Ask A Soccer Referee - Kick-off procedure

[hradilv]

Does anyone else find this odd? http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=878

I truly cannot follow the question nor the answer. Particularly: "While the procedure you describe, playing the ball backwards, etc., is not what we would allow on a free kick..." and in the question, what does "stopping" the ball have to do with anything.

I'm just confused.

[snolly g]

Does anyone else find this odd? http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=878

I truly cannot follow the question nor the answer. Particularly: "While the procedure you describe, playing the ball backwards, etc., is not what we would allow on a free kick..." and in the question, what does "stopping" the ball have to do with anything.

I'm just confused.

it's mostly gibberish. but i think he's confused because he doesn't realize that the ball is in play the moment it is kicked forward by the first player.

[hradilv]

But if it is played directly backward by the first player, then it is NOT in play and must be retaken - it doesn't matter what happens after that anyway, the ball is not in play. Isn't that correct?

[AlsoRan]

My perception is that Jim Allen's answers are informative, but often don't address the particulars of the question. His answer in this case is that infringements at kickoff are likely trifling and should be ignored. That is the correct answer for both scenarios posed in the question. However, he did not address the questioner's misconception that there could be a change in the restart if the ball was not properly put in play.

[snolly g]

But if it is played directly backward by the first player, then it is NOT in play and must be retaken - it doesn't matter what happens after that anyway, the ball is not in play. Isn't that correct?

yes, you're right.

he's confused because he thinks that the ball isn't in play until the second player touches it... and he thinks that the second player is the one who must bring the ball to a complete stop... and he thinks that the second player is the one who must kick the ball forward.

i'm guessing this because, when he refers to ifk, he thinks that the ball isn't in play until someone else touches it. (the ball is, of course, in play once it's kicked. it's just that if it happens to end up in the goal and if no one else has touched it, the goal is no good.)

My perception is that Jim Allen's answers are informative, but often don't address the particulars of the question. His answer in this case is that infringements at kickoff are likely trifling and should be ignored. That is the correct answer for both scenarios posed in the question. However, he did not address the questioner's misconception that there could be a change in the restart if the ball was not properly put in play.

yeah, i think the dude was on autopilot...

huh? question about starts? well, starts are no big deal, so most violations are trifling.

[hradilv]

I think I'm starting to get the picture now. Thanks.

[refmedic]

My perception is that Jim Allen's answers are informative, but often don't address the particulars of the question. His answer in this case is that infringements at kickoff are likely trifling and should be ignored. That is the correct answer for both scenarios posed in the question. However, he did not address the questioner's misconception that there could be a change in the restart if the ball was not properly put in play.

I also think that Jim was on autopilot when he answered this, and also didn't answer the actual question, but tried to take into account the "bigger picture" of restarts. I don't usually agree with him though, that these things are trifling.

For example, the people who make the laws (IFAB) have dedicated an ENTIRE law to the throw-in, which is exactly the same amount of the LOTG (1/17th) as fouls and misconduct get, even though Law 12 gets MUCH more attention than Law 15. In THEORY (not in practice), the throw-in is equally important with fouls & misconduct and offside. The way I continuously read Jim's posting about these things, virtually every infringement of some laws (throw-in, goal kick, corner kick, and now restarting with a kick-off) should be considered trifling and ignored. If that were the case, then maybe there needs to be fewer laws. These things were included in the laws as INDIVIDUAL laws for a reason.

My argument is that just like we wouldn't consider a kick to the groin when the ball is out of play trifling, because it's not, maybe we shouldn't be considering a kick-off that goes backwards, or a throw-in taken from the wrong place trifling, even though it's much less severe. Once players reach age 12 or so, they know how to take a kick-off and that it has to be played forward. The only reason that they might play the ball backward, or in the case of a throw-in take it from the wrong place, is because we let them, and they are using that leniency to their benefit, because they know, and many times are coached, that the referee will not call it. If we correct these things once or twice at the beginning of the match, maybe we won't have 15 more "trifling" occurences on restarts later in the match.

[hradilv]

Well said!

see this, too: http://fortheintegrityofsoccer.blogs.com/artandscienceofrefereeing/2008/12/yes-virginia-there-is-a-law-15-.html

[refereejoe]

I also completely disagree with Jim Allen replying about the violations being trifling. If they are always trifling, then why are they laws in the first place?

The laws explicitly state the ball must travel forward to be put into play from a kick-off. It also states that players must be in their own half for play to restart.

I've officiated many games at the amateur level where a team unfamiliar with me will very purposely violate both of these requirements just to see if I'm paying attention and if I'll let them get away with it. It's a form of gamesmanship and showing up the referee if allowed.

Jim Allen should recommend that referees enforce the Laws of the Game in the spirit with which the law was written. I've never seen a high-level soccer match where the kick off was allowed to be taken backward. Typically you'll see just a very minor touch, and sometimes that touch might just knock the ball sideways (or even rock it backwards inadvertantly), but the spirit in which the players are taking the kick honors the intent of the law and thus it can be deemed trifling. Likewise for a player who essentially is in his own half but might have a foot over the line or something like that.

For Jim Allen to state that these violations are trifling carte blanche is terrible advice.

[DWickham]

There is a benefit to being strict on the opening kickoff. As Evans & Bellion note in their book, it sends a message to the players (who look for early signs to evaluate and test the referee) that this referee is sharp, observant and willing to enforce the rules. However, being strict on every kickoff sends a different message: the referee is overly officious, never played the game, and is interupting the enjoyment of the game.

YMMV.

Dennis

[constructor]

I seriously doubt that being strict about kickoff procedure will "taint" the image of the ref with the players for an entire match. Besides, what's so hard about forward movement? How is insisting on doing restarts correctly interfering with the spectator's enjoyment of the game? To the contrary, I'd assert that being lax on a restart that is the focus of everyone present opens the ref up to criticism that might escalate and create problems later in play. Better to be safe and insist that the ball go forwards.

[boylanj64]

I too was confused when I read this answer. I really have no idea what he is talking about.

And as for his frequent contention that thrwo in violations are "trifling," I find that ridiculous. If a player uses a chest pass (as in basketball) to get the ball back in play, and you didn't call it, you'd be skewered. But how is that more of a violation than a professional player throwing the ball in with one leg in the air? The law is written with specific requirements for a reason, and should be enforced that way.

[Rufusabc]

I think the problem is trifling to one referee is not trifling to another.

If you were to ask me what I consider trifling the answer would incite a riot on here. Just like Jim Allen's response has left some with their mouth's wide open. Fo me, on younger game's I make sure the first kick for each side goes forward. And the first couple of throws for each team are done properly.

The older age groups...let's get the ball back in play (unless it is BEYOND blatant). ITOOTR always.

Now....let's get the discussion started.....shirts tucked in...to me trifling.

[AlsoRan]

I think "Let's kick it forward next time" will earn you more respect than a whistle and a re-take. You can even remind them at the next kick off that you would like to see the kick go forward.

But have they really cheated by not kicking it forward? Stealing yards on a throw in is not comparable.

Sure it may be a test. But I think you are just as likely to fail that test by insisting on a retake as you are by ignoring the infringement. Tell them you saw it and didn't like it, but move on.

[refereejoe]

Speaking from experience, it is always much better off for the referee to have all technical matters of the game followed properly from the start. Loosen up as the game moves along, but set the right tone early.

Nobody is suggesting you be overly fussy - just a subtle mention that a player move fully into his own half, or a tap on the whistle with a quick, "Let's get the ball moving forward, shall we?" is enough. It's also important to smile - let the players know you know you're on to them, but don't really see it as a big deal either. It's a cheap and easy way to earn their respect right off the bat. Ignore it, and you're in trouble.

[refmedic]

Now....let's get the discussion started.....shirts tucked in...to me trifling.

Oh......did you have to go there? :D

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I have actually sent players from the field to fix their equipment for not having their shirt tucked in, and in 1 instance cautioned and ultimately sent someone off for it.

Despite some common misconceptions, soccer is a game of gentlemen. It may be played by thugs sometimes, but at its roots, it is a game of by gentlemen. One thing about a true gentleman is that they look the part for everything that they do. IMO, part of a properly equiped player is for that player to look the part, and look professional.

I have no problem with someone whose shirt comes out during the course of play, and as referees, we should use clues (like someone's shirt being out) to help us see that a foul has been commited. A player who is trying to make a fashion statement, or worse, a player who is keeping it out INTENTIONALLY because he know's he not supposed to gets no sympathy from me.

If you have ever refereed at USYSA Regionals (at least in Region 1 back in the late 90's when I was there), this was one of the things that you were informed of at the first meeting when you got your assignments (I guess swearing is their new conentration now). Your assignments at the tournament could be affected if you didn't ensure that all of the players' shirts were in, INCLUDING THE GK. This was the tournament that I cautioned the player, and ultimately sent him off for it.

U-18 Boys match on the second day of preliminaries (back when there were only 2), and there was a player that insisted that he was going to win the battle, despite what I told him, and what he had also been told by the tournament people before it started. I instructed him to put it in before the start of the match, and he argued with me. When he found out that he wouldn't be starting if it wasn't in, he put it in. As soon as the ball was in play, out it came. At the next stoppage, I made him put it in again. Very shortly after that, he got a caution for a reckless tackle. 35 minutes or so in, he took it out again (I was watching to make sure that it didn't come out due to an opponent). When I saw that, I sent him off the field to take care of it, and figured that his coach would let him have it. While he was off the field, his coach DID let him have it, and I didn't see the player until mid-way through the second half. I guess he didn't think that I would send him off for it, because he hadn't been on the field for 2 minutes, and out it came again. I tried to give him 1 last opportunity to not be stupid, but he started jawing at me about it. His coach was yelling something to the effect of (shut your godd%*m mouth and put your godd&*m shirt in) when he looked at me and told me that he already had a card and he KNEW I wouldn't give him a red for this. I told him that he was right, and explained that he was getting a yellow for it, and since this was his second, THAT was why he was getting a red. Mr. tough-guy got dragged off the field by his coach and captain, and they were both shouting at him. That team allowed a late goal due to being down a man and didn't advance because of the draw. That was the only red card I ever gave in 5 years at Regionals.

Was that trifling? Did I make more out of it than I should have? I don't know, but I got an apology from the coach and captain, and an upper age-group final in the middle that year.

This kid behaved like he did because up until then, pretty much every referee that he ever had allowed him to behave that way. REFEREES CREATE THESE PROBLEMS FOR OTHER REFEREES!!! When he came across someone who wouldn't, he thought that HE was right, because no one had made him do the right thing, and ended up in a battle that he was doomed to lose from the beginning. I ended up looking like the bad guy because others before me hadn't done their job. Believe me when I say that I might have been more surprised that I EVER gave a red card for something like that than the player was. My point is that it never should have come to that. If other referees had made him do the right thing, instead of considering it trifling, it would have never happened. Think about this the next time that you have to tell an adult that he has to back up 15 yards to take his throw-in when you know that he knows where the ball went out and you know he is just doing it because everyone else lets him. Even better, the next time that you decide order a retake of a PK due to encroachment, the argument that you're going to get is not because they don't know the law, it's because they have been encroaching for years, and have never been called on it because Jim Allen wrote once on his website that it is trifling and so the referee let it go. There is a HUGE difference between something that is trifling as far as an infringement of the law goes, and something that seems small and petty that we don't think is a big deal. Again I reiterate that if you handle it early and firmly, you shouldn't have to consider it trifling 20 more times in the match (someplace I read that many repeated infringements of the laws in a match, even if they are minor infringements, constitute persistent ifringement; now try to explain that one to a player that is looking at the yellow after the 5th time he has stolen 10 yards on a throw-in).

[hradilv]

I bet you'd get a kick out of the picture in the Winter 2008 plAYSOccer magazine. I'm not sure if this will work: http://tinyurl.com/5h6yc6 You gotta love the untucked ref jersey, hat, card sticking out of the pocket and signaling across his body. Do you think they could have picked a better picture?

[refmedic]

I bet you'd get a kick out of the picture in the Winter 2008 plAYSOccer magazine. I'm not sure if this will work: http://tinyurl.com/5h6yc6 You gotta love the untucked ref jersey, hat, card sticking out of the pocket and signaling across his body. Do you think they could have picked a better picture?

I've just returned from the emergency room after repeatedly banging my head against the wall when I looked at the picture. I can't believe that someone didn't pick up on that before press time and change the picture. For what it's worth, this isn't trifling either.

[constructor]

Please note that it's AYSO. What else?

Back to the topic at hand- it's really frustrating as a CR to deal with trifling things like the shirts in/out, size of shinguards etc, but when a competition authority clearly states in their rules what is/isn't to be allowed, then by gum the refs should enforce the rules in the matches they are contracted to work. When they don't, it just makes it hard for the rest of us who do stick to the rules.

Along that line, let's just look at tourneys. How many of you referees have ever taken the time to read the actual rules of the tournament you're working? I'd bet not too many. Case in point- many tourneys have no proviso for stoppage and the rules mandate that matches will be on time unless authorized by the tourney director. Also, many tourney rules stipulate that no one shall enter the pitch until the player being substituted is entirely off. Don't stick with the schedule for whatever reason, be it mouthy coaches, a false sense of "being fair" about time, or letting teams engage in gamesmanship- and you WILL create problems that will echo through the entire tourney. Let subs rush onto the pitch without following procedure and it's very possible to create a problem with too many players on the field, never mind the fact that the rules specifically forbid it.

But back into the general tone of the subject, better to send a message early, often and clearly that gamesmanship and violations of the LOTG will not be tolerated, nor will other incidents that can escalate into real problems later. The tone will be set that you're watching and that the match will be played within the rules. And yes, it can be accomplished without being a jerk. Just my $.02 worth.

[boylanj64]

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. I have actually sent players from the field to fix their equipment for not having their shirt tucked in, and in 1 instance cautioned and ultimately sent someone off for it.

At first I was horrified by the mention that you sent off a player for an untucked shirt, but after the story I agreed you did the right thing. My coaches always insisted my shirt be tucked in for every practice and every game, and I was doing sprints later if it was out. When I ref, though, I usually decide it is not worth "drawing my line in the sand" over this issue. I tell teams to tuck it in at the start, but I try not to get in to a pissing match once they untuck it.

What I do bother with and have to fight about is jewelry, generally from men's players who will tell me "but I haven't taken it off for 5 years!" Just as my not being anal about shirts upsets you (probably as it should) some other ref not telling a player to take off his necklace makes my job harder.

A few months ago I told a men's player to take off his necklace, he tells me it won't come off, I tell him he can't play if it doesn't, to which he replies "are you f***ing serious?," I show him a yellow because it wasn't "Persistent, Public, or Personal" and I'm feeling nice, he comes back on with the necklace still on, I tell him that is unacceptable, he doesn't agree and we're on our second yellow.

Now, what are the odds someone will grab his necklace and it will tear his throat? Probably low, so you could say it is trifling, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the PGMOL from making it a point of emphasis this year. Would they have had to if every ref at every level fulfilled his obligation? Probably not.

So, to return to shirts, I figure I'll add that to my personal points of emphases, because if there is one thing players like less than refs who are sticklers for the little things is when we aren't being consistent about it.