Every so often I have a question for a referee, but I'm reluctant to start a new thread for relatively minor points. Instead, I thought I would create a catch-all thread - questions from others are welcome, of course - and see where that takes us. Team captain. 1) Must a team have a designated captain at all times? I assume that yes, one player must be designated as captain at (virtually) all levels of the sport (above a certain age). 2) Can a team change its captain without the captain leaving the field? I ask because of what happened at last night's Mexico v. Canada game. C. Blanco came on as a late sub, and - as Blanco had just announced his international retirement - R. Marquez ceremoniously removed the captain's armband from his own arm and affixed it around Blanco's. The announcers - accustomed to seeing this sort of switch only when the captain is subbed off - wondered allowed if this spontaneous redisignation was permitted by the laws of the game. Any ideas?
The only requirement in the Laws for a team captain is during a "reduce to equate" prior to Kicks from the Mark in a tie-breaking procedure. The captain of the team with more players must announce who will not take part in the procedure. Even at the coin toss, a team captain is not required by Law, although it is the common practice. Perhaps it would make more sense for the keepers to call the coin and the winner select the side he wants to defend first. In youth games I often remind the captains that they are responsible for the conduct of their teams, as the coach is responsible for the conduct of the spectators and if they are silly enough to believe me it makes for an easier game. Not in Law but whatever works...
Cross-posting from the YNT board ... 3) Must the referee explain a call (if asked)? I assume that the referee should explain, if succinctly - "He tripped him," "He grabbed his shirt," "He handled the ball," etc. - but must he? 4) Do uniform 'issues' ever justify a card - red or yellow - and, if so, under what circumstances? Could a referee legitimately red card a player for having a hole in his socks, wearing mis-matched sliders, etc? Wouldn't the appropriate remedy (when required) be to change socks, sliders, whatever, or to take off the offending ring, watch, chain, headband, whatever? Assuming a player was cooperative, why would a red card ever be necessary in these circumstances? And a related question, shouldn't most of these issues be resolved pre-game?
Advice to Referees has a bit more to say about the captain, but not much. Note that it is in chapter 19, meaning it is even beyond common sense. Emphasis is mine. There are a few other references to the captain in Advice, mostly as a surrogate for the coach/manager.
Along the lines of what RefMike has said, the term "Captain" only comes up three times in the LOTG and all three appear in the additional information that comes after the 17 laws in the published document. During kicks from the mark, the captains have two responsibilities, to call the toss (winning captain decides whether to kick first or second) and to inform the referee which player will be excluded from kicks when reducing numbers to equate. The final mention of the team captain is as follows: So to answer your question there is no reason a team can't change captains at any time under the LOTG. Now the competition authority for a particular league may apply restrictions or regulations (see the new EPL Respect initiative) so that can vary from one competition to the next. I too, during the coin toss procedure, remind the captains of their role. I usually tell them that I'm counting on them to help me manage their teams and that if they can get to a problem player before I do that the result is usually much better.
I suspect that these players were sent from the FOP to correct the issues rather than being sent off for misconduct. At least I hope they were!
The referee has no obligation, beyond signaling, to explain his or her decision. So no, the referee is not compelled to explain any decisions when asked, ever.
A referee could not send-off a player (red card) for a hole in their sock. There area only 7 reasons that a player must be sent-off the field and shown the red card. 1. Serious Foul Play 2. Violent Conduct. 3. Spitting at any person. 4. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply the GK in his own penalty area.) 5. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by committing and offense punishable by a free kick. 6. Uses offensive, insulting, or abusive language or gestures. 7. Recieves a second caution (yellow card) in the same match. None of these are for having a hole in his sock. If a player's equipment does not meet the requirements listed in Law 4 then the referee may order the player off the pitch temporarily to correct the problem, and when the referee is satisfied that the problem has been fixed (and he has time to fix it) then he will let the player back on. The referee may deem a holy sock rolleyes as a violation of law 4. The referee also may caution a player for violations of law 4 as unsporting behavior if circumstances dictate, and 2 cautions results in a send-off.
I had a HS last week where the coach got the card instead of the player, due to NFHS rules, for improper equipment. 33rd minute and the kid comes on with out shinguards. He played for about 5 minutes before I was told, and the coach got the card. In USSF he'd have gotten a card for it. At that point, it's well past the "oh I forgot" point of a game, and all the players and coaches had been asked if they were properly equiped.
Them's the new NFHS roolz, don'cha love 'em? At least they figured out that some kids might be upset with their coach for some reason, and would try to use equipment malfunctions to get him sent off (or disqualified or whatever word they like to use). Only for the first equipment irregularity is the coach cautioned. After that, the players get them.
We've got kids playing who would frag their own coach? ********** Thanks for all the responses - I can see I have a lot to learn. Are referees governed by basic principles (e.g., you should protect the players from risk of injury; you should not only be fair but appear to be fair) or is everything codified into (dare I say, inflexible) rules that must be adhered to (even when in conflict with safety or basic fairness)?
That happened to a player (I think on a Central American team) during an international match about 3 years ago! I saw it on TV, but don't recall the teams - or the ref. If I recall correctly, he got his second YC for wearing a necklace - after having previously (first half) got a YC for the same thing!
Yes - part of what you query (fairness) is codified on page 12 of the Referee Administrative Handbook, purchasable for $1.99 at http://ussoccerstore.com/us00r61990717.html - if not provided in your registration package. Also, Law 5 requires the referee to enforce the Laws. The one that deals with Safety is Law 4.
I think that you are talking about the US-El Salvador game in Sep 2004 (semi final round of the 2006 WCQ). If that is the case then the second yellow was for the necklace, but not the first (it was for tripping early in the game).
Unbelievable as it sounds, yes! Which I guess is why they hurriedly changed tack - now the coach only gets cautioned for first illegal eqpt violation; subsequent cards are issued to the offending players.
Actually, I do like that rule. It means one less thing I have to worry about before the game starts. Besides, there should be some responability for this.
Thanks for the link, 'chris'. I believe I got my copy (free) in my registration package last year - or someone with an inside track gave it to me. Does that link (I can't access its root) also make the ATR available for download. The other links to ATR only have it in .pdf with 'print' disabled! (big frown)
I think the whole concept of geting cards for improper equipment in NFHS sanctioned games is absolutely stupid. If a football player cam on the field without his helmet or hip pads or leg pads, he would be sent off to correct the problem with no subsequent penalty to the player or coach. We do the people who make the soccer rules up think that our game is completely independent of any other when it comes to rules?
If a player is told to fix equipment and does not, that could possibly be considered dissent. We would have to be in the referee's head to know about it, though.
Maybe the increased fees will cover the cost of making the ATR printable and quotable ... Well, one can hope, right?
There is NO rule requiring issuance of cards for IMPROPERLY equipped players! There IS a rule requiring cards to be issued for ILLEGALLY equipped players. It is Rule 4.3 and states: See that rule for the complete description of the penalty in each instance - improperly equipped and illegally equipped players. Also, see Rule 18.1.1.r and s for the definitions of those players. Further, Rule 5.2.2.d.4 requires the head referee to inquire of each head coach whether each of his /her players is properly and legally equipped. Those responsibilities are not 'wishes' or requests, they require affirmation of compliance with the applicable rule. An illegally equipped player entering the field represents a clear breach of that responsibility. Admittedly, not all 'illegal' equipment designations represent potential dangers or safety issues, but many do - and I'd like to think should be the principal reason for requiring compliance. I would prefer that Rule 4.1.1 NOT include many of the pedantic 'requirements' that it does - such as some of the restrictions and requirements pertaining to manufacturer's logos and the size of the numbers or flags or emblems on shirts and shorts!