keeper handles his own errant clearance

Deliberate refers to what the teammate did, not what the keeper did. By the letter of the Law, if the ball is deliberately kicked to the keeper, she cannot handle it no matter what intervening actions she takes.

However, the referee also has to decide whether in any particular case the punishment fits the crime. There are times where a "mandatory" caution is not given because of discretion. Is it really right for a referee to give the opponents a pretty good scoring chance, just because the keeper miskicked a ball then picked it up? In my mind that depends on the game situation.

This discretion has to be used wisely, because it can get a referee onto a slippery slope of reinterpreting Laws. The classic example is the ref who won't give a PK because "that foul didn't deserve it" - so either the ball is moved outside the PA for a DFK, or the ref invents an IFK offense. The ref not only has to know the letter of the Law, she also has to know when to apply the Laws. That's what makes a good referee into a great referee.

 

Ahh.... but... how many "free" 'mis-kicks' would you give the keeper before it is intentional? Seems to me that if you don't wistle the 1st one.. you shouldn't wistle any of them. When you do wistle.. and the goalkeeper yells... "Hey Ref... you didn't call it the first time!" Do you yellow card for dissent? Hmmm...

 

Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly. While I do believe the laws do imply that this is an IFK, I can easily imagine scenarios or requirements which, having been met, would cause me NOT to whistle for this.

 

I can't believe there are so many referees who turn a blind eye to infringements when they think they can ignore the law. If a keeper handles a deliberate pass by a teammate, that is an infringement and should always be called. Every DFK foul committed in the PA is a PK, regardless if the referee thinks it doesn't deserve one. If a kid jumps in front of a throw-in, he receives a caution regardless if the referee thinks it is too harsh. Why? Because those are the laws of the game, and although opinion of the referee does come into play, we are not allowed to have an opinion on which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. Our first duty is to enforce ALL of the laws, including mandatory cautions (there are 8), mandatory send-offs (there are 7), IFK fouls (such as the keeper handling a backpass), and anything else that is thrown our way.

For every offense the referee doesn't think deserves punishment, there are 11 players on the field, 7 subs on the bench, 3 team officials, and up to many millions of fans who disagree. If there truly is an offense, and it is not trifling or doubtful, and there is no advantage to be gained, then the referee has the sworn obligation to make the correct call no matter what his personal feelings are on the matter. It is not a matter of opinion.

 

With all due respect, in my experience it's not that simple. Nor do I want it to be. What fun would it be if the referee had no discretion, no room to decide that the game being played today, on this field, is better off with a no-call instead of a call? I wouldn't be refereeing if it were like that.

At the higher levels, what distinguishes the better referees is their ability to manage the game, NOT their ability to spot and penalize for infringements of the laws. Don't get me wrong - I think foul recognition is very important, and I've seen some fairly high-level officials demonstrate that they simply don't see a lot of things or they don't realize that what they are seeing is a foul.

At the state referee level, at least in my state and neighboring states I've worked in, assessors and administrators basically assume that the refs have foul recognition nailed down. I think that is far from true.

But getting back to the main point I wanted to make...

What about the U-12 game in which both teams are taking throw-ins that technically are not correct but are borderline? Do you whistle all of those simply because the letter of the law says so? I don't. I may say something quietly to the player, I may say something to the coach. I may say nothing at all. I may smile and wink at one of my ARs. The LOTG also mention that the laws have a *spirit* as well.

What about the 4-0 game with 10 minutes left, in which the winning team's attacker is tripped near the top of the box, facing away from goal, but maintains his balance and continues to play. Do you award a PK? Usually, I won't.

These are just a couple examples, but there are many many more.

The referee is a human being, and, when he/she is on the field, opinion comes into play all the time. The ref makes judgments based on what he sees/hears/etc., and takes action based on those judgments.

Just my opinion.

 

What box? Tie Box, Jewlery Box, Shoe Box? (This time of the year... I know all about boxes) ;-)
Me thinks you ment AREA?

Next.. near the top of the Penaly area.. but, inside, or outside?

Next... you said.. the player maintains his balance and continues to play and you "usually" won't call at PK? Hmm... if a player maintains his balance and continues to play.. I think I would NEVER call a PK. Even if the player's team is on the wrong end of the 4-0 score. I remember somewhere in the laws of the game about this advantage thing?

Yes... those may have been a couple of examples... but... this isn't one of them...

Just MY opinion.

Cheers,

 

Well, I think most of us know all the proper terms. When discussing the game in writing and in voice, I often choose to use other terms such as 'box' and I don't feel that I am butchering the game. Yes, I meant 'penalty area.' And I meant *inside* the penalty area. Since I was talking about potentially awarding a PK, I thought it was clear the incident was inside, not outside, the penalty area.

In most cases, applying advantage on a penal foul in the penalty area is a terrible idea. There are exceptions, but in most cases the opportunity to maintain possession is much *less* valuable than a penalty kick. Don't you think the players would rather have a PK? From my playing experience, I know that I would. And from my reffing experience, too.

Have you ever called a PK and had someone on the benefiting team say, 'ref, I wish you wouldn't have called that. We would have rather kept possession of the ball'? I can honestly say that's never happened to me, and I don't expect it ever will.

 

From My playing experience... If I was fouled inside the penalty area ... I wouldn't worry about trying to maintain my balance and continue playing.... I would 'accept' the foul, go down, and listen for that glorious whistle.

 

Bluedevils you are making a common mistake. Most people in general assume the various contact you see in higher levels of soccer are fouls that go uncalled for management purposes. They also believe the contact that occurs in low skill soccer from player inability are also fouls that go uncalled. However, this is incorrect.

The referee has discretion in determining which contacts are trifling or doubtful and thus do not warrant being called. These are not fouls. On the higher skill level the players will push and kick quite a bit but not care because they can handle it -- those pushes and kicks are trifling. On the low skill level player might trip each other up but not warrant a call because it is trifling or doubtful.

However, there are too many referees who will not make the proper call because they lack courage, or don't think it is fair. They do deem the act to be a violation of the law, but do nothing about it. Such as the case with the goalkeeper handling the ball after a deliberate pass -- it is a very clear violation and when it occurs the referee has the obligation to make the call, whether he thinks it is fair or not. You are not the one violating the laws, and you do not have the authority to decide which laws to enforce and which ones you will not.

The assertion that the referee has no discretion based off my post is completely inaccurate. The referee has much discretion. He just doesn't have the discretion to ignore a non-trifling violation of the laws.

As far as your example, if the player is tripped and it is not trifling and there is no advantage, I would not hesitate to award the penalty. The score or time in the game matters not. For all you know this team may be tied at the bottom of the table, and goal differential will decide who gets relegated and who remains. By not awarding the penalty and the chance to go 5-0, you may be throwing their entire season away. All because you didn't think it was fair. Well guess what? It wasn't fair the guy got tripped in the PA and didn't get a PK. You just destroyed the beautiful game through your supposed "man management." Nice going.

 

Absolutely! That is the smart play. I just shake my head when I see players 'fight through' PK-level contact in the box in an attempt to score a goal in dynamic play. It's admirable, but not wise. What's most disappointing is that most officials, and I probably include myself here though I don't recall any specific examples, take this as an opportunity NOT to award the PK.

 

Statesman, perhaps we are not disagreeing much except for semantics. I'm not sure what 'common mistake' I'm making, by the way.

First, many calls DO go uncalled for management purposes.

Many of the instances of contact or other questionable fouls/no-calls DO fall into the trifling/doubtful breach category and are NOT whistled because of it. And as you said (at least I think you said), there are lots of other situations, probably in every single match, that should be whistled but aren't because of some sort of error (no guts, bad positioning, lack of understanding what a foul is, etc.) by the referee. However, there is most definitely another category in there that I was trying to flesh out and may not have done very well at it: actions that definitely meet the criteria of a penal or technical foul in the LOTG, but for which the referee has good reasons for not penalizing the offending team. It seems you think this category should not exist. I think it should, and it has a very important place in match management.

There are so many situations in which it is appropriate not to call something that technically was a foul. The aforementioned trip just inside the penalty area with the attacker's team leading by several goals with little time left is the one that keeps sticking in my mind. Re: me not awarding a PK in that situation, you said something about "All because you didn't think it was fair." Not sure what you mean here - I never said anything about fair or unfair in this example. It has nothing to do with why I would or would not award a PK.

What if it's a U-10 game and the score is 11-0 with 2 minutes left? Do you award the PK and rub salt in the wounds of the 9 year old kids who are getting slaughtered out there? I sure hope not. Well the laws say it was a PK so we MUST award it, right? Wrong. Do what's right for the game. Yes, it can be a slippery slope. But it's a slope we can and should attempt to tread.

You're working a 5-0 game late 2nd half. A solid 3 minutes have been lost due to injury in this half. Do you blow the whistle on 90 minutes, or do you play 3 extra? If doing anything less than a PDL game, I see no reason to play the extra time. Bad things can happen. What good really comes of playing the extra 3 minutes? You open yourself up for problems, and you are potentially creating problems for the players.

What you are describing is what I view as a very clinical approach to officiating, and I do not think FIFA, nor USSF, nor any soccer league in the USA wants it implemented in their jurisdiction.

The last thing you said was "You just destroyed the beautiful game through your supposed 'man management.' Nice going." Now that's starting to get a little carried away. You used the term 'man management' (aka player management) Please note that I used the term 'manage the game' (i.e., match management). Player management and match management are 2 very different things.

 

Blue, I don't see what you are going on about. 11-0 final 2 minutes, winning team is fouled in the penalty area with no advantage. Where is there room for the referee to ignore the foul? You award the PK because that is how the game is played. You think Collina wouldn't in a World Cup game?

Maybe you just referee a lower level than I. I don't do much youth, and haven't done anything under U14 with any frequency in probably 6 years. When I do youth, it's usually Super Y or ODP, sometimes SPL, and typically higher than U16.

I don't understand where referees get off thinking they can reinterpret the Laws, or decide not to enforce them when it doesn't appear to help man/match/game/whatever management.

Contact is either judged as legal, trifling, or a foul/misconduct. If it is legal, no problem. If the referee decides it is trifling, IT IS NOT A FOUL. It is just doubtful contact not worthy of stopping the game. If the referee sees what he decides is a foul, he only has two options: apply advantage, or award a DFK/PK. If he does neither than he has failed in his job.

If the score is 11-0 after the first half, are you not going to call a penalty the rest of the game? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

New questions for Grade 8 test administered by bluedevils:

101) A player is clearly tripped inside the penalty area. The referee should:
a) award a PK
b) ignore the foul

102) A player is clearly tripped inside the penalty area, but his team is up 11-0. The referee should:
a) award a PK, rubbing salt in the opponent's wounds.
b) ignore the foul because that would just be too cruel.

103) Three minutes of lost time have occured during the match. However, one team is losing by 5 points. How much extra time should the referee add?
a) None, why risk something happening?
b) 3 minutes.

It has nothing to do with management. It has everything to do with doing your job.

 

Well, if you'd still call the PK for the winning team at the end of the 11-0 under-10 game, then we must agree to disagree. I was trying to make an extreme example that you would agree with, but you are taking a black and white approach. I respect that, though I disagree with it and I don't think it's for the good of the game.

"11-0 final 2 minutes, winning team is fouled in the penalty area with no advantage. Where is there room for the referee to ignore the foul?"

You are correct - in the LOTG, there is no room for the referee to ignore the foul. And yet, so many referees do - sometimes for bad reasons and sometimes for what I consider the good of the game.

In my state, we are reminded at clinics about the unofficial law - Law 18, Common Sense. This subject arises even at our annual state referee recert clinic.

I doubt our differences are due to me doing lower games. I do very few youth games any more. I don't mind them, but have been focusing on adult match count for advancement purposes. Last year I worked my first PDL middles. Next year will be my second and hopefully last as a Grade 5. Most of my games are adult men's, usually first division but plenty of lower divisions too. We have some pretty decent amateur teams here in Michigan.

It also happens that I played one season in the PDL. I'm guessing that very few people have both played and officiated at the PDL, or higher, level. I feel this gives me a pretty good dual perspective that most referees, and players, lack. Does this fact alone make me a better ref than someone else? No. But playing experience is valuable knowledge for referees to have, and I feel that the higher the level of playing experience, the more beneficial it is as a referee.

By the way, what is the SPL that you mentioned? I've done a couple Super Y league games and a few 'National League' games but have not heard of SPL.

When I started officiating 6 years ago, I had a very different idea of the officials' responsibilities and how they should do their job. I was fortunate enough to receive an assessment while working one of my first matches. I was an AR on a 1st division men's amateur match. The main suggestion from the assessor: talk with the players, let them know you are there and watching, in hopes of convincing them not to commit fouls. I rejected that idea for at least a year. I felt it was definitely NOT the officials' job to talk with players and try to influence their behavior; we were there simply to call fouls based on what the players did. Eventually, I changed my tune and I have slowly gained an appreciation for why we as officials are encouraged to be proactive and not always reactive, to manage the game and the players instead of just falling back on the lawbook and hoping things turn out okay. The game is officiated on the field, not on paper. Sure, there's nothing wrong with sitting back and waiting for defender A to whack attacker B in the shin, then penalizing with a DFK and a caution. But the game is so much better off if the ref or AR can do something to prevent that nasty play from occurring.

To me, picking and choosing which fouls to call and which not to call is the same sort of thing. The referee must decide what is best for the game and act accordingly. If that means not whistling for certain things that are fouls, that's what I do. Attacker gets clipped, enough for a foul but not a caution, then goes down in a heap in an attempt to gain more severe punishment against the defender. The ref can:
1) call the foul and say nothing to any of the players.
2) call the foul and talk to the attacker about not diving.
3) call the foul and tell the defender you understand the attacker is diving and you aren't buying it, but it was still a foul so you had to call it.
4) do nothing and allow play to continue, possibly having a word with both attacker (stop diving and you'll get that call) and defender (be careful, because that WAS a foul even though I didn't call it).
5) award the free kick for the attacker and also caution him for unsporting behavior (simulation).

I've done the first 4. I'm dying to try #5 sometime, but I really don't think it would go over well with anyone on either team and is therefore not a good idea - even though it is technically within the LOTG and the referee's authority to do so. #4 technically is not allowed, and yet it is my favorite choice of all.

 

Never say never because this does really happen.

True story.


I was coaching a boy's JV team several years ago. It was against a league rival on the road. They had never beaten us at any level in soccer and were hungry to have that "break through" game. It was a barnburner, up and down with nice goals scored (for a JV contest).


Late in the game, thier best striker broke through my back line and raced in from an angle 1v1 on our keeper. The keeper flew off his line and dove at the striker's feet. The striker slide the ball past the sprawling keeper just as he was bowled over. The ref blew the whistle for a PK.......seconds before a striker on the other wing ran in and slotted home the ball. The ref pointed to the center circle and started writing down the time and scorer's number in his book.

I said "whoa.....you can't allow that goal. You blew the whistle before he kicked it in. You can't allow "advantage" after you stop play. That's a PK."

He didn't want to listen to me, but the ref on the other side of the field walked over and agreed with me (2 ref system). They discussed it for a few minutes while the opposing team started getting agitated.

They finally decided that the correct call was a PK. Of course the opposing coach went nuts. The fans went nuts, and better yet the other team was furious.

You can guess what happened on the PK......cranked off the post and the game's momentum swung our way. We scored a late goal and ended up tying them. I still remember how pissed off they were walking off the field (mostly at the ref for changing his call). To this day, that's the only time I can recall changing a game's outcome by arguing with an official.

 

SPL is just our "State Premier League." Just another typical skilled youth league, nothing special. Most of them play in Y and ODP, and on the regional teams.

As an instructor, it always worries me when people discuss the referee's discretion and Law 18. Not because I believe those principles are bad for soccer, but because your average referee has never been trained in utilizing them. Instead they are merely instructed to "use common sense" without any concept of what that means in terms of refereeing.

In my classes, I talk about bending the Laws (as do most instructors). However, whereas most instructors leave it at that, I take it one step further. I also enforce the idea that the Laws are not to be broken. That is what happens when you ignore the foul in the penalty area, or the foul that the player simulated injury from. Bending the laws means adjusting your application when considering what is trifling or doubtful, not deciding which ones to enforce at what time. Like the old addage goes, a push at the U10 level is not going to be a push with the pros. The law is being bent to accomodate the skill of the players, but pushing in its respective form is still illegal.

U10, 11-0 score, 5 minutes left, winning team attacker is fouled in opponent's PA. Referee does nothing. The message sent to the kids? "It's ok to foul in the last 5 minutes when your team is losing bad." Call the PK -- yes it will demoralize the players a little bit, but it also teaches them the law is enforced from the first minutes to the last. They will get over it, and they will learn. That is your job.

Men's amateur match, a player is fouled then simulates an injury. This is not a discretionary caution, it is mandatory. The only reason referees get away with not carding on the first offense is because players no longer have that expectation. They anticipate the referee will not have the courage to caution, so when he does not they just roll their eyes and move on.

When the attacker feigns injury, you cannot deny the fact he got fouled. He knows this, and when you do not make the call he knows that you just screwed up. You owe it to him to compensate for him being fouled. However, he also knows his feigning is worthy of a caution. When you do not give the caution, he knows you have screwed up again. What is the message sent to the defender? "The guy I fouled will fake an injury. When the referee sees this, he does not call the foul. Therefore it is ok for me to foul that player so long as he fakes injury." The message sent to the attacker? "The referee doesn't know a foul, and doesn't have the guts to give a caution." While this is going on in the players' heads, they are smiling and nodding and laughing with you like you are their best friend. The message you get? "The players liked my decision." Sure.

Instead, you need to be firm and use the authority provided by the Laws. The defender committed a foul with no advantage, so the DFK must be given. That appeases the attacker. Then, you either give that caution for simulation and send a very clear message to everybody else, or, if you feel the game will be highly contested, you give a very verbal public tongue lashing to the attacker. That appeases the defender. Both sides are compensated for the wrongs committed against them and the game, and you as the referee come away for the better. The players might whine and complain on the outside, and you might get a few boos from the crowd, but underneath the surface the players will know you are a capable referee and respect your decision.

The management in all of this is talking to the players and informing them of your decisions so they are not confused. Use whatever methods best suit your personality. This is also where referee discretion comes into play.

In short, use the full authority the Laws provide. Shirking the Laws for the sake of "management" is not the proper way to handle a situation. You need to take charge of the situation and ensure the game is played the way it is meant to be played. THAT is the key to good management.

 

That was probably the most important paragraph in this whole thread. What was left unsaid is that each and every action is judged individually by the referee on the legal/trifling/foul/misconduct scale. I think we all realize that the scale changes within the game because of the situation.

A case study. I was doing a women's rec league game a couple years ago. This league attracts players on any level, from soccer moms who thought they might try the sport to those who have been playing all their lives. The level of play ranges anywhere from worse than u12 to as good as state cup. A player was tripped, which I saw but elected not to call. She bounced up, "Why wasn't that a foul? You just called the same thing against us!" I said we'll talk after the game. After the game, I sought her out at the sideline. She was apologetic for her outburst (although I've heard much worse) but I explained. Yes, I saw her get tripped. But considering the ability levels of the players, I didn't deem it worthy of being called in that situation. She no longer had the ball; she had no opportunity of getting the ball back or of making any play. The only way that call was going to be made is if the foul had deserved a caution. In that particular game situation, the foul was trifling - although the same actions in another situation might warrant a call.

I have had the "opportunity" to make a PK calls late in a game against a youth teams that were being beaten badly. I don't like it, but I make the call. You can't let them get away with fouls, even if they're stupid fouls. The player taking the PK now has a choice. He can try to make it 12-0, or he can flub the kick wide, or kick slowly right at the keeper. I recall talking to one coach who said he put his worst shooter up for the PK.

I've also made unfortunate PK calls when I didn't wait another half second for advantage to develop. I had to disallow the goal and pull the ball out of the net for a PK. One timea after a kid from about u14 lower level travel team successfully scored on the PK, I ran past him on the way back to the center for the kickoff. "Thanks for putting that in and saving my butt." He grinned back.

 

Statesman,

While I am in general agreement with you on this, I do not believe you are correct in the above when you state that a trifling offense is not a foul or equate trifling with doubtful.

Doubtful means that it may have looked bad, or appeared to be an offense (ie. handball), but was not a foul, or the deed was not observed. The referee does nothing, play continues.

My understanding on Trifling is that yes, it was a foul (ie. attempting to trip, contact with the player prior to a tackle, etc.), but that the foul had no effect, was of no consequence, and therefore we allow play to continue. It is not an advantage play on, because we are not signaling the offense and reserving the right to call it back. Nor, are we ignoring it, since, we may have to deal with it later as misconduct.

Now I realize that with the application of advantage the need to judge an offense as trifling is less important than it was, but it does not mean "no foul", and it is still part of our decision making process.

So, was Santa good to you?

Sherman

 

I stand corrected, Sherman. Using the language of the ATR, that is the correct way to view it. My biggest problem is that most of my early training did not come those instructed by USSF, they were from Europe. IFAB meant for trifling to be appled to things like botched throw-ins. Doubtful was for instances of contact with the appearance of a foul. USSF now applies trifling to fouls as well, creating a contradiction.

The Laws of the Game clearly state that should a foul be committed, it is to be compensated by either applying advantage, or by awarding an IFK/DFK/PK. USSF says a trifling foul is still a foul, it is just one that is ignored. So now we have something that is a foul, but we don't treat it as a foul. I don't see where the LOTG provides that discretion to the referee, do you? I have to consciously remind myself to blend the terminology correctly, but in my haste of posting I tend to make mistakes like the one above.

 

Trifling (and other LOTG) are not static?

Is it possible that there is a middle ground in this debate about awarding PK to a team leading 11-0. Maybe what is "trifling" changes as the game develops. When the score is 11-0 you still have to call certain fouls to avoid mayhem. In fact maybe you have to whistle some things more quickly. But other fouls may be trifling when the score is 11-0 but would not be trifling in a tied game. For example, a trip by a lesser skilled player (I assume a team losing 11-0 has lesser skilled players) in the penalty area that appears accidental might be overlooked, but anything looking like reckless or deliberate fouling might be whistled quickly. In addition to the score, maybe the ref would consider the mood and tempo of the game, etc. But I would guess that most refs would not categorically rule out calling a PK just because a team is losing big.

As far as time goes, sometimes it is obvious that the teams do not want additional time (the score is 6-0 and the winning team is stalling to avoid scoring more goals) or worse, the losing team in a 6-0 game is fustrated and the game is getting ugly. At that point maybe it is proper to forgo the extra time. That seems like common sense.

 

Yes, this is a reasonable cause for concern! Telling officials to just 'use common sense' isn't enough. Some of these guys are not experienced officials, never played the game, maybe never played any organized team sport. They don't really have a good feel for what types of actions represent good common sense and which actions are poor examples.

It can be a very dangerous thing to turn loose a bunch of refs with the 'just use common sense' mantra.

 

Re: Trifling (and other LOTG) are not static?

Yes, good point. I would say that what is and is not a foul ('trifling' I suppose) can change throughout a game, even if the score has not changed. The ref may take a harsher stance on a borderline foul in the 1st 5 minutes, calling it in order to send a message that challenges of this sort will not be allowed today. 30 minutes in, if the match has taken on a positive tone, the same challenge may be deemed fair.

It annoys me in any sport when the announcers whine for consistency. There is more to it than consistency. Some games are called tighter than others, often for good reasons. And the level of what is called within a single game will vary, depending on other factors at play during various points of the game, where the contact occurred, etc.