| LAW 5 The Referee |
|
THUMBNAIL The
referee has full authority to make all decisions regarding all 17 Laws. On
matters of fact, such as whether a goal was scored or a foul was
committed, the referee's decisions are final and not subject to appeal.
The referee's authority extends to the coaches and other spectators, if
needed. While
ensuring the safety of the players is the referee's primary objective, he
should permit the game to flow and not call trivial fouls, nor should he
call fouls where stopping play for a free kick would be less beneficial to
the fouled team than permitting play to continue. An
important tool for the referee is Law 18, Common Sense. COMMENTARY Unlike
American [gridiron] football, soccer is a fluid, non-stop game without
built-in breaks in play to permit the players or coaches to choose whether
to accept penalties. Instead, the referee has been given the authority
both to identify fouls and to decide whether to call them, while the game
continues. This exercise in real-time judgment is usually carried out more
consistently when done by only one person. When
appraising a referee, a coach or other observer should watch at least one
half of a game to try to understand the referee's sense of game flow, and
not judge on the basis of one or two calls. QUESTIONS 5.01
What is the advantage rule?
This
rule says, don't stop play for a foul if the play continuing on the field
is already working or expected to work to the benefit of the fouled team. 5.02
Okay, that's the technical definition. Can you give an example?
Sure.
Suppose a breakaway is starting, and three attackers, with the ball, have
just crossed the halfway line and are confronted by two defenders. There's
nothing else between them and the goal except about forty yards of field
and the goalkeeper. One defender deliberately throws herself at the
attacker, bringing down both the attacker and herself. The action is a
clear foul, and probably deserves a caution as well. But... the ball
squirts free and goes right to one of the other attackers, and suddenly a
two-on-one breakaway has started. Consider
the referee's options. One option is to stop play, show a yellow card, and
have the ball brought back to the spot of the foul for the free kick.
While this is happening, the defenders will get organized, and the free
kick will probably not lead to a breakaway. The other option is to let
play continue, on the basis that a two-on-one breakaway is a major
advantage for the attacking team, possibly even better than the original
three-on-two. If the referee is going to show a yellow card, he can still
do so the next time play stops. In either case, a genuine foul was
observed. However, under the second option, although the referee called
the foul, he didn't stop play for the free kick, and play continued
because the play going on was more advantageous to the fouled team than a
free kick would have been. (Advantage implies that the foul was called,
i.e., recognized by the referee -- however, play was not stopped. In the
American gridiron football sense, the referee judged that the fouled team
would decline the penalty if given the choice.) There's
a similar case that is often confused with advantage, but is not. Suppose
that the defender attempts a tackle and while doing so trips the attacker,
but only causes her to stumble briefly, after which she continues on with
the ball still under control. Some referees will blow the whistle, but to
most referees, this situation is trifling and *not a foul at all* -- it's
merely an "attempted foul." If the act isn't a foul, then the
subsequent decision isn't advantage, rather the referee simply decided to
ignore it. To
be a foul most actions need to have some effect on the play. In the words
of Law 12, the act must be committed "in a manner...careless,
reckless or using excessive force." Causing a momentary stumble may
not be any of those. The
Laws formerly contained this beautiful paragraph, which still applies even
though the words are no longer there: "The
Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with
as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of
referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant
whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss
of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of
spectators." 5.03
How do I know when advantage has been applied?
The
signal is for the referee to extend both arms forward. The referee may
also say "Play on," and/or "Advantage." This means
that the referee saw a foul, but elected not to stop play for a free kick.
If it was a serious foul that will lead to a yellow or red card, the
referee can still show the card the next time play stops. (If a red card
is coming, the referee will almost always stop play immediately.) 5.04
The referee said, "Play on, advantage," but then stopped play.
Why?
The
referee first applied advantage, but then he realized that the play wasn't
working out as well for the fouled team as he thought it would, so he
changed his mind and awarded the free kick instead. This is perfectly
acceptable, and the Law gives the referee a few seconds to change his
mind. 5.05
The referee uses advantage sometimes, but usually he just awards free
kicks. How does he decide which way to do it?
Usually,
advantage is given to an attacking team in the opponents' half of the
field when a good attacking opportunity is developing, although advantage
is almost never given when the alternative is a penalty kick! Defenders in
their own half are almost always given free kicks instead of advantage.
Another consideration is that referees usually don't use advantage early
in the game, before they have established a feeling for how the game is
"flowing" -- if the game doesn't seem to "flow" at
all, many referees will avoid advantage entirely. 5.06
Some referees blow the whistle for every little thing, while others let
some pretty physical play go. Why?
The
referee is supposed to let play continue unless fouls are creating injury,
causing the team in possession to lose the ball, or leading to bad
feelings on the part of the players that may result in retaliation. Some
referees correctly sense that the players (and coaches and parents) are
willing to tolerate physical play without becoming angry, and let play
continue without interruption, which helps the players' enjoyment. Another
referee may make the same judgment, but be in error, leading to the
players retaliating for what they perceive to be uncalled fouls. On the
other hand, a referee who calls too many trivial fouls also spoils the
enjoyment of players and spectators. The
fouls that a referee chooses to call indicate his skill at recognizing
fouls and his sense of how much control he needs to exercise in each
particular game. If you, the coach, think the referee is drawing the line
at the wrong point and trouble is brewing, you should share your opinion,
in a way calculated to appeal to the referee. At
younger ages, referees are instructed to call more fouls, to help teach
the players what is and isn't permitted. 5.07
This referee is very slow to blow the whistle. Isn't that bad practice?
This
might just indicate prudence, not poor refereeing. Some referees tend to
wait a little while after fouls to see what the effect of the foul is on
the play. If there's no effect, or if there is advantage to the fouled
team, they may not call anything. 5.08
I asked the referee about a call he made, and in reply he mentioned some
Laws that I can't find in the book. What's going on?
The
laws are meant to be very brief and simply define a legal soccer game.
They do not include instructions on how to play or how to referee. To help
referees apply the laws consistently, FIFA and USSF (the international and
USA soccer federations, respectively) provide additional instructions and
advice which carry the weight of law, even though they are not in the
book. Furthermore, in 1997 the law book was rewritten and some of this
extra material that was formerly included was removed to make the text
shorter still. However, this material still applies. FIFA is preparing a
book of instructions for referees, which should be out within a couple of
years. In the USA, USSF is preparing a booklet, "USSF Guide to the
Laws" covering many of these questions, which should be available in
mid-1998. The
SOCCER-COACH-L web page includes links to several of these resources,
including FIFA's Laws of the Game (as revised 1997), FIFA's Questions and
Answers on the Laws of the Game (not yet updated to reflect the new laws),
and United States Soccer Federation Memorandums explaining changes to the
laws and recommended practices. Except for the Q&A, each of these is
updated at least every year. If
you still have a copy of the Laws from before 1997, be sure to keep it.
Even though the book was rewritten, only a few substantive changes were
made. The major changes were: scoring permitted from kick-off and goal
kick, ball does not have to move its circumference to be in play on a kick
restart, keeper can't handle throw in from a teammate, and the keeper may
move along the goal line at a penalty kick. Otherwise, excepting a few
minor points that are mentioned in these web pages, the 1996 laws still
apply, including some details that are not even in the current book.
5.09
Usually there's only one referee for our games, and he doesn't always see
when the ball goes over a line. How can we help him?
You
can offer to provide two assistant referees or linesmen. They can raise a
flag when the ball completely passes outside the field. If they are
trained or even certified referees themselves, the referee may accept
their inputs on other matters, such as offside or fouls. 5.10
My son, who was lining our game, saw a foul and waved his flag. The
referee saw him, but told him to put the flag down. Why did he ignore his
assistant?
There
are two possible explanations. One is that the referee was treating your
son as a "club linesman," and had asked him only to signal when
the ball went out -- even though your son saw something the referee
didn't. Club linesmen are officials who aren't certified referees, and/or
aren't technically neutral, being affiliated with one of the teams. The
other explanation is that the referee also saw the incident and decided
either that it was not a foul at all, or that advantage should be applied.
5.11
The other team's supporters became very angry and abusive, and the referee
terminated the game. We were ahead at the time, but the referee wouldn't
say that we won. Why not?
The
referee has the authority to manage the game, including terminating it if
things get out of control. However, he doesn't have authority to assign a
winner, except by reporting the number of goals that were scored. He will
send a report on the game to the league, and the league will have to
decide what to do. 5.12
Why doesn't the referee explain his calls? An American football referee
has an extensive repertoire of signals.
Soccer
referees use the whistle to stop play, and then an arm signal to indicate
how play will restart -- not to explain why it was stopped. For instance,
after a goal is scored the referee points to the center circle, because
the next play will be a kick-off. If there's a foul, the players involved
usually know what happened, and just want to know that a free kick has
been awarded. Most referees will explain what the call was if asked,
however they are not obliged to. But remember that the referee has a
limited vocabulary to explain fouls -- there are only about a dozen fouls
mentioned in Law 12, a very small set of terms to describe the multitude
of unfair things that can happen on the field. If you ask the referee
after the game, he may give you a fuller description of what he saw and
how he made the judgment. 5.13
The referee awarded my team a free kick. Then he saw the linesman's flag
up, talked with him, and then awarded the other team a throw in. Can he do
that?
Yes,
he can. If play hasn't already been restarted, the referee can correct his
calls. In your case, apparently the ball went over the touch line without
the referee realizing it, and then the foul occurred after the ball came
back in. Because the ball was technically out of play, a free kick
couldn't be awarded for the foul, although the referee could have shown a
yellow or red card for misconduct -- whether the ball was in play or not. 5.14
This referee never looks at his linesmen, so he's missing some important
calls. What can I do?
It's
really up to the linesmen to do something to get themselves more involved.
If you can say it nicely, you might mention the referee's poor mechanics
to the referee assignor. This referee probably works most games by
himself, and isn't accustomed to working with assistants. 5.15
Why doesn't the referee always stop play when a player is injured?
The
law says the referee should stop for a "serious" injury, but let
play continue until the ball goes out of play for minor injuries. The
dividing line between serious and minor injuries is up to the referee,
although referees are usually quicker to stop the game when younger
children are involved. Another factor in the referee's decision is whether
a strong attacking play is going on -- if the injured player's team is
about to score he is more likely to let play continue. Some players know
the protocol whereby the team in possession kicks the ball into touch when
they see an injured player, and then other team throws the ball back to
them on the restart, but it is rarely seen in American youth soccer, and
the referee often has to intervene. On
other occasions, the referee may judge that the supposedly injured player
is merely faking an injury in order to cause the referee to stop play, to
nullify the opponents' advantage. This is a very tricky question, and the
referee must make a fine judgment in a very few seconds. 5.16
After some bad language between players, the referee stopped play, gave
the players a talking-to, and restarted with an indirect free kick. That
calmed the situation, and the game concluded normally. Later, I looked in
the law book, and discovered the referee can't do that. Once he stops play
like that, an indirect free kick is only the legal restart if he calls a
foul like obstruction or cautions one of the players involved. Can or
should I do anything?
Obviously
this referee didn't want to go overboard in dealing with the players, and
no doubt he chose this solution to help with game control. In US High
School rules, what the referee did was proper provided one team had clear
possession. Under the FIFA rules, however, you are quite correct that a
referee who did this would have committed a technical error which could
lead to a successful protest by one of the teams. If the match in question
was governed by FIFA and not NF rules, what the incident shows is that
soccer referees have -- and exercise -- a great deal of latitude in
interpretation. Sometimes referees will do things which are not in strict
accordance with the rules because their sense of the "Spirit of the
Game" overrides the letter of the Laws. In a case like this, given
that creative law-bending can backfire if a legalistic protest is filed,
many referees will avoid a drop ball by calling a foul -- no matter how
trivial -- on one of the players. This enables them to stop the game,
speak to both players and restart the action smoothly. 5.17
Two of our players got into a fight during pre-game warm-ups. The referee,
who was on the field inspecting the other team, saw it, and wouldn't let
them play in the game -- just as if he had shown them both a red card. Can
he do that? The game hadn't even started.
The
referee's authority over the players and other aspects of a match begins
when he enters the area of the field -- when he leaves the dressing room,
if there is one -- and continues until he departs after the conclusion of
the match. So yes, he was within his rights to forbid the two players from
participating, just as if the incident had occurred during the game. If he
followed accepted procedure, he would have done this without showing a red
card, however -- cards are reserved for players and substitutes, while the
game is going on. The referee can also issue a sending-off for a fight or
other serious misconduct that occurs at half-time or after the conclusion
of the match, such as when the teams are shaking hands. A referee is
supposed to report such incidents to the league; most leagues treat them
the same as send-offs during play as far as suspensions or other penalties
are concerned. Note
1 : even if these
players were listed as starters, you should have been permitted to
substitute other players for them -- in other words, you should not have
had to play short-handed because of an incident which took place before
the start of play. Note
2: you should note
that the referee's authority extends only to the immediate vicinity of the
field. If your players had been seen by the referee fighting in the
parking lot before the game, he would have reported the incident, but
could not have prevented the players from taking part in the match. Many
referees make a point of departing immediately at the conclusion of match
to avoid becoming involved in any trouble -- this may be especially true
if the referee believes himself to be the likely target. 5.18
Why aren't referees more consistent? Why don't they just follow the Laws
of the Game?
There
are at least four major factors that contribute to what is perceived as
inconsistent refereeing: differences from one referee to another,
differences from one game to another, differences from one part of a game
to another, and occasional inconsistencies between the letter of the law
and what players and coaches perceive as fairness. It's
obvious that referees vary in personality, fitness, approach to game
management, knowledge of the laws, and experience -- to name a few
important factors. There's not much that can be done in any one game,
although over the long run coaches can feed evaluations to referee
assignors and administrators. Positive words about the better referees,
and constructive criticism of weaker ones usually work best. As
far as the other sources of variation are concerned, the referee may be
doing exactly the right thing by being inconsistent, as strange as that
may seem. The referee is not just enforcing the Laws -- he is charged with
managing the entire "spectacle" of the match, which requires
flexibility. In general, a referee who likes to let the game flow always
needs to monitor the attitudes of players and coaches and be ready to
"tighten up" when the situation warrants. Different
games need to be handled differently. For example, high school boys
varsity players usually expect and can tolerate more physical contact than
young girls in a recreational league. Some high schools have very intense
rivalries where every game is a war, with bad feelings even before the
opening kick-off. Ethnic groups differ in playing style, expectations
regarding physical contact, and tendencies to waste time or dive or fake
fouls. The referee needs to consider all these issues in determining what
needs to be called. The problems are magnified when the teams have
conflicting expectations, or when a major title rides on the final score. The
referee's attitude to game control may change as the game goes along. In
the first minute, the referee doesn't know whether a game is going to
flow, but in the second half he probably does, although the mood can
change abruptly. Games can change quickly. For instance, a game which
starts out very intense and close may become a blowout if one team loses
heart after one or two goals. In such a case, the losing team may feel
insulted and try to get even by fouling, or may simply give up and offer
token opposition, so the referee cannot easily predict the mood of the
losing team. Conversely, an underdog may be surprisingly competitive,
leading their opponents to become intense and combative as they see their
anticipated easy victory melt away. Sometimes
the referee seems to violate the Laws themselves in the interest of
fairness. Suppose a team takes a quick free kick from the wrong location
(wrong in their favor) just outside the opponents' penalty area, but
shoots over the goal. According to the Laws, the restart was not conducted
properly and the specified action is to retake it. Practically, however,
the referee doesn't give a second chance, and awards a goal kick. (If they
score, then the retake may be in order.) In an important sense, the
referee is not bending the law in this case, but is just following the
directive not to stop the game for "trifling and doubtful
breaches." The offense is trifling in relation to the potential
consequences of any intervention by the referee, so he is quite right to
ignore it. Another
case of the referee paying attention to the overall situation rather than
minor details arises when time expires as the ball is heading towards the
goal in a tied game. Technically, time is up when it's up, but most
players and coaches would prefer to let the game be settled then and
there. 5.19
You sound like referees are being noble when they depart from the letter
of the law to be more "fair." But we have to adjust to a
completely different style of interpretation almost every game. Talk about
unfair! Even if they have reasons to bend the law sometimes, why can't
they at least be the same as each other?
Adjusting
to referees is something coaches have to do -- there's no denying that.
For example, you might decide to discontinue the offside trap if offside
calls seem erratic. A case like offside will probably affect both teams
equally, but at other times, a referee's idiosyncrasies may end up
benefiting one team, even though no bias is intended. If the ref awards a
penalty kick for handling the ball in a case that almost all referees
would have judged accidental and not a foul, you can lose the game, with
no chance to get even because it only happened once. If that happens, you
have to console yourself with the belief that had the same thing occurred
to the other team, the same call would have been made -- which is usually
the case. Sometimes the ref's style can systematically benefit one team
which happens to have players whose play takes advantage -- for example by
permitting the ball to be played by crossed arms on the chest. Start with
the attitude of "that's how the laws are for this game," and
take advantage of them or ignore them, as you wish -- but remember the
referee is probably trying to be fair, he's just different. At
least in the USA, the number of soccer programs has grown so explosively
in the past decade that the supply of referees and, more importantly,
referee instructors hasn't kept up. We can only hope that as the sport
matures, a higher and higher proportion of referees will attend clinics
and come out with a more consistent view of their role and the laws. 5.20
Why are the Laws changed so often? The referees are too inconsistent
already and changing the Law just increases the amount of variation.
"The
spirit of the game," or the players' and fans' unwritten
understanding of how a fair game of soccer works, is the key to the
evolution of the Laws. Soccer was widely played before the first laws were
written in the middle of the 19th century. The first unified rules were an
attempt to find common ground among pre-existing codes that had slight
differences to permit inter-regional play, rather than the creation of a
new game. Still today, most of the world's soccer players and fans learn
the game informally as children, and may never have formal exposure to the
Laws of the Game. The game they learn is based on a fair chance for all
players, not legal technicalities, and evolves only slowly. The
current Laws should be understood as a codification of that widely-shared
informal idea of fair soccer, not a new game defined from scratch. The
codification may not match everybody's idea of what's fair, but that is
the intention. As noted earlier, when referees occasionally depart from
the letter of the law (assuming it's not a simple mistake) it's often in
the belief their decision is more in this spirit. Because
playing to the Laws does not always lead to a result that is perceived to
be fair, and because the style in which the game is played changes over
time, occasional changes are required. When the International Board
decides that goalkeepers should not be permitted to handle a throw-in from
their teammates, for example, it is because they believe that too many
teams have been using this tactic to take the ball effectively out of play
and deny the other team a fair chance to play. This may not be a problem
in the games we coach, but the International Board is more concerned with
matches such as the World Cup. So if you encounter some new wrinkle in the
laws you think is unnecessary, like the "pass-back" law,
remember it's in there to promote fair play, not just to annoy you. 5.21
I am respectful toward referees and acknowledge they usually know more
about the LOTG than I do, but there's no getting around the conclusion
that this ref's a bozo. He's killing the enjoyment even when he's not
killing our team (and sometimes our opponent) with bad judgment, bad calls
from out of position, poor game management, and occasionally, ignorance or
misinterpretation of the rules. What can I constructively do?
Rule
No. 1 is never argue with a bad referee, since you expose yourself to the
real chance of getting tossed out for dissent and, even if you get away
with arguing, you probably will just make the referee worse. Remember,
newer refs who are already nervous will make even more mistakes when you
yell, and stupid ones aren't going to bother to read the rules just
because of your griping. Unless it's something as bad as allowing a retake
of a PK because your goalkeeper moved along the line, it's probably not
worth the risk to even politely challenge the referee's knowledge of the
rules. About all that you can constructively do is to ask -- politely
-- for clarification: "Sorry, ref, I wasn't watching; what was the
call, please?" A bit more aggressive is something like "Sir, I
am not dissenting from the call, but just asking, did you see the [insert
alleged infraction here] and take it into consideration?". However,
you'd better have a charming personality to pull this off, and not try it
too often. You
can complain or appeal to league or tournament authorities after
the game about referees who are truly awful and in over their heads at
that level of play, but remember: the referee is final judge of facts, and
you won't win arguments about factual interpretations, and your complaints
will carry more weight if you are the winning team. If
the referee is making systematic errors, such as not knowing this year's
law changes, you can factor that in to your team's tactics -- for instance
avoid the offside trap if the referee or linesman doesn't seem to know the
offside law. You
might look at the referee's badge and see if it is for the current year.
But even if it is, not all referees attend clinics as part of their
recertification, and they don't all read the law book. Remember too that
there are refs who simply don't agree with some recent law changes or
official interpretations and are reluctant to enforce them. 5.22
Same question as 5.21, except that this time the referee's bad judgment
and game management is literally killing your team - the game is getting
unacceptably rough and out of hand, and you're afraid someone may get
badly hurt. What can you constructively do?
This
is a very difficult issue. First, it helps if you haven't been
whining all along to the ref about every instance where one of your
players was charged or tackled, thereby demonstrating your palpable
ignorance of the rules and SOTG about allowable physical contact in what
is after all, a contact sport. Second, it will help if the opposing
coach feels the same way; send an emissary (unless perhaps the rough stuff
by the other team appears a deliberate strategy encouraged by their
coach). Third, this is one time you may have a duty to speak up to
the referee that you are concerned for the safety of the players on both
teams (not: "That was a horrible no-call on that last tackle!").
Fourth, you can try having your team deliberately kick the ball out
of play very often to simply try to slow the game down for awhile. Fifth,
send someone to get the referee assignor or some league official over to
observe what's going on, if possible. Sixth, if all else fails, you
have a tough decision: is this bad enough that in good conscience, you
really must pull your team off the field for their safety? If so, quickly
poll your players' parents about what they want to do (get them on record
as behind you), and know that this is a major decision, falling on your
sword for the good of everyone involved. NOTE: There's probably a
league rule suspending coaches who pull their teams out of games, and you
should be aware that pulling your team off the field may have serious
consequences for you personally. 5.23
There's no all-girl league at the right age group for the upcoming indoor
season, but my girls want to play. I'm thinking of entering the team in a
boys' league that will also have some coed teams. Will the girls be safe?
Mixed
games are a problem, but the referee can create an environment that's safe
for everyone. Boys may be larger, faster and more aggressive than girls,
depending on the age, which can cause potential safety issues simply
through the action of physics -- momentum equals mass times velocity. At
ages roughly under 12, boys may not recognize potentially dangerous
situations and take action to avoid them. To counter these forces, the
referee will need to keep a relatively tight rein on things, and stop all
forms of careless and reckless play. This is a challenge, but it can be
done. However, if the girls are smaller and not used to the speed and
level of aggressiveness, be prepared for them to get legitimately knocked
around to some degree. You will need to keep a close watch on things, and
tell the referee (in the right way) if your players are being endangered
or intimidated, and possibly tell the league management if things seem to
be out of hand. If the response is tough luck for entering a boys' league,
you might consider withdrawing the team -- even withdrawing from the
current game. Another suggestion is to sign up a couple of boys. ©
1998 jointly in the following individuals: Jim Geissman, David Graham, Jim
MacQueen, Connie Matthies, Jim Meinhold, Chris Mohr, Gary Rue, Ken Smith,
Dave Teetz, Ron Tremper, who are together known pseudonymously as the
SOCCER-COACH-L LOTG COLLECTIVE |
| Back |