There is a real good group here in my association that are conducting a mentoring of how to properly respond to questions for the test purpose. Some will critique the answers on 'Points of Law' and 'Correctness' Some will evaluate the 'Answering Technique' Answering technique: Whenever you see the phrase 'full action' relating to what the referee should do, it is usually worth quite a few marks - so get ready to write. You will need to fully document all your decisions and actions from beginning to end They say I am too wordy and all over the place imagine that I need to remember less is more and be specific in response to what the question asks. My style of opinion is far too wide in scope. I am sincere in upgrading but must pass the written in the manner they require. Knowing the laws is not enough I need a better method of answering TEST QUESTION A defender attempted to play a forward offside by deliberately stepping off the field of play (into his own goal). The referee & assistant referee, realizing what he was up to, allowed play to continue, the forward then shoots at goal, beating the goal keeper heading straight into the goal. The defender now runs back on field, clearing the ball. Is there an offence? If so, what full action should the referee take? (1A) YES but only MISCONDUCT (1B)When the defender came back into the FOP to play the ball off the line I would stop play at that point. (3)I would caution for the USB of the deception and show the yellow card. If it was a second yellow card I would then show the red card and ensure his removal from the field. (4)The restart is an INDFK from where he renters and touches the ball subject to law 8 special circumstances. I felt we should not wait till the next stoppage but his playing the ball we could stop play. (5) I would record the details of his actions and list the caution as USB in handing in my match report after the game Thinking as if you were answering by letter of law what would be the correct response? Be specific even to filling out and handing in the match report. Those of you who take the time to respond many thanks.
My quick answer is that: who cares why the defender did what he did? It's my AR's and my job to keep track of players. If defenders want to go hide in the goal or guard the line, that's OK. How can the CR know that's why the defender is going into the goal? All my reffing tests - except on the field have been multiple choice, so it's a matter of picking out the best answer.
Looks to me like a trifling offense since the forward was not whistled for offside and was able to take a shot on goal. By allowing play to continue to the point the forward took a shot on goal, I would not invoke the advantage clause and would let play continue since the defender legally cleared the ball off the line. Why does 5) talk about handling when the description states the defender cleared the ball? It doesn't say he handled the ball!
Re: Re: upgrade in progress need help Not "HANDLING" handing the report in like in filing? Accept the FACT the defender stepped off the field of play to play an attacker offside. Both FIFA and the USSF position is to caution at the next stoppage. I believe the ATR says it is USB If a player exits the FOP without permission during the run of play we can accept it as trival or no big deal if playing the ball or momentum or dragged himself off for an injury but here it is a deliberate act to decieve the referee or AR and unfairly place an attacker in an offside position. They are not interested in speculation they set the criteria we answer. My 5 point answer be it right, partial right or wrong is based on the fact we are sure the defender left the FOP to cheat. If we are sure a defender does this to cheat why is it suddenly ok for him to reenter the FOP and participate in play? Although I agree the clearence is not really the reason to punish the defender it is true his entry back in to play after leaving to decieve warrants some punishment? Is not the INDFK for this action warranted once the defender renters without permission to take away the goal scoring opportunity Although your point is taken how can a Referee or AR know the reasoning it is an opinion and this test question is telling us that opinion.
Caution for USB at the next stoppage in play. By allowing the forward to shoot at goal, you made a decision that the defenders action to step off the playing field would not deny a chance at a shot on goal by the forward. You can't allow advantage and then whistle for a stoppage given the fact the forward got a quality shot on goal. That fact the defender came back on the field to clear the ball legally did not result in an advantage for his team. He could have been on the goal and headed the ball clear. His tried to create an advantage nby playing the forward into an offside position. Your action as a referee in allowing play to continue and not whistling for offside cured his ruse. Therefore, I would not caution and restart with an IFK at the top of the goal area nearest where the infraction occured for the forwards team, but allow play to continue and caution as noted above at the next stoppage in play. I'll try better next time to read handing versus handling. My bad.
misconduct by the referee Good. I disagree. The misconduct occured when the player stepped off the pitch. Since you allowed play to continue (correctly), you cannot caution the player until the next stoppage in play. Good. The restart should be for whatever caused play to be stopped allowing you to issue the caution. Why not list the caution as "deliberately leaves the FOP without the referee's permission"? The "leaving the FOP" scenario is used in the "Gray Areas" video being shown at the USSF recertification clinics here in Massachusetts. The video does not address the issues raised by G-bear's question.
Re: why not?? Can we not stop play soley to deal with misconduct at our discrestion? Perhaps we should not, however, I do not understand why we could not?? If we list the misconduct as the the leaving the FOP without permission is he not equally guilty of reentering without permission and thus two cautions? I would love a copy of the Video NSA willing to pay COD if you had a copy to spare? I have myths of the game and a few foul recognition tapes from the USA but not that one. Also many thanks for the input to all who respond.
I wrestled with that and came to no really good conclusion. Maybe you're right and he deserves the double. That'll teach him. I'm wondering if, as referee, I would have the presence of mind to yell, "Stay where you are #2!" when he steps off. That would lend more credence to the double yellow.
I have to say that I agree with Alberto and NSA -- you shouldn't stop play when the defender clears the ball. As for whether you COULD or not, perhaps. But you may not get full credit for your response because the ATR specifically states in 11.10 that the defender should be cautioned at the next stoppage of play. As for what the caution should be for, in this situation, it actually appears to me that the ATR contridicts itself. Under 11.10, it states "the referee should caution the defending player for unsporting behavior at the next stoppage of play." However, under 12.28.7 Deliberately leaves FOP, it states "This category of misconduct normally refers to a situation in which an opponent leaves the field in an attempt, in the opinion of the referee, to place an attacker in an apparent offside position." So I guess you could argue correctly for either but deliberately leaving FOP seems MORE correct for me. As for your question on whether they should received 2 cautions for this as they are then re-entering without permission, I asked that question in a course once and the answer was no -- the player was rightly on the field and left it to gain an advantage (putting a player offside). That didn't mean that they were "recognized" as being off the field (such as for an injury or equipement problem) which WOULD require permission to re-enter. So my answer would be: 1) Yes an offense has occurred. 2) At the next stoppage of play, caution the defender for deliberately leaving the FOP without permission. If it is his second yellow, show red and ensure he leaves the playing field. 3) Restart is appropriate to reason for stoppage. 4) Details of incident described in game report.
Re: Re: why not?? No. If you refer to ATR 11.10 you will see that we are instructed to allow play to continue, because stopping play for any reason would unfarily penalize the attacker (this is not advantage but trifling so play contiues) but then to caution the defender for UB at the next stoppage. No, just one, UB. The logic behind this is that by allowing the play to continue though the defender may have technically left the field, we consider him to still be part of the play and keeping the attacker on side. Therefore, the only misconduct is his attempt at deception.
First of all where are these "essay" questions coming from as a test and for what purposes? Officiating is more about art then science. If officiating were this scientific, we could easily answer questions like this, but the law book would be too heavy to carry. This is why the standard tests issued by USSF are about factual matters clearly defined and answered in the law book. Anything else is pure speculation. This is why no can explain what a foul is or the term "YHTBT" (You Had To Be There), is so frequently used. If explain another player gave an an opponent "a little push" is this a foul? Without being there, and with just the info, I agree with Alberto. We have this over tendency to always try to see fairness and seek righteosness, abusing our power of ITOOTR to areas we have no right to per the laws, or "shouldn't" go. First of all "deception" is not a cautionable offense, no matter how one tries to spin it as USB. USB is a catch all but it has more specifics than some realize. Deception is part of tactics; including involving the referee. If a player commits a challenge that turns into a simple foul behind the referee's back, this maybe seem like "deception", but it's not misconduct. We look for diabolical too hard, and sometimes interpret our surprise or shock, or that it was attempted to be hid as something evil. Usually because it's personal for us. . personally offensive. . personally embarssing. While the act of stepping off the field in a (vane) attempt to put the attacker in an offside position (bush league) is addressed as an "example" of a cautionable offense, it's so lame that few feel there is a real consequence. The objective is fool the AR, who wasn't fooled, therefore no consequence. The attacker wasn't fooled, and the defender actually almost took himself out of the play, but managed to recover quick enough to do his job. . defend the goal. The attacker has to accept the presence of the defender, even if the defender tried to be "deceptive" (for the AR), and assumes the consequences of his shot, knowing and seeing the defender just stepped off the field. The attacker nor the referee can NOT assume the defender is now prevented from participating in play because he commited possible misconduct, even if considered an illegal act. While you can caution for the act, I agree, wait until the next stoppage if not a more opportune time. A good AC for the stupidity might be appropriate. But I suggest the answer might be considered "good advice" rather than any "truth" by USSF or fact that it is always applicable in every situation. Again it's more art than science.