IFAB announce law changes

IFAB announce law changes ahead of new season as they soften punishment for fouls inside the box and trial video technology

• The International Football Association Board has unveiled some new laws 
• From next season the 'triple-punishment' penalty box rule will be banished 
• Trials of a VAR (Video Assistant Referees) system will take place in Italy
• The ball will be able to move in any direction from kick-off, not just forward

A two-year video technology trial is one of a number of significant rule changes being introduced by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) for next season.

The Zurich-based body, which determines the laws of the game, has approved a trial period of video technology to aid referees.

The trial will take place in Italy and will be utilized in four cases: to determine if a goal has been scored, red cards, penalties and mistaken identity. ... 

See the whole story here, courtesy of Mail Online.

There is a great synopsis of the changes here, from IFAB. You can also get the 2016/17 LOTG here from IFAB.

Kicking Back Comments: While here in the US we do not have to implement these changes now (anyone recall why?) we must continue to deal with the fallout from the new "recommendation" from US Soccer regarding 10 year olds heading the ball.

Kudos to IFAB for trying to make this easier for referees. The LOTG went from about 22K words to 12K words and the format seems to be much cleaner from the version I have from IFAB.

I personally am not crazy about the softening of the "triple punishment" rule as when players start meddling with the fabric of the game (i.e. goals being scored) I think the punishment was appropriate.

Other "changes" are not really changes at all, but verbalization of practices that have existed for some time but have not been put into the text of the LOTG. Generally they make their way into publications like "advise to referees" or other "guidance" type documents.

All and all, for me, a big step forward for HOW the LOTG are presented. Some of the particular law changes (like triple punishment changes and VAR's) ... meh.

Why players don't need the referee

I'll tell you honestly folks, I genuinely believe that this statement (players don't need the referee) is true.

In fact, I'd go so far to say that The Game may be better without anyone except players. Other than my personal feeling and experience of getting the heck out of the way to let players (in a good natured way) sort things out for themselves, I offer (2) examples.

First is from our friend Dutch Referee in his blog entry "10 Rules of Football as a Kid." Pay close attention to rule #6, "No Referee."

Why not? Because no one other than players has a real interest in sorting out who the rightful winner is.

Think about how many times as a kid we were playing together, and something happened that was unfair. Who dealt with it? The players themselves.

How did they deal with it? Well it depended on what happened and to whom right?

If someone got a little hurt, we checked in and kept playing, but if really banged up, we would stop and get mom.

If someone did something outside "the rules" it would bring protests and if it continued we would say "We don't want to play any more." This very think happened yesterday to Little Ms.. She was out playing with some friends and came in when another playmate pushed her into a puddle. Game over.

It is rather incredible when we allow players to self regulate, more often than not, they can take care of it themselves. Yes, I know sometimes we have to play the role of "mom" and look in on more seriously injured players, or give cookies out when feelings are hurt. Yes, at time we play "dad" too when a stern warning is in order to make sure that does not happen again, or if it does you send the player "to their room."

All and all however, we should strive to let the players play and manage only those exceptional situations that really, REALLY, need our direct involvement.

A second example was provided to me my a friend of mine (thanks Pat!) and speaks to the fact that players will look out for each other when things get very serious.

Take a look at "WATCH: Ukrainian soccer player may have saved opponent's life."

Here we have a higher level professional match, where players are paid to compete, yet despite that there was a clear sense of compassion when an opponent was knocked out cold by a keeper and seemed to suffer respiratory distress as a result. In came a team mate of the keeper to save the life, or at the very least come to the aid of, an opponent that was in some form of distress.

When I get the opportunity to speak these about match management, to start the discussion I take a copy of the LOTG and either tear it in half, or toss it over my shoulder to make a couple of points.

First, is that you are not going to find the majority of what you face as a referee in the LOTG. Look at the 2013-14 LOTG ... the 17 laws don't even take up 50 pages of text. There is not a lot there to go over the myriad of situation you will be put through. In that way the LOTG is a guide, not a "rule book" on what to do. That is one of the beautiful things about the document and being a soccer referee, the ability to craft a unique path every time and still adhere to the spirit of what is in that book.

Second, is that ultimately the LOTG does not matter, the players are going to do what the players are going to do and nothing in that 50 page book is going to help. You as referee, once realizing this fact, should seek to unobtrusively manage those players on that day to come out with a result that they think is just.

Some may be sitting back and thinking this is refereeing by some Lord of the Flies method. Its not as there are certainly bounds. My point is the players will let you know where those bounds are well before the LOTG does ... and you as referee should be listening.

I dunno ...

So this is a story that stems from my recent moving experiences.

I have a contract with a national internet service provider, and lets just say they screwed up my service pretty badly during our move, and made life a lot more hectic than it ever needed to be. (In a nutshell they cut us off accidentally ... I will not comment if I think this was a FIFA conspiracy).

Throughout the process I was on the phone for hours ... yes hours ... trying to unscrew the screwed up situation.

With a couple of the conversations, I would ask a question, and the representative on the phone would say "... I don't know, but hang on and I'll find out ...", followed by several more minutes of awful hold music.

This was repeated (5) times ... yes I counted ... it was five.

Now, I am a HUGE fan of saying "I don't know, but will find out ...", if you are asked a question you don't know the answer to. If you try to make up an answer, it will nearly always backfire on you.

However, there is a point when being honest and saying you don't know, turns into a competency issue. After a couple times of "I don't know" when you are in a position to know, is an issue.

Be very careful with this, as a referee in that position you are expected to know *everything* about the LOTG. Now I'll also say that is an unrealistic expectation as the volume of information is huge and includes not only the text of the LOTG, but also IBD's, position papers, addendum, guides ... you get the point.

Like I said earlier, if you don't know something, you should say "I dunno", but please be careful when you do, as with my service provider who said it over and over, they looked like know-nothing fools by having to repeat it over, and over again.

The flip side is take the time to learn from the experience. If there is something you don't know, find out as quick as you can. I wish I could tell you how many times I have asked a colleague at half time if "... I got it right ..." or "... did you see something different ...".

Now I would not recommend thumbing through the LOTG in plain view at half time, but in a locker room to check on something ... or after a match is certainly fair game.

In all cases, future "I dunno's" on the same topic should not happen. Once you have a chance to learn something new about The Game ... embrace it.

On Means In ?! It Just Might Work

For those of who who know him, or know of him, George Cumming lead the FIFA referee program, lead and consulted on several Olympics and World Cups, and oh yeah, help revise the Laws Of The Game in points of his career.

It suffices to say he is an expert, renowned, and respected on The Game.

In his blog George Cumming's Football Blog, he writes about a variety of topics about The Laws, various incidents, and soccer pop culture in general. His writings are very good, and his site is also linked to the right, as I have noted before.

Recently with all the discussion of GLT and FIFA stating they will adopt it, he came out with a couple of posts that I thought were really insightful, and one that was way out of the box thinking, that was really, really clever.

His first, Goal line technology for .01% of world football, I think is a simple, yet eloquent recitation of the reality of FIFA's decision is on GLT.

His second, Is it time to think outside the box?, is a devilishly clever idea to twist The Laws slightly to possible avoid much of the controversy. It is "out of the box" as he says, but worth considering.

Both are good reads to put GLT into perspective that we will start to see soon around the globe.

A coin flip?

Olympic Spot Conceded Without Runoff

EUGENE, Ore. — United States track officials had devised an unprecedented method to resolve an extraordinary situation. After Jeneba Tarmoh and Allyson Felix finished in a dead heat in the final of the 100 meters at the Olympic trials here, the officials gave the runners the option of breaking the tie by a coin toss or a runoff, neither of which has been used to determine a spot on the United States Olympic team. ...

See the whole story here, from the NYT.

Kicking Back Comments: So all the hand wringing aside from the rest of the article, my question to this audience is when in the LOTG do we use a coin toss to decide the match?

Never?

Sometimes?

Before the match if it is raining?

Any thoughts?

Got a question? Be careful of the answer!

Like with many things, you can find an amazing amount of information from the internet. I use it often to find a great amount of "stuff" about a great number of topics.

One should however be very careful in how they approach using this information. For example (and I have personal knowledge of this one), take a look at the Wikipedia article for chicken salad here. Looks good right? Authentic?

It's a spoof from guys that I work with. A complete fabrication.

I can almost hear the Wikipedia police knocking now ...

Same is true about refereeing information. There are lots of sources for information. For example:

AskTheref is an interesting potpourri of questions and answers. Mark Sprenger, Grade 8 referee from CA is the author of the site and does a nice job fielding a wide array of questions, from a wide audience.

The Big Soccer Referee Forum seems to dispense advice as well. Some of which is really good IMHO. Again a wide array of topics (and some inside info at times) to a wide array of folks. Careful here though because even many of the "insiders" get the LOTG or the rumor mill badly wrong.

Absolutely worth reading is You Are The Ref  from The Guardian. Excellent questions, and excellent answers generally from Keith Hackett, arguably one of the best football referees - ever.

We also have Ask A Soccer Referee which is authored by some serious refereeing firepower and is one of the very few official places to get answers to your refereeing questions.

We then get into other blogs of note such as HK Referee who has some truly excellent stuff by way of refereeing analysis and George Cumming blog ... a man who has written the LOTG, not just enforced them.

Then you get to guys like me at Kicking Back who try not to dispense advice, but more to think about why a referee is doing what they are doing. I personally like to challenge perspective with an opinion.

So where does this leave us in the soup of information?

First friends, study the LOTG, Policies and Procedures, and Administrative materials for referees. For those of us involved in US Soccer, look here.

Regarding all the rest, be careful what you chose to use as advice. Punditry is one thing, read that all day long. For me it is an endless source of entertainment to read what other people feel about referees.

For what to implement in your matches however, be very careful to use official information. Much of what you can find online today is not of that quality, or is outdated.

This unofficial information has its place, but is no substitute for the real deal.

How I Made The Call (from NRAH)

From yesterday, the purveyor of Not Running a Hospital, Paul Levy, posed a soccer scenario from a Columbus Day Tournament for us to make a call.

His description in what he his can be found here at How I made the call.

Let me begin the analysis by saying that I agree with his decision as described. I also offer some thoughts as to some of the comments made, and what the LOTG actually says.

As you can imagine, we find ourselves in Law 12 as you may expect for "Fouls and Misconduct."

First question: Is it even a foul?
In a few of the responses to the question on NRAH, I saw the word "intent." To which I reply, Who cares?! Intent is a relic of the LOTG and was replaced with "careless, reckless, or using excessive force", and cuts a much wider path that referees must act on.

Having intent to commit a foul could reasonably be construed as either, careless, reckless, or excessive force. Note however, what if a player was uncoordinated when he made contact with the GK? Careless? Reckless? What if the player made the challenge when they could not reasonably expect to make a fair play at the ball? Careless? Reckless?

Maybe, and as such may be a foul regardless of intent.

Next Question: What type of offense are we talking about though? Jump? Charge? Push? Strike? Holds? Impedes? Does it matter?
My answer here is, it matters only to the degree between determining the type of kick that would need to be taken. This lies in the difference between dangerous play, impedes an opponent, and basically everything else. Consider this rule of thumb ... If there is contact between opponents, it is a direct kick.

Think about our situation, we had a GK and an opponent attacker collide, this would have to be a DFK if a foul was called. Call it a jump, charge, strike ... who cares ... it is a DFK. This is also one of the reasons why when asked, "What is the call?", I reply "A direct kick", "An indirect kick." To do otherwise invites, "... it was a push, not a hold ...", which in how the LOTG treat the punishment are identical. Don't get drawn into a moot debate.

To take this a bit further, what if a "high kick" (i.e. a dangerous play) makes contact to the opponent? You guessed it ... a DFK for a kick. Think contact == DFK.

Last Question: Does the position of the GK matter?
Another comment from NRAH on the topic related to the fact that the GK can not be challenged "in his box" (i.e. the penalty area). This folks, is simply not true.

The penalty area marks where the GK has particular rights relative to handling the ball. Specifically where they may play the ball with their hands. There are no other privileges that the LOTG affords a GK.

No you may immediately say "But the GK is so vulnerable, they must be protected." To which I strongly agree and go further to say if a referee does not protect a GK, chaos will ensue.

While these two statements seem incongruous, my rationale lies in what the LOTG says regarding careless, reckless and excessive force.

GK's by their very nature have to take risks unique to other players in the field. While not afforded special protection, the vulnerability they necessarily put themselves through widens what an opponent may do that is careless, reckless, or excessive in nature.

Consider a GK in our scenario who is stretched out reaching for the ball in the air unlike any other player in that penalty area can do. As such they are vulnerable to a challenge from an opponent in a unique way, and as a result the "sphere" of what is reckless, careless, or excessive widens appropriately. It is NOT because the player is a GK in their penalty area, it IS a result of the way a GK is required to play.

Think about this, a GK that within their own penalty area plays the ball with their feet, and plays like any other field player ... is it reasonable to think that GK can not be challenged due to their location inside the field? Certainly not!

So at the end of the day, I agree with the decision made to allow the play, and allow the goal. My additional analysis here is intended to do nothing more than to relate just how difficult such a decision is when made correctly ... as IMHO Paul did in the scenario provided.

You Make The Call (From NRAH)

So if you are a regular reader here, you know that I am a reader, and often "pilferer of content" from Paul Levy's blog "Not Running a Hospital."

His credentials are vast on many topics, and while his focus is in the medical arena on patient driven care, he is also (and relevant here) a soccer referee.

Over Columbus Day he refereed a match and posed an interesting scenario. That scenario can be found at his blog at You make the call.

Note also the comments to his post, those too are illuminating.

Take the time to take a look and form an opinion. I will post his response tomorrow, and my opinion.

You can follow Paul (and I do) at the following:

• Blog: Not Running a Hospital
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pflevy
• Twitter: @Paulflevy

Now Leaving the Reservation ...

Let me being by saying that I believe Franz Beckenbauer is one of the best players in history, and certainly the best German player of all time. Let me continue by saying that I believe his suggestions to "make offside simpler" (for the referees), and do away with send offs for non-brutal fouls is a bit misguided. See here from ESPN for his proposals.

While unquestionably well intended, Franz may have forgotten why those changes went in to the LOTG in the first place. Which is why most of the changes have gone in with recent history ... to score goals, or in the alternative to make the penalty so harsh for preventing them, people won't.

While correct in saying that offside is difficult to judge, his decision to place it on the FIFA agenda for discussion seems to stem from a particular incident (or at least ESPN portraits it as such) and not from a well thought out, and larger campaign of why it was changed in the first place ... again to score goals.

Der Kaiser may also be reminiscing a bit back to his days when sweepers were for the man and the ball, his comment of send offs for "brutal fouls" is somewhat dated. There are lots of sneaky and non-violent methods to prevent goals, and sending players off is to protect that goal scoring bid, not just punish brutal fouls ... and to score goals.

Same reason for implementing the "5 second" modification and doing away with the "4 step" modification for goal keepers ... to score goals. You can't score goals if you don't have the ball.

Let's face it folks, soccer is not a high scoring game, and FIFA recognizes for the marketability of the game, you need goals ... even I agree with FIFA on that one. Laws should be touched sparingly as I think FIFA has is pretty correct now. That said, I am always open to making it better. I would opine however Mr. Beckenbauer's suggestions would not make things better, but actually much worse.

411?!?

I was cruising the net the other day and ran across Dutch Referee Blog. It's a good blog with some interesting content worth reading.

I found one article ... interesting. See 15 minute stop to check the Laws of the Game.

From the article there are a couple of things that caught my attention. First was the lede:

Referees, always make sure have the number of the FA office in your cellphone, just in case you forgot the latest changes in the football rules.

Okay, fair enough. Good to have the league office number in there so pre or post match if you need to report an incident or get a clarification about something (can that player play?) you can do so. Not a bad idea ... right?

Then this came:

The Dutch women’s match between Odysseus’91 and Wartburgia on second amateur level was stopped for at least fifteen minutes, because referee Nielen was not sure he made the right decision.

Oh no ... 

Nielen doubted and made a call to the KNVB, the Dutch FA, and after fifteen minutes he got his answer ...

WHAT!?!? Hang on coach, let me whip out my iPhone and call the league office, or better yet consult the LOTG I keep in electronic form on there.

Are you (bleeping) me?

Friends, know the LOTG and the respective rule of the competition BEFORE going into a match. While things like substitutions can generally be sorted out on the fly and corrected before an error occurs, goal - no goal decisions on penalties have to be automatic from a referee.

Yes, "getting it right" is critical by using non-traditional methods (jumbo-tron anyone?), but is not a substitute for proper preparation.

While the referee was happy about the decision, I would frankly be embarrassed that I did not go into the match knowing the black letter law about when a goal could be scored. I don't know what the league said on the topic, but I have to believe that are not completely happy either.

Legal or not?

Take a look at the video clip below, or here.

Legal under the LOTG?

If yes, no problem.
If no, misconducts? Restart?

Please share your comments below.

All for one?

File this one under unresolved.

Just the other day I received a survey request from Teresa Smith who serves as a rules administrator for the NCAA (for soccer and a number of other sports). The survey was interesting, asking about various modification the NCAA would seem to be considering. These included:

• Limiting time for a throw-in.
• When players would shake hands.
• Use of noise makers.
• Excessive celebration of a gaol, and
• Time keeping if a caution is issued in the final 5 minutes.

My question is twofold.

First, why the exceptions to the LTOG? FIFA's LOTG deal with all of these things either explicitly or implicitly, and in fact allow the referee some discretion in how to handle them in many cases. While part of me wants to say that the NCAA is considering these rule changes to help referees, I actually believe that changes like this hurt referees as it requires referees to act in all of the above situations without any latitude to understand the situation. It turns a thoughtful moment into a "just do it" moment. Why not let the referees just referee? We say that a lot with players ... let them play. Well please, just let me referee.

Second, why not harmonize on FIFA's LOTG? This is a twist of the above question, but would make things easier for referees to be sure. I used to carry a matrix around from season to season that would enumerate the differences so I did not blow a restart doing a high school or college match. Why not make it easy on everyone? Players, coaches, and referees alike. Go ahead and wear the NCAA patch, but use the same rules.

Granted, there are times when the LOTG need to be modified for various reasons such as age of the players. Changes could include goal size, ball size, field size, periods of play, etc.. High school and college players are entering or are in the prime of their career, why are any modification needed at all?

To help the referee I think is part of it. To be distinct from FIFA as an organization I believe is another. The latter if true, may once again demonstrate a business element creeping into THE game and having the potential for a harmful result.

Just an opinion ... what are yours?

Know before you go & the Law 7 fandango

I was first introduced to this particular phrase when I started flying small planes (yet another soccer story unto itself as I was introduced by current Massachusetts SRA, Andy Weiss). It refers to the fact that a pilot needs to know about the destination, and the route in between, before you even set foot on the tarmac. To do otherwise invites disaster. Over this last weekend I experienced such a scenario that illustrates this point, and how it was affected by the Laws Of The Game (LOTG). While it was not a disaster by any means, in another match, at another level, it would have been.

As we have discussed before, the LOTG allow for variation of the Laws themselves only in certain situations, they include:

• Size of the field of play
• Size, weight and material of the ball
• Size of the goal
• Duration of the periods of play
• Substitutions

Further modifications are only allowed with the consent of the International Football Association Board.

In this particular match (U-10), the referee played a 25 minute first half. The modified LOTG call for a 30 minute half. Here's when the interesting stuff happened.

To this referee's great credit, they thought they had made a mistake, and asked how long we typically played. While this had the effect of demonstrating to everyone that the referee was not sure about how much time was to be played, it also had the effect of a referee who genuinely wanted to do the right thing.

At this point the referee after playing 25 minutes, informed us that we were going to play a 30 minute second half.

I had to bite my lip a little.

Why? Because Law 7 requires "two equal periods". An excellent explanation is here at Ask A Soccer Referee.

So what could have the referee done, when they learned about the correct timing of the match to keep with the laws?

Play the rest of the first half.

This may sound weird, but to adhere to the laws and the rules of the competition, you have to march the teams back out from halftime and play the remainder of the first half. Then, and only then, can you begin the second half.

If you just begin the second half, and play equal periods (in this case another 25 minute half), then you breach the rules of competition by not playing the correct length match. This may give rise to a merited protest as well at it has nothing to do with the discretion of the referee. Not good.

If you extend the second half to the right duration (in this case a 30 minute half), then you breach Law 7 regarding "equal periods." As before, this may give rise to a merited protest as well at it has nothing to do with the discretion of the referee. Not good - again.

From this there are (2) things to keep in mind:

1. Know the rules of the competition BEFORE you take the field for a match.
2. Understand that Law 7 requires "equal periods", (this does exclude any extra time of course). Half, means half.

When in doubt, do what this referee did ... just ask. Be sure to do so BEFORE the first whistle though.

To play or not to play, that was the question

A few days ago I was at a match where the conditions were such that the match was "abandoned" as the Laws Of The Game (LOTG) describes it. It got me thinking about the first time I abandoned a match, and what the reasons were, and where in the LOTG supports this action.

An excerpt of a wonderful treatise by Jim Allen can he found here at Ask A Soccer Referee.

We need first to differentiate between “abandon” and “terminate” a match. The difference between terminating a match and abandoning a match is a subtle one, but it is historically correct and supported by traditional practice. (Research into the history of the Laws will reveal this clearly; the IFAB now uses “abandon” almost exclusively, most likely just to confuse us all.) The referee may abandon a match if there is an insufficient number of players to meet the requirements of the Law or the competition, if a team does not appear or leaves before completion of the game, or if the field or any of its equipment do not meet the requirements of the Laws or are otherwise unsafe; i. e., for technical (Law 1) or physical (Law 4) safety. ...

This article is a must read for folks to be prepared for such an event which can happen quite often due to inclement weather. Ask yourself what you should be doing "when lightning strikes." (Sounds like good post material)

There is a second side to this coin, and that is how abandoning a match can leave a referee feeling. This is distinct for the proper reporting and procedures you must follow (note that some are league specific) after abandoning a match.

Some abandonments are easy to deal with after the fact. For example, lightning strikes off in the distance. You abandon. Case closed. Easy peeze. Similarly if a team has only (7) players and one gets hurt, do you abandon? Does it matter if they are only slightly hurt and can return, or when they leave is that it? The LOTG are clear about this, as is the Ask A Soccer Referee article. Abandon when the Laws say so, easy.

Some are very difficult. Players get into a fight? Benches get into a fight? Stands get into a fight? They all get into a fight? Things thrown from the stands? Things thrown from the benches?

All of this crazy stuff seems to fit into the other reason for abandoning a match under the "grave disorder" heading. This can leave a referee feeling empty and often asking the question, "What did I do wrong?"

Of course the answer may be that the referee could have done absolutely nothing to prevent the grave disorder from occurring. There are times when the players just don't want to play, or other events so far out of your control that not even the soccer gods themselves could have prevented what happened.

That should not prevent a referee from asking "why" however, as the answer they work to may indeed may hold some other clues for their match control.

All this for what you may ask? Here are a few concise points.

1. Understand where the laws require a referee to abandon a match, and be prepared to do so should that scenario arise.
2. Have an idea in your own head what "grave disorder" is. I have no definition to give except to say that if the safety of you, your team, the players, or spectators are involved, it may be time to call the match.
3. Discuss these scenarios with your refereeing team and have a plan to deal with it, should the scenario arise.
4. Write a report to the competition authority no later than 24h after the incident. Be objective, thorough, and precise. DO NOT SUGGEST AN OUTCOME. LET THE LEAGUE DECIDE. You are a reporter of facts only.
5. Reflect on what happened and how you can improve. If for example the field was under water. Not too much to reflect on. If however the match ended in a fight from the players that would up getting a stadium of fans involved, some reflection may be warranted.
6. Don't beat yourself up. Lean what you can and move on. These situations are often unique and very emotional for those involved, even the "simple" abandonments (e.g. unplayable field). Use it to improve on the next abandonment that may happen.

In these cases there are often no easy answers. Follow the laws, and keep everyone safe is all anyone sould ask.

That's netting to joke about

Earlier we spoke about the critical need to inspect the ball, not only before the match but also during any change of a ball as required by the Laws of the Game [LOTG] (see pages 13, 21, and 77). Doing this small thing can save a match from going into disrepute.

Today, a quick comment regarding pre-game inspections and goal safety. While some areas of inspection are less critical than others, one that requires early scrutiny is the condition of the goals used during a match. Particularly, if these goals are properly anchored down. Here too this is a requirement of the LOTG (see pages 9 and 77).

This one is not about a game going into disrepute, this very simply is to save lives.

Don't believe me, look here for a blog entry from Mary Ellias of Virginia detailing the death of her 10 year old son Hayden tragically killed by a goal that fell on him. This post states in part , "What I remember seeing was our son lying face down lifeless on the ground".

A series of law suits were filed, and one of the named defendants was USSF. You can bet your badge that whoever was refereeing that match was asked some very upsetting questions.

That discomfort however is meaningless in comparison to the tragic loss of a young boy and the pain to his family and friends.

Next time your out refereeing, take an extra second, just one, to make sure the goals are anchored and appear safe. If they do not, my opinion is not to start that match until they are, or abandon it, if they can not be made so.

Check a goal - Save a life.

1 + 1 == 10

It can take great courage from a referee to send a player off. It can take even greater courage from a referee to give a player a second caution which results in a send off.

On 13-JUN in the ALG v SVN (report) and SRB v GHA (report) match we saw send offs for second cautions. I am not here to critique the decisions ... the referees are there, I am not. To get the larger refereeing community thinking however, I offer the following.

Lets recall first where this comes from in the LOTG. See page 35 in Law 12 which states that:
"A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: ...
... receiving a second caution in the same match."

So, reflecting on the recent post about cautions, and my comment about getting something back in return, lets extend the thinking in this context as to why this is critical.

Look at the results from the two matches, the cautions, and second cautions. Both second cautions were for "run of the mill" cautionable stuff, not anything "over the top" (theatrically speaking). This makes me reflect on why and how the initial caution was given to each player, and while I will not go into great detail here about it, there is a relevant general point.

Make sure a player "earns" their cautions. In the two cases here, both of the first cautions were for fouls, both the second cautions were for handling the ball inside the penalty area. Once by an attacking player, once by a defending player.

These were earned cautions in all (4) cases. Imagine if one of the cautions was trivial or "ticky-tack" in nature. The level of dissent, which was none in this case, would have been much more pronounced.

Think about a local match when a player is having a bad match and says something in frustration ... maybe even something that could be worth a caution. How about kicks the ball away in frustration. Should it be a caution? Well ... maybe ...

Let's say you book them, and later in the match, they do something really dumb that mandates a caution, like not retiring the distance on a free kick ... red card? The LOTG say yes, but does that do the player, the game, or you as referee any justice? Again my answer is maybe ...

If a player has earned the cautions, no matter how dumb they may have acted, you are required by the LOTG to act. If a player puts themselves in that position, they have earned what was coming to them. Look at GHEZZAL today for ALG. A shirt pull to bring a player down right when he came in as a substitute, and later trying to control a ball with his arm when attacking in the penalty area. No doubt, no question, one, two, done.

There are times when it will not be so easy and the player does a couple of things that mandate a caution. Those are the breaks. As a referee you can not excuse behavior that mandates a caution in the LOTG, but you should work with players to let them know when they are treading on thin ice regarding discretionary ones.

Send off those players who have earned the shame of going home early. Do so however based in their own behavior. Don't be forced into sending a player off by not thinking through what each misconduct really means to the game.

The Living Daylights

For those who have not seen the opening match of the 2010 World Cup featuring South Africa and Mexico, we were treated to a good match in all aspects, in particular was the refereeing. Irmatov, did an excellent job of ushering in the World Cup at an elevated, yet controlled pace.

One incident of note that I wanted to highlight was that at the 37:08' mark, where the Senior Assistant referee,  RAFAEL ILYASOV, made a brilliant offside call. A still of the video is below, and while hard to see, here is the gist.

The still is at the moment that the ball was flicked on by a Mexican player on the 6 yard box. It was flicked to the Mexican player inside the 6 yard box (the only one).

ESPN has a neat video technology that shades from the 2nd the last defender (remember the one that is where  we judge offside from) to the goal ... think of it as the "offside zone". Below we can see the RSA goalkeeper (wearing red) and the shaded area back to the goal, that is the "offside zone", and there is a Mexican player standing right inside of it.

It was really close though (in real time) as the amount of time for the ball to travel about 3 yards at about 40MPH is quick. Couple that with the RSA player going one way, and the MEX player going the other ... and bing, bing, we were pulling the ball out of the back of the net.

There are a couple of ways to go with this one from here (at least). One angle for later is similar to the Joyce post from before ... when should this one stand as a goal, even if offside? World Cup? Opening match? FIFA wants goals ... right?

As I teased before, I will answer this one later ... I am ducking again.

Now is the time to ask, when is even - even? Or how does one judge when a player is even with another and preclude an offside decision?

One way to think about it is if the two players are, when looking across the field, overlapping each other substantially when the ball is played. One question that is often asked, is if there is "daylight" between them, or specifically their torsos.

Simple question, impossible circumstances. This can be hard to do with everything going fast, or if you are asked to do this across the width of the field, which in this case is around 75 yards (look at the marks on the field in the still).

If you look above, or saw the match, you can see there is a bunch of "daylight" between the RSA keeper, and MEX forward that puts the ball in the net. Like I said, it was close, and moving at 100 miles an hour made it that much harder. ILYASOV got it right though, 100% in my opinion.

So when that is you running a line, and there is "daylight" between the 2nd to last defender and the attacker, with the attacker ahead of the 2nd to last defender, raise the flag if they are gaining an advantage from that position as they are offside.

It bears noting that the "experts" calling the match for ESPN got it dead wrong and really dug themselves a pretty good hole about it. It still boggles my mind that folks involved in the game at such a high level genuinely have no clue understanding one of the laws of the game that has such critical bearing on the result.

For those looking for the official match report, it can be downloaded from FIFA here.

US Soccer Referee Directive: Dissent (Viewer Warning - Explicit Language)

Hey Rooney, F*%@ you too! This may have been the thought of the referee the other night when England played a friendly against Platinum Stars and was mercilessly berated for his efforts.

Recently guardian.co.uk reported on an incident of a foul mouthed Wayne Rooney during a "friendly" in South Africa that have lead some to paint him as a target to get sent off by inciting him to eruptive dissent. From the cited story, "The USA, England's first opponents on Saturday, have already suggested they might play on Rooney's perceived fragile temperament with this an indication that the player can be on edge. "Rooney insulted me," said Selogilwe. "He said: 'Fuck you.' He is a good player when you see him on the television, but when you see him on the pitch he just keeps on insulting the referee."

So lets get local about this ... what do you do when you are faced with dissent?

Remember we were talking about all these neat memorandum and position papers being online for the world to see at US Soccer. Well, here (.pdf download) is the one for dissent. It is a good read in spots, in particular it goes into the three reasons why dissent must be managed. From the memo:

• Erodes the authority of the referee;
• Reduces the enjoyment of other participants and spectators; and
• Can spread if left unchecked.

Further it goes into what three elements can be considered when determining an action for dissent. Again from the memo:

• Public

• Personal

• Provocative

Now, while the LOTG require a caution when dissent occurs, there is a subjective element when one referee feels that threshold has been breached. It can change under the circumstances, even in the same match.

Lets take some examples to illustrate these points.

In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a player misses a shot in a one goal game and immediately after shouts "Oh (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Dissent? Lets think ...

Does it erode authority of the referee or match control? Probably not.

Does it affect the enjoyment of the match for all? Probably not.

Can it spread? Probably not.

Was it public? You bet - everyone heard it.

Was it personal? No.

Was it provocative such that others will be incited by the matter? Doubt it.

Is it dissent and therefore deserves a caution? I don't think so. Just some frustration. I would probably respond by publicly jogging over and having a quiet word, maybe not even about the explicative, just to show some presence and acknowledge publicly that I will deal with it.

How about this one. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, that (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Ask yourself the same questions as above, what did you get?

How about now. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

How about this. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU (insert one minute trade without and foul language here)".

Same answer? I don't think so. I may be able to excuse the first as frustration, but the second is getting personal, and if done openly, loudly, and publicly, for me likely gets a caution. The third gets a caution. If a player can not calm himself down after a short period of time, he needs help to do so.

Last one. In a Saturday match somewhere in Podunk USA, a foul occurs and immediately after shouts "Oh ref, YOU'RE MOM (or other relative) (insert favorite one or two word explicative here)".

Here, they are done, send them home for foul and abusive language. Something so personal regardless of loud, soft, public, or not must be dealt with. To not do so invites big trouble. Get rid of that player or coach, the game does not need them, and neither do you.

There are lots of ways to dealt with these issues before they even become issues, and the position paper lists these well and we will deal with these later as well. Here is one now. Do some homework. Case in point:

Look at what the USA is planning, to make Rooney pop. Get him under a caution and you neutralize him for part of the match. Send him off and get a huge advantage.

Do you think Mr. Simon is thinking about this leading up to his match on Saturday?

Bet on it.

We'll watch together how he deals with it.

Did you want the four or the five sir?

As some have seen, there has been some controversy regarding the World Cup, even before the first match is played regarding the construction of the ball being used. Here is an interesting article from the AP regarding the Adidas “JABULANI”, and the concerns it is raising.

More locally as we are on the cusp of State Cup play in most states I was reminded of an incident some years back regarding a match ball, and the havoc it wreaked on a youth team, parents, administration, and referees. It was so notable that the story even made Sports Illustrated.

Long story short, while the match ball is not an issue for tournaments like the World Cup, or down through MLS who use a common match ball (I will one day write about why officials have to show up 2 hours before a match ... I am convinced it allows time for the 4th official to check the 20-something balls required in a match), it can very much be an issue for youth tournaments like Regionals, and certainly State Cups where such stringent control of match balls is generally not enforced.

From Law 2 of the 2009/2010 LOTG, we know that the ball is several things, including: "of a circumference of not more than 70 cm (28 ins) and not less than 68 cm (27 ins)"

Which after you unwind the math, is a size 5 ball.

Uh ... but don't some younger players use a size 4, or even a size 3 ball ...

Yes, yes they do.

A very astute, or administratively minded referee or assessor may ask, "Where do local associations get the authority from FIFA to change the ball size then?"

Glad you asked.

Your answer is on page 3 of LOTG and states:

Modifications:
Subject to the agreement of the member association concerned and provided
the principles of these Laws are maintained, the Laws may be modified in their application for matches for players of under 16 years of age, for women footballers, for veteran footballers (over 35 years of age) and for players with disabilities.

Any or all of the following modifications are
permissible:
• size of the field of play
• size, weight and material of the ball
• width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
• duration of the periods of play
• substitutions

So all this for what?

To keep a referee from potentially invalidating a match result based on using the wrong ball size and underscore how very critical it is to assure that the match ball you start with, is the one that you play with, and is the one you finish with, unless the referee authorizes a change.

Authority to check and change the ball is in Law 5, and will be discussed another time.

In a youth match, things can get crazy, a ball goes over the fence, and a new one comes it. A ball gets caught in the sidelines, and a new one comes in. To hurry play, a coach put several balls in play that have not been checked.

This could spell DISASTER for a match, and a sure fire failure for an assessment, where it is amazingly easy to deal with.

Here is a simple checklist to consider:

1. Check the ball before the match for safety (are there any lifted panels?) size, weight, and pressure. Note that all are critical, but size may matter the most in this context.
2. Keep that ball with you before the match, and I do mean physically keep it under your arm until the match is ready to start.
3. Continue to use that ball throughout the match, and only THAT ball.
4. If that ball is unavailable or becomes defective, repeat #1 for the new ball.
5. At the end of the match, get possession of the ball, and I do mean physically keep it under your arm, and return it to the person it belongs to.

Sounds simple, almost remedial, but has been the subject of at least one national story and a group of very disappointed 12 year old players and parents.

Don't make that mistake ... check, and recheck the competition rules and assure yourself you have the right size ball for the age group you are refereeing.