have been disallowed if the ball went directly into the goal?

2. Does the situation change if the defender who handled the ball was standing directly in front of the goalkeeper, who was reaching up for the ball and theoretically might have mishandled it – leading to a legal goal – had the defender not illegally handled the ball first?

My view is no DOGSO in either case, but I’m not certain. Thanks for your help.

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
1. While the goal would have counted if the ball had entered the goal, the player did not prevent an obvious goalscoring opportunity, because, as you suggest, the goal would not have counted if the Team B player had not touched the ball. Caution for unsporting behavior and restart with a penalty kick for the Team A.

2. No the situation does not change.…

Question:
I have a question about judging denying a goal or obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball: ATR 12.37 (a) states in part “but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling”.

What if the deliberate handling by a defender prevents the ball from reaching an attacker who would be able to simply put the ball into an unprotected goal (no other defenders or the goal keeper to prevent the goal)?  In this situation, the handling prevents an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but this does not seem to meet the criteria as stated in ATR 12.37 (a) “the ball would have likely gone directly into the goal”.

Thank you for your help.

USSF answer (April 2, 2008):
The information in Advice 12.37 applies only to situations in which, but for the handling, the ball would have gone into the net (in the opinion of the referee, of course).  What you are asking about is at least one step removed from that and would require the referee to decide that, but for the handling, the ball would have gone to another attacking player who, maybe/possibly/perhaps, would have made a shot on goal which, maybe/possibly/perhaps, would have gone into the net.

Your scenario, rather than applying under Advice 12.37, is a perfect example of handling as a tactical foul — breaking up attacking play — and thus merits no more than a caution, followed by a direct free kick or penalty kick (if applicable). The referee cannot spend valuable time dithering over whether or not a player might/could/should/would have done something, but must decide what has happened now. We judge an offense on its own, not on action extended into the future.

For information on dealing with the tactical foul caution, see Advice 12.28.1.…

Question:
Red attacker with ball avoids a slide tackle by jumping over tackler (no contact), but lands akwardly on his ankle twisting it (later determined to be broken). This occurred close to the bench-side touch line. Red attacker, in obvious pain, is yelling profanities.  In this moment, the newer referee was not sure what to do–whether to card for the offensive language or not.  Fellow referees in our area disagree–some say card, others no card. What’s your view and recommendation?

USSF answer (March 31, 2008):
If, in the opinion of the referee, . . . with that opinion formed by some standards.  We already allow for momentary outbursts of frustration and should probably allow the same for momentary outbursts of pain, but not if they continue beyond the moment, not if (other things equal) they are shouted at the top of the lungs, and not if (other things being equal) the language itself is patently offensive (based on the audience and/or by being directed at someone — e. g., the opponent over whose leg the player jumped or the referee whose fault all this clearly was).…