Question:
I was the center for an adult mens game this week. The attacking team was on a fast break and the thru ball was deliberately handled by the defender to stop the attack. The defender was one of the last defenders (they were almost flat…in a straight line). The Attacking player who was to receive the ball would have been on his way to goal with no defender in sight. The deliberate ball handling took place about 35 yards from goal.

I blew the whistle and gave the defending player a straight red. The AR then called me over to tell me that the attacking player who was to receive the ball was in an offside position. At the half, my other AR said I should have considered the distance from goal that the handling occurred and thought I should have given a yellow card.

Does the fact that the attacking player who was to receive the ball was in an offside position change the card or scenario?

Does the fact that the handling took place 35 yards from goal change the card or scenario?

USSF answer (November 21, 2008):
Yes, as we have answered several times in the past, the fact that the player who might have scored was in an offside position does indeed change the card and the scenario. Although it’s a bit late to do anything about it now except remember it for the next time it occurs.

If the referee accepts the assistant referee’s flag for the offside — which he or she seems not to have shown in this case — that advice is then binding on the referee, who must decide for offside and misconduct. The correct decision is to caution the defender for unsporting behavior and restart with an indirect free kick for the defender’s team, taken from the place where the attacker was when his teammate passed the ball.

However, just to head off questions we know will come from others who read this particular Q&A, let us note several things.

1. if the offside is not accepted (and it is certainly difficult to accept an offense that wasn’t signaled by the AR in the first place) or if the attacker hadn’t been in an offside position, then the issue you raise boils down to this — but for the handling, would a goal have been scored?

2. And someone is bound to bring in the 4 Ds, which actually figure into that decision only marginally.

3. The referee can’t say that DGF occurred simply because, but for the handling, the attacker might have passed the ball to his teammate and his teammate in turn might have been able to take a shot on goal and the shot on goal might have gone into the net.  In this case, it is either a red for DGF because the ball would have gone into the net from the player’s shot on goal or it would be a caution for a tactical foul (illegally handling to prevent the ball from going to a teammate of the player).…

Question:
There is much written about Substitution Procedures under Law 3 about players leaving and entering the field and about referees being diligent about players being completely off the field before allowing the substitute to enter. 
However, one (this referee) cannot find any information about the responsibilities of the referee in allowing that said substitute, who is now the player of record, being allowed time to take position on the field before the referee allows the restart. One would think the center referee has the responsibility to determine the new player be allowed to be properly positioned before the restart. Is there anything written or “understood” about this scenario? 
Allowing a free kick to be taken before a player is properly placed is sure to cause a problem. An assessor told me allowing the player to access their proper position before the restart whistle is a mere courtesy. This cannot be correct.

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
Common sense and tradition dictate that the referee delay the restart until the newly-entered player has reached a reasonable position on the field.  The need for such a delay is obvious in the case of a substitution for a goalkeeper, but is less obvious for players who have no set position on the field.…

Question:
If a substitute enters the field of play before being beckoned, and while the player is still on the field, can the referee force the player off the field and mandate the team play short until the next substitution opportunity?

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
The substitution procedure is quite clear: A substitution is not complete until each step has been properly executed. Before a new player may enter the field, he or she must be given permission by the referee. If that new player enters the field without permission, the process and thus the substitution has not been properly completed.

It would seem to be a bit extreme to force the player to wait until the next valid substitution opportunity. The Law states only that permission to proceed with a substitution may be refused under certain circumstances, e. g., if the substitute is not ready to enter the field of play. (See Interpretations, Law 3.) In your scenario, the referee should stop play, if it has restarted, require the player who entered early to leave the field and then return and only then allow the restart to be taken.

In short, then, the onus falls on the referee, who must use common sense in dealing with this problem.  The substitute can enter the field this way under only two scenarios — either he enters before his player has left and without being beckoned, or he has been beckoned to enter before the player has left. In the latter case, it is the referee’s fault and the referee must bear the entire burden of sorting out the consequences.  This includes NOT punishing either the substitute or the substitute’s team for the referee’s screw-up.

In the former case (which is the scenario described here), the substitute has entered the field illegally and could therefore be cautioned for unsporting behavior.  Even if the substitute is not cautioned, however, it remains the referee’s fault if play is restarted because, according to the Interpretations, play cannot restart except by a whistle signal by the referee.  That is likely one of the reasons why the Laws now specify that the restart has become ceremonial whenever a substitution has been requested — so that play CANNOT restart until the referee has sorted out all the issues of a substitution which has not gone accordingly to the correct procedure. Again, common sense is the key to solving the problem.

See earlier questions and answers for the hornet’s nest that can be stirred up by allowing this to happen in a fast-moving game.…

Question:
The game was getting rougher as the boys kept missing their scoring opportunities and their frustration began to escalate. I made a decision in my head that I was going to have to card the next foul as persistent infringement in an attempt to settle the game down.

There was a poor choice of a tackle on the white team about 7 yards before the penalty area when they were attacking the black goal. I went to blow for the whistle when the ball went straight to an attacking white player who was wide open and did a few dribbles and took a good shot on goal. The keeper did deflect it and it went out of touch for a corner kick.

In the melee of players and from deciding to follow the player with the ball, I lost sight of the black player who made the foul. I went to chat with my AR and he didn’t see who it was either since he was watching else where on the field. So I went to the black teams captain and asked who made the tackle. He said he didn’t know. I then explain to the captain that this isn’t for him specifically, but it was for persistent infringement and I wasn’t sure who made the tackle either.

Besides making a better effort to try to pick out what player it was (the obvious answer) next time, what should my actions have been if how I handled it wasn’t correct.

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
We are not sure that your decision to punish just any foul by just any player as persistent infringement was the right decision to make, as it does not follow the traditional order of things. For there to be persistent infringement, a pattern of either of two things must occur: (1) one player fouls a number of opponents or (2) members of one team foul one opponent. These are destructive tactics aimed at destroying the rhythm of the game. Note: The actions described in (2) would be punished with a caution for unsporting behavior, not for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game.

If you feel that the game is getting out of hand and simply calling the fouls and giving stern talking-to’s to the players is not working, then just caution the next reckless foul as unsporting behavior. Don’t philosophize, act. And a cautionary note: If you don’t know and can’t get reliable information from other members of the officiating team, the only thing you can do is resolve not to make this mistake again. Although we have advised it in the past, asking captains, or players generally, to name a miscreant is not good policy.…

Question:
U 17 higher level girl’s game. Ball is played toward the goalkeeper and it is obvious that the goalkeeper will get the ball although there is an attacking player in an offside position a substantial distance away from the goal area. As ball is going toward the goalkeeper referee is distracted by other events taking place on the field and looks away and does not notice that the assistant referee has signaled offside although the attacker clearly was not going to get the ball and was not attempting to play the ball. Whistle is not blown and offside is not signaled by center referee. When center referee looks back, goalkeeper in reliance on the assistant referee’s signal has carried the ball outside the penalty area in line with the assistant referee, placed it on the ground and is preparing to take kick. Attacking team wants hand ball called for carrying the ball outside the penalty area. Your opinion on the proper way to have handled the situation?

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
The principal error here was the mistake was made by the player — taking the assistant referee’s signal as an indication that play has stopped (particularly given the “U 17 higher level” of the competition). We can apply these ancient words of wisdom to the situation: “The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players.”  The referee should either drive this point home to the goalkeeper by calling deliberate handling or, if feeling kindly at that time and perhaps a bit embarrassed, the referee could whistle to stop play, declare that the whistle was inadvertent, and restart with a dropped ball (because of the stoppage with no accompanying infringement or, as in this case, a trifling violation).…