Maybe a dumb question, I'm missing the obvious answer: Why do referees need background checks? It's not like we're alone with the players. Coaches, yes. There are dozens of parents and coaches watching the game.
For PR and lawsuit prevention purposes. "Convicted felon refs youth soccer" is not a headline USSF wants to see.
Hopefully its more due diligence. I'm not sure why a convicted felon shouldn't be able to ref youth soccer. At least as long as we believe people can be rehabilitated and given second chances. There are positive headlines that can be written about that. That said, people with a record should be monitored and may be more appropriately assigned to the adult game.
2 questions for the group..the first to answer both correctly wins a box full of chestnuts and silver wrapping paper 1. defender kicks the ball.hits off the referee..what is the restart? 2. player taking a penalty kick moves towards the ball.he stops.then kicks the ball and scores. what is the restart
It depends. Might be play on (if the ball stayed with the defender's team and no real advantage/disadvantage), might be a throw-in, corner kick, or goal kick (if the ball goes out of play without another touch). Might be a dropped ball (if there was a promising attack created or the ball changed possession) Does the player stop, then kick the ball without moving? Or does the player take another step before kicking the ball? If the first, YC, IFK. If the second, kickoff.
Then corner kick (unless it somehow goes over the opponent's goal line, in which case... goal kick). As per http://theifab.com/laws/chapter/29/section/79/: Since it doesn't remain on the field of play... "play continues".
Yes. It's perfectly fair... because the ball does NOT remain on the field of play. It's really just THAT simple.
"The ball is out of play when: It touches a match official, remains on the field of play and: a team starts a promising attacking or the ball goes directly into the goal or the team in possession of the ball changes" AKA since it doesn't remain on the field anymore, as Sulfur said, it would still go to the opponent of whoever last kicked the ball out.
That result meets the letter of the Law. But it's still not in the spirit of the change, which was (apparently) that a team in possession should not suffer the consequences of the ref's lack of the requisite spryness. After all -- a corner kick is a promising attack.
I think it fits the spirit because they don't want it to be a direct result i.e. the ball going into the goal directly or the ball going to someone on a quick counter. If the ball goes out for a corner, they at least have time to setup and defend and it's no longer directly off of the ball hitting the referee.
I'm learning very quickly that there is becoming an expectation from players that every time a ball clearly hits the referee it's going to lead to a drop. Amateur state cup match yesterday with a simple foul in the center circle. As I move away, the free kick taker (a center back), takes it quickly and essentially hits it into my calves. Ball ricochets right back to the original kicker. Now, theoretically, it didn't lead to a goal, didn't change possession, and didn't start a promising attack. So when this player touched the ball again, I could be pedantic and say it's a double touch and that it's an IFK to the opposing team. But everyone seems to expect that the ball hitting the referee leads to a dropped ball now. Another defender literally said "that's ours again, right?" and no one from the opposition even bothered rushing the the ball, despite being close enough to immediately challenge. Honestly, my instinct was it was a dropped ball until I started thinking about it after I blew the whistle. The only way to move forward without making it look like I was arrogant and wanted the game to be about me was to do a dropped ball. So, dropped ball it was. I think this is going to need a re-write.I think the lawmakers wanted to create a scenarios where the referee didn't have to stop play literally every time the ball touches him. But by being so specific, they allowed for a bunch of scenarios where, technically, play should not be stopped but everyone now expects that it will be. There needs to be some basic and simple language about a dropped ball being necessary if there is a "significant" or "material" touch of the referee. Essentially, a glancing deflection is not a drop, but the ball actually hitting the referee is a drop. That's where the high-level players are right now and it would be better if the Laws met them there, rather than being so convoluted that it forces referees to do something that no one wants or expects.
Just to combine this solid response with my little war story... high-level players would be apoplectic if the result of the the referee getting in the way of a pass or clearance is a corner kick for the opposing team. They are seeing more and more that the ball hitting the referee results in a dropped ball to the team that last touched it. Trying to explain the nuance of giving their opponents a prime attacking set piece because of the language in the Laws is a losing battle for even the best referee. The whole point of this law change was to not let the opposing team benefit from referee "interference." I agree that's where the text is, because of the "remains on the field of play" provision. I wouldn't advocate trying to enforce it that way--if it ever happened, of course.
Wait, wasn't one of the justifications for the second great rewrite of the laws to make them clearer? Are you saying that the laws are not now clearly written?