Tricky call

[Wingdings]

Take a look at this scenario.

In a boys U-14 game, Red vs Blue, still scoreless, a playmaker from Red team made a great run from the middle of the field up to about 25 yards from the goal, and was tripped. The girl ref gave the Blue defender a yellow for the foul. Blue set up a wall to defend the freekick. A Red player ran to take the freekick, but then stopped right in front of the ball. One Blue player, not expecting the sudden stop, jumped out of the wall in an attempt to block the kick. The ref blew her whistle and cautioned that player for failing to respect the required distance, amid some protests. Second time, that Red player did the same, and again a Blue player (another one) jumped out, but this time the ref came over to book the Red player, who was furious with the call. He was then sent off following his second yellow for dissent. Blue later took advantage from an extra player to win 1-0.

Did the ref make a correct call? If not, what should she have done?

[Ref Flunkie]

Take a look at this scenario.

In a boys U-14 game, Red vs Blue, still scoreless, a playmaker from Red team made a great run from the middle of the field up to about 25 yards from the goal, and was tripped. The girl ref gave the Blue defender a yellow for the foul. Blue set up a wall to defend the freekick. A Red player ran to take the freekick, but then stopped right in front of the ball. One Blue player, not expecting the sudden stop, jumped out of the wall in an attempt to block the kick. The ref blew her whistle and cautioned that player for failing to respect the required distance, amid some protests. Second time, that Red player did the same, and again a Blue player (another one) jumped out, but this time the ref came over to book the Red player, who was furious with the call. He was then sent off following his second yellow for dissent. Blue later took advantage from an extra player to win 1-0.

Did the ref make a correct call? If not, what should she have done?

Funny, I was reading the FIFA Q&A last night (in regard to the other thread on 10 yards) and found that this is in fact the correct call "by the book".

http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/Q&A2005_E.pdf

Page 33, Question 5:

When taking a free kick awarded to their team, may players use feinting tactics to confuse opponents?

Yes. It is permitted and is part of football. However, if any opponents move closer then 10 yards from the ball before it is in play, they are cautioned for failing to respect the required distance

However, if you look at the 7+7 memo from USSF, found here:

http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/doc_6_243.pdf

It does not list this as a MANDATORY caution (as it says that mandatory cautions are in bold print, and the "respect the distance" misconduct is not in bold). I take this to mean that the referee is not REQUIRED to caution this, allowing the referee to take into account the situation and use his/her brain. At the bottom of the memo it even reinforces that not all cautions are mandatory. So, to make a long answer even longer....I would say YES, she had the right to caution the player for not respecting the 10 yards, but she also had the right not to caution him for either of the violations.

[Wreave]

Booking the red player instead of the blue player was incorrect on the part of the ref.

Arguing with the ref and getting sent off instead of taking the kick was stupid on the part of the player.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

By the absolute Letter of the Law, everything she did seems correct. However, she should try to use the other tools at her disposal for match management instead of putting the card up everytime she sees something that might be in the 7+7 document.

None of us saw the foul, so we might as well assume the call was correct (remember, we're not the only competent refs in the world, so we might as well assume she knows how to recognise a reckless foul).

The Red player feinted, and the Blue player did not respect the required distance. A warning and a retake might be in order (if not trifling), and technically a caution is also an option. Red feints again, the Red player is cautioned for delaying the restart. Again, perhaps a warning about the excessive feinting might be in order, but technically a caution is justified.

The player starts to argue, and perhaps the referee should give him a chance to vent briefly, and then try to calm him down. If he persists, maybe warn him that you're down to your last option if he doesn't stop, and if he still doesn't stop, give him the second yellow.

And unless every player was being man-marked, and the Blue goalkeeper came up and scored the winning goal, we can't assume the extra man caused the 1-0 victory (most teams make sure they have sufficient numbers in defence even when a man down). And even if the extra man was the only difference in the teams, then Red still has nothing to complain about; the excessive feinting at the free kick was a cautionable offence (albeit a little hasty on the part of the referee), and the dissent afterwards was just foolish.

So yes, there is a justification within the Laws for everything the referee did. From my experience, i would guess that she is a relatively new referee, as refs with more experience might not resort to the cards as frequently or robotically (i've noticed it in my case anyway). She'll gain experience do a little better next time. To be fair, the Red player who was sent off still has a lot to learn as well, so you can't focus on the referee's perceived mistakes alone.

[jkdd77]

The Red player feinted, and the Blue player did not respect the required distance. A warning and a retake might be in order (if not trifling), and technically a caution is also an option. Red feints again, the Red player is cautioned for delaying the restart. Again, perhaps a warning about the excessive feinting might be in order, but technically a caution is justified.



I don't see how. Feinting is permitted, full stop, as shown by the FIFA Q & A, and a delay of 1-2 seconds cannot seriously be said to consititue a "delay of game" in any case. That the first restart did not happen was entirely the fault of Blue, and does not negate the right of Red to try the same thing again, nor does it limit Red's actions in any other way from the subsequent kick. Any delay caused is entirely the fault of Blue for again breaching the Laws by encroaching. If anyone was booked, it should've been the second Blue player.

In England, this red card would be successfully challenged before a County FA Appeals Board hearing for misapplication of Law by the referee, and the match would be replayed. All the player would have to do to win their appeal would be to download and print off a copy of the FIFA Q & A and bring it to the Appeals Board hearing.

Also, note that the FA has continued to defy FIFA's directives on the rescinding of red cards, for example, the rescinding of the red card given to Alan Pouton in the recent League 1 game.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2004/08/DisciplinaryLatest.htm

[IASocFan]

Chas pretty well summarized my thoughts. In the US, most U14 red cards aren't brought before the County Board. This is a youth game with youth referees. The sex of the referee and the teams is immaterial, though I suspect the girl may have felt she needed to use the cards to maintain her authority. The same thing could have happened with a boy referee and U14 girls.

Youth sports is a learning opportunity - for both players and officials. Hopefully the referee got some post game suggestions or insight into player management. I know, I usually learn something whenever I'm in a cardable situation. Hopefully the players learned a little about dissent - particularly with a card happy ref! :o

[bluedevils]

I don't think the red player should have been cautioned. We are ASSUMING the caution was for delaying the restart of play, right? The OP did not specify if he knew what the red player was cautioned for. DRP seems the logical choice.

But do we have any explanation or clarification anywhere to tell us what qualifies as delaying the restart of play? I know we are told about GKs holding the ball too long or junk like that, but I don't remember reading anything about the number of times a player or team can feint on a FK or the number of seconds they can utilize before putting the FK into play or anything like that.

So technically, the referee may have been within her rights to caution for this. If she felt the red player's actions constituted delaying the restart of play, then it is cautionable. For all we know, she could have warned the red player not to do it again or she would caution him for delaying the restart of play. Not that such a statement would make the caution correct, but it might explain things a bit better.

Again, I don't think it was right to give the red player the caution, but I think it might have been within the ref's rights to make that decision.

[Ref Flunkie]

What the heck was I reading?! It was early in the morning is my only excuse....for some reason I thought the story was the same player moving in and getting two cautions for not respecting the distance. To be honest, I think the kicker was delaying the restart, as the only goal of his stopping before kicking the ball was to draw defenders in and get them cautioned. I hate players who think they are clever and try to get their opponents in trouble by doing things like this.

[Wreave]

I know we are told about GKs holding the ball too long or junk like that, but I don't remember reading anything about the number of times a player or team can feint on a FK or the number of seconds they can utilize before putting the FK into play or anything like that.

If you're talking about keepers holding the ball prior to punting, that's NOT DRP, as the ball is in play.

I would say, the kicking team should get as many feints as it takes to get the defense to stand back 10 yds until the ball is kicked. If the attackers goes, feints, and the defense breaks the ten yards, presuming it's not trifling, the ref should stop and caution for FRD, reset the wall, try again. If the defense breaks again, caution for FRD again. It's not the kicking team's fault the defense won't respect the ten yards, and they certainly shouldn't be cautioned for it.

Now, if the kicker feints, and no one breaks, he needs to kick the ball and move on with the game.

[Wreave]

To be honest, I think the kicker was delaying the restart, as the only goal of his stopping before kicking the ball was to draw defenders in and get them cautioned. I hate players who think they are clever and try to get their opponents in trouble by doing things like this.

Hate them all you like, but it's permitted. The defenders need to stay back until the ball is touched. This scenario is specifically addressed in the laws. It doesn't say, "if the kicker already feinted once and a defender drew a card for FRD, he may not feint on a second kick attempt".

[bluedevils]

Personally, I am reluctant to caution a player in the wall who breaks toward the ball after the attacking team performs a convincing feint. They get a warning from me on the first one.

It is pretty easy to tell if the team is feinting simply for the sake of feinting and to see if they can draw a caution on the opposing team, or if they are actually trying to execute a feint as part of the taking of the kick. If I see the former, I am not likely to caution the first or subsequent occurrence. If I see the latter, I am much more likely to caution. It boils down to whether I feel the defending team is disadvantaging the kicking team or not. If they are, it is a big deal. If they aren't, it isn't.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Hate them all you like, but it's permitted. The defenders need to stay back until the ball is touched. This scenario is specifically addressed in the laws. It doesn't say, "if the kicker already feinted once and a defender drew a card for FRD, he may not feint on a second kick attempt".At what point then, does it get ridiculous for you? Or is the offence always allowed to feint over and over until 5 defenders have been sent off and 10 minutes have come off the clock?

Granted, it's pretty stupid of the defence to keep trying to run in illegally. But at some point order needs to be restored and the offence needs to just put the ball in play.

[Wreave]

At what point then, does it get ridiculous for you? Or is the offence always allowed to feint over and over until 5 defenders have been sent off and 10 minutes have come off the clock?

Granted, it's pretty stupid of the defence to keep trying to run in illegally. But at some point order needs to be restored and the offence needs to just put the ball in play.

Well, in the matches that you and I do, after probably two infractions (one warning, one card), I would just move the wall back two yards. Then they could break and still be outside the ten yards, play on.

Whatever "ridiculous" is, the ref in the scenario described certainly didn't wait nearly that long. :rolleyes:

[ref47]

i would probably let the blue player off the hook for falling for the feint. he is not delaying the restart as the kicker chose to not restart by performing the feint. he has not interfered with the restart by violating the 10 yard rule, because there was no restart. no harm, no foul. now, had the red player continued and kicked the ball after the feint, and if the blue player was struck by the ball - yc time. but, if the encroachment had no effect on the play - trifling.

as to the red player doing this twice, as i had not carded the blue player on the first feint, i am warning the red player on the second one. any more delay and it's yc time for the red player.

and, seeing i have not carded anyone up to here, no dissent/no 2nd card/no rc. but, given the flow as presented, if i had given the first 2 yc's, the dissent one was a no brainer (if the red player REALLY complained about his 1st yc).

[Ref Flunkie]

i would probably let the blue player off the hook for falling for the feint. he is not delaying the restart as the kicker chose to not restart by performing the feint. he has not interfered with the restart by violating the 10 yard rule, because there was no restart. no harm, no foul. now, had the red player continued and kicked the ball after the feint, and if the blue player was struck by the ball - yc time. but, if the encroachment had no effect on the play - trifling.

as to the red player doing this twice, as i had not carded the blue player on the first feint, i am warning the red player on the second one. any more delay and it's yc time for the red player.

and, seeing i have not carded anyone up to here, no dissent/no 2nd card/no rc. but, given the flow as presented, if i had given the first 2 yc's, the dissent one was a no brainer (if the red player REALLY complained about his 1st yc).


Agreed, and unfortunately, this is something that would only be learned by experience in man management. At U-14 level matches, the experience of the officials is usually less then extensive.

[Summerburn]

The same thing could have happened with a boy referee and U14 girls.



Eh, really? ;)

[jacathcart]

Take a look at this scenario.

The girl ref gave the Blue defender a yellow for the foul. Blue set up a wall to defend the freekick.

What is the relevance of the gender of the ref?

JIm

[Chas (Psyatika)]

None. I think Wingdings just wanted to provide as detailed a description as possible of the scenario.

Plus i'm sure it would have been annoying for Wingdings to see us all refer to the referee as "him" in our replies, so he made the clarification.