The Refereeing Thread

[Bermuda Iron]

As for Question 3, there is nothing definite in the LOTG, other than that the referee may decide that the condition of the field of play or surrounds or that the weather conditions are such as to allow or not to allow a match to take place (this is covered under liabilities of match officials). I would strongly suggest that the local FA guidelines would stipulate what conditions bad enough weather conditions to abandon a match. The over-riding factor must always be, as has been suggested, the safety of the players, plus actual ability to control the match by the officials and if the game would descend into 'farce'. If the last one was always the case, most of Scunny's games should be abandoned....

[Snake Plissken]

imp There are five people at work eagerly awaiting answers...

[seand]

imp There are five people at work eagerly awaiting answers...

He's struggling to keep up with play, typical referee

[Bermuda Iron]

We don't struggle to keep up with play, it's always 'angles over proximity'...

[DPDPDPDP]

Had a coach barging into my dressing room two or three weeks back to complain exactly about this. He was angry. I stayed calm. He left. He came back. He was angry. I stayed calm. He left. And I thought, "Now fuck off for good, you fucking cunt."

I hope you yellow carded yourself for such disgusting thought-dissent!

[Patrick Thistle]

My answers
My answers (guesses)

1. The referee notices that, while the ball is in the possession of Team B in midfield, their goalkeeper is carving out an illegal marking in hs own penalty area. Decision? (Including re-start and place of re-start.)

Blow to stop play. Book goalie. Uncontested drop ball for Team A in midfield.

2. While the ball is in play a dog runs in to Team A's penalty area and wants to play with the goalkeeper. A player on Team B notices that the goalkeeper's distracted - from the centre circle he shoots the ball into Team A's goal. What next?

Goal.

3. During the game a fog falls and visibility worsens by the minute. When must the referee stop the game, and when must he/she call it off?

Stop the game when no longer possible to see touchlines; call it off 30 mins later if the fog hasn't lifted.

4. Penalty for Team A. The penalty-taker runs up and elaborately pirouettes before scoring a goal with his back-heel past the astonished goalkeeper. Decision?

Goal

5. Penalty for Team A. The penalty-taker runs up and scores, then runs off to the corner flag to celebrate, where one of his team-mates is chatting to a spectator. You, the referee, only notice the latter right after the goal's been scored. Decision?

Query - is the player on the pitch chatting? If so, then yellow card for the chatterer and retake pen. Of off pitch yellow card for chatterer and goal stands.

6. Penalty for Team A. Player Number 11 indicates that he's the taker, but after the whistle for the kick, player number 9 runs up and scores instead. Decision?

Goal not given; indirect free kick for Team A on penalty spot.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

We don't struggle to keep up with play, it's always 'angles over proximity'...

haha. Though it's worth noting that the standard of referee decisions does seem to have substantially improved since the typical top level ref started to look more like a triathlete, than a shop Santa killing time until Christmas

[Janik]

So, a question for the refereeing fraternity on here based on a real incident in the Portugal-England women's match on Tuesday.

Player A has the ball with two opponents near her. She does a neat bit of skill, dragging it back from one and then accelerating sideways before reaching the second; it beats both, but as she bursts through the gap between the defenders into space there is a brief tangle of legs and the attacker and the second defender both fall to the ground. However, being the cleared eyed sort that you are, you have spotted that what actually happened was the attacker accidentally put her foot down on top of the foot of the second defender, whilst the defender was doing nothing much more than standing still.

There was no suggestion of a dive by the forward, or that she had deliberately manufactured the contact with the defender. It was a pure accident. But the physical contact between the players, however lack any deliberate action from either party, did result in a good attacking situation being snuffed out; it tripped the forward up.

Should this be 'well that is unfortunate but there is no foul here so play on', or a free-kick to the attack?

For reference, the ref in the game gave a free-kick, but I'm far from convinced she actually knew accurately what had happened as it certainly looked at full speed like a probable trip by the defender.

[seand]

I didn't see the incident but sounds like a play on to me.

If the defender was considered to be 'careless' or 'reckless' in the trip it could be considered a foul. "Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution... Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent" Clumsily standing in the way of the attacker could be deemed careless, I guess, but I'm not convinced!

[Bermuda Iron]

If the contact was initiated by the attacker, no offence and thus no need to stop play. All players have a right to stand where they like on the field of play. If the defending player made a definite move towards the attacker, and their actions and movement created a barrier, then an offence has occurred and direct free kick to the attacking team (tripping or attempting to trip). The terms 'careless', 'reckless' and 'excessive' are used when deciding any sanction once an offence has been identified (no card, yellow or red).

[Bermuda Iron]

And yes, I am a sad bastard

[imp]

imp There are five people at work eagerly awaiting answers...

Ha ha sorry, I've been mainly off the grid. Just doing the test online now - deadline's tomorrow, answers on Wednesday.

I'm pretty sure of all the answers bar number 5, the one with the converted penalty where the team-mate's chatting at the corner flag (note to PT - I'm assuming he's on the pitch, though the question just says "at the left corner flag"). I'm probably going to run with 're-take, no punishment', but I really can't find a definite answer anywhere in the rules or online. I mean, it's a dumb question - you'd have to be a dozy fucker not to see that before it's taken, but although it's a refereeing error, it's also an infringement for the attacking side, so arguably a re-take.

If it was an actual game, I'd probably let it go, depending on the score and the game. But if it was 1-1 in the last minute, and then all the defending team came running up and yelling at me, "He was in front of the ball!" then I might have to re-think that decision.

By the way, this morning I got assigned to ref next month a game involving the U19 home team from May's Game From Hell. I wrote back that I'd be happy to do the game once I'd been paid for the May game, once the team had apologised to me for their conduct, and provided the head coach was no longer the head coach. As of five minutes ago, I am no longer assigned to this game.

[DPDPDPDP]

Another penalty question for our refereeing fraternity. A penalty is awarded. The team's normal penalty taker is a sub. Can the team sub the penalty taker on so that he can take the penalty?

[Janik]

Subs are allowed at any break in play, so I'm thinking sure, why not.


Hockey is a weird one with regards to this. Subs are allowed at any time (and indeed are rolling an unlimited), apart from after a penalty corner has been awarded until it's conclusion. That is the only time during the match that they are banned. They are not banned between the award and the taking of a penalty stroke, despite that being a higher level of set piece than a penalty corner. That bemuses and confuses people; why would the 11 players on the field at the time a penalty corner was awarded be the ones who had to try and take advantage of it, but a stroke can be taken by a sub who had nothing to do with earning it??

The answer lies in history, specifically why the rule banning subs during penalty corners was introduced. These are such a key part of Hockey as a sport at the elite level, responsible for a high proportion of the total goals scored. And the most successful way of converting them is such a particular skill (called a drag-flick) that we got the development of specialist taker. This player would only be part of the 16-player squad for corners. He or she would sit on the bench until one was awarded, jog on, rip the ball into the net, and sub immediately back off again. Look up Calum Giles for what I mean. The ban on subbing during a penalty corner was specifically introduced to curtail this practice. There was no need to ban a similar one for penalty strokes as whilst there might be ~10 penalty corners per game, entire matches can go by without a stroke being awarded. Having a specialist whose only job was firing them home would be a waste of a place. No-one does it.

Umpires and players at lower levels often don't know this, though. Then there is the added complication that, at this level, when the rare (overly rare, but that is by the by) penalty strokes are awarded they are often for an incident that happened during a penalty corner, most commonly a goalbound shot hitting the foot of a defender standing on the goalline. I've heard Umpires deny teams the chance to bring their nominated stroke taker on as "The stroke came during a penalty corner and so is part of that. The corner isn't finished. Therefore the ban on subbing still applies". This is wrong. The rules state quite clearly that one of the things that concludes a penalty corner is the awarding of a penalty stroke.

[Janik]

If the contact was initiated by the attacker, no offence and thus no need to stop play. All players have a right to stand where they like on the field of play.

It was initiated by the attacker. Inadvertently, but definitely. She stood on the defender's foot. So, yeah, it shouldn't have been a free-kick. Which was my instinctive reaction, until I second guessed myself with "what ifs".

[imp]

And finally, the answers:

1. The referee notices that, while the ball is in the possession of Team B in midfield, their goalkeeper is carving out an illegal marking in hs own penalty area. Decision? (Including re-start and place of re-start.) Yellow card for the goalkeeper during the next stoppage.

2. While the ball is in play a dog runs in to Team A's penalty area and wants to play with the goalkeeper. A player on Team B notices that the goalkeeper's distracted - from the centre circle he shoots the ball into Team A's goal. What next? Drop ball in the six-yard box, no punishment.

3. During the game a fog falls and visibility worsens by the minute. When must the referee stop the game, and when must he/she call it off? When you can't see goal to goal.

4. Penalty for Team A. The penalty-taker runs up and elaborately pirouettes before scoring a goal with his back-heel past the astonished goalkeeper. Decision? Goal.

5. Penalty for Team A. The penalty-taker runs up and scores, then runs off to the corner flag to celebrate, where one of his team-mates is chatting to a spectator. You, the referee, only notice the latter right after the goal's been scored. Decision? Re-take, no punishment.

6. Penalty for Team A. Player Number 11 indicates that he's the taker, but after the whistle for the kick, player number 9 runs up and scores instead. Decision? Indirect free-kick from the penalty spot, yellow card for the number 9.

I got 29/30 points on this one (15 questions in all). Annoyingly, I lost a point because on one question - where the answer was an indirect free-kick for offside - I answered for the point of restart as 'where the player interferes with play', but the apparently correct answer is given as 'where the player was standing'. I really see no effing difference, and am weighing whether or not it's worth an email, given that 25 is the pass mark, and given that the earth is dying etc.

Edit: Actually, just realised it was the other way around, I answered 'where the player was standing', instead of 'where the players interferes with play'. Luckily I noticed that before firing off a righteous email. Still not a great deal of difference, but not worth arguing the toss about.

[imp]

Some more questions for you keen students of the game. Deadline is October 31. Re-start, place of re-start and punishment (or not) all required in the answer. Prize: pride and prestige.

1. Attacker taking a correctly executed throw-in throws the ball vehemently at an opponent, who ducks, and the ball hits one of the attacker's own players instead. Decision?

2. A defender who's off the field to get treatment for an injury picks up a spare ball and throws it at the match ball, which just happens to be rolling towards the defender's empty net. The action prevents a goal. What next?

3. Free-kick just outside the penalty area. Wall is at its proper distance. Directly behind the wall a defender lies on the ground to 'strengthen" the wall. Is this allowed?

4. Indirect free-kick for the defending team ten yards in front of their goal. The taker accidentally kicks the ball against the referee's back, and it rebounds into his goal past the waylaid keeper. Decision?

5. Attacker through on goal is fouled by a defender just outside the penalty area, the ball runs on to another attacker who controls the ball, dribbles a few yards and - completely alone and free in front of the goal - shoots. The goalkeeper saves and the ball goes out behind the goal. Decision?

6. Team A is 0-1 down but gets a penalty just before the final whistle. The club linesman does not agree and at great volume insults the referee. Decision?

7. Penalty shootout. The taker commits an illegal feint, while at the same time the goalkeeper - already on a yellow - moves from his line clearly too soon. Nevertheless, he can't stop the shot. decision?

8. Defending team takes a quick indirect free-kick in its own penalty area. The taker's team-mate, standing just inside the area, can't control the ball and it runs to an attacker who didn't have time to leave the penalty area before the kick was taken. He shoots and scores. Decision?

9. Same situation, except this time the attacker was poised and waiting for the ball. He shoots and scores. He'd already done the same thing in the first half. Decision?

10. A goalkeeper furious at the perceived lack of injury time runs up to the ref right after the final whistle and grabs his lower arm to take a look at his watch. Decision?

[Janik]

These sort of incidents are ten a penny in the lower leagues of German Football, I presume. The sort of thing every official has to be absolutely up to speed with...

1. Excessive force. Reckless. Caution the thrower-in and award the opponents a free kick just inside the field of play.

2. Penalty to the attacking team and red card to the defender.

3. The rules were changed to specifically prevent this a couple of years ago, weren't they? So, no, it's not allowed.

4. Uncontested drop ball to the defending team.

5. No DOGSO as the clear scoring opportunity was still present despite the defenders actions. Corner kick and caution the defender for unsporting conduct.

6. Penalty decision stands. Instruct the linesman that his services are no longer required, that if he should continue his tirade now he is no longer an official he will be sent off, and also inform Team A's coach that they need to provide an alternative official for the rest of the match.

7. Re-take. Book the taker for the feint. And warn the 'keeper that he was very lucky the forward did that or he would have been sent off.

8. Goal.

9. Indirect free kick and caution the forward for not retreating outside the area.

10. Send the 'keeper off for violent conduct.

[treibeis]

imp, if you'd been reffing Werder against Hertha last Saturday and Ibisevic had, after you'd waved away his penalty appeal, told you to give him a yellow card "because if it wasn't a foul, I must have dived, then", would you have booked him?

[imp]

imp, if you'd been reffing Werder against Hertha last Saturday and Ibisevic had, after you'd waved away his penalty appeal, told you to give him a yellow card "because if it wasn't a foul, I must have dived, then", would you have booked him?

Ha ha, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, I'm sure some smartarse fucker, or several smartarse fuckers, are going to start using that line in the coming weeks when they don't get the penalty they think they deserve. You can argue that it's a form of dissent, and so the yellow's deserved, and of course my games are not yet subject to video evidence so I can cheerfully wave the yellow card they have just requested without a playback proving that - as in Ibisevic's case - a penalty would have been the correct decision. In practice, though, I'd probably just have ignored him.

[imp]

These sort of incidents are ten a penny in the lower leagues of German Football, I presume. The sort of thing every official has to be absolutely up to speed with...

Indeed. Injured players are always chucking balls on to the field to knock away balls that are rolling into an empty net...

I've not scoured the Laws yet for these, but I think most of your answers are there or thereabouts - impressive. On Question One I'd give a red for violent conduct - even the attempt to hit a player counts. On Question 3, as far as I'm aware there's nothing in the rules about this, though I could be wrong. Can't see under what rule the player wouldn't be allowed to do it. On the other hand, I can't for a second imagine why the hell any player would choose to do this in the first place - I suppose to stop a low shot if the wall jumps high, but you risk a handball. But I've never seen it happen.

[seand]

Some right stinkers this week imp....

1. "vehemently" might be losing something in translation, assuming it was an attempt to hit deliberately hit the opponent I reckon it's violent conduct, red, restart with direct free.
2. Not really sure what the offence is, but it's clearly an offence. Unsporting conduct or whatever its called? Probably can only give a yellow (or is it DOGSO?) Restart presumably is a drop ball on the 6 yard line, but I dunno.
3. I've seen it at least once, used to prevent the attacker putting a shot under a jumping wall. I believe it's legal. Arguably the player is endangering himself, but don't think that's an offence.
4. With the stupid new rules it's an uncontested drop ball to the defending team for hitting the ref. Back in the day I reckon it'd have been a corner.
5. Advantage was played, it's not you're fault he couldn't hit a barn door. Corner.
6. No idea how you deal with club linespeople. If you red card him where does that leave us?
7. Penalty shootout. Retake, the taker's offence (presumably) came first
8. No idea. Fully expect the players have no idea. It feels like a free out to me. I'll point stridently and perhaps use some improvised hand signals to muddy the waters.
9. Goal.
10. Red card, put it in your report. (Internal monologue tells him to fuck off and fantasises about sparking him out)

[imp]

First blog post for a few weeks. Sunday's game had gone okay, I thought. Then I see two angry men stalking towards me from the home bench right after the final whistle...

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

1. Is it violent conduct to hit a player with the ball while executing a legal move during normal play? Would it be violent conduct to kick the ball hard at someone? I'm going to against the grain and say no offence here.

[imp]

1. Is it violent conduct to hit a player with the ball while executing a legal move during normal play? Would it be violent conduct to kick the ball hard at someone? I'm going to against the grain and say no offence here.

Probably good you stopped after Question 1 then, you anti-grainer contradictarian you. Yes, it's violent conduct, and throwing the ball vehemently at an opponent doesn't count as a legal move, even if you execute it with both feet on the ground and on or behind the touchline. Same goes for deliberately kicking the ball at someone. Big shiny red cards all round for behaving like an utter twot.