A most excellent discussion ensued after this post was raised elsewhere as it raised such interesting responses I thought it would generate similar conversation and food for thought here. :0) The following scenario occurred: Note, ithe referee had club assistants! In the 67th minute, with the away side leading 2-1, there was a bit of a melee in the centre circle - as the away side committed the original foul, I applied advantage, and the home team raced into the penalty area - I glanced back, and saw about six players together pushing, and in the early stages of a fight. I looked back at play, and saw the ball in the back of the net. I dealt with three offenders who I had seen throw punches in the melee by sending them off for violent conduct. When I had dealt with that, I had a problem in how to restart play. The home side were shouting for a goal - the away side claimed foul play - the ball had been punched in the net according to them What would you all have done regarding the re-start of play. I would be interested to see what people think before I reveal what I did and what the assessor had to say
The ball wasn't in the back of the net when you turned around, and there was pushing in the center circle. Foul in the center circle before the goal. Since you didn't see who started it, you have to guess. The home team had the original kick and is not getting their goal - however it was scored. The away team doesn't want the goal score. DFK for the home team, where you saw the melee.
OK, I'm walking through this...you've applied advantage for the foul at the center circle, but now there's a fight there as the play continues forward...I agree with IASocFan. The ball goes back to the center. Tough call, glad it wasn't me.
The ball had not crossed the goal line, between the posts and under the crossbar, at the moment the referee turned and observed the misconduct at the center of the field. If, at that moment, having decided to stop play and deal with the fouls and misconduct, play is stopped, irrespective of the advantage given to the attackers, making the goal and the allegation of handling irrelevant. Since punishing misconduct, the restart should be a ceremonial DFK, but the question is for which team. Because it was the fight at midfield for which you stopped play, it was the specifics of this which determine your restart. Who did you observe throw a punch? If this is clear in your mind then go with it. If not, then I would go with the restart defense. My reason for this is that if you gave the restart to the attackers, then there would be a quesiton of why you did not allow the advantage, and then the defenses' hard feelings about the alleged handlng also come into play. By giving the kick to the defense, you clarly deny the goal, clearly send a messge that the misconduct overrode the initial foul for which you had signaled the advantate, and the issue the handling by the attacker disappears. SW
I don't think the ball should be put through back to the center circle, but given that you unfortunately didn't see the ball go into the goal, you have little choice. Applying advantage in that situation seems a little stretched, the center circle is a good deal away from the penatly area and absent a direct through or long ball that sent the play down field in a hurry, advantage should not enter the decision. I think since both teams were now in a fight, the drop-ball would have been appropriate, at center circle no less. Both teams should be punished for the fight. If you had turned back around and seen the goal, I would have given the goal. Regardless, I would have consulted with the linesman to get his take on the play. Very tough and unfortunate call though. No matter how you come out you are going to get a lot of shite.
The referee erred by not blowing the whistle immediately when he noticed the melee. Advantage should not be played in this situation. This referee seems more like an observer. Even after seeing 6 players in the 'early stages of a fight' he does not appear to blow the whistle.
I would guess that by "melee", GB meant that people may have been down or entangled and the only foul was the one where announced the advantage, but he assumed that the players would get up and continue to play soccer. In retrospect, I'm sure he wished he hadn't called for advantage. AND, for the rest of the game, I'd guess he called it pretty tight.
I agree with IASoc & Clay that the goal should not be counted -- remember, once you saw the violent conduct, in your mind, play has stopped, presumably before the goal was scored even if the ball winds up going into the net before the whistle blows. As Clay said, tough call and glad it wasn't me. As for the comments about advantage whether it should have been played or not... The way I read it is like IASoc said -- the advantage was played on the original foul -- the misconduct started subsequent to that. As for which direction the restart should be given, unless I had a clear indication of who threw the first punch, I'd go with giving it to the home team -- and sell it as "first foul I saw was away player xx". You DEFINITELY don't want to say something like, original foul was on defense because then it's like you're going back to prior to the original foul. That's really going to piss off the home team that you allowed advantage at midfield and then took it back just before the goal was scored. However, for the reasons IASoc stated, I'd give it to the home team.
i think whipple got it right. if you're going to award a free kick in the center circle, you have to award the free kick to the away team. for the same reason that you called advantage originally, you shouldn't stop the home team's attack to give them a free kick at midfield, even if the away team was completely responsible for the melee. also, my experience would tell me that regardless of what you saw, the away team should probably get the free kick. in all likelihood, the melee came about as a result of retaliation by the home team following the original tackle - not realizing or understanding or caring that advantage had been played. the retaliation is a separate play and costs them the advantage that they had been awarded.
You can always go to the ARand see what he saw. There are more than just your eyes. See if their was indeed a hand ball and go with a direct free kick going out. You will deal with the misconduct of course.
The original post said, there were club assistants. BTW, welcome to bigsoccer. I think you'll enjoy it here since it's the best soccer website in the US.
rebroadcast off another thread another site This is a selection of posts from a thread off the united kingdom ref site on this same subject. I find the solution that was arrived at contrary to what I believe but remain facinated with the rational by all parties. THis is for those that are truly interested to read on. I warn you it is long and involved bit truly enlightening for those who pursue it. FootballReferee Discussion Board: Referee Discussion: My game today -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By crispyspiders on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 05:52 pm: I was refereeing a game today, which was very competitive. The following scenario occurred: Note, i had club assistants! In the 67th minute, with the away side leading 2-1, there was a bit of a melee in the centre circle - as the away side committed the original foul, I applied advantage, and the home team raced into the penalty area - I glanced back, and saw about six players together pushing, and in the early stages of a fight. I looked back at play, and saw the ball in the back of the net. I dealt with three offenders who I had seen throw punches in the melee by sending them off for violent conduct. When I had dealt with that, I had a problem in how to restart play. The home side were shouting for a goal - the away side claimed foul play - the ball had been punched in the net according to them What would you all have done regarding the re-start of play. I would be interested to see what people think before I reveal what I did. I look forward to the response!! By ASM on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 06:53 pm: Suggestion, don't play advantage in the situation that you described. If the game is heated and there is a possibility of something developing off the ball if you allow play to continue, I would say stop play and deal with the melee there and then before it gets to the stage of a fight - especially when you do not have neutral assistants. Regards, Anthony -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By XR on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:27 pm: crispy – Law 9 – (The Ball In and Out of Play) states that “the ball is out of play when it has wholly crossed the goal line…” Therefore, in your example, the ball had travelled over the goal line between the goal posts, and was therefore out of play before you realised what was happening, and before you had time to stop play. So let’s consider the possible restarts: 1. Place Kick?: Because you did not actually see the goal being scored and you had Club Assistant Linesmen on the touchlines, you were correct in not allowing the goal to count. A place kick is therefore not the correct restart. If there were Assistant Referees available, then they could be consulted as to the legality of the goal. Note: - Law 5 states: “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final.” “Decision 3 - Facts connected with play shall include whether a goal is scored or not and the result of the match.” 2. A Dropped Ball?: Law 8 – (The Start and Restart of Play) states that “a dropped ball is a way of restarting the match after a temporary stoppage that becomes necessary, while the ball is in play”. Because you did not stop play when the ball was in play, a dropped ball restart cannot be used. 3. A Free Kick?: Because the ball had already wholly travelled over the field of play boundaries, and you did not stop play whilst the ball was still in play - a free kick cannot be awarded. Also, because you did not see the alleged handling of the ball by an attacking player, you cannot award a free kick to the defending team in its own penalty area. Also, you cannot award a free kick on the ‘say-so’ of a Club Assistant Linesman. 4. A Penalty Kick?: Because you did not see the ball being handled by an defending player, you cannot award a penalty kick to the attacking team. Also, you cannot award a penalty kick on the ‘say-so’ of a Club Assistant Linesman. 5. A Corner Kick?: Because you have disallowed the goal, and you did not personally see who touched the ball last before it travelled over the goal line and under the net, a corner kick can not be awarded. 6. A Goal Kick?: Because you have disallowed the goal, and you did not personally see who touched the ball last before it travelled over the goal line and under the net, a goal kick can not be awarded. In the case of the Corner Kick and the Goal Kick restarts - under normal circumstances, and depending on the responsibly you give the Club Assistant Linesmen at the beginning of the game – the Club Assistant Linesman could assist you in deciding on awarding a Goal Kick or a Corner Kick. But because you have already decided NOT to award the goal - involving the Club Assistant Linesman at this stage would be tantamount to Referee suicide! So? After this attempt to emulate my good friend grizz! 7. Law 18 – Common Sense. In complex (no-win, no-Law ) situations such as the one depicted this scenario, the Referee needs to think on his feet. The most important thing is not to award the goal under these circumstances. The restart is a secondary consideration, and because the Referee has been honest - the restart should not favour one team or the other. Therefore, in my opinion – I would restart play with a dropped ball in the centre circle. The second best option is to give the benefit of doubt to the defending team and award a goal kick. Postscript: If the ball was in play when you stopped the game – and if the Home team started the fight – restart with a direct free kick to the Away team, at the place where the incident took place. If the ball was in play when you stopped the game – and if the Away Team started the fight – restart with a direct free kick to the Home team at the place where the incident took place. If the ball was in play when you stopped the game – and if you do not know which team started the fight –restart play with a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when you stopped play. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By mondi on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:55 pm: You can not give an offence if you did not see it, so you can not disallow the goal because the team scored against says the opposing team "punched" it into the net. If you allowed play to continue and the ball ended up in the net, but you were not watching how it got there but you had not stopped play, the only restart is to give the goal. You played the advantage, and a great advantage accrued - a goal was scored. You then dealt with the fighting. I would not suggest this is the way to deal with mass confrontations, but you did this, and the only credible restart is the goal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By SR on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 11:19 pm: I would award the original free kick for which you played advantage. As a general rule, i don't play advantage if i am going to order a player off. I think that the players may (reluctantly) see why a free kick was awarded if you had that level of misconduct to deal with. I assume all the ordering offs were not for the away side. If a home player was binned then that is certianly not an occasssion where i would give his team a foul. However, easy to say when you are sitting at home. From what you said, i would have restarted with a free kick and not given a goal. However, it is understandable why you could give a goal. As an aside, it was excellent refereeing that you remembered to look back. How often do you see referees playing advantage and forgetting to look back at the incident. It would have been a lot worse had you followed play and only caught the end of the violent conduct and then not known who to do etc! Therefore, whatever your decision, an very good piece of refereeing to have remembered to look back! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By MG on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 12:37 am: I respect Mondi's train of thought here, but I disagree with it. I just don't think it's common sense to allow the goal in this situation. The sensible thing to do is to claim you blew your whistle to stop the punch-up before the ball hit the net. And after all, it takes two to tango: for a melee to occur, attacking players must have acted violently as well as defenders - so why should they get the goal? Re-start play with a free kick to the team who you think did not throw the first punch. If you haven't got a clue who that is, a drop ball in the middle of the park is ok. PS. It's easy to say don't play advantage in this scenario. No doubt we've all wished we hadn't played advantage on occasion. But the question asked what would you do if you HAD played advantage and this situation occurred. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Bob G on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 01:45 am: In this instance, the best option is to stop play and deal with the mess in the center circle, with no need to check out what happened to the attack. Restart could be a direct free kick for the original foul unless play had progressed too long for that to be a credible option (i.e. - advantage irrevocably applied), in which case restart with an indirect free kick by the opponents of the first individual you saw fighting, or, least preferable option, a dropped ball. That said, I wouldn't guarantee that would be what I would do in the situation. I'd lean towards letting a threatening attack complete, if possible, just because I hate the thought of interrupting the game at such an exciting moment. As far as not actually witnessing the ball crossing over the line, it's a non-issue in any event, as grizzlierbear so aptly explained. If you view the ball in the goal, it obviously crossed the line between the posts (or perhaps through the hole in the side of the net, but now's not the time to suddenly notice it). Even actually viewing the ball crossing the line between the posts is no guarantee you did not miss something illegal that caused the ball to cross the line. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Smudger on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 09:10 am: There seem to be a few views on this matter. Most posters seem to think that you should have stopped the game and dealt with the misconduct. I have had a case where a player was trying to intimidate an opponent (adopting an agressive stance etc), when the opponent's team were through on goal. I let it go, goal was scored and I returned to sort out the handbags. I think it was more by luck than judgement, however, that I got away with it. In hindsight, I agree with the above posters, stop the game and deal with the misconduct. Second, there seems to be a disagreement as to whether the goal should stand in the scenario above. The credibility of club assistants is not in doubt here, but how can you reasonably expect one to judge for or against his team in a situation like this? The same applies to the team captains. As for as I'm concerned, if you did not see any handball (I avoid saying "the" handball!), then the goal has got to stand. Would you red card a player for DOGSO if you didn't see the offence? No! So how can you deny a goal to a team when you didn't see any infringement of Law? But I'm sure there will be more discussion on this subject! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By crispyspiders on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 02:03 pm: Some very interesting opinions!! So, what did I do?? Well - seeing the fighting, and sending the three players off (one home player, and two away players). I had to decide how to restart play. I used some time to think by writing information in my notebook, trying to play the incident through my mind, and deciding on what I would give. The players were shouting "What are you giving ref?". I went through the various options open to me (similar to XR's posting), and this is what I came up with: GOAL - I didn't think I could give this as I wasn't certain a goal had been legitimately scored. DFK to away side (for handball) - I didn't think it would be credible to give this, as I would be saying the attacker handled the ball CORNER/GOAL KICK - not an option as the ball had gone in the back of the net DROP BALL - This was one option I felt I had - return back to the half-way line and say the game had been stopped to sort out the 'handbags' DFK to home side (initial foul) - I felt this was my second option, but I didn't feel it appropriate, as significant advantage had accrued. I wanted to be fair to both sides, but knew that was impossible. My only option I thought was to give a drop-ball in the centre circle (for the handbags). The home side were annoyed, the away side quite happy - I called both captains together and tried to explain why I had decided on a drop ball, which after some convicing, the home team captain said "Well, that is the only option you can give, so we shall accept that". After the match, the home team manager admitted his striker had punched the ball into the goal. Incidentially the match finished 2-1 to the away side. The assessor was also present, so I am awaiting his report with baited breath!!! Thanks all for your advice, and hopefully some people will tell me if I have done right or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By grizzlierbear on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 08:05 pm: In dealing with tense or confrontational situations the mind is churning and your efforts at keeping calm and seeking resolution are great. CS good job for remaining composed and I would be interested on what your assessor had to say? You did not talk to him directly after the match? My suggestion, just as a point to consider, is to better prepare yourself by understanding the reasons the restarts are given and the criteria the law says you can give them for. You are stopping play soley for misconduct but not attributing it to either team as the instigator trickey business that. I suggested a DFK to one team or the other as striking or fighting is in fact a penal offence. Granted I think your dropball while credible if you can not reasonably determine which player struck first. The location of the confrontation is not where the ball was. So in the location of the restart since you can not determine fault should not the restart be where the ball was when you stopped play? If you are not awarding the goal because you stopped play for the fighting and could not determine the ball was inside the goal as per law 10 an infringement occured before the ball crossed the goalline that is fine but you seeing it or not seeing it has no credability. Fairplay and being neutral means you apply law and make decisions of opinion based on what is allowed. Your restart should be where you felt the ball was when you stopped play somewhere near the goal area. Nonetheless if you got the players to be happy and no one raises a stink . Game management style points for you. I just want to note your highlighted HAD while being a sticking point has nothing to do with you awarding or not awarding that goal or at least it should not. Circumstances were kind me thinks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By MG on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 11:35 pm: I don't agree with this busines of "you didn't see an offence, therefore the goal must stand." Law 10 is quite explicit - "A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line...provided that no infringement of the Laws of the game has previously been committed by the team scoring the goal". To me, this suggests that the referee must be very clear in his own mind that the attacking team has not committed an offence. In the example under discussion here, two possible offences have occurred: 1) Violent conduct in the midst of the melee 2) Hand ball which because of the melee the referee could not see. It seems to me that in such a situation, the balance of probability is that the attacking team HAS committed an offence, and therefore the goal should not stand. Re-start with a free kick if you know who began the violent conduct. Otherwise, a drop ball is a perfectl adequate, common-sense solution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By grizzlierbear on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 04:26 am: MG, in my opinion you are missing the point of the idea of a referee's role in this. A referee is a decision maker. And although in a recreational match I will give you a drop ball senario at a higher level match you would be railed and no mistake about it. Seperate the VC and the not seeing the goal scored or handled. They are two seperate things. What did you stop play for? Where was the ball at that time? Actually it appears Crispy had stopped play for the fight and to the referee whether the goal was handled or not means nothing because play was stopped in the referee's opinion before the ball was over the goaline. Perfectly acceptable in law. Now I believe strongly you give a restart based on WHY play is stopped. In Crispy's situation if you stop it for a penal foul of striking or pushing than a DFK is the correct restart some one throws or pushes first. If you stop soley for misconduct an INDFK is given. If you can not determine which player/team they are are doing it simultanously than we go can go to a drop ball but it is not the best option and only possible in a single referee situation. The only issue is where was that ball at the time of the VC stoppage? The fact is though the length of time spent here looking and deciding to call a foul at the midline and for the ball to end up in the net is puzzling. As an assessor I want to hear a whistle so when was it blown? Why was the shoulder check done at that time if an imminent goal scoring opportunity is present? What transpired at the giving of advantage? I hope Crispy decides to share the assessor's opinions with us. You can not take away a goal because you are unsure just the same as you do not award a goal when you are sure it is not. Instinct and guts do play a part in making a decision where it is fraught with tension. You are thinking because you all ready know the answer and the outcome on the FOP of Crispy's situation. If you do not know there was an infringement why are you taking away the goal? Because the other team says so?. Lets assume the same senario but when you glanced back there was no VC foul of any sort and when you turn back the ball is in back of the net. The attackers are cheering! A goal yes or no? Quick you are on the FOP! The defenders are saying the attacker used his hand the attackers say no way? IS your answer the same? You decide the defenders are telling the truth? So you award a DFK for he handball you did not see? Do you ask where it happened so the restart is at that spot? Ok now you are unsure so a drop ball is your choice of options? Where do you drop it? You have stopped play for what again? The ball was in the back of the net. So the ball was out of play? What about a goal kick it was last touched by a an attacker's hand at least according to the defenders it was? A kick-off for the goal well maybe the attacker's cheated. What to do? Common sense law 18 is an excuse in law at times as much as it adds for the creative aspect of refereeing. The lesson here is if the incident is serious enough you do not apply advantage! Or you immediately look back not when a shot or imminent goal scoring opportunity is about to unfold. You stop play immediately when there is multiple VC in such a tenous situation. Personally I think the goal issue is overplayed in this senario you did not see the ball cross the goaline before the VC occured end of story. Crispy is referring to the fact that it appears there was a handling infringement thus the decision was correct. I can not stress enough do not be under the illusion because things worked out ok that it was the correct approach in law. I offer advice as a means to reflect not whether someone is right or wrong. While I support colleagues I try to encourage all of us to seek alternatives and to be aware of all options so when the difficult situations arise they are not difficult at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By mondi on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 10:43 pm: Tamelion Crispy played advantage, did not blow his whistle, and the ball ended up in the back of the net. Crispy does not know how the ball got there because he was not watching the play. The correct restart was a goal because he saw no infringement in the ball going in which would stop the goal being given, whether there was an infirngement or not. It's like disallowing a goal because the defenders claim offside and you are doubtful, but because the defenders pleads are so insistent that you feel the offside must have happened. But it should never have got to this situation. The advice here is that if there is a VC mass confrontation situation, you do not play advantage. We are not castigating Crispy, but I hope that he decides that if this ever happens in the future to him, he would stop play. If he does not, he will hopefully watch what is happening on the FOP as he has played advantage and must watch to see what happens. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By crispyspiders on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 09:18 am: Mondi - With all due respect, hindsight is a wonderful thing!! I am a referee who never stops learning - and by playing an advantage, I thought I was doing the home team a favour by playing such an advantage. I got my assessors report this morning and I quote: In the 70th minute, you were involved in one of the most amazing phases of play I have ever seen. You correctly played advantage after a foul by B_____ United. (I have left the full name out) There was a good clear shout of advantage which was encouraging to see. Behind your back, a confrontational situation was occurring. I noticed you look back, and presumably you saw the start of this confrontational situation. You should be admired for trying to reach a position where a more appropriate restart of play could occur - however, unfortunately this backfired on you, and a 'mass confrontation' ensured. You promptly dealt with the three dismissals which was good to see. Your restart of play was also correct, it was impossible for you to give a goal if you never saw the ball go into the goal. You managed a very 'couldron-like' atmosphere. Well done! The end of the assessors report goes on to say: A very difficult game was handled very well indeed, all of your major decisions were correct. You can not be at fault for the incident which occurred in the 70th - you did as you saw fit, and managed the situation well Some people think I should have awarded a goal - I'm sorry, but I cannot see how this could be. I am not certain the ball entered the net legitimately, and as such feel that I cannot award a goal. Some people think I should go back and award the free-kick, however I feel the advantage had passed. The drop ball was the only option I feel I could award. I thought this was the most credible option (although people may feel my credibility went out of the window before this!) I was pleased by the assessor's report - partly it is one of the 'you have to be there' scenarios, and the assessor appears to have backed me up (to answer a previous question - assessors usually disappear straight after the match from my experience). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By XR on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 07:07 pm: Well done crispy. Sounds like a good assessment particularly because you had a difficult situation to deal with and you acted swiftly and dealt with the situation as you saw fit at the time. Don’t be too harsh on the different opinions expressed above. After all – your question was certainly a very good one, and one that you will probably never get an official answer to. But hey! - that’s the fun of Refereeing! One thing’s for sure. If it ever happens again to you or to any of us who have contributed to your discussion – we will act in the way we have answered your question. And who’s to say we’d be wrong. Good luck.
interesting post - most of us said stop the melee and bring the ball out to the center circle (with a variety of alternatives for the restart) - as such, we didn't have to deal with the issue of the goal that may have been scored - separating out just that issue, what does everyone think - assume there was no melee in the center circle warranting the stoppage of play, but by the time the ref returned his vision to the ball after checking the action behind him the ball was in the net ** i assume most people agree that you can't call a handball that you didn't see. can you award a goal just because the ball is in the net, not having seen how it got there?
I do not call a foul if I do not see it what about a goal? I was hoping you would get a response to this part as I feel it is a misunderstood aspect of a referee's primary responsibility. Is more important to allow a good goal that we are not sure off or take away a good goal that we are not sure off? In a recent question I was presented with a referee falls down and in picking himself up misses seeing the ball enter the net? As in the above senario where a glance behind to see whats up assuming everything is ok you turn about or look up and the ball is residing inthe back of the net do you award the goal or not? THe defenders are complaing about a handball or a possible offside. If the defenders were not making noises about it unfairly crossing the goalline should it make a difference? You see the ball in the back of the net but unsure how it got there. In a scrum a ball could pop in and you might not see who or how but the ball is in the net. Does not seeing how the ball entered the goal prevent you from allowing the goal to stand?
I'm not sure how a drop-ball would be justified either, though. Obviously a penal foul has been committed and we as referees are supposed to adminster based on the sequence in which play developed. In other words, we punish the first foul. Drop balls are only for injury, outside agents interfering, or anything else not mentioned in the Laws. What you described is detailed in the Laws quite clearly and so a drop-ball is out of the question. Now, as far as the goal: You can't have a goal if fouls are being committed by the attacking team beforehand. Obviously the attackers are committing fouls in the middle of the field when the ball goes in the net so the goal is not an issue. Goal kicks and corner kicks are not either. Regarding advantage, that disappears the second the attackers commit a foul. This can be dealt with through words to the attacker along the lines of "Here I gave you the advantage to go and make a play and you waste it by committing a foul. That wasn't a very smart decision!" Give the ball back to the defense with a stern warning to the original offender as well: "Hey bud you're lucky that attacker wasted that advantage with the foul, next time you won't be so lucky so watch your play." We are also instructed to punish the more serious offense. Violent Conduct is classified as more serious than a handball, and so this alleged handball to score a goal is disregarded. Sorry Maradona, no Hand of God. So that brings us to the fighting in the middle. The only real thing the referee can do is conduct a bit of an investigation by asking the players what happened. Everybody will be more than willing to tell you a story, so just go with whatever one appears to be the most consistent. If one side comes up with multiple stories in their favor you know they are lying. Do this investigation by singling out players when they talk to you -- don't allow the whole group to chip in. If anybody tries to get involved you give them a caution immediately and tell them to back off. You could also ask the club lines what they saw to see if their story supports or falsifies what the players have said. In the end, I guarantee you will receive one story that is plausible told from multiple sources -- that's the one you go with. If one side is giving you all kinds of trouble when trying to produce a story, award the kick to the other team. If both sides are giving too many problems you inform the captains that they either get their teams under control or the match will be terminated. The end result? Red card all guilty of VC, yellow to others for whatever reason, and the restart a DFK in the middle to whichever side you deemed appropriate based off your investigation.