Theoretical game and situation: rain from the previous few nights makes a soggy field; undesirable, but playable. There is more wear and tear on the South penalty area than there is on the North penalty area, simply because the South goal is closer to the parking lot and that's where teams practice. With this rain, the North penalty area is slightly wet...the South penalty area is a muddy disaster. Blue wins the toss and elects to defend the North goal. It is evident that the Red (opposing) GK is having significant trouble in the South penalty area. Halftime arrives. Some of Blue's supporters begin placing a generous amount of sand and kitty litter in the South penalty area. 1) Do you allow this modification at halftime, knowing that it provides a greater advantage to one team over the other? 2) What, if anything, should the referee do? 3) Any differences with USSF/NFHS/NCAA?
Spectators/supporters/parents/whatever aren't allowed on the field during a match, ever. This rule is often overlooked if they're not affecting the game in any meaningful way (e.g. sometimes spectators or other teams will come on the field and shoot goals for a few minutes during halftime, or parents will step onto the field to provide water), but if the spectators are attempting to modify the field the referee should tell them to stop doing so and clear the playing area immediately. If they refuse to stop, you immediately eject them from the field. If they refuse to leave, you inform the coach that the match will not continue until the offending parties are gone. If you are given any resistance from the coach, you inform him that you will terminate the match if necessary. Finally, if the spectators refuse to cooperate, you blow the whistle three times and leave. Don't restart the match at that point, even if everyone agrees to comply—they had their chance and it's over. Include all the details in your match report. The whole thing is pretty much textbook, in my opinion.
If the goal area was that bad, I'm not sure I would have ever started the game before calling for the treatment that occured. That said, depending on the level of play, I would get an opinion from the coaches, as better footing for the 'keeper also means better footing for the attackers. If it was a highly competitive match, I probably would not allow the mods. Lower levels, sure. Why not? Player safety.
But let reality invade, by the time you go through all that, and they leave the field as you asked, the modifications are done.
If you live anywhere wear it rains a lot, a crappy/muddy/chewed up penalty area is a real possibility for matches especially as it gets later in the fall. The lower the level of the match and the fewer fields in the area contribute to the crappy field issue. This all assumes that the referee has deemed the field safe. Each team should have to play in the same crappy conditions for each half of the match. Modifications to the field should not be allowed to benefit only one team. Don't allow any modifications to be done. If logic does not persuade them stop their "modifications", your last resort is to abandon the match.
At least here in Vancouver, if the field is as you described it, we aren't allowed to start the match. The parks board would revoke the league's permits if we allowed play on a grass field in that condition.
Interesting and not all that far fetched. For those suggesting they would abandon the match -- what reason are you giving? I completely agree that this falls into the realm of an unfair advantage -- and, I should note, I would attempt to stop them if possible -- but I struggle to see how we as the referee can do anything other than report this once it's happened. It's not a safety issue, as you started the match that way (assuming things didn't get worse during the match). I'm sure there are cute ways around this, I just can't think of one that I would be willing to stand behind. I have had a few situations similar to this in college matches. We had steady rain first half that added to a sloppy PA. At halftime, the crews were out fixing divots and laying down some saw dust (or something) but were only focusing on their defensive PA. It was brought to our attention as we walked out for the kickoff since we had been drying out in the locker room. While they initially resisted doing the same thing to their opponent's PA, they changed their tune quickly when I got calmly asked for a phone so I could call the region NCAA rep. Had they still refused and I was unable to reach the rep (it wasn't an empty threat), I probably would have had to continue. In those cases, a match report that collaborates with the opposing coach protesting will result in serious sanctions. Could I have walked? Probably, but that results in more drama for all parties. It's not about safety at that point, it's just petty tactics. I recognize those tools aren't available at all levels, so maybe that's why we need to get more creative. I just am leery of a weak reason to abandon.
Actually, it is a safety issue. You have no way of knowing EXACTLY what these people put on the pitch. You have no way of knowing if it actually made the pitch safer or more dangerous. If you allow players to play on a pitch on which non-authorized individual placed a foreign substance, you are looking at serious liability issues. EDIT: I should add that our duties include: stops, suspends or abandons the match because of outside interference of any kind Since this outside agent cannot be removed and remains on the pitch, your only choice is to abandon.
Let's be real, here. This is absurd. Assuming the level of competition is high enough for this to matter... 1 Try to prevent it. 2 If you can stop it, before it is significant, stop it. 3 If they are halfway done, give the remaining sand and kitty litter to the opponent for their goal. 4 If the sand and kitty litter are all gone by the time you get there, earn your check: talk to the opposing coach. If he is pissed, tell him it was unauthorized by you. We are going to play. If he wants to make a formal protest, you will write a report that describes what happened. Play the second half. Go home.
Come on now. You most certainly have a way of knowing if this makes the pitch safer or more dangerous -- inspect it. If they scattered kitty litter, it's safe. If they scattered broken beer bottles and rusty screws, it's not safe. The match is already stopped -- it's halftime. In order to get to the abandon part, you would have to decide that you can't resolve the issue (see my comments above). I don't see how anyone gets there, and it's certainly not with a bogus safety claim. I usually am in agreement with being overly cautious but it's a little too alarmist for me, in this case. File a report.
Methinks that at the levels where the right answer is abandon, supporters aren't geting on the field in the first place. In rec games: if the "solution" is going to make the field safer, permit it; if not, don't. (I'll agree that the hypothetical field doesn't sound playable -- if it was like that before the game, it should have been fixed. If rain during the game caused it, then it should be treated at halftime under any level of competition.)
Again, if you make the footing better for the 'keeper you also make the footing better for the attacker. Equals out. I think as an attacker, control in the area is paramount.
True in the whole PA case, but if the repairs are primarily in the GA and particularly right in front of the goal (where the worst damage tends to be), the better footing disproportionately benefits the keeper.
An important distinction drawn by some in terms of whether something occurred during the first half that made conditions worse. If things are getting worse during the game, that could justify taking action at halftime, even if one team perceived it to be to their advantage or disadvantage. Think snow bowl for USA in Colorado last year and the shovel runners clearing the lines. Query -- even if there wasn't additional rain after kickoff, might the players actions on the pitch in the first half have caused enough additional damage to the field conditions to warrant some treatment if available? This decision clearly wasn't being made by the official from the description, but I wouldn't feel hamstrung to continue as we started if additional supplies arrived post-kick off. I'd also like to know if there was any explanation for the delay in not addressing this until halftime. Being practical here, if they got to the field and saw the mess and handed a guy some cash to run to the pet store to get kitty litter and then he gets back midway through the first half, putting it out at halftime may make plenty of sense. If they had it all along and were waiting until it was there turn at that end of the field, seems pretty clear it shouldn't be allowed. In any event, it should be done in as neutral manner. Referee should thank them for their contribution to the field supplies but spectators and/or single team shouldn't be deciding which areas are going to get treatment. Recall the NFL game several years ago where the home team (was it Buffalo?) sent out someone to scoop the snow right at the location of the team's field goal attempt right at the end of the game. Pretty sure the result stood but don't know if there were any repercussions for that, but home field advantage shouldn't extend to that kind of special treatment.
OT but worth a thought or two: In SoCal the comp. authority's permits definitely get scrutinized if you played in poor conditions. OTOH rain is so rare there's incredible pressure on officials to allow play even when the result is going be an extra month of park closure for rehab——most of the time "rehab" means watering so there is more ragweed/ a.k.a. "grass"; fields are never actually cleaned up or leveled properly down here, only baseball parks get groomed. And that aside, most of the parks and rec fields locally are total nightmares even in the sun so... if the field is dangerous most of the time, kids don't seem to ever get hurt; that craptasm and doctor bill goes to the post-forty-something match official backpedally through a trench with a hump...
I have two answers: (Puts on Field Manager hat) This is not allowed, period. Abandon the match for pitch invasion if you cannot prevent it. Only facilities staff, with the referee's direction and permission, may make modification to the field once the game has begun. It is not a matter of advantage but of permission to access the field. If you allow it, you are going to be liable for any damage that material causes to the pitch because you gave permission to access the field (by allowing the modification). Don't do it. (Removes Field Manager hat) (Puts on referee hat) Use common sense. It gives an unfair advantage to the keeper (how many shots in a game come from inside the 6 yard box). If it happens, stop it, talk to the coaches and the facility personnel, and make a decision that is in the best interest of fairness and player safety. EDIT: And make a very detailed report. (Leaves referee hat on...) Your decision here will be looked at from multiple perspectives by others. Here are two of them.
As far as who is making the "improvements" there is usually a home team or hosting club and more than likely they are making the repairs. Chances are unless we make this an issue then people (teams coaches fans) are going to ignore it. Field is wet/rough on one end - someone is working on it - good deal. If it is obvious both ends or spots in the middle - whatever - all need help and only one end is getting then you may have more of an issue - manage it how you see fit. I would guess that there are very few matches that this would happen (of the VERY few that this even could happen as the vast majority are on OK to good field conditions) so don't make it harder on ourselves. If a coach or team personnel is raising an issue and a conversation doesn't suit them tell them you will include it in the report. Playing the game to completion (assuming the field is indeed safe) is a far better idea IMO than inserting ourselves into the decision with an abandoned match. A thorough report will be available if one or both teams protest and since a committee somewhere will have to deal with it if there is a protest, better to let them deal with a complete game and a much easier denial of the protest (IMO) IF there is a protest (maybe the team attacking into the repaired area wins) than an almost definite replay because neither team did anything "wrong".
"Theoretical question." How much sand you think they got? I mean, seriously. Even if you want to just cover the goal area, you are still looking at at least a pick up truck worth of sand and probably more like a dump truck's worth. We're not just talking about top dressing here but enough material to make the surface significantly better. And it's going to take much more than five or ten minutes to spread that much kitty litter and/or sand. I once laid new sod on a penalty area at one end of a field. There were four or five of us and it took over two hours. I'll worry about this when I see it happen in the real world.
Just play the second half like you'd do a basketball game on the driveway growing up. As soon as the defense gets to halfway with the ball, they turn around and go on offense. What could possibly go wrong? Pretty sure this has gotta be supported in the laws or ATR somewhere. Hahaha.
To cover the ENTIRE goal area of a full size field to an average depth of one millimeter would only take about 3.5 cubic feet of sand or cat litter. That's maybe 5 bags of cat litter, give or take. I'd presume if you'd had the forethought to come to the field with a bunch of cat litter, you're not messing around with picking up a bag at the pet store on the way to the game—you probably took the minivan out to Costco and stocked up. Who knows, maybe they keep it on hand at the field for just such circumstances? So given this scenario, it'd hardly be implausible that you could spread enough of it around to make at least some difference. All of that said, I'm not sure why the team would want to bother making the surface better. We all know what happens when a free ball hits a mud puddle, so I'd imagine that as a keeper you'd want the field as wet as possible.
Reminds me of a game I played as a kid. I don't recall rain during the game, but there was a massive puddle in front of one goal. A ball came across to me out near the penalty spot and the goalkeeper came charging out. I pushed the ball past him and he went sliding by. The ball came to rest in the puddle, right in front of the goal about 4 yards away. I headed toward what was going to be one of the easier goals I would ever get to score and blasted it. The ball literally didn't move and I went tumbling over it into the puddle. At halftime, my coach mentioned something about scoop and lift while a parent wrapped me in a blanket... Now you tell me....
I may have mentioned this on here before . . . my one start as a varsity goal keeper (our starter was sick) came in a rain storm. The college we played games at told us we couldn't use the field, so we went and played on ther school's practice football field. Most of one PA was a puddle. I gave up one goal -- when I jumped up, my feet didn't pull out of the mud . . .
1 mm is, roughly, equivalent to 1/25th of an inch. 1 mm is barely visible to the unaided human eye, on a good day. I would submit that sand to a depth of 1 mm on an already "muddy disaster" field, especially after the other goalkeeper has been standing in that goal area for half of the game so far, is not going to make any material difference. Kitty litter (more properly called diatomaceous earth) granules are more than 1 mm. in size, more like three times that size, at least in the industrial form, so you are not going to be able to cover the area to only a 1 mm depth, without additional processing (e.g. pulverizing, which would turn the product, essentially, into dust.) Applying it evenly on an already muddy surface would be very difficult. One cubic foot of water weighs 62 lbs, so you will need at least 55 pounds of kitty litter to absorb it. I would submit that the 'muddy disaster' goal area may hold at least 10 cubic feet of water, necessitating over 500 lbs. of kitty litter to absorb it, a quantity, I submit, that is unlikely to be available at your random soccer field, at least in my SUV.
Not to make us feel old or anything, but "several years" in this case means over three decades: the game was played in December 1982. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowplow_Game Result stood: Patriots 3-0 Dolphins. Repercussions: The snowplow operator, Mark Henderson, was sent straight to prison after the game. That is to say, he was sent back to prison, as he was doing time for burglary. He was only available to operate a snowplow at the game because he was in a work release program. The Patriots eventually ended up with the same playoff seed that they would have if their win in this game had been a tie or a loss instead. The Dolphins lost a chance at the top AFC playoff seed that would have been theirs if they had won this game, but went to the Super Bowl anyway. The next year, the NFL banned the use of snowplows on the field during games. The snowplow in question -- actually just a John Deere tractor with a sweeper brush attached, as the field was Astroturf -- now hangs from a ceiling in an exhibit in the Patriots Hall of Fame.