Where do you draw the USB line?

What if they're trying to break the leg of a star player who's made all the difference in a close game? Should you prevent him from showing his talent?

The preventitive action needs to be against the potential problem. If the star player is mocking the other team by word or action, he is the problem. But if he is merely showing his skill, even if he goes around the field and dribbles in a circle around each and every opponent within a minute, he is NOT the problem. The problem is the other team responding poorly. If they start getting agitated over his superior skill you tell them not to do anything stupid. You could quietly suggest to the star he's already proven himself, but if he doesn't agree you must allow him his full rights to show his skill under the Laws of the Game.

Here's another example which I'm sure many of you have seen: Late in the game with a big lead, the GK puts the ball at his feet and goes on a run up the field, beating several opponents. Do you go chasing after him with a card?

Sometimes there's a-holes out there. Unfortunately, we can't always deal with them. If I was his coach, his ass would be on the bench. Referees must remember they can't invent offenses.

PS Please try to avoid personal attacks although I did find your charge of lack of experience quite amusing because I don't normally do games of this (low) level.

 

The Spirit of the Game of soccer is to be a flowing but organized pursuit of goals unhindered by cynicism and brutality by players of lesser skill. Actions to the contrary bring the game into disrepute. If a player is dancing around the opponent for the sole purpose of humiliating them, this is not within the Spirit of the Game. Warn the player to cut the crap, and follow up with a caution if needed. There's no reason to allow that type of behavior to continue; it does nothing for the game.

 

Well said Statesman. I would probably trade the word 'goals' for 'play'. But still, in over 40 years in this game this is the best stated measure of when and why to protect the Spirit of the Game that I have heard. Nice Job!

 

You can take the sport out of the goals, but not the goals out of the sport. They are the reason for playing.

 

Assumer for this that there is only one acceptable match ball. If a player who's team has a one goal lead is dribbles the ball down to the corner and just before he's challenged for the ball, kicks the ball 90 yards off the pitch, do you suggest issuing a caution?

The answer is: no caution should be issued. The act of kicking the ball is not against the laws of the game. Even though we know the player's intent was to waste time we can't punish for what has always been considered a normal part of the match.

NOW back to the other topic.
For the same reason, I don't see how you can punish this player for simply dirbbling around the opponents and because he is so much better than them. Dribbling the ball, in any direction, has always been a part of the game. AND A player also has the right to do tricks around his opponent's too. He doesn't have the right to talk trash, but that is different than just schooling his opponents.

 

This reasoning is precisely why we have so many a**holes ruining soccer today. Use some common sense and do what is right. Ricardo Valenzuela issued a caution for a player legally receiving the ball from a throw-in this year. It wasn't because there was something inherently wrong with the act, but because it was an extreme display of poor sportsmanship. They only had the throw-in because of the ball being played out from injury, and Chivas deceived the other team as if they would throw it to them. He was applauded for having the guts to do what was right by the highest authorities.

The United States is a very legally conscious society that lives and dies by every consonent and vowel on a piece of paper. It may surprise you that nowhere else in the world is this the case, and they tend to produce higher quality of soccer than here. Why? Because they have a greater trust and respect for referee judgment outside what is written in the law book. Not everything has to be written down, and sometimes an otherwise legal act needs to be punished with a caution. It's "The Beautiful Game," not the "Beautifully Documented Game." Don't ruin it for everybody else by putting up with crap like this out of some sense that a player is entitled to perform certain acts simply because they don't directly hurt someone.

You know the player is being a jerk, the players know the player is being a jerk, and the spectators know the player is being a jerk. So give the jerk a caution already and tell him to get a grip. Trust me, he'll be the only one complaining.

 

In Ricardo's case he did the right thing. I agree. That to me is entirely different though as it dealt with direcetly deceiving the opponent and going against common convention (which is as close to an unwritten rule as you're gonna get). In that case everyone, including the referee, expected the ball to be returned to the defending side free from danger. Only two on the team taking the throw thought better of this and took advantage of a team who had a more than reasonable belief that the ball was going to be returned to them. That situation screamed of injustice and Ricardo was honor bound to set it right for, at the very least, the sake of the game.
-
In the case of the kid dribbling the ball around defenders and towards his own goal. He should have been cautioned, but because he was verbally taunting other players whilst showboating. Or for a clearly excessive celebration after the scoring of a goal.

BUT If he hadn't been verbally taunting anyone and instead put on a show of superior skill, which included some of the things that kid did, well thats fine with me. I think that is in line with common sense. Don't use your power just becuase you have it and don't like the way one kid plays the game. Then the game becomes about how the referee thinks the game should be played. Use your power when it's required, no less is acceptable, yet we don't need to overreach to do a good job.

Incedentally, I think NHRef did the correct thing in this case. He waited until something severe enough happened and even spoke to the player twice before. Maybe you could have tried to use some of this kid's teammates to help you out, maybe they were also being embaressed by this guy. But that is really just a thought and I don't know if that would have helped you in this case or not YHTBT. That was a great booking and well done. Kudos to you.

 

Key word is deceived the other team. If they had simply decided not to give it back, they're being jerks but there's nothing the ref can do.

 

You guys are missing the point. You have to do what is for the good of the game you are refereeing, regardless of what some textbook says. There is only one thing you cannot bend the laws on, and that is how and where a restart takes place. Everything else you work with to make the game safe, equal, and enjoyable. The reason we have a catch all misconduct clause like "unsporting behavior" is because FIFA recognizes there is so much crap that can go on in a game that if you start making it black and white the enjoyment will disappear.

For that reason, you won't ever find a black and white answer that says, "If a player dribbles the ball around his opponents without trying to score, he shall be cautioned." But if in your game, at that moment in time, a player is doing just that in such a way that it ruins the spirit of the game, it is your duty to stop him. The horribly written miscommunicative text of the laws be damned!

 

But how will a very weak team know if they're getting any better, when everyone else goes easy on them?

I know of a 'disabled' (actually deaf) team which, last season, joined the bottom division of a recreational mainstream league here in England, and, initially, were on the receiving end of several hammerings, as the other teams endeavoured to improve their goal difference as much as possible.

Rather than lose heart, or lose their discipline, the deaf team learnt a lot from playing against opponents who were giving their best and trying hard to score throughout the match, and I know they appreciated not being patronised by the other teams, which they would have found extremely offensive.

They improved dramatically and their margins of defeat came down considerably as the season progressed, from which they gained considerable heart as they knew the scores were 'genuine' and reflected real improvement, rather than simply reflecting the degree to which the other teams were going easy on them.

They finally won their first ever match as a 11-a-side team on the last day of the season, although they still finished bottom by a wide margin, with a horrendous goal difference. This season they are in lower-mid table, with a few wins already.

The moral of the story? It's not for the referee to impose his or her view of sportsmanship on a match. In many cases a team learns better and improves more from a blow-out than from an artificially close scoreline that is unreflective of the actual play.

 

I think you're correct. If the scoreline is an accurate reflection of the relative talent on display, fair enough. I'm not in favor of dumbing down the level of competition at all. The main issue in this thread is what to do with the miscreant who feels the need to be a poor sport and rub his opponents nose in it as well. In one case you have a competitive imbalance in the other you have a competitive imbalance and a potential flash point so you have to deal with that. Its not about imposing will its about managing the game responsibly for the benefit of the players.

 

I question how much more teaching does a 10-0 score do than a 5-0. If you are being beaten easily, you are beaten easily. Full stop. The final score is basically irrelevant.

Also, really lopsided games tend to be either 1) very tempermental (the losing side starts saying "screw it" and decide to take out the "enemy") or 2) very boring (they give up). Not "good" soccer for anyone

Remember one tournament I played at where it was a division 2 level tournament - competitive, but no one would ever make an all-city team, let alone anything higher. One team (we later discovered) was basically an all-star Greek ethnic team that played in a league equivalent to the local premier (two levels above us). They were slaughtering other teams 10-0 plus the previous day - we played them on a Sunday morning; they had 8 players (hung over - the rest were apparently immobile) and they still won 3-2. Fortunately for them, the other teams basically decided they were ***holes, and decided not to break any legs. But it was a close call.

 

While it is doubtful that referees should forcefully intervene to keep teams from running up the score, many youth leagues have imposed their own by-law limits on goal margin, typically 6 or 7 goals, enforced with coach fines. These work fine when the coach has even half a brain and puts the brakes on early in a mismatch. Problems develop when the coach allows his team to score the limit in the first half or so, and now you face 30 minutes of boredom at best. The "keep-away and don't score" can easily degenerate into tricks and taunting. Even at its best, this isn't soccer. Losing 12-0 would be more fun. We should have a special "brown" card to give to coaches whose stupidity ruins the game for everyone.....

 

Putting the brakes on in a mismatch can be dangerous - just when do the brakes get applied? I always worry that if I can pop three in the net real quick, so can my opponent....

When coaching, I tell my players to play. If we are so fortunate as to have a huge lead, I will begin pulling players off, and playing down a man or two. I will also impose a "left foot criteria" or some such tactic - quietly, I might add - to further dampen things. By reducing numbers quietly, it allows those still on the field to play hard, while not scoring quite as easily.

Moving defenders forward and such doesnt work - they want to score worse than anyone but the gk. Learned that when one of my defenders put two in the net in his short stint as forward.

Reducing numbers is not as in-your-face as playing keep-away, or some of the other tactics, as long as the referee understands. I have pulled kids off and then been threatened with a card for removing a player without permission (if I were to put him back on, it would be using the normal sub procedure). Now, if I think it might even have a chance of getting out of hand, I will inform the referee ahead of time what I plan to do, and that my quiet removal of the player is not for any reason other than to even up the match more without rubbing someone's nose in it.

I am kinda hard-nosed, however: getting beat 10-0 will not cause lasting trauma in the average soccer kid. Quite the opposite, I have found kids taking inspiration from seeing how good their opponents are, and realizing that with work they could improve to somewhere near or at that level.

However, when a coach has his starters completing their hat tricks in the 75th minute of a 13-0 blowout, and has them in the game working on set plays which are putting the blown-out gk at risk, I get a bit uptight. No class on the part of the coach and players. I don't know what to do as a referee in that situation, since nothing is illegal. Any suggestions there? I suppose asking the coach is about as far as I can go.

 

That's about all you can do. If you know the club's director of coaching or one of the board members you might be able to talk to them later. If the club has any class they'll make sure it won't happen again. But in the match as a ref, there's nothing.

 

Some leagues have a rule against blow-outs (several that I ref here have such a rule), but no penalties or enforcements are specified. I've felt that, as a ref, I have no authority to enforce that rule, unlike conforming to the various unlimited substitution rules that recreational leagues often have. (And where changes in substitution rules are explicitly allowed in the LOTG.)

I do note it in my match reports. But I don't think that leagues can add offenses to the LOTG (e.g., saying that running up the score in this way is USB). Saying that the substitution rule will be modified is not the same, IMHO. So I think we refs are powerless in this situation, aside from mentioning it in match reports or possibly mentioning it to coaches, in leagues where the competition authority has established such a rule.

BUT--even this may not matter. In a game last year, in a league with such a rule, the score was being run up, and I asked the coach whose team was being pounded if she wanted to mention anything to the opposing coach. She said, "No, don't, he's the commissioner..."

 

We had such a rule in one of the leagues which I work. If a team won by more than five points, the goals over 5 would be subtracted from their season points thereby lowering there standing within the league. This lead to occasional games of keep-away, shooting at the corner flag and "no goal unless it's off your head". In the original situation, I think a rule similar to this might have made the situation worse, giving the prima donna another excuse to show off since he may not have been able to score.

This was a recreational (fun) league where it seemed to make sense, but has since been recinded.

I do know some coaches and parents in the same league (including the league chairman) who are of the opinion that unless the game is an absolute rout, it really isn't satisfactory win. They yell at their players about how poorly they're playing even when they have the game well in hand. This instills the same attitude in the players which carries over to later in their playing years. Is there anything we can do about it? A word with the coach is about it. Coach, if you have the game in hand, sit down and relax and let the kids play their game. Of course, this is pointy ball country where this type of behavior is common.

 

If an adult recreational league falls under the jurisdiction of USSF, then changes in substitution rules are not permitted by LOTG:

"Up to a maximum of three substitutes may be used in any match played in an official competition organised under the auspices of FIFA, the confederations or the member associations.

The rules of the competition must state how many substitutes may be nominated, from three up to a maximum of seven."

"Subject to the agreement of the member association concerned and provided the principles of these Laws are maintained, the Laws may be modified in their application for matches for players of under 16 years of age, for women footballers, for veteran footballers (over 35 years) and for players with disabilities.

Any or all of the following modifications are permissible:
size of the field of play;
size, weight and material of the ball;
width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground;
duration of the periods of play;
substitutions.
Further modifications are only allowed with the consent of the International Football Association Board."

No mention there of recreational leagues. Certainly in England all matches in adult recreational leagues, which are affliated to the FA, (ie, all of them, if they want referees), are played according to the unmodified LOTG, as the FA demands.

I suspect this is another example of FIFA allowing the USSF to "get away with" ignoring its directives simply because the USSF is so big and powerful.

Technically, FIFA could and should sanction the USSF for "allowing" college and high school matches to be played under non-FIFA rules, seeing that the USSF is explicitly given authority over them both by FIFA statutes (which dictate that a national association is responsible for all organised soccer within that country's boundaries) and by the federal Ted Stevens Olympic Act.

Crowdie may correct me if I am wrong, but I vaguely remember reading an earlier thread on this forum once saying that a New Zealand high school or similar league tried to set up their own rules, similar to NFHS, but were pressurised into backing down after FIFA threatened to suspend the New Zealand soccer association.

Talk about double standards!!! When will FIFA threaten to suspend the USSF, then?

If, say the English Schools Football Association (rough NFHS equivalent, but for soccer only), or the British Universities Sports Association (NCAA equivalent), tried to set their own rules for soccer, then the FA would be suspended from FIFA in a flash!

In fairness though, I recognise that, at present, for the USSF to pick a fight with the NCAA and the NFHS might not serve the best interests of US soccer, with all the invetiable (sp?) bloodletting and legal fighting this would entail.
I can just see the NCAA, in particular, dropping soccer as a varsity sport rather than comply with a (hypothetical) court ruling under the Ted Stevens Olympic Sports Act ordering them to submit to USSF authority.

 

What jkdd77 stated is correct, but with some some qualifications.

FIFA allows ALL member associations and their affiliates the opportunity to amend or modify the LOTG as deemed necessary, so long as the spirit of the game and the purpose of play is not altered or undermined. This is due to the fact that their are many different qualifying factors which come to play in venues around the world which would otherwise impede opportunities to organize and conduct play. The difference is whether the national associations pass the opportunity to amend or modify the LOTG down line to their member affiliates. And some do, while others do not.

Also, the NCAA and NFHS do fall under US Soccer, but are accorded the same autonomous operating opportunity as USYSA, USASA, US Club Soccer, AYSO, SAY, and many others.

Finally, any idea that US Soccer has enough clout to ward off anything that FIFA wants is not very sound thinking. Some may feel that having the largest consumer market gives US Soccer leverage (you would think so), but the truth is it does not. For proof you need look no further than the recent WC seedings.

 

You are incorrect about NCAA and NFHS falling under USSF. FIFA and USSF have no authority over those who are not members of USSF. They do not have a copyright on people playing the game. Neither the NCAA or NFHS are members of USSF. Further, NFHS rules are only model rules, for adoption by their member state associations as those associations see fit. NCAA rules are also adopted by the NAIA, NJCAA and NCCAA, but that doesn't give FIFA, USSF or even the NCAA authority over those organizations and how they choose to play the game. While it may not be true in your part of the country, there are also many unaffiliated leagues in the United States, who see no reason to pay a fee to USSF to register their players. I would like to see them affiliate, but it is their decision.

As far as limitations on substitutions not being modified, you need to read the paragraph in TLOTG very carefully. Your typical Sunday afternoon in the park adult league game is not "played in an official competition organized under the auspices of FIFA, the confederations or the national associations." In the United States, only competitions, such as the US Open Cup, organized and managed directly by USSF are covered by this provision. Even MLS and USL are not organized by USSF. They are sanctioned by USSF, but not organized by USSF.

 

Sorry, this is wrong.

The LOTG are absolutely clear that such changes at the national level are ONLY permissible for players of under 16 years of age, for women footballers, for veteran footballers (over 35 years) and for players with disabilities.

See p3

http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2005_e.pdf

"Futher modifications are only allowed with the consent of the International Football Association Board."

If it's in an official competition organised under the auspices of FIFA, the confederations or the member associations, and one or more of the above exceptions do not apply, then the full and unmodified LOTG must be used.

The USSF does not have the authority to pass the opportunity to amend or modify the LOTG (for adult men's matches) down the line to their member affiliates, or to "allow" the NFHS and NCAA to set their own rules, without explict permission from the International Football Association Board, which they do not have.

 

Does any of this really matter? If FIFA or USSF had issues they would be resolved by FIFA and USSF. It's such a trivial thing why concern yourselves?

 

Yeah, you're probably right. It just seems strange. Half the archived threads on the Referee forum seem to be about USSF refs complaining about rule/law differences, particularly high school rule differences, and suggesting that the USA should play entirely under the same Laws as the rest of the world. (I exaggerate, but only slightly.) Now you seem to be backtracking.

As for Law 5's comment that "Your typical Sunday afternoon in the park adult league game is not "played in an official competition organized under the auspices of FIFA, the confederations or the national associations."

any competition that is affliated with USSF falls under the auspices (ie, under the authority) of USSF, in the same way that the Basingstoke and District Sunday League Division 6 still falls under the ultimate authority of the FA.

Main Entry: aus·pice
Pronunciation: 'os-p&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural aus·pic·es /-p&-s&z, -"sEz/
Etymology: Latin auspicium, from auspic-, auspex diviner by birds, from avis bird + specere to look, look at -- more at AVIARY, SPY
1 : observation by an augur especially of the flight and feeding of birds to discover omens
2 plural : kindly patronage and guidance(ie affliation)
3 : a prophetic sign; especially : a favorable sign

As I already said, the Ted Stevens Olympic Act gave the USSF authority over all amateur sport, including therefore high school and college soccer.

I guess I've gone a bit off topic, for which I apologise. Trying to return to the general theme of the thread, I feel strongly that referees should not overextend themselves in trying to discover 'Unsporting Behaviour' where no such behaviour exists. If a player wishes to perform ball-juggling when the ball is in play; the remedy is simple; the opposition can attempt to dispossess him or her, in accordance with the LOTG.

If the opposition make no attempt to do this then the game will be very boring, but this is no different than the last few minutes of certain professional matches where both teams are happy with the draw and make no attempt whatsoever to score.

If this is accepted as legal, which it is, then I see no reason why ball-juggling during play should not also be legal.

Not all instances of poor sportsmanship are USB!

 

This is still incorrect. The Ted Stevens Olympic Act allows for only one national governing body for each sport for the purposes of competing in the Olympic Games, Paralympics and Pan-American Games. USSF as the recognized governing body for soccer(football) in the US, would be the only organization allowed to send a team to the above competitions. I believe his would be the relevant exerpt.

§220521. Recognition of amateur sports organizations as national governing bodies (a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—For any sport which is included on the program of the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, or the Pan-American Games, the corporation is authorized to recognize as a national governing body (in the case of a sport on the program of the Olympic Games or Pan American Games) or as a paralympic sports organization (in the case of a sport on the program of the Paralympic Games for which a national governing body has not been designated under section 220522(b)) an amateur sports organization which files an application and is eligible for such recognition in accordance with the provisions of subsections (a) or (b) of section 220522. The corporation may recognize only one national governing body for each sport for which an application is made and approved, except as provided in section 220522(b) with respect to a paralympic sports organization.

The NCAA and NFHS are separate organizations and are not affiliated with USSF. Therfore, these organizations can have their own "rules".

This I do agree. Unless the "show-off" is taunting his opponent as well, no USB has occured IMO. I would however have a word with the player and suggest in the nicest of ways (because I have no authority to do so) that he may want to stop.