Question:
I have a question about a game yesterday that I was an AR of a U14 Boys Select game. This was the second game of a double header between the same 2 teams. I was the referee for the first game. During the second game, a player for “blue” tried a slide tackle from behind and completely missed the ball and the player. The “white” player kept the ball and was moving up the field. Seconds later, the same “blue” player tried another tackle from behind, and caught the cleat of the “white” player causing him to twist and then fall. He came nowhere near the ball. The ball was within playing distance of the “white” player. The “white” player remained on the ground and had to be helped off the field a minute or two later. In my opinion, this was definitely reckless and probably endangered the safety of his opponent. The referee gave him a yellow card. As the referee was writing in his book, I observed the cautioned “blue” player exchanging a “high five” with a teammate behind the referee’s back. I informed the referee and it was decided to require this “blue” player to have a substitute replace him. He returned to the game later on. My opinion was that the “blue” player targeted the “white” player purposely. Afterwards, I thought about what I would have done in this situation. In this case, there were no more issues in the game related to this player, but I think that he should have been shown the red card and sent off because the “high five” indicates to me that he was trying to take the player out on purpose.

So here is my question, if I did decide that he should be sent off, what would be the best procedure to follow? Note that play has not restarted. Here are two thoughts that I have:

A. Change the yellow card (for unsporting behavior) to a red card (for serious foul play).

B. Leave the caution and give him a second caution for unsporting behavior (celebrating after injuring an opponent) and then sending him off.

I was leaning toward option A, but maybe there is something else that I am not thinking of. In either case, I believe a caution would be warranted to the other “blue” player for unsporting behavior.

USSF answer (May 6, 2008):
As we are answering as if you were the referee, it makes our task easier.

If you believe that the tackle by the blue player placed the white player in danger, the answer is clear. According to Law 12, International Board Decision 4, “A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”

Any subsequent misconduct, such as the high-fiving with the player’s blue teammate, would be included in the match report.

We also believe that the second blue player should be cautioned for unsporting behavior and shown the yellow card.

The restart would be for the original foul (and misconduct) on the white player.…

Question:
At a youth soccer game, the coach of one team questioned the ref if the game ball was the correct size and weight since he seemed to think it was not. The ball was like playing with a rubber kick ball with a lot of bounce. The ref answered the coach that both sides have the same advantage and disadvantage with this ball and he was not going to change it, even though there were plenty of balls on the sidelines to choose from.
Should a ball be marked somehow showing that it is the proper size and weight for a game? And if so, then it would have been easier for the ref to point this marking out as proof that the ball is correct.

USSF answer (April 16, 2008):
Although the referee has the final decision, the players deserve to play with the best ball available. There are standards for all balls, specifying circumference, weight, and air pressure. A proper soccer ball should be marked with its size (based on the circumference). The referee should guarantee that the weight and air pressure are sufficient for a good contest.…

Question:
While doing  a pre-game inspection of players prior to a game, I noticed that one of the boys was wearing shin guards that were totally inadequate to protect more than a few inches of his shin — they were about the size of a mens’ wallet. I told him that I would not allow him to play until he found some larger ones, and lo and behold, he did. I later mentioned this to the referee,but he told me that I had no authority in the matter, and if the player wanted to risk his legs, so be it. I disagreed, pointing out that the law prohibits a player from wearing anything that presents a danger to himself, or others, but the man doing the center replied that this referred to items other than mandatory uniform.
Does the U.S.S.F have any guidance as regards this?

p.s. I think that laws or no, I was right- I want no broken legs on my watch!

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
USSF guidance follows Law 4:
Shinguards
– are covered entirely by the stockings
– are made of a suitable material (rubber, plastic, or similar substances)
– provide a reasonable degree of protection

If, in the opinion of the referee, the shinguards do not “provide a reasonable degree of protection,” then they should not be allowed.…

Question:
Most youth teams do not have long-sleeved shirts or thermal underwear as part of their team uniform. Instead, it has been customary in cold weather for players to wear their own long-sleeve shirts or thermal wear under their jerseys. More often than not, these undergarments do not match the players’ jerseys. Now that the new “matching undergarments” rule has been adopted by FIFA, in cold weather games should a referee (i) enforce the rule and thus require the youth players to either remove their mismatching undergarments (risking hypothermia) or not play or (ii) follow the guidance of the USSF’s position papers on the “no sleeves” rule and exercise common sense and judgment, not enforce the rule, and allow the players to play with the mismatching undergarments?

A leading question to be sure, but one that could use official guidance from the USSF.

USSF answer (April 10, 2008):
Even with the recent IFAB interpretation regarding the color of all undergarments, this answer of November 14, 2002, still applies. Please note that we have updated the excerpt from Advice to the current edition:

Under normal conditions, players are restricted to the uniform and equipment specified in the Laws of the Game under Law 4: jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, and footwear. This and other pertinent information is encapsulated in section 4.1 of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

QUOTE ADVICE
4.1 WEARING UNIFORMS
It is implicit in the Law that each side wear a distinctively colored jersey, that shorts and socks be uniform for each team, and that the uniforms be distinguishable from the uniforms worn by the other team. However, the details of the uniform are governed by the competition authority and can vary widely from one match to another. The referee must know and enforce the rules of each competition worked. Players’ jerseys must remain tucked inside their shorts, socks must remain pulled up, and each player must wear shinguards under the socks. All undergarments (slide pants, undershirts, etc.) which extend visibly beyond the required uniform must be as close as possible in color to the main color of the uniform part under which they are worn.
//rest deleted//
END OF QUOTE FROM ADVICE

However, the intelligent referee will try to make an exception due to severe weather conditions, such as knit caps or gloves on very cold days. This would even extend to tracksuit pants, provided everyone on the team wears the same color — which need not be the same as the color of the shorts.
//rest deleted//

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for local leagues (less so tournaments) to have a local rule exception dealing with less than perfect uniforms.…

Question:
I am even embarrassed to ask you this question but I promised my referees to get an answer for them. Here it goes, one of our State referees indicated at State Cup this weekend that USSF is no longer looking favorably on referees handshake (three way hand shake as we call it in this neck of the woods as MLS handshake). The first thing that it came to my mind was that I am sure that USSF have more fish to fry than worrying about a handshake. Could you please solve this mystery?

USSF answer (April 7, 2008):
There is no such restriction on referees shaking hands before the kick-off. It is traditional and done throughout the world. This would seem to be a case of someone misunderstanding something said by an assessor.…

Question:
Law 1 states that “the field of play is divided into two halves by a halfway line”.

Law 11 states that a player is not offside if “he is in his own half of the field of play”.

I assume that I was correct when I flagged two players this past year for having a foot on the halfway line (but not over), since the player (technically) was not in his/her half of the field. However, some seasoned refs told me that having a foot on the half way line should not result in being called offside when that player received a pass.

Help!

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
Technically, if any part of a player that can legally play the ball is past the midfield line, they are in the opponents’ end of the field and could be in an offside position — depending on the positioning of the opposing players.  That counts head, feet and any other part of the player that can legally play the ball — but certainly not the hands. If the referee finds that this player is in an offside position and becomes actively involved in play from that position after a teammate plays the ball in his or her direction, then he or she should be declared offside.…

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.…