US Soccer Guidance for Officials - Utah State Soccer ... Soccer Guidance for Officials ... o A US Soccer publication addressing the ... The referee, in this clip, awards the attacking

US Soccer Guidance for Officials A Summary of Instruction

PDF Version Last Updated: November 4, 2008

**This document is currently in review stages by the US Soccer Referee Department for future publication to ussoccer.com**

The following document provides a continuously updated reference forum for training and instructional documentation prepared and distributed by the U.S. Soccer Referee Department. This document is designed to follow the format of the FIFA Laws of the Game as published in the United States, and as such sections can be referenced in order of the LOTG booklet.

Update History: *Note: Beginning on 9/19/2008, all new clips and commentary are noted with their “Date Added” for ease of navigation

• 10/30/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 31 MLS 2008 o Second Caution (2 clips), DOGSO (1 clip), Removing Violence From the Game The Red Card (1 clip)

• 10/23/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 30 MLS 2008 o AR Intervention to Prevent Game Disrepute (new section Law 6, clip), Use of Personality (2 clips), Violent

Conduct Contact Above the Shoulders (new section Law 12, re‐classified clips, 1 new clip), Advantage The 4‐P Principle (1 clip)

• 10/16/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 29 MLS 2008 o AR Involvement Deciding When to Get Involved (2 clips), No Offside on GK/CK/TI (new section Law 11,

clip), Encroachment at the Taking of the Penalty Kick (clip) • 10/09/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 28 MLS 2008

o AR Work Rate (clip), Preventative Officiating (clip), AR Involvement & Teamwork (clip) • 10/03/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 27 MLS 2008

o Use of Elbows and Forearms (clip), Handling (2 clips) • 09/25/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 26 MLS 2008

o Use of Elbows and Forearms (clip), Removing Violence from the Game – Serious Foul Play/FlashPoints (new section and clip), Simulation (clip), AR Offside Decisions (clip)

• 09/19/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 25 MLS 2008 o Use of Elbows and Forearms (4 clips), DOGSO (clip), PK Encroachment (clip), Getting the Most Out of

Your Yellow Card (clip) • 09/14/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 24 MLS 2008

o AR Offside Decisions (clip), Violent Conduct (the F‐I‐R‐E Principle) (new section and clip), Handling (clips), Penalty Kick (clip)

• 09/06/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 23 MLS 2008 o Preventative Officiating Leads to Game Flow (clips), Bench Behavior (clip), Mass Confrontations (clip), AR

Offside Decisions (clip) • 08/29/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 22 MLS 2008

o Game Flow and Risk Taking (clip), Getting the Most Out of Your Yellow Card (text update), AR Involvement Deciding When to Get Involved (clips), AR Offside Decisions (clips)

• 08/24/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 21 MLS 2008 o Subs Warming Up (new section), DOGSO (clip), USB – Tactical Fouls Misapplication (clip), USB – Tackle

(clip), Getting the Most Out of Your Yellow Card (new section, clip), AR Offside Decisions (clips) • 08/14/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 20 MLS 2008

o Removing Violence from the Game the Red Card (clips), Second Caution (clips), DOGSO (clips) • 08/07/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 19 MLS 2008

o Game Flow and Risk Taking(clips), Unsporting Behavior – Tactical Fouls(clips), Handling (New Section, clips)

• 08/01/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 18 MLS 2008, 07/31/08 Position Paper: “Disallowed Goal From a Pass Back Violation Restart”

o Game Flow and Risk Taking, Offside Decision Making, Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunities • 07/25/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 17 MLS 2008

o Misconduct by Subs and Substituted Players, Offside Decision Making, Managing Penalty Kicks • 07/19/2008 –Summary of Week in Review 16 MLS 2008

o The Importance of Crew Communication, Simulation, Unsporting Behavior – Tackles (100% Misconduct), Removing Violence from the Game – The Red Card

• 07/11/2008 –Summary of Week in Review 15 MLS 2008 and Striking Memo (July 3) • 07/07/2008 – References to USSF Position Papers and Memoranda 1998‐2008 Law 10‐AI • 07/06/2008 – References to USSF Position Papers and Memoranda 1998‐2008 Law 1‐9 • 07/05/2008 – Summary of Week in Review 14 MLS 2008

06/30/2008 –Summary of Weeks in Review 1‐13 of MLS 2008 – released public domain

US Soccer – Guidance for Officials – A Summary of Instruction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

LAW 1 – THE FIELD OF PLAY ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Official Publications Related to Law 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 6

On the Line, In or Out? .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

LAW 2 – THE BALL.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8


LAW 3 – THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS ................................................................................................................................................ 9


Administrating Injuries .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

LAW 4 – THE PLAYER’S EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 10

Official Publications Related to Law 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

LAW 5 – THE REFEREE .................................................................................................................................................................. 11


The Art of Advantage and Game‐Flow Through Risk‐Taking ............................................................................................................. 11

Game Flow and Risk Taking ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

The “4‐P” Principle of Advantage ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

The Importance of Crew Communication and Pre‐Game .................................................................................................................. 15

LAW 6 – THE ASSISTANT REFEREES .............................................................................................................................................. 17


AR Involvement – Deciding When to Get Involved ............................................................................................................................ 17

AR Involvement on Free Kicks ............................................................................................................................................................ 20

ARs Contributing to Game Flow .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

AR Work Rate ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

LAW 7 – THE DURATION OF THE MATCH ...................................................................................................................................... 22


Additional Time ................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

LAW 8 – THE START AND RESTART OF PLAY ................................................................................................................................. 23


LAW 9 – THE BALL IN AND OUT OF PLAY ...................................................................................................................................... 24


LAW 10 – THE METHOD OF SCORING ........................................................................................................................................... 25

Official Publications Related to Law 10 .............................................................................................................................................. 25

LAW 11 ‐ OFFSIDE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26


Does the Player Have to Touch the Ball – When Does it Become Interference with Play? .............................................................. 26

AR Offside Decisions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Offside: Defender Off the Field .......................................................................................................................................................... 33

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT ............................................................................................................................................ 36


Preventative Officiating Leads to Game‐Flow .................................................................................................................................... 37

Use of Personality In Place of and In Addition to the Whistle ........................................................................................................... 39

Getting the Most Out of Your Yellow Card ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Dissent ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42

Handling (a.k.a. the “hand ball”) ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

Dealing With Game Disrepute ............................................................................................................................................................ 44

Mass Confrontations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Simulation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Two Major Classes of Unsporting Behavior ........................................................................................................................................ 48

Tackles .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Tactical Fouls .................................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Tackles from Behind ............................................................................................................................................................................ 51

Persistent Infringement ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Players who repeatedly commit fouls.............................................................................................................................................. 51

Players who are repeatedly fouled .................................................................................................................................................. 52

Second Caution .................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Delaying Restarts of Play .................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Misconduct by Substitutes and Substituted Players .......................................................................................................................... 54

Removing Violence from the Game – The Red Card .......................................................................................................................... 55

Raising Awareness of “FlashPoints” ................................................................................................................................................. 58

Violence in the Game – Use of the Elbow and Forearm .................................................................................................................... 59

Violent Conduct – Initiation and Retaliation ...................................................................................................................................... 63

Identification and Prevention .......................................................................................................................................................... 63

The F‐I‐R‐E Principle for Dealing with Above‐the‐Shoulder Challenges ........................................................................................... 64

Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunities ‐ DOGSO ..................................................................................................................... 66

The 4 D’s of DOGSO ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66

DOGSO – What if the Goal is Scored? .............................................................................................................................................. 69

Contact With Game Officials – Where is the Line? ............................................................................................................................ 70

Fan Invasion and Obscene Gestures by Players ................................................................................................................................. 70

LAW 13 – FREE KICKS ................................................................................................................................................................... 72


The Quick Free Kick ............................................................................................................................................................................. 72

LAW 14 – THE PENALTY KICK ....................................................................................................................................................... 73


Courage to Make the Call .................................................................................................................................................................... 73

Getting To the Right Place at the Right Time ................................................................................................................................... 73

Encroachment at the Taking of a Penalty Kick ................................................................................................................................... 74

Penalty Kick Management .................................................................................................................................................................. 75

LAW 15 – THE THROW‐IN ............................................................................................................................................................ 77


Restart Position of a Throw‐In ............................................................................................................................................................ 77

LAW 16 – THE GOAL KICK ............................................................................................................................................................. 78


LAW 17 – THE CORNER KICK ........................................................................................................................................................ 79


ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE ....................................................................................................................................................... 80

Official Publications Related to Administrative Issues ...................................................................................................................... 80

Game Reports ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 80

Dismissal of a Non‐Player ................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Post‐Game Misconduct .................................................................................................................................................................... 80

Substitutes Warming Up ..................................................................................................................................................................... 81

PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF A MATCH ............................................................................................................. 82

Official Publications Related to Determining the Winner of the Match ........................................................................................... 82

THE FOURTH OFFICIAL ................................................................................................................................................................. 83

Official Publications Related to The Fourth Official ........................................................................................................................... 83

Dealing With Intrusions to the Fourth Official Area .......................................................................................................................... 83

Use of Substitution Boards/Signs ....................................................................................................................................................... 83

Managing Benches .............................................................................................................................................................................. 83

THE TECHNICAL AREA .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

Official Publications Related to The Technical Area........................................................................................................................... 85

Comments to Players and Coaches ..................................................................................................................................................... 85

Bench Behavior.................................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Proactive Management of the Technical Areas ................................................................................................................................. 86


LAW 1 – THE FIELD OF PLAY

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO LAW 1

• 04/03/2008 – Objects on the Field o A US Soccer publication addressing the growing number of instances in which confetti, streamers, and other

celebratory items wind up on the field of play during a match, including guidance on how to handle interference from such items.

• 03/14/2008 – Padded Goal Structures o A US Soccer publication addressing the use of padding on goal posts in which US Soccer states the reasons for

which it cannot approve the use of goal post padding in sanctioned matches. • 03/29/2005 – The Field of Play (Equipment and Devices)

o A US Soccer Memorandum addressing the growing use of communications devices (cameras, microphones, etc) on, around, or near the playing field and what actions to take should one interfere with play.

• 09/30/2003 – Unauthorized Field Markings o An official MLS Memorandum addressing the practice of players making unauthorized markings with tape or other

materials on fields of play.

ON THE LINE, IN OR OUT? According to Law 1 – The Field of Play, the “lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.” While we frequently hear the statement that the ball much “complete cross the touch line” to be considered out of play (throw‐in, goal kick, corner kick), the same mantra applies to incidents within the boundaries of the field of play. In the following situation, we examine a situation that occurs with some frequency at all levels of play – a goal keeper handling the ball near the top of the penalty area:

• Video Clip: Colorado at Toronto (24:05) ‐ This clip presents a case in which a handling is called that will result in a free kick being taken just over 18 yards from goal in the danger zone. The goalkeeper attempts to gather a ball but mishandles it and it skirts out to the top of the penalty area. The referee, in this clip, awards the attacking team with a free kick as he judges that the goalkeeper handled the ball outside the penalty area boundary line. A caution is also issued to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior. The foul call then leads to a dangerous free kick and potential encroachment. In reviewing the tape, it is not clear that there is a handling offense. It is certainly not clear enough to award a free kick approximately 18 yards from goal. To make such a call, the referee and/or AR must be certain and positioned so as to have a clear view of the offense (position of the ball relative to the penalty area line at the exact time contact is made with the goalkeeper’s hands). The resulting yellow card would also have been avoided. Points for additional consideration:

o Given the previous statement that “lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries”, the ball will be considered to be inside the penalty area if any part of the ball is crossing the plane of the boundary line. Consequently, the goalkeeper may legally handle the ball as long as any part of the ball is crossing the penalty area line whether on the ground or in the air.

o The position of the goalkeeper’s body plays no role in determining the handling offense. The position of the ball relative to the penalty area markings when it is touched by the goalkeeper’s hands is the determining factor in deciding if a handling offence occurred. The goalkeeper’s entire body can be outside the penalty area. A handling offense occurs at the time the goalkeeper’s hand(s) contact the ball while the ball is fully outside the penalty area boundary line.

o To make the call, the referee is not strategically positioned to have a clear view of where the ball was when it was touched by the goalkeeper’s hand(s). A wider and closer view would make the decision more convincing. Watch

at 24:10 on the game clock as the referee stops his run to the penalty area (possibly anticipating that the goalkeeper will cleanly control the ball which does not occur) causing him to be further from the decision.

o The official best positioned to make a determination as to whether the ball was handled outside the penalty area is the AR. But, like the referee, the AR must be certain of the handling offense before intervening. If the AR intervenes it should be with a raised flag with a slight wiggle.


LAW 2 – THE BALL


• 01/26/1999 – Instructions to Ball Persons o A US Soccer publication that provides guidance to officials on the duties of the ball persons as they may be

provided for use on matches, including advised issues to address with these individuals prior to the match.


LAW 3 – THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS


• 10/12/2007 – Handling Injuries o A US Soccer Position Paper that references the FIFA Additional Instructions to clarify the handling of injuries

involving the goal keeper, specifically when the goal keeper and a teammate or an opponent collide requiring both to receive medical attention on the field of play.

• 07/20/2004 – FIFA Memorandum – Number of Players in “Other Matches” o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the term “other matches” in Law 3 and relates to the number of allowable

subs in non‐league sanctioned matches. • 11/22/2002 – Abandoning a Match Due to Insufficient Number of Players

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies situations in which a match is abandoned due to too few players on the field, as well as situations in which play is allowed to continue with fewer than the minimum number of players.

• 04/23/2001 – Players Temporarily Off the Field Involvement of the Fourth Official o A US Soccer publication provides guidance to officials on the handling of injuries and removing a player from the

field for treatment. Addressed are issues related to time lost, blood on uniform, and player re‐entry. Key to this publication is the implementation of policy allowing the 4th official (or AR) to inspect players returning to the field from injury for blood or other rather than the referee be required to do so him/herself.

ADMINISTRATING INJURIES When there is a concurrent injury to the goalkeeper and any other field player (regardless of team) and the trainer is called onto the field to attend to the goalkeeper and the other field player, both the player and the goalkeeper may be treated on the field of play and are not required to leave the field. Refer to the October 12, 2007 Position Paper, “Handling Injuries,” reference above for further information.


LAW 4 – THE PLAYER’S EQUIPMENT


• 08/01/2005 – US Soccer Statement on Use of Padded Head Gear o A statement by US Soccer addressing questions asked of the Federation regarding the use of padded hear gear for

players. • 09/03/2003 – Players Wearing Non‐Compulsory Equipment

o A US Soccer Memorandum that further clarifies the referees role in evaluating player equipment or uniforms to ensure they meet the requirements of Law 4 and provide for player safety.

• 03/17/2004 – Law 4, Player’s Equipment (Jewelry) o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying that jewelry is not to be worn by any player, except for that for medical

reasons. • 03/07/2003 – Player’s Equipment

o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides broad guidance to referees on how to evaluate whether a uniform or equipment item is “safe” for use during play.

• 11/04/2002 – Jersey Sleeves Rule Suspended o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying and suspending a previously announced policy of FIFA requiring all jerseys to

have sleeves. • 11/22/2002 – Medical Alert Jewelry and Law 4

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies and addresses common sense approaches to the handling of players who wear medical alert jewelry.

• 11/22/2002 – Shinguards o A US Soccer publication clarifies the requirements of Law 4 as they relate to player shinguards and stockings.

• 11/22/2002 – Player Dress o A US Soccer Memorandum that addresses and clarifies the wearing of religious garments during a match.


LAW 5 – THE REFEREE


• 02/21/2007 – The Officiating Team – Increasing Communication Effectiveness o A US Soccer publication the places emphasis on officiating crew communications as a means to providing a quality

officiated match. This document explores the many opportunities and methods in which an officiating crew can provide assistance to one another through communication throughout the course of a single decision, or an entire match.

• 07/15/2005 – Proper Positioning | Power Point o US Soccer publication that explores the need for referees to be properly positioned during matches to make

accurate and valid decision. The accompanying power point presentation provides visual support for text descriptions.

• 03/14/2003 – Mass Confrontation o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the roles of the officiating crew when it comes to situations involving mass

confrontations of players on the field during a match.

THE ART OF ADVANTAGE AND GAME‐FLOW THROUGH RISK‐TAKING The focus is on letting the game flow and seeing if the players can play through minor, trifling offenses which also looking for instances of advantage that can be played to enhance game flow and continuity. However, the referee must be reading to alter this to meet the needs of the game in situations where: the players are not responding to the additional contact, the game needs it, or game control would be compromised if the call were not made. In those cases, call the fouls to slow the game down until the players decide to play. Once the game is under control, the referee can be freer to take risks in allowing play to continue through trifling offences, particularly those occurring in the midfield where possession and advantage are maintained/gained. In the video below, the referee recognizes an early, serious foul, and deals with it properly to help set the tone for the match. Missing these early fouls often spells trouble for game control later on:

• Video Clip: SJ at Colorado (2:52). The game is only 2:52 old when a serious foul occurs. The referee should be aware that the player fouled is talented, skilled, the team’s play maker, the field general, the “motor of the team.” However, regardless of skill‐level of the player fouled, the foul is a cautionable offense. This is an example of setting the right tone early and, by making this call, you have given the players the information they need to continue in the match – this type of action will be penalized. The time of the match should NOT factor into the decision to caution or not. This is NOT a candidate for flow or only using personality. This MUST be a CAUTIONABLE offense. Do NOT confuse this with risk taking. Set the tone!

In “letting the game flow,” it is likely there will be a higher intensity level to the game that the referee must feel. Referees must be especially aware of “cluster” fouls that lead to escalating or retaliatory fouls and/or misconduct. In these situations where a cluster of small but increasingly fiery fouls occurs, the referee must step in, slow the game down, and intervene. Adjust as the game requires. We want continued efforts to produce an entertaining game but we do not want referees to use flow, risk taking, and personality as a reason/excuse for not calling a foul that is needed for the game or for the player. Officials MUST call fouls and/or issue cautions when the foul and situation requires it. There are certain fouls given the environment of the game that require the referee to slow down play, stop the game. There are also certain fouls that require the referee do more than stop the game and have a word with the player. These are the situations requiring a caution be issued. The referee must feel/read the MESSAGES IN THE GAME!

GAME FLOW AND RISK TAKING To left is the model U.S. Soccer is encouraging referees to use as their approach to the game at all levels. Key to successful implementation is the referee’s ability to understand the overall “big picture” of the match. In other words, the atmosphere and/or environment surrounding the match as it is played out and his “feel” for what the game needs at that moment. Simply, risk taking and flow go hand‐in‐hand with game control. The more game control that is needed, the less risk taking the referee engages in. The greater the presence established by the referee and the more comfortable the referee feels about the positive atmosphere of the game, the more risk the referee can take in allowing the game to flow by not whistling minor or trifling offenses in which player safety is not jeopardized. This does NOT mean the referee ignores the situations that involve 100 percent misconduct. Remember, the basis for this framework is entertainment, safety of the players, and 100

percent misconduct. Referees cannot lose focus on these three items at any time but must choose the right opportunities to take risks by not calling the borderline/minor fouls (trifling) that do not affect game control. The clips below will provide examples of some of these minor or trifling fouls and show how the risk taken by the referee paid dividends by providing a better product for the spectators and the players.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at FC Dallas (31:43) ‐ It is relatively early in the game (31:43) and there have been no significant incidents or misconduct – this is part of the “big picture.” Given his feel for the game, the referee takes a calculated risk by allowing play to proceed. Let’s quickly evaluate the components of this play:

o Risk Taking ‐ In this clip, risk is defined by the nature of the foul, the location of the foul and the direction the attacker is facing when he is fouled. First, the foul occurs on the defensive half of the field. Second, the fouled attacker is not facing forward when he is challenged and is moving away from his goal. Third, there is a defender running at the attacker who receives the ball from the teammate who is fouled. Finally, the nature of the foul is such that the player’s safety is not endangered. It is in no way reckless and more of an upper body challenge. These four factors decrease the risk of allowing flow for the referee.

o Flow ‐ By not calling the foul, the referee has allowed the game to have more flow – one less stoppage of approximately 20 seconds. The fouled team is permitted to continue on the attack that leads to a shot on goal. Hence, the entertainment value is increased.

o Game Control ‐ By allowing play to continue, in this case, the referee is not negatively affecting his control of the match. The foul does not fall into the category of 100 percent misconduct (a situation in which a yellow or red card is mandated) nor does the referee’s decision to allow play to continue increase the overall frustration level of the players. The referee’s decision to allow flow does not absolve him from dealing with the fouler either during play or at the next stoppage.

o Big Picture ‐ In making the decision to take a risk on this play, the referee must assess what has occurred previously in the game either between the players or between the teams. This is the “feeling” and “sensing” aspect of the referee’s responsibility to the match. Having assessed the big picture, the referee can then add this component to his decision making process. A confident and attentive referee, as well as a referee who has a good sense of the big picture, can find several similar instances in the game, can positively influence the entertainment value of the game by giving the game more flow and reducing the time the ball is out of play. Referees must be positioned correctly in order to be able to scan the field to make a determination as to the opportunity for successful flow.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at FC Dallas (64:28) ‐ While watching the buildup in this clip, apply the same principles addressed in the clip above: risk taking, flow, game control, and the big picture. After applying the principles, it will be evident that this situation is a good candidate for risk taking by the referee. Despite the tight space facing the fouled attacker, he is able to receive the ball and take a shot at goal. Once again, the referee has refrained from whistling a foul that is minor/trifling in nature, and therefore has contributed to the entertainment value. Note: the referee’s position, close to play, provides him with a good feel for the nature of the foul and for assessing the opportunity for successful flow.

• Video Clip: Columbus at Houston (39:28) ‐ This flow and risk taking clip illustrates how a referee must be able to read the game and make a determination as to the next phase of play (as contact occurs, what the clear options are for the player with the ball) and make a determination as to how the players will accept the fluidity he is attempting to direct at that point in the match. Watch as there are approximately five different challenges by defenders attempting to deny the progress of the attacking team. Despite the number of challenges, the referee reads that the attacking players are willing to play through the minor/soft fouls and determined that there is a next phase of play following each challenge. Remember, the Laws of the Game allow the referee to come back and penalize an offense (within a few seconds) if the

advantage does not materialize. Note, at 39.42, the referee announces his intention to allow the play to continue, this gives the referee the flexibility to “read” the player’s reactions (taking them into consideration) to the flow and provides credibility if he decides to return to penalize. Watch as the clip starts with upper body contact, and an attacker in possession of the ball with his back up field. This is followed by more body contact in the center circle in which the referee judges as soft or minor. Two more mis‐timed tackles occur as the attacker breaks out of the center circle. Despite the defending team’s attempts, the offensive player is able to connect a pass to a teammate in the attacking third. A well positioned referee is able to sell these decisions to the players due to his presence. Notice how the flow directed by the referee contributes to the entertainment value.

• Video Clip: Columbus at Houston (42:28) ‐ Again, there are several bits of contact initiated by defenders. However, the referee is close to interpret each contact as minor in nature and, therefore, the game does not require it to be called. Examine the three challenges and make a determination as to why the referee judges it to be trifling:

o The first challenge involves upper body contact. The attacking player goes down with minor contact. The referee is positioned close to the contact and has the correct line of vision so he can make the judgment that the contact did not cause the attacker to fall down. Key to interpreting this is the attacker’s reaction: he immediately gets off the ground and chases the ball.

o The second hard challenge comes from the team just dispossessed of the ball (orange shirts). The player initiates a hard, solid tackle but it is from the side. The player slides in and sweeps the ball away. The challenge is hard but fair. Contact is made with the ball and not the opponent. The opponent gets beat to the ball and jumps to avoid the contact.

o The third and final challenge is, again, upper body and is committed by the defender (at 32:44) to prevent the attacker from running into space on a potential give‐and‐go. The referee is stationed adjacent to the foul and can clearly see the progress of the pass and he correctly allows play to proceed.

Overall, a superb job by the referee by allowing the game to flow without putting the player’s safety at risk and without bypassing 100 percent misconduct situations. The result: attacking and entertaining soccer resulting in a goal.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at D.C. (6:37) ‐ This is an example of a foul that minor/trifling and a good candidate for flow. The attacking player goes down with minimal upper body. In fact, the attacker’s turn with the ball causes him to lose his footing and not the contact. The referee, near the play and with clear view of the contact, decides there is no foul – this is critical to making the proper judgment. Having decided there was no initial foul, the referee correctly awards a free kick for handling.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at D.C. (10:05) ‐ A situation where no foul is recommended resulting in game flow. The attacker, with the ball, is being pressured by an opponent from behind. There is contact, but the contact is not the cause of the player losing the ball. The player touches the ball too far in front and loses his footing as he reaches for the ball. The contact is not the cause of the player going down nor of his losing possession; therefore, the referee should feel comfortable with taking a risk in cases similar to this.

• Video Clip: Houston at New York (32:25) ‐ This clip provides an example of a challenge that is not a good candidate for flow or risk taking. Consider the following:

o Defender’s position ‐ The defender is pinned deep into his penalty area less than five yards from the goal line. It is very high risk given the proximity to the goal mouth.

o The direction the defender is facing ‐ The defender is not facing up field where the space to play the ball is located. Hence, the defender cannot see his options.

o The position of teammates ‐ Teammates are not positioned such that they could receive a pass from the marked defender. In other words, there are no outlets or passing options for the player with the ball.

Overall, the referee should make the call on the first challenge/foul as soon as possible thereby eliminating frustration on the part of the player with the ball and the potential for the second challenge leading to escalation. Consideration of the above factors must be made swiftly by the referee. In other cases where the defender has clear and effective options to play the ball to a teammate away from goal, the referee is permitted by the Laws of the Game to hold the whistle for a few seconds to see if an advantage materializes. If it does not, the referee may whistle for the foul and award a free kick.

THE “4‐P” PRINCIPLE OF ADVANTAGE Just as instruction has been given previously for ARs to hold the flag on offside decisions to ensure a correct decision, referees are encouraged to hold the whistle and see how play develops to allow for possible advantages to develop. In considering whether to apply “advantage,” referee’s can rely on the “4 P Principle” to help them in the determination.

• Possession of ball: control by team or player. • Potential for attack: ability to continue a credible and dangerous attack. • Personnel: skill of attackers, numerical advantage.

• Proximity to opponent’s goal: closeness to goal.

In the following video clips, advantage decisions and risk‐taking through holding the whistle lead to the ultimate in soccer – goal scoring opportunities:

• Video Clip: Dallas vs. Houston (43:55). Dallas second goal comes off a hard midfield foul. The advantage is an excellent decision, but considers additional action on the part of the referee. Situations like this should not go unsanctioned. Referees must be creative but they must address the challenge with the player in question. Great advantage but even better with delayed caution or, depending upon the atmosphere of the game, a strong admonishment.

• Video Clip: RSL vs. Chivas (31:55). Not 1 but 2 fouls in midfield are recognized. Excellent vision, great advantage but even better with delayed caution or, depending upon the atmosphere of the game, a strong admonishment.

• Video Clip: Colorado vs. Kansas City. An advantage applied in the defensive third, against the goalkeeper, results in a long‐range goal and assist to the keeper. Given the foul was in the defensive third, this is taking a risk that worked. Well done and a piece of top‐class refereeing.

• Video Clip: Columbus at DC (29:00). This is a great example of the referee allowing flow on three occasions. Each case, taken by itself is a calculated risk that makes sense for the game, at that time. First game flow situation involves a player that the referee must know has the ability to play out of tight spaces. The second flow comes when the black team’s defender is held slightly in the penalty area after the goalkeeper’s save. It would have been easy to call a foul but the referee recognizes the ball is being played (by the fouled defender) to a teammate who is clear of opponents and has an unimpeded opportunity to play the ball forward. This is a calculated risk, despite being in the defensive third, because if the player is unable to play a clean ball out of the back, the referee can award the original foul. The final piece of flow comes from the advantage given at midfield. So, in a span of 30 seconds, the referee allows 3 potential game stoppages to continue WITHOUT jeopardizing the safety of the players involved or control of the game.

• Video Clip: New England at Dallas (71:46). This advantage illustrates a dream call for a referee. Instead of stopping play for a foul, the referee holds his decision to see if the attacking team retains possession of the ball in open space. The referee even delays signaling advantage until he is certain it has materialized. This is the only goal of the game. This is refereeing!

• Video Clip: Houston at Columbus (9:38). The referee takes a risk in this application of advantage because there are two successive applications in a relatively rapid fashion. First, there is a defensive hold that is aimed at stopping the progression of the attacker (into open space) who has just laid the ball off. The second is a challenge from behind that sends another attacker to the ground. In considering the impact of “sequential fouls,” this is a safe risk as the fouls were not endangering the opponent and the totality of the actions occurred in rapid succession meaning you can also come back quickly and penalize one of the fouls.

• Video Clip: Houston at Columbus (58:30). In contrast to the previous clips, this is an example of the referee failing to read the play, read the players involved, hold his whistle, and apply the “4 P Principle.” The attacker is clearly held and impeded; however, the referee must recognize his skill level and strength on the ball. Having assessed this, the referee would be taking a reasonable, calculated risk by holding the whistle to see if advantage materializes. Look at the frustration level of the attacker off the ball as the whistle is blown. This would be a safe call as no one is around the player receiving the passed ball. If need be, the referee can play advantage and come back to address the concerns of the player who was fouled. This would be a good opportunity to inject personality into the match by letting the fouled player know you saw what happened and talking to the player committing the foul. Looking at the “4 Ps,” there is the concept of skill, possession, potential, and closeness to goal.

o A potential factor influencing the referee’s missing the advantage application is his positioning. From the throw‐in, the referee is positioned too tight to the touchline. The referee needs to be positioned so that he has a broad view/perspective thereby ensuring he can see the player’s options and the potential next phase of play. Position yourself so you can see where the ball can go.

• Video Clip: New York at Toronto (3:47). In this case, the “4 P Principle” can be clearly applied. The result is a good advantage decision by the referee. Breaking down the “4 P’s:”

1. Possession of the ball. The attacking team has clear possession of the ball with while under no pressure from the opponent.

2. Potential for attack. There exists a high probability for a credible attack as the left wing player who receives the ball has no opponent within 15 yards. Hence, he has the ability to assess his options and make a reasonable decision on the ball.

3. Personnel. At the professional level, when players possess 15 yards of space they will have sufficient skill level and time to make a decision on the ball.

4. Proximity to opponent’s goal. The ball is in the attacking third of the field and the second pass is made to a teammate who is further advanced. So, the attacking team has the opportunity to continue to move the ball forward toward their goal.

• Video Clip: New York at Toronto (7:47). The same game as the previous clip but 4 minutes later. In this case, the referee is better off calling the foul as no clear or effective opportunity is provided the attacking team to continue possession of the

ball and advance it toward goal. The “4 P Principle” does not work in this situation. There is no clear possession, there is a defender pressuring the ball on each pass, the passes are done in a confined area, and there is no proximity to goal (the players are limited by the fact they are up against the touchline). Simply, the attacking player is disposed of the ball in a manner that forces a bad pass. Not only is this not a good advantage candidate, it should not be interpreted as allowing game flow.

• Video Clip: Dallas at San Jose (82:53). This is a case of Referee – Assistant Referee (AR) coordination relative to advantage and flow. When deciding to raise the flag or whistle the foul, the officials must consider the “atmosphere” of the match on the field. The game will be the best gauge to direct your decision. In this particular game, there have been no conduct issues and, therefore, the “atmosphere” permits more risk taking. Regardless of whether a foul exists or not, what is clear is that the ball goes directly to the defending goalkeeper that seemingly has the time to play the ball out without undo pressure by the attacking team. So, it is advisable for the Assistant Referee to hold the flag and the Referee to hold the whistle until it is clear the goalkeeper will NOT have the opportunity to play the ball out of the back. In other words, utilize a “wait and see” mentality and hold the flag. If the attacker continues his run to the keeper and pressures the keeper’s distribution, then a late flag or whistle would be warranted. Referees, remember, you are empowered to wave off the AR or hold your whistle and acknowledge the flag later. Should the goalkeeper have a reasonable play on the ball, by allowing play to continue, the referee team has contributed to the overall rhythm and flow of the match.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): Dallas at Real Salt Lake (76:15) ‐ An attacker, with the ball, goes at a defender. As the attacker passes the ball, the defender trips him to prevent him from getting behind him. The referee correctly applies advantage as the ball goes to the left winger who has a clear and effective path ahead of him. As the ball goes out for a corner, the referee clearly identifies the defender and immediately cautions him for unsporting behavior. The ability to identify advantage situations involving misconduct but ensuring that giving the advantage does not lead to retaliation is an important component of a professional referee. Referees must be able to determine if an advantage exists. It is clear, in this clip, that all 4 P’s exist and the referee took a calculated risk by allowing play to continue. Given there was misconduct involved, the referee must also assess the potential reaction of the fouled player and his team. If the referee believes he can apply the advantage without any ramifications, then he should do so. If the referee feels retaliation is eminent and a quick caution will prevent problems, then the referee can stop the play to issue the yellow card. Note: It is recommended that advantage not be applied in cases where a red card is warranted unless an immediate and clear scoring opportunity exists.

THE IMPORTANCE OF CREW COMMUNICATION AND PRE‐GAME Thorough preparation can lead to prevention and correct decisions. The following two clips will provide clear examples where effective communication and coordination leads to quick and appropriate decisions.

• Video Clip: Chivas USA at Galaxy (76:51) ‐ In this clip, the referee team correctly disallows a goal as the ball fully crosses the goal line. The referee and the AR provide many examples of silent communication that is appropriate for the situation facing them. The following summarizes the correct procedures followed by the referee team:

• Ball over goal line ‐ The AR follows, as close as possible, the ball all the way to the goal line. The final replay on the clip shows his position. The AR then correctly signals to the referee that the ball has left the field of play and a goal kick should be awarded. In this case, the AR can first signal the ball out but raising the flag straight up prior to using the flag to signal goal kick. This would be advisable in this case due to the quick return of the ball to play after having crossed the goal line.

• Goal disallowed ‐ Seeing the ARs signal, the referee disallows the goal. The referee makes a definitive visual signal that the goal is not valid leaving no question as to his decision. Notice the referee’s position as he disallows the goal. He is close to play and also has a good view of the action. The referee’s visual signal and position helps to “sell” or clearly articulate the decision. In other words, the referee is able to make the call in a manner that communicates confidence and certainty in decision making. Selling a call through presence makes the decision more acceptable to players, coaches, and the general public.

• AR moves up the touchline ‐ As soon as the AR sees the attacking player rushing toward him, the AR attempts to put distance between himself and the dissenting player. This is an appropriate mechanic for the AR to use as this makes the player’s action more noticeable, more visual.

• AR motions for a caution ‐ After the AR has begun his run up the touchline and the player fails to stop, the AR correctly stops and signals to the referee that the player must be cautioned. The AR uses a silent signal by patting his breast pocket thereby indicating the attacker should be cautioned for dissent by word and action.

• Referee supports AR ‐ Referees must support their ARs. In cases where players rush toward ARs to dissent, the referee must attempt to intervene and “cut them off at the pass” preventing the escalation of the dissent. In this case, notice how quickly the referee is in the picture.

• Issue a caution ‐ The player’s actions (visual and verbal) are sufficient and should be penalized by a yellow card for dissent by action and word.

• Video Clip: TFC at Chicago (35:36) ‐ Once again, the AR provides valuable assistance to the referee in terms of misconduct identification. Watch as the play develops. The final challenge/tackle occurs approximately ten yards from the AR so his assistance with the foul and the misconduct is appropriate. The AR decides that the foul is “reckless” in nature and, thus, the challenge deserves to be cautioned. The foul lacks the speed and the force to be considered a red card. Watch closely as the AR uses his left hand to pat his left breast pocket thereby signaling the player should be cautioned for the reckless challenge/tackle (unsporting behavior). The silent and visual yellow card signal (touching of the breast pocket) used by the AR in the previous two clips should be discussed and its implementation planned during the pregame meeting between the referee team. Officials would be advised to also discuss the silent, visual signal for a red card (pat to the back short’s pocket).


LAW 6 – THE ASSISTANT REFEREES


• 05/14/2008 – Revised Procedures and Signals o A US Soccer Memorandum informing of new signals for ARs to indicate a foul that has occurred within the penalty

area, as well as the proper signal for indicating illegal keeper movement on the taking of a penalty kick. • 06/05/2006 – Assistant Referee Mechanics

o A US Soccer position paper that provides guidance for when ARs should provide “confirmation signals” to a referee decision on the field.

• 01/01/1998 – Electronic Flags o A US Soccer document that details the appropriate use of electronic (beeper) flags.

AR INVOLVEMENT – DECIDING WHEN TO GET INVOLVED One of the most difficult aspects of an ARs job is the decision as to whether to get involved in the game by calling a foul during the run of play. When making the decision whether to raise the flag and call a foul, ARs should give consideration to the following questions:

• Does the referee have a clear view of the offense? • Does the referee need me? • Give the referee first crack at the foul. • If the referee team does not call it, will game control be impacted negatively? • Will a team gain an unfair advantage if we don’t make the call?

In addition, ARs should recognize and trust in the abilities of the referee. Is the referee experienced? How is the referee choosing to manage the game? In the following video clips, we see examples of ARs choosing to get involved in calling fouls in the game. For each, put yourself in the shoes of the AR, look who the referee is, and ask – “Does the referee, and the game, need my flag?”

• Video Clip: NY at Dallas (52:00). This is an exceptional piece of teamwork. This is BIG TIME work by the AR, referee, and 4th official. Watch how the referee, AR, and 4th work as a unit to prevent escalation. THIS IS REFEREEING! Look also how the referee immediately gets the yellow card out to show everyone he is taking action. The action on the part of the referee team probably saves the Dallas player from being booked for misconduct also. Did the referee need the ARs assistance? Yes. If the referee team does not make the call, will game control be negatively affected? Yes. So, ARs and 4th officials: be INVOLVED in this one!

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (32:25). In this case, the AR flags a foul that is not needed for the game (game is well in control and it is a trifling foul). The referee is well positioned to see the action and, actually, has waved “play‐on.” The referee is empowered to wave off these type of flags but the best solution is for the AR to leave it to the referee. ARs must FEEL THE GAME as the referee is feeling the game.

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (40:05). The foul decision by the AR is over‐ruled by the referee. The referee has a clear line of vision to the foul and the defender has the inside position. These type of decisions can lead to player frustration and to eventual yellow cards for dissent.

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (83:00). The ARs flag comes up well after the referee’s whistle. Question: why so long for the flag? Assistance is good here but it must be timely. No need for the flag if it comes after the whistle.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at Colorado (81:15). This clip illustrates excellent teamwork by the referee and the AR as well as an AR who has instantaneously asked himself the questions above. Because of the position of the players and ball, the referee is unable to have a clear view of the defender intentionally playing the ball with his hand. The AR has the best

angle of vision and decides that the referee and the game need his participation. Note, that although it is not evident in the clip, the referee and AR make eye contact thereby indicating that the referee needs help. Having made this assessment and visual contact, the AR raises his flag and follows the proper mechanics to signal the foul and the associated penalty kick. Once the AR has raised and wiggled his flag, notice how he drops it and holds the flag across his waist at arm’s length (similar to the substitution signal but across the waist – in the soon to be released version of the “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials” this mechanic will be introduced as the new penalty kick signal replacing the flag between the legs and the running to the corner flag). The referee then sharply and convincingly whistles the penalty and points to the penalty spot – a courageous and correct decision on the part of the AR.

• Video Clip: Dallas at Kansas City (21:13) ‐ First, this play patterns those found frequently in other MLS games: a long, quick counter attack which often leads to long distances between the referee and the ball or the next phase of play. This is the first sign to the AR that his intervention may be required and his realm of control may be extended. The AR must recognize the referee’s position relative to the play as contact is made. Hence, the answer to the first question:

o Does the referee have a clear view of the incident and was he positioned correctly? ‐ No. The play is closer to the AR than the referee. Given the long pass out of the defensive end, the referee’s sightline, most likely, would be to the backs of the players involved. The AR must then ask the second question:

o Did I clearly see the infraction? ‐ The AR in this clip has an excellent view of the incident. He has the side view which that gives the AR the best possible angle to see the contact and the resulting foul.

So, as the play builds, the AR must anticipate that his participation may be needed (given the long ball and the referee’s position) and prepare his position to observe and assist. In this clip, the AR calls the foul after the referee whistles the infraction from a long distance. The AR cannot let the referee make this call on his own. Referees should not have to make a decision of this caliber based upon “gut” feel. ARs must take ownership of this and similar critical situations. In addition to making the correct foul call, the referee also appropriately cautions the defender for unsporting behavior. Not only should the AR have signaled the foul but the AR should feel empowered to signal to the referee that the foul was cautionable. The next clip provides an example of an AR who does just that: assists the referee with the misconduct decision.

• Video Clip: D.C. United at New England (63:04) ‐ Once again, the two questions governing involvement are relevant. Watch the quick transition and movement of the ball and the players toward the AR – a signal to the AR that he should identify the referee’s position as well as heighten his awareness that involvement may be necessary. Additionally, notice how close the foul is to the AR (five to six feet away) as opposed to the referee (approximately 25 yards away). The AR enhances his support of the referee by also indicating the need for the referee to caution the player for unsporting behavior (reckless challenge in a dangerous area near the signboards). Focus on the AR after he signals the foul. Focus within the highlighted circles and watch as the AR pats his breast pocket with his free hand – the prearranged signal to the referee that offers the AR’s silent opinion that the foul requires the player to be cautioned. Notice also how the AR moves toward the two players as they go to the turf. The AR’s presence should discourage the players from retaliating. Overall, a good display of teamwork and involvement starting with the flagging of the foul to the AR’s signaling for misconduct.

• Video Clip (Added 10/9/2008): Toronto at New York (75:35) ‐ A situation of game disrepute arises in which the referee uses

his presence to positively channel the players away from each other and into neutral space. In the background, you can see an AR observing, making mental notes and ensuring he is positioned to have a broad view of the action. The referee may directly intervene until such time as the situation has escalated to a point that he cannot handle it and then he must step back and observe like the AR. The referee’s intervention prevents the situation from turning into mass confrontation. As you watch the clip, take notice of the teamwork utilized to get the misconduct correct (unsporting behavior). Once the situation had calmed and players were channeling themselves to neutral locations, the referee and AR confer. During this quick conference, they identify the player, decide upon the punishment (yellow card for unsporting behavior), and then act (display the card) accordingly. Positive teamwork in which the AR felt empowered to provide information and the referee was comfortable seeking the ARs input. The result is a correct decision. To improve the process, the referee should have consulted with the AR while facing up field toward the players and not with his back to the majority of the players. In this manner, should there be any further issues, the referee would be able to observe and act.

Note: The decision by the referee to caution the above player is correct as no elbow was thrown above the shoulder and the player’s actions were not done with excessive force or in a manner that would endanger the safety of the opponent.

• Video Clip (added 10/16/2008): Colorado at Galaxy (86:45) ‐ This clip provides a fantastic illustration of an AR becoming involved in a critical decision because the game and the referee needed it. ARs were asked to think about the following question prior to raising the flag: “If I raise the flag, do I interfere with the referee, and if I don’t raise the flag, do I fail the game?”

• Video Clip (added 10/16/2008): DC at Houston (75:12) ‐ A deliberate handling of the ball by the goalkeeper outside the penalty area is the focus of this clip. A 40 to 45 yard pass has been made that is mis‐trapped by the defender. As a result of the faulty control, the ball ends up at the feet of an attacker. The goalkeeper has charged outside of the penalty area to close down the attacker. The attacker, however, gets to the ball before the keeper and touches the ball over the goalkeeper’s head. As the goalkeeper (the last defender) goes down, he “makes himself bigger” by extending his arms above his head to prevent the ball from getting behind him thereby using his arms to take away the attacker’s space/options. Unfortunately, the referee team misses the handling offense by the goalkeeper that should have resulted in a red card for DOGSO and a free kick. Several items may have been done to increase the likelihood that the referee team gets the call correct.

o Referee’s position ‐ Starting with the throw‐in, the referee begins too close to the touchline. By starting further to the center of the field, the referee would have a better view of the play as it progresses and, ultimately, of the handball. Because his starting position is so close to the thrower, as a result of the 40 to 45 yard service, he is immediately in a deficit position. The referee’s position only allows him to see the back of the attacker whereas a wider position would enable him to have a better perspective (side on view) of the goalkeeper and his contact with the ball. As the play builds, the best view is between the attacker and the defender on the left (the space between these players gives a clear angle of vision of the offense) which could have been facilitated with a wider starting position beginning at the throw‐in.

o ARs position ‐ The AR is trailing the play by several steps. This is an unfortunate result of the long pass. By trailing play, the ARs view is not optimal. He is forced to look through the right defender and, as a consequence, the ARs view of the contact with the ball may be obstructed. A more level view, if possible, would provide the AR with a better chance of observing the handling offense by the goalkeeper. In similar cases, ARs must possess keen sprinting ability in order to close down the distance between the ARs position and the play.

o Referee and AR contact: eye and/or electronic flags ‐ If the referee and AR sense or “smell” an offense but are not 100 percent certain, eye contact must be made. Such eye contact would be confirmation that both officials have a “gut” feel that an offense has occurred and therefore the referee can feel more confident that a whistle is required. Another tool is the signal or beeper flags. ARs with these electronic flags should use them to beep the referee to indicate that they feel an infringement has occurred but that they are not 100 percent. Therefore, without committing the referee to a decision by raising the flag, the AR can send a message about his “gut” feeling.

o Recognition of the warning signs ‐ In this case, there are a few warning signs that a handling offense has occurred: The manner in which the ball continued forward albeit at a changed trajectory. If the ball would have hit

a solid, hard object like the goalkeeper’s feet, it may have popped up or just stopped. In this case, the pace of the ball is reduced but it continues forward which is the likely result from it striking a softer, more flexible surface like the goalkeeper’s hands.

The reaction of the defender on the left. He initially starts to reach for the ball but then stops after the ball hits the keeper’s hand.

The reaction of the two attacking players. It is immediate and they point to their hands. Any of these warning signs alone may not be sufficient to call a foul but if the officials “smell” an infraction, these signs may help to direct the decision.

Assistant Referees also need to be aware of the guidance provided to Referees in regard to applying advantage via the “4 P Principle:”

• Possession of ball: control by team or player. • Potential for attack: ability to continue a credible and dangerous attack. • Personnel: skill of attackers, numerical advantage. • Proximity to opponent’s goal: closeness to goal.

o Video Clip: San Jose at New York (44:40, second half). Over involvement by ARs has been a repeated issue. This is clearly the case in this video clip. This is an obvious case that cannot be missed at the professional level. All the elements of the “4 Ps” are present. Not only are the “4 Ps” present but the AR and referee must have a sense of what has occurred previously in the game and know the player(s) in question. In this game, the attacker has gotten the ball behind the defense on previous occasions and has shown his quickness, agility, and strength. So, as

the play develops in front of the officials, they should be able to pull from their databank of game/player history and react appropriately.

AR INTERVENTION TO PREVENT GAME DISREPUTE ARs have the responsibility to read the temperature and atmosphere of the game similar to the referee. ARs should “feel” situations in the game and be prepared to intervene with a flag and/or with positive presence (physical or even verbal) when the situation requires. Often times, ARs are closer to volatile situations than the referee and, therefore, better equipped/positioned to prevent escalation. This scenario of being better positioned is not reserved only for the ARs. Fourth officials may also be more strategically placed to intervene in situations that flair up in front of the bench area. Such intervention by ARs and fourth officials must be tempered and used only in situations in which the referee’s presence will not be there in time to address the immediate needs of the game. It is critical that officials not overreact but, at the same time, be prepared to intervene should the moment call for the positive use of presence aside from the referee’s.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): Dallas at Real Salt Lake (59:34) ‐ In this clip, the volatile situation occurs approximately 10 yards from the AR and in his immediate quadrant. Consider not only the location of the incident to the AR but the following additional factors that lend themselves to AR intervention:

o The referee is a much greater distance from the two players; o The physical contact between the two players does not resolve immediately and will, most likely, not be resolved

on its own; and o The intensity, environment and atmosphere of the game on the field. The game has playoff implications; a single

goal separates the two teams and frustration levels of players may be high. The intervention by the AR prevents game disrepute (two players negatively involved with each other) from escalating to a situation that would require the referee to issue cautions for unsporting behavior. Concurrently, the ARs preventative work is able to ensure the situation of game disrepute does not escalate into a scenario of mass confrontation (more than two players involved) that is much more difficult to manage/control. The AR takes the following positive steps that result in a beneficial impact on the game:

o Quick and prompt intervention. AR gets there before it escalates. o Positively uses his presence to separate the players. o Channels one of the players away from the “hot spot” and into neutral space.

Overall, the prompt work by the AR prevents the referee from having to issue two cautions for unsporting behavior. The situation called for intervention and the AR responded with positive actions that contributed to the control of the game.

AR INVOLVEMENT ON FREE KICKS ARs should not enter the field to manage free kicks (spot the ball) or move the wall back unless prearranged with the referee during the pre‐game discussion. ARs must be cognizant of a team’s need for quick restarts and early entrance onto the field by the AR will put you out of position should the quick restart be taken. Note the following important aspects:

• ARs and referees must have prearranged mechanics for when and how the AR can enter the field. • ARs should not intervene unless a team specifically and clearly requests 10 yards. • Referees must not signal for the restart until the AR is correctly positioned for the next phase of play (offside). • Video Clip: San Jose vs. Galaxy (2:00). Off a free kick near the AR, a goal is disallowed because the AR entered the field to

manage the restart and SJ took a quick restart. Note that the ball is NOT touched by the sliding player. The AR is out of position to make the correct decision due to prematurely entering the field, and thus a legitimate goal was disallowed 2 minutes into the game.

ARS CONTRIBUTING TO GAME FLOW ARs need to be cautious of “over‐involvement,” and, as the referee must, ARs need to continue to “feel” the game as the referee is and quickly ascertain “did the referee see it and does the referee need me?” First crack at the call belongs with the referee. If at all possible, look to see where the referee is prior to raising the flag.

• Video Clip: Colorado vs. Kansas City (52:25). A challenge occurs near the AR but in clear view of the referee (the referee is close, has a clear line of vision). The defender seemingly plays the ball and the challenge is part of the normal flow of the game. The question, however, is: “Can the referee make the decision to award a foul or not?” The ARs call leads to a caution for dissent. ARs must read the situation and not be involved unless the referee needs you.

AR WORK RATE ARs must be extremely cautious not to become lackadaisical, forgetting to chase balls to the goalkeeper or to the goal line especially when there exists the opportunity for another challenge or a goal line situation. ARs need to chase the ball all the way to the goalkeeper on back passes and need to chase balls to the goal line on shots that are on frame or may be played by the keeper. There have been instances when the goalkeeper has slipped on a back pass due to poor footing or a wet field. There have been many instances where a back pass has been made to the goalkeeper who is forced to play the ball with his feet inside the goal box and the AR is more than 15 yards from the play and has stopped tracking the ball. There have been instances where the goalkeeper misplays a ball with his feet. There have also been instances where seemingly trivial shots end up with goal line decisions. ARs cannot relax and be complacent. Remember your role and the importance it plays in the overall management of the game. The perception of hustle must be evident at all times. Fitness and mobility levels need to be high enough that ARs can chase balls and stay in the correct offside position for the entire duration of the game. Remember, normal positioning requires the AR to be in line with the second‐to‐last defender or the ball whichever is closest to the goal line. Common sense should also be used in that once it is clearly determined that a shot is obviously wide of the goal and no challenge will be made, the AR may slow his progress; however, this should not occur until such time as it is evident that the ball is safely wide of the goal.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at Dallas (18:20). In this case, there is a seemingly innocuous long shot on goal from 40 or more yards out. At first, it looks as though the goalkeeper will have an easy play on the ball and will be able to control it without issues. But, the keeper is unable to secure the ball and the ball goes over the goal line for a corner kick. Look at the position of the AR at the bottom of the screen – he is not sprinting to keep up with the ball. Although the AR will never be able to match the speed of the ball, the AR must sprint with the ball until such time as the ball is safely in the keeper’s possession or out of harm’s way. The AR in this clip is not smartly sprinting to minimize the distance between him and the ball. AR work rates must attempt to match the rate/speed of the game. Consider this: what would have happened if the goalkeeper parried the ball while standing in front of the goal line and the ball went over his head? Without sprinting and attempting to close the gap between the ball and the ultimate decision, the AR would have an even harder time selling his decision. Remember, ensure that we work as hard as possible to match the speed of play or the ball and work to ensure we close the gap between our position and the correct position as rapidly as possible.

• Video Clip (Added 10/9/2008): Chicago at Kansas City (28:53) ‐ This clip provides a clear example of an AR who is too

comfortable and who has failed to follow the guidelines of following the ball to the goalkeeper. Watch as, during the throw‐in, the ball is directed to the opposing goalkeeper. The AR stays with the second‐to‐last defender and does not follow the ball to the keeper who is stationed just outside the goal area some six yards from the goal line. Initially, it looks to be an innocuous, harmless or safe decision on the part of the AR to remain approximately 22 yards up field from the next phase of play. However, this innocuous decision becomes questionable when an attacker rushes into the picture to pressure the goalkeeper to play the ball with his hands. Even as the attacker runs to pressure the keeper, the AR is comfortably standing and observing and not moving to cover the danger zone. If the AR had followed the guidelines and stayed with the ball as it was in route to the goalkeeper, the AR would have been positioned to monitor any issues that may have resulted from the challenge or a goalkeeper error. Leaving the second‐to‐last defender makes the offside line vulnerable. However, as the ball is played out by the keeper, the AR will have sufficient time to recover and return to a position to monitor offside decisions. ARs must be physically and mentally prepared to chase every ball to the goalkeeper and to the goal line.


LAW 7 – THE DURATION OF THE MATCH


• 04/22/2008 – Allowance for Time Lost o A US Soccer Memorandum that details the procedure to use when adding time to a match, including the role of

the fourth official in communicating any added time to necessary parties, as well as guidance to teams and administrators on the announcement of added time on TV or in‐stadium.

• 01/01/2004 – Law 7 Duration of the Game (Power Point) o A US Soccer prepared Power Point Presentation that details several common situations in which additional time

need be added to a match. Includes some basic guideline time‐frames for adding time for injuries, substitutions, etc.

• 03/04/2003 – Managing Match Time o A US Soccer Memorandum that examines situations in which a referee shall add additional time to a match.

ADDITIONAL TIME In reference to the April 22, 2008 US Soccer Position Paper entitled “Allowance for Time Lost,” the management of stoppage time can be critical for game control. Announcements are made publicly in each stadium that the time indicated by the 4th official is the MINIMUM amount of extended time. Consequently, if a referee indicates 3 minutes, no less than 3 minutes can be played. The referee can use discretion and add more time but this should be managed in way, that if all possible, the teams are made aware of the added time. Referees should coordinate the appropriate signals with the 4th official prior to the game. This is a critical point, since when the statement of added time becomes public; it becomes a matter of record as well as an expectation (an expectation of coaches and players as well as the public and the press). In the video clips below, you can see the cumulative effects of referees improperly ending the match before playing the full allotted stoppage time, and the reaction of players and coaches in a close, heated contest:

• Video Clip: RSL at Toronto (90:00). In this clip, you can see that the referee/4th official has indicated 3 minutes of additional time. However, as the tape progresses, the referee ends the game at 91:57. One team was denied at least 1:03 of playing time.

• Video Clip: RSL at Toronto (45:00). The referee fails to play the indicated amount of additional time by 17 seconds while the attacking team has the ball in the forward half of the field. Between the first and second halves of this game, the losing team was denied 1:20 of total playing time. This is significant and should not occur.

o If you indicate “3 minutes of additional time” then you MUST play at least 3 minutes – 2 minutes and 50 seconds is not acceptable.

o Due to circumstances that occur during the indicated “additional time,” you are permitted to extend the time to accommodate time lost for substitutions, assessment of injuries, and removal of players from the field of play for treatment, time wasting and any other cause. If you decide to play a significant amount of time over the originally indicated amount, the referee should make every effort (given game situations) to communicate the additional time to both teams.


LAW 8 – THE START AND RESTART OF PLAY


• 06/22/2007 – Quick Kick o A US Soccer Position Paper that explains situations in which a team forfeits its right to “10 yards” in situations in

which they take a “quick kick” before the defending team can retreat the 10 yards. • 11/22/2002 – Ceremonial Restarts After Misconduct

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies to officials that, when a card is issued for misconduct, the play must restart “ceremoniously” and that a team does not have the right to a “quick restart” in these situations.


LAW 9 – THE BALL IN AND OUT OF PLAY


• None Available


LAW 10 – THE METHOD OF SCORING


• 04/28/2006 –Inappropriate Behavior Following a Goal o A US Soccer Memorandum to MLS Officials that provides guidance on what constitutes an acceptable goal

celebration and places emphasis on preventative officiating to minimize the necessity of cautions for excessive celebration.

• 11/22/2002 – Celebration of Goals o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies that officials only need to punish goal celebrations which are provocative,

obscene, or insulting or which unnecessarily delay the restart of play.


LAW 11 ‐ OFFSIDE


• 10/17/2007 – Offside Myths o A US Soccer Memorandum that summarizes and clarifies the definitions and applications of Law 11 in simplified

terminology. • 08/24/2006 – Law 11 – Interfering with Play and Interfering with an Opponent

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the FIFA definitions of “interfering with play” and “interfering with an opponent.” Refer to the section below “Does the Player Have to Touch the Ball” for further information.

• 08/24/2005 – Law 11 ‐ Offside IFAB advice on the application of Law 11, decision 2 o A US Soccer Memorandum publicizing a FIFA Clarification on when a player becomes “actively involved” in play for

determining purposes of the offside law.

DOES THE PLAYER HAVE TO TOUCH THE BALL – WHEN DOES IT BECOME INTERFERENCE WITH PLAY? On August 24, 2006, USSF issued a memorandum based on the developing interpretation and application of Law 11 which specifically laid out the proposition that “interfering with play” requires either touching the ball or making a credible move to play the ball. Acting to avoid contact (if successful) does not meet either of these criteria. An attacker in an offside position must act (touch the ball, move to the ball, interfere with an opponent, block an opponent, distract or deceive an opponent) to be declared offside. Action to avoid involvement (if successful) must be excluded. Consider the following video clip for an example:

• Video Clip: New York at FC Dallas ‐ In a match on April 15, 2007, between the New York Red Bulls and FC Dallas (clip attached), Red Bulls player #19 (Richards) shoots on goal. The ball is stopped and deflected by Dallas goalkeeper #1 (Hislop) but it goes to Red Bulls player #11 (van den Bergh) who takes another shot on goal. When van den Bergh strikes the ball, his teammate, Mathis (#13) is in an offside position – indeed, Mathis is just barely above the goal line on the right hand side of the goal – and the ball is moving directly toward him. Mathis jumps up and the ball passes under him into the net for a score. The following issues and concerns are raised by this scenario:

o The only action Mathis took was to avoid contact with the ball. o In so doing, he did not block an opponent’s movement or vision or deceive or distract an opponent. o Mathis did not commit an offside violation because he was not actively involved in play by interfering with play,

interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage. Referees should remember that a scenario such as this one, which might have been called differently in years past, must now meet more stringent standards for an offside violation. Although the basic requirements for an offside violation under Law 11 remain the same, our understanding of how to implement these requirements has been evolving to match the modern game. In the following example, we see a classic example why it is important for ARs to “hold the flag” on offside decisions to determine if a player in an offside position is actually the one to become involved in play and thus be officially declared “offside:”

• Video Clip: LA Galaxy at Chivas USA ‐ In a match played in Los Angeles on April 28, 2007, an incident took place which is a classic example of one of the most contentious issues in the offside decision – two attackers pursuing the ball, one coming from an offside position and one coming from an onside position. The incident also emphasizes the vital need for officials to avoid hasty decisions and to wait to see how the play develops.

In the 86th minute, Galaxy #24 (Sturgis) played the ball forward into space. At the time, Galaxy #11 (Jaqua) was in an offside position near the center of the field and his teammate, Galaxy #10 (Donovan), was onside well behind the second to last defender to Jaqua’s right. Both attackers reacted almost immediately and began sprinting hard to the ball. Although Donovan started about three yards behind his teammate, he had pulled level with him within the next few strides. There is no indication that Jaqua interfered with any opponent.

In situations where an attacker is coming from an onside position and another attacker coming from an offside position, each with an equally credible chance of getting to the ball, it is imperative that officials withhold a decision until either it becomes clear which attacker will get to the ball first (even if this means having to wait until one or the other player actually touches the ball) or the action of the attacker coming from the offside position causes one or more opponents to be deceived or distracted.

AR OFFSIDE DECISIONS ARs are not to raise the flag unless 100% sure that the player in an offside position is the one involved in the play. The following video clips provide emphasis to points that can be considered in aiding ARs in making the correct decision on difficult calls during games:

• Video Clip: DC United vs Kansas City. One of the most difficult decisions for ARs is the situation in which a defender moves forward, and an attacker simultaneously moves towards goal. Making this decision even more difficult is that the ball is generally played from a distance away from the receiving attacker.

• Video Clip: Columbus vs. NY (31:12) a close decision is made even more difficult since the movement is directly in front of the AR. AR makes right decision to keep flag down. Note the AR position with body square to the field as the ball is played ensuring a view of the full field of play.

Several factors can contribute to an ARs ability to make a correct, split‐second decision under difficult circumstances:

• Incorrect Timing – Judgment by the AR was made a split second late likely because the AR did not identify the precise moment that the pass was made (see item 2). In these situations, a fraction of a second makes a significant difference.

• Concentration on Entire Field of Vision – In order to identify precisely when the ball was played, the AR must be concentrating on two things simultaneously:

o Release of the Ball o Position of the Attacker relative to Second to Last Defender

In clip #1, the ARs concentration on the entire field was compromised by the act of actively looking at one, and then the other as he walked up field(the 0.2 second delay as the head moves contributes to the error). In this situation, the AR needs to “see” both without sacrificing one for the other. Peripheral vision is the critical component to making a correct decision in this case. The AR must be square to the field, side‐stepping to maintain the position, and must see the release point, the attacker, and the second to last defender simultaneously without need to move eyes or head.

• Score Line / Time of Event –several situations may occur to impact an ARs decision making: o Fatigue on the part of the AR may have come into play as halftime nears. o A 1‐0 score line in one team’s favor might contribute as well (Thinking: “Don’t want to give that team an

undeserved 2nd goal). This type of thinking needs to be removed from an ARs mind and the situation judged objectively.

• Comfort Zone – With only a few minutes remaining in the half, ARs can easily slip into a “comfort zone” and as they look to halftime, causing focus to fade momentarily. Body language of the AR in clip #1 indicates that he was caught “watching play” as it came towards his half, and then was caught off guard for the last touch forward by the attacking teammate. ARs must remember their primary responsibility to focus on the offside decision and not get wrapped up in watching play develop.

On close decisions, ARs must hesitate in raising the flag until they are certain that the player in the offside position is indeed the one who plays the ball. In the words of MLS, this promotes “Free‐Flowing, Attacking Soccer.” As part of this referees, take note: there may be the need to have a quick second look at the AR as some flags are coming a bit delayed as total concentration is on showing restraint raising the flag until they are 100% certain the player has played the ball (interfered with play) or gained an advantage. Referee teams should discuss this in their pregame to determine how the delayed flag should be handled.

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (86:25). AR2 holds the flag on a situation in‐close to goal. Two attackers (one onside position and one offside) have the opportunity to play the ball. You can see in the video that the AR exhibits patience and HOLDS the flag until the offside positioned player actually plays the ball. Great job showing RESTRAINT.

• Video Clip: Colorado at New England (26:40). Two attacking players are moving for the ball. However, the onside player actually plays the ball while the player positioned offside pulls away and, therefore, does NOT gain an advantage by being in the offside position. A quick flag is NOT needed. When more than one player has the opportunity to play a ball and that

player is onside at the time his teammate plays the ball, the AR must show patience and await the outcome – unless a potential collision may occur. The following is from the AR’s self‐evaluation which was very well written: “Mansally is in the offside position and I am even with the 2nd last defender when the ball is played and start shuffling down the field to be even with the ball. I see Cristman heading towards the ball as well. As the ball lands I saw it touch Mansally. After reviewing the situation from the angle of the TV it does not touch him and I should have left the flag down and let it go. I have to have better concentration on this situation and closely look at where the ball lands and the position of the player it is landing near as well as the distance to his teammate. The defender hesitates as he sees it landing as well. But that should not matter. I should have left it down.”

• Video Clip: NY at Dallas (65:40). Dallas gets a breakaway on a close offside. Keeping the flag down results in a GOAL. This was not an easy call as the attacker is running diagonally and there are several defenders spread‐out across the field. Patience pays dividends and AR2 should be applauded for allowing play to continue.

• Video Clip: Chivas at Columbus (56:25). The attacker is flagged for being offside but the replay shows that the situation is close enough to warrant keeping the flag down. If it is not CLEARLY OFFSIDE, give the benefit to attacking soccer.

• Video Clip: Toronto at Galaxy (36:30). There are 2 players who have the potential to play the ball. This is an important indication for the AR – restraint is needed when more than 1 player can get the ball. Look at the actions of the offside attacker. Knowing he is offside, he stops his run and the onside attacker runs through. ARs must have a wide peripheral perspective and know that there is the possibility of another player becoming involved. In this case, the AR is square to the field so he should have the wider view. Patience. Sometimes the obvious is not so obvious.

• Video Clip: DC at Colorado (32:40). This is the classic “wait and see” example. Excellent work by the AR to hold the flag until he is certain who will play the ball. As the kick is taken, notice that there are two players potentially in offside positions. One of the players actually moves toward the serviced ball. However, the player shows that he is not participating by stopping his run. A player who starts his run 8 yards onside, receives the ball. It is very tempting to put the flag up as soon as the offside player moves to the ball but a strong AR will show restraint and wait to see who participates. Key is the ability of the AR to assess the situation and wait to see who touches the ball – the onside player or the offside player.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at RSL (42:15). This decision is very unfortunate as it takes away a potential game winning goal as the score is tied 2‐2. At the professional level, this type of decision cannot be made as the attacker is at least 1 yard onside when the ball is passed by his teammate and there is plenty of time and space for the AR to make a proper decision. Notice the ARs position, 2 or more yards behind the second‐to‐last defender. Therefore, the ARs view of the goal scorer is skewed. With the ARs position, the goal scorer will seem to be in a more advanced position than he is in actuality. We must get this right!

• Video Clip: Dallas at San Jose (64:47). This is a difficult offside decision for the AR to make because the defender and the attacker are running/moving in opposite directions (often considered an offside trap). However, the defender moves up too late thereby putting the attacker 1 yard or so onside. The AR must be positioned correctly (shoulders square to the field) and must give the benefit of the doubt to the attack. This clip provides a good example for giving attacking soccer the benefit. In slow motion, you can see the attacker is onside. Do not be anxious with the flag, show restraint.

• Video Clip: Dallas at RSL (24:22). The focus of this clip is the assistant referee’s positioning. Keep your focus on the assistant and where he is stationed as the flag is raised. You will need to pay close attention as the replay is shown. Ask yourself: “where are the defenders when the assistant referee raises his flag?” There are two defenders on the goal‐line. The question then becomes: “where should the assistant be situated?” According to U.S. Soccer‘s standard procedures, the assistant should be on the goal‐line positioned with the second‐to‐last defender. Instead, he is approximately two yards off the line. Concentration and focus on the defenders is critical. You must know where they are and where the ball is. You cannot ball watch. It is not easy but it is a requirement of a top‐class assistant referee.

• Video Clip: New England at Chivas (2:17). Again, a similar scenario as the prior clip. A goal line situation in which the ball is close to the goalmouth. Once more, focus on the assistant’s position. Then look for the position of the second‐to‐last defender – on the goal line. The assistant referee must be positioned on the goal line with the second‐to‐last defender. This decision is even more difficult as there is an attacker on the goal‐line also – just outside the goalpost. A seemingly easier decision just got more difficult with the addition of the attacker. Assistant referees must not get caught ball watching and must remain in the correct position to make a split second offside decision.

• Video Clip: Chicago at Dallas (20:33 – second half) This clip provides an excellent example of an AR who follows the guidelines set forth by U.S. Soccer relative to offside. The AR applies the “WAIT and SEE” principle and exhibits patience in determining “involvement in active play.” As the pass is made up the right flank, freeze the picture and take a mental snapshot of the position of the furthest attacking players – the players who have an opportunity to play the ball. This is the same snapshot the AR must take as the ball is played by an attacker some 30 yards away. Taking this picture is not easy as the AR must use his peripheral vision due to the distance from which the pass is made and the varying location of the two attackers who have the opportunity to play the ball. Due to the counter attack style of many MLS teams, ARs must always be prepared for the long ball out of the defensive half of the field. Notice how the wing attacker, as the ball is struck by his teammate, starts his run in his own half of the field (therefore he is not in an offside position). However, ARs must also read that the center attacker making his diagonal run from an offside position and, if he becomes involved in active play,

must be declared offside. From the time the pass is made to the time the AR raises his flag for offside is approximately four seconds, a long time but an appropriate amount of time given this is the time needed for the AR to determine that the center attacker will:

o Interfere with play ‐ In other words, play or touch the ball passed by a teammate. Remember, the pass does not have to be intended for the offside player who eventually plays/touches the ball.

o Become the only player who has the opportunity to play the ball ‐ Once it becomes clear that the only player who can play the ball is the player in the offside position, the AR will flag for offside even if he has not touched the ball.

Despite the fact that the ARs run and late flag look awkward, as he does in this case, the AR should continue sprinting with play until he is certain the offside player interferes with play. Then, as soon as the AR determines the offside conditions exist, he should stop his run and raise the flag. Remember, if there is any potential for a collision with the goalkeeper or other opponent, the AR needs to indicate the offside sooner thereby preventing a dangerous situation from arising. If the ball were to go directly to the goalkeeper and there was no challenge by an attacker, the AR can keep the flag down and allow play to continue.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at Toronto (90:56 – additional time) ‐ From a free kick, approximately 30 yards from goal, the attacking team places five players in the penalty area. Just prior to the ball being serviced, they make a break toward goal to get a step on the defense. Through good peripheral vision, the AR must be able to clearly identify their position as well as visually see the touch of the ball by the player taking the free kick. As the ball is being played, the AR must then take a snapshot of the positions of the defenders and attackers in the target zone (center of the penalty area). In this case, there are three attackers who have the ability to play the ball. However, only one of the three attackers is in an offside position at the time the ball is played by his teammate. The AR shows patience by keeping the flag down so that he can observe which of these three players actually play/touch the ball. By utilizing the “wait and see” principle, the AR can correctly identify the offside player as participating or interfering in play and, therefore, raise the flag to indicate offside. If the ball would have been played by any other attacking player, there would have been no offside (at the moment the free kick was taken, they were in an onside position). The AR correctly disallows the goal for offside.

• Video Clip: FC Dallas at Colorado (86:25) – This video clip is a classic example of a player who is in an offside position being

declared offside for “gaining an advantage by being in that position.” A player who is in an offside position at the time the ball is played by a teammate is considered to be gaining an advantage by being in that position when he “plays a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.” In other words, an attacker (in an offside position at the moment the ball is played by a teammate) must be declared offside if they play a ball that has rebounded off any part of the goal or the goalkeeper (in this case). Off a long throw in, the ball lands around the penalty mark and is poorly cleared to the top of the penalty box by the defending team. At this point, an attacker drives a shot that the goalkeeper is unable to hold. The ball rebounds from the goalkeeper and it is then kicked into the goal by a teammate of the attacker. The referee, based upon appropriate advice from the AR, correctly disallows the goal for offside. ARs must be alert and be able to quickly identify attacking player positions when play is around the penalty area. This is especially true as there is very little reaction time for ARs as the penalty area is normally very congested with bodies moving in a multitude of directions. Additionally, the speed at which the shot takes place provides additional complications as it gives very little time for the AR to make a mental note of player positions. An experienced AR is able to take a snapshot of defending and attacking player positions at the moment the ball is shot. This snapshot gives the AR a frozen image of player positions until the next phase of play. Given the requirements of the Law 11 – Offside, the ball rebounding off the goalkeeper or goal does NOT constitute a new phase of play. Consequently, the AR must keep the same snapshot that he took at the initial shot on goal as the rebounding of the ball does not nullify an offside position that existed at that time. Of special interest is the position of a second offside attacker at the time of the shot. This player, to the goalkeeper’s left, may also be declared offside if the AR and referee believe that this player’s offside position “interfered with an opponent” by preventing the opponent from playing of being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements. The opponent that would be “interfered with” in this clip is the goalkeeper. Look at the attacker’s position at the time of the shot. The attacker is not only in an offside position but he may be judged to be in direct line of the goalkeeper’s vision of the ball as it is shot. If this is the case, this player can also be considered to be offside and may be punished for being offside.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at FC Dallas (35:41) ‐ This clip not only displays an exceptional decision by the AR to keep the flag down but it also shows the speed at which the game is played. As you view the clip, take note of the following items as they play significant roles in the ARs ability to make the correct decision:

o Notice that the time from when the attacking team wins the ball in the defensive third (35:41) to the time the offside decision is required to be made (35:47) is only six seconds. This points to the fact that ARs must not let their guard down and must be concentrating at all times regardless of where the ball is on the field.

o Notice the distance that the ball travels in this six second period – approximately 30 – 40 yards and from the defensive third to the halfway line.

o The attack involves only three or four quick touches of the ball initiated in the defensive third of the field. The ball never stops moving.

o Watch the runner who receives the ball and scores the goal. He begins his run on his own half of the field and is sprinting at a high speed. His speed increases the difficulty level for the AR. It requires total concentration and pinpoint positioning to be able to judge the position of the sprinting forward at the time the ball is played to him some 25 yards away.

o The location of the second‐to‐last defender also complicates the matter. His distance from the speedy attacker makes the ARs judgment significantly harder. Improper position of the AR (one step ahead or behind the second‐to‐last defender) will cause the true offside line to be lost and may lead to an incorrect flag. The further the distance between a defender and the attacker lends itself to the opportunity for misjudgments due to poor angles.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at FC Dallas (18:45) ‐ Wait and see: often the most critical factor in an ARs success when multiple players (one of whom is onside) have the opportunity to play a ball passed to space by a teammate. This play is no different. As the ball is dropped behind the defense by an attacker, there is a teammate clearly in an offside position. This player makes a run at the ball but he NEVER touches it. At the same time, another attacker makes a run from an onside position some 10 yards behind the second‐to‐last defender. This onside attacker has the possibility to play the ball. ARs must recognize that there are two players who have the opportunity to play the ball and, consequently, show restraint in making a decision until the offside positioned player actually “interferes with play” or “interferes with an opponent.” In this case, the offside player does neither. He does not “interfere with play” because he does not play or touch the ball that has been played/touched to him by a teammate. In addition, he does not “interfere with an opponent” because he does not prevent the opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. The opponent is poorly positioned and no contact is made with the offside player which may obstruct the defender’s movements to the ball. The quick and ill‐advised flag denies the attacking team the chance to go to goal. ARs are required to “wait and see” the outcome of the pass and the actions of the attacking players before deciding whether offside exists or not. The fact that two players (one onside and one offside) are moving toward the passed ball is a clear signal to the AR to have patience and apply the “wait and see” principle. ARs must be able to be focused on the offside line but must also have a keen sense of the position of onside players and their potential for participating in the play. A broader yet focused view of the field will aid in applying the “wait and see” principle.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at Houston (15:42) ‐ This correct decision on the part of the AR requires total concentration, excellent positioning, and the patience to see the play develop. This is a complicated decision due to many factors:

o The flat defense ‐ The fact that four defenders are flat (in a virtual single line) and are spread out across the field creates depth perception issues. This is complicated by their attempt to stop their runs to “place” the attackers in an offside position just as the attacker makes the through pass (offside trap).

o The three attackers running forward ‐ The attacking team has three simultaneous players running to goal. The players are separated by distance thereby creating gaps between themselves and the defenders. These gaps make it more difficult for the AR to assess the positions of the players at the time the ball is played by a teammate.

o The distance the ball and the passer are from the AR ‐ The attacker who makes the through pass is close to the far touchline (approximately 60 yards from the AR) and 20 yards behind the last line of defense. The AR must be able to concurrently see the touch of the ball and immediately judge the position of the defenders and attackers.

In order to successfully make the correct call, the AR must be able to assess these three factors as well as take a snapshot of the position of the attackers and defenders at the moment the ball is played/passed by the attacker. The AR must then store that snapshot by utilizing the “wait and see” principle and then assess which attacker actually interferes with play. Finally, once the AR observes who interferes with play, he must immediately refer to his snapshot to decide if the player who interferes was in an offside position at the time the ball was played by his teammate. As this clip plays out, the difficulty of the decision can be appreciated. Look at the clip in full speed and try to make the decision. Then, utilize the freeze frame perspective to make the final decision. The player who scores the tying goal is in an

onside position at the time his teammate passes the ball. A second attacker, closest to the passer, is an in offside position; however, he does not interfere with play or with an opponent. The third attacker also runs through but he too does not interfere with play or an opponent even though he starts his run toward the ball. Remember, “interfering with play” is defined as: “playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate.”

• Video Clip: Galaxy at Chivas USA (61:56) ‐ With the score tied 1‐1, a goal by either team can be a significant advantage going into the last 18 minutes of the match. An attack is initiated from approximately 90 yards from goal. The attack consists of only three players touching the ball over the 90 yards. This style is indicative of play in MLS and requires ARs to be focused at all times and ready for quick transitions over long distances. The ability to simultaneously view the offside line and the passed ball when there is considerable distance separating the two is vital for AR success. Despite appeals by the defense, the goal is correctly awarded as the benefit of doubt is given to the attacking team. The AR starts slightly behind the fast moving second to last defender as evidenced by the “offside line” graphic. However, he quickly closes the gap and is closer to the offside line as the final pass is made. As the final pass is executed in the penalty area, the ball is delivered to an attacker who is even with the second to last defender. According to the Laws of the Game, “A player is not in an offside position if he is level with the second to last opponent.” In this clip, a well timed run and pass ensure that the attacker is in an onside position. In close offside situations like this, ARs are instructed to give the benefit of doubt to the attacking team. In other words, should the AR have any doubt or question regarding the onside or offside position of the goal scorer, the AR should keep the flag down.

• Video Clip: New England at Toronto (22:21) ‐ The AR makes a good offside decision because he is able to exercise patience until the play fully unfolds and it becomes clear which player is involved in “active play.” Despite the ball seemingly being directed to the player in the offside position awaiting the service at the penalty spot, this player should not be declared offside because he has NOT:

o Interfered with play: he has not touched or played the ball. The ball goes over his head and he makes no contact with it.

o Interfered with an opponent: he does not prevent an opponent (by obstructing their path) from getting to the ball or from playing the ball nor does he prevent the goalkeeper’s line of vision.

o Gained an advantage from being in an offside position: the ball does not rebound off the post, crossbar or opponent.

Since none of the three elements have occurred, the AR is correct in allowing play to continue. It is not offside. Notice how a second runner comes through and plays the ball. This is permitted as this runner was in an onside position at the time the ball was played/serviced by his teammate. It is easy for an AR to be tempted to raise the flag as the ball looks like it is headed to the player in the offside position. Restraint and patience are required to get this call correct.

• Video Clip: New England at Toronto (52:59) ‐ The team with possession of the ball leads the match 1‐0. They win possession of the ball on their attacking half and start to goal. Now, put your AR hat on. Before the clip commences, think “wait and see” and think “interfering with play.” Play the clip. When it is seen in full motion, what was your impression: offside or not? Goal or no goal? This is a difficult decision that requires the AR to possess attributes of patience and assessment. Patience to see the end result of all of the attacking players’ actions before making a decision. Assessment in order to observe the potential options (whether they play out or not) of the looping touch behind the defense by the rushing attacker.

o Interfered with play: the player in the offside position does NOT interfere with play as he NEVER touches or plays the ball. An offside player may make a run/movement toward a passed/touched ball but until he touches/plays the ball, he cannot be declared offside unless the referee/AR determines that there is a potential collision or injury situation that may result from allowing play to continue too long.

o Interfered with an opponent: an opponent is not hampered or prevented from playing the ball by the offside positioned player. There is no contact or obstructing of the path of the defenders. The fact that the defenders stop their run to the ball, awaiting the offside decision, should not be a consideration as they have not been “interfered with” by an opponent.

o Gained an advantage from being in an offside position: the ball does not rebound off the post, crossbar or opponent.

Ultimately, the original attacker should be considered to have played the ball to himself. It was a long touch followed by a long run, resulting in a shot and a goal. Therefore, given the analysis above, offside did NOT exist and play should have been allowed to go uninterrupted. This decision is complicated by the movement of the offside player toward the ball, the time it takes for the original attacker to regain possession of the ball, and the fact that the defenders stop their runs and raise their hands begging for offside. ARs are not permitted to consider these actions in their decision as they are not factors in the three elements of “involvement in active play.” Lastly, the referee and AR can consider the possibility of a collision with the goalkeeper but it is clear, in this case, that the distance between the ball/play and the keeper are great enough to eliminate such a possibility and the need for a quick flag. This example is the embodiment of the “wait and see” principle. With so many factors transpiring at once, the successful AR will show restraint and will wait to observe the results of the players’ actions prior to making a decision.

• Video Clip: Colorado at Real Salt Lake (51:55) ‐ The AR makes a courageous and correct decision to disallow the goal as the goal scorer “gained an advantage from being in an offside position.” At the time of the original shot, the AR decided that the goal scorer was in an offside position. At this time, the AR should take a snapshot of player positions and store that picture for future reference if needed – which occurred in this case. As soon as the first shot is taken, the AR must change his focus to following the ball to the goal line but must not lose the snapshot taken at the time of the shot. Once the ball rebounds off the goalkeeper, the AR must then recall the snapshot and “wait and see” which attacker now plays the ball: the more central onside attacker or the wide attacker in the offside position? Once the wide attacker, in the offside position, plays the ball after it rebounds off the goalkeeper (the opponent), he should be judged to have “gained an advantage.” The last freeze frame view of the clip is needed to fully appreciate the accuracy of the AR’s decision as it shows (with the aid of the football lines) that the supposed goal scorer was in an offside position at the time of the original shot. A world‐class decision by the AR. Remember, ARs must take a snap shot/picture each time an attacker plays the ball. The picture must be stored in the AR’s databank until that phase of play is over (for example, until another attacker touches or plays the ball). It is often difficult to maintain that databank given the time it takes for the next phase of play to be realized. Hence, successful ARs must fully concentrate and must possess the ability to stay focused and possess the ability to keep clear pictures over extended periods of time while under pressure.

• Video Clip: New England at Columbus (66:30) ‐ This is a very close offside decision. At question in this video clip is the

position of the attacker who eventually scores the goal: was this player even with or ahead of the second to last defender at the time the ball was played by his teammate? Remember, the Laws of the Game state:

o “A player is in an offside position if: he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent;” and

o “A player is not in an offside position if: he is level with the second last opponent.” In addition, the Laws define “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” as meaning:

o “Any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition.”

The reason the “arms are not included” in the definition is because a player cannot score a goal with the arms and, therefore, if the arms are nearer the goal line, there is no advantage gained by the attacker. Considering the aforementioned statements in the Laws of the Game, the AR must make a split second decision to determine if the furthermost attacker is “nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.” In evaluating the video clip, it is not clear that the attacker is “nearer” at the moment the ball is played by his teammate. Consequently, the fact that it is not clear means that “doubt” exists and the AR – as he has done in the clip – must then give the benefit of the play to the attacking team. Officials, particularly ARs, cannot be influenced by the defender’s actions: hands up appealing for offside, stopping their chase of the ball, and verbal appeals for offside. The offside decision must be made based upon the facts at hand. Notice the position of the AR and the referee. First, the AR is directly in line with the second to last defender and therefore is able to make the best possible decision regarding offside/onside position. Second, the referee has done a good job of staying

close to play on the counter attack and positioning himself wide enough to have a good view of the attacking player positions and actions in the event he was required to make a decision on “interfering with play or with an opponent.”

• Video Clip (Added 9/25/2008): DC at Galaxy (45:04+) ‐ Just before halftime, a surprising one touch through pass is made to

an attacker who has attempted to time his run in conjunction with the pass. The one touch pass can catch an unaware or unprepared AR off guard. In this clip, however, the AR is focused on the task at hand: the ball, the line of defenders and the attacker’s run. Timing is critical in making the correct decision as is the ARs ability to instantaneously filter the decision making factors and make an accurate onside or offside call. At first glance, it looks as though the AR has made a poor decision. The speed of play and the fact that the defenders are flat footed (stationary) while the attacker is running diagonal/forward add to the difficulties facing the AR. Even the first replay from the side angle does not support the decision on the part of the AR. It is only at the last freeze frame picture that the ARs decision can be appreciated. This freeze frame picture is the same picture the AR must take during dynamic play and the picture must be broad enough to catch and consider all the factors raised above. From this picture, the AR must make a split second decision to keep the flag down or to raise it and deny the attack. The defender in the middle of the field puts the attacker in an onside position at the time the ball is played by the attacker’s teammate. Therefore, the AR makes a correct decision that provides a scoring opportunity for a team and increases the entertainment value for the spectators.

OFFSIDE: DEFENDER OFF THE FIELD By now, many of you have seen and/or heard about the controversial goal in the Holland vs. Italy match in Euro 2008. Despite its controversy, the referee team was correct in allowing the goal and in their interpretation of Law 11, Offside. Below, we will review the decision and explain why many announcers were doing the game a disservice by providing incorrect information to the fans. Video Clip: Holland vs. Italy (25:17) ‐ Review the video clip and ensure you clearly see the situation as it develops. At the end of the clip, there is a better graphical display of the position of the players. Then, consider the following analysis:

• The Situation ‐ During a free kick by the Dutch team, the Italian goalkeeper pushes his own defender out of the way and off the field, where the defender and a Dutch attacker are both down. The Dutch attacker rises quickly and returns to the field. The Italian defender remains off the field. The ball is played away from the goal and is kicked back to a Dutch player who has the Italian goalkeeper between himself and the goal line and the Italian defender lying on the ground outside the field. The ball is crossed and redirected into the goal by the attacker.

• The Question ‐ Should the Dutch attacker who scored the goal have been called offside? He had only one opponent

between himself and the goal line. There was an opponent lying on the ground just across the goal line.

• Clarification ‐ If a defending player deliberately steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission when the ball is next out of play. That did not happen in this situation. However, in this case the defender left the field of play as a result of being pushed aside by his goalkeeper. Players in either of these situations – whether they left the field during the course of play or stepped off to place an opponent in an offside position – are considered to be part of the game and thus accountable when determining offside position by their opponents. The only difference is how these players would be treated from a disciplinary point of view (no yellow card was warranted in this case).

• Summary ‐ There were two Italian defenders to be calculated into the equation, the goalkeeper and the player on the

ground just outside the goal line. The referee's interpretation that the player off the field of play was still involved in the game was correct. If this interpretation did not exist, then defending players would use the tactic of deliberately stepping off the field of play to put their opponents in an offside position and that is both unacceptable and counter to the Spirit of the Laws of the Game. Unless a player has the permission of the referee to be off the field (in the case of an injury), they are considered to be on it, involved in active play, and deemed to be part of the game.

The Law was applied correctly and the Dutch attacker was not in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball. Hence, the referee was correct in allowing the goal to be scored.

Video Clip: Colorado at Kansas City (August 19, 2001) – There are three specific points of time that must be considered in understanding the situation. They are described in sequence as follows:

• KC attacker (Lowe) centers the ball from the left toward the Colorado goal area where it is punched away by the Colorado goalkeeper (Garlick) toward the right side of the penalty area. KC’s Lassiter is seeking to head this pass into the net and his momentum carries him over the goal line to the left of the left goalpost. Likewise, Colorado’s Balboa continues his defensive run into the right side of the area enclosed by the net.

• The ball goes to KC’s Burns on the right side of the Colorado penalty area who controls and prepares to place the ball back

into the goal area. As he does so, both Lassiter and Balboa return to the field.

• At the moment Burns plays the ball, Lassiter is about three meters up from the goal line to the left, Garlick is two meters inside the field to the right, and Balboa is on the field slightly to the right of the goal post. After the ball passes Garlick toward Lassiter, Lassiter deflects the ball into the Colorado net. Balboa steps off the field, where he stands with a rigid appearance as though to emphasize his position.

At the time Burris played the ball forward, Lassiter had two defenders (Garlick and Balboa) between himself and his opponent’s goal line and was therefore not in a offside position. The referee (Kenny) and lead assistant referee (Huber) were in good positions to observe these events and neither official hesitated in recognizing that a valid goal had been scored. A question has been raised regarding Balboa’s action in leaving the field a second time, as Lassiter is making his goal attempt. Although Balboa was still on the field at the time Burns struck the ball in the direction of the goal, the goal would have been just as valid if this defender had left the field before the ball was played by Burns. It is a well‐established principle in applying Law 11 (Offside) that a defender cannot place an attacker in an offside position merely by leaving the field. Defenders off the field (unless ordered off to correct equipment or bleeding) are still taken into account in determining an attackers’ offside position. Furthermore, however, if the referee believes that the defender’s departure from the field was not in the normal course of play and was undertaken for the purpose of attempting to put an attacker in an offside position, this defender may be considered to have committed misconduct and could be cautioned. While it is clear that Balboa’s first departure from the field was in the course of play, the second departure could have been cautioned and a yellow card shown (see Law 12 and the “7 + 7 Memorandum” – deliberately leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission). In this case, whatever Balboa’s intent, his stepping off the field occurred after the play which resulted in a goal and the referee was justified in not issuing a caution.

NO OFFSIDE ON THROW‐INS, GOAL KICKS, CORNER KICKS Law 11 – Offside, states: There is no offside offense if a player receives the ball directly from:

• A goal kick • A throw‐in • A corner kick

This can lead to infrequent, yet critical decisions that must be made quickly by officiating crews to make a proper decision. • Video Clip: Columbus at Chicago (12:08 – second half) ‐ The first infrequent offside decision to be reviewed is one that

comes off a goal kick. In this game, the goalkeeper takes a long goal kick in which a defender jumps up to head but does not connect. The ball then bounces to an attacker who was in an offside position at the time the goal kick was taken. However, pursuant to the Law, this offside positioned player cannot be declared offside because he received the ball directly from the goal kick. Even if the ball had last been played or headed by the defender who misses the ball, the offside player could not be declared offside as this would be considered the same phase of play and another attacker has not played or touched the ball after the goal kick.

In other words, the attacking team gets a “free pass” off a goal kick until the ball is played or touched by another attacker. At this time, the next phase of play begins and players in offside positions can now be judged to be offside if they are involved in active play by:

o Interfering with play; or o Interfering with an opponent; or

o Gaining an advantage by being in that position. Long goal kick situations are becoming a common occurrence in the game as players (especially goalkeepers) become more skilled at taking long goal kicks. Goal kicks no longer reach just the halfway line. Players are now skilled and strong enough to send goal kicks well into the attacking half of the field thereby creating additional offside judgments for ARs.


LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


• 07/31/2008 – Disallowed Goal from a Pass Back Violation | Video Clip o A US Soccer position paper that addresses dual situations of a pass back to the goal keeper as well as the

subsequent issue of the ball being kicked directly into the net on the (indirect) restart. • 07/03/2008 – Striking | Video Clip

o A US Soccer position paper addressing the issue of striking and how it means more than closed fisted punching. • 06/01/2008 – USSF 7+7 English | USSF 7+7 Spanish

o US Soccer publication of the 7 cautionable and 7 send‐off offenses includes sub‐categories for use in game reporting.

• 05/21/2008 – The “Pass Back” Violation o A US Soccer publication that draws attention to the illegal act of deliberately passing a ball back to the goal keeper,

including the characteristics that must be present for the act to be illegal. • 09/25/2007 – The Opinion of the Referee and Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunities

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the definition of an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity and draws attention to the concept of fouls that start outside the penalty area and continue into it.

• 04/30/2007 – When Fouls Continue o A US Soccer Memorandum that specifies that fouls should be awarded in the position which provides the most

benefit to the offended team, specifically mentioning how to handle situations where a foul begins outside the penalty area and winds up inside the area.

• 04/16/2007 – Law 12 Handling o A copy of USSF Advice to Referees section that defines and clarifies “deliberate” handling.

• 04/11/2007 – Quick Free Kicks versus Ceremonial Restarts o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides emphasis that restarts must be ceremonial in instances in which a referee

issues a caution or send‐off for misconduct (no quick free‐kicks). • 03/23/2007 – Misconduct ‐ Player Gesturing for a Card

o A US Soccer Memorandum in which it draws attention to the growing issue of players gesturing to the referee for a caution to an opponent.

• 08/18/2006 – Fouls, Misconduct, and the Restart of Play o A US Soccer Memorandum that reiterates the Law 12 requirements of a foul (on the field, by a player, while the

ball is in play) and provides guidance for dealing with situations (fouls/misconduct) that occur when one of those three requirements are not met (ie: when something occurs at a dead ball).

• 07/06/2006 – The Status of Players Who Are Sent Off o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides referees with guidance on what it means that a sent‐off player must leave

the “area of the field.” • 06/27/2006 – Cautions & Cautionable Offenses 2006

o A US Soccer publication in which the cautionable offenses are defined and referenced according to the various US Soccer publications (Advice to Referees, Laws of the Game, etc).

• 08/31/2005 – Use of the Elbow o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides emphasis on the need for referees to crack down on the dangerous use of

elbows by players in games. See the section below, Use of Elbows, for video references. • 04/27/2005 – Handling Offenses

o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides clarification on “deliberate” handling as well as tips for identifying such illegal actions.

• 12/19/2005 – Control of the Ball by the Goalkeeper

o A US Soccer Position Paper than examines what it means for a goalkeeper to have “possession” of the ball and when it becomes legal for opposing players to attempt to play the ball.

• 06/29/2004 – Removing the Jersey While Celebrating a Goal | Power Point o A US Soccer Memorandum in reference to the FIFA decision that a player who removes his/her jersey must be

cautioned. This memorandum provides clarification of this decision including what constitutes “removal” of the jersey. The included Power point provides visual support of the examples in this document.

• 05/21/2004 – I Got the Ball o An official MLS Memorandum sent to coaches and team officials clarifying the fact that “getting the ball” does not

mean a foul or misconduct does not exist. • 10/12/2004 – Send‐offs for Receiving a Second Caution

o A US Soccer Memorandum that places emphasis on officials not being hesitant to issue a second caution to a player who commits a second cautionable offense in a match.

• 11/14/2003 – Automatic Suspension Following Expulsion from a Match o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the FIFA ruling that a player who receives a valid red‐card and is sent‐off

must be suspended for a minimum of one match, and clarifies those suspensions can be extended beyond one game when necessary.

• 08/26/2003 – Cardable Offenses and the Restart of Play o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies that a card may not be issued for misconduct after play has restarted, and

that officials must be vigilant in preventing a quick restart in instances in which they wish to issue a card. • 03/14/2003 – Misconduct Involving Language/Gestures

o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides guidance for referees on how to handle various types of language/gestures used by players to communicate amongst each other and with the officiating crew during a match.

• 01/06/2003 – Rescinding a Displayed Card for Misconduct o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying that cards (or any decision by the referee) may be reversed/rescinded by the

referee only prior to the restart of play. Once play has restarted, a card stands and must be reported. • 09/16/2002 – Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity Denied (the 4 D’s)

o A US Soccer Memorandum that spells out the criteria for determining if a goal scoring opportunity is denied through the definition of the 4‐D’s (Direction, Distance to Ball, Distance to Goal, Number of Defenders)

• 08/26/2002 – Misconduct and Display of Cards o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies when (before/during/after a match) and to whom cards for misconduct

can be issued. • 11/22/2002 – Sequential Infringements of the Law

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies how to handle situations in which misconduct occurs at dead‐ball situations, specifically situations in which an offside decision is made by an AR, but an incident occurs before the referee can blow the whistle to stop play.

• 11/22/2002 – No Replacement for Player Sent‐Off After the Game Has Started o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides re‐iteration that a player may not be replaced if sent off after the game

has started. • 11/22/2002 – Misconduct by Attackers at a Free Kick

o A US Soccer Memorandum drawing attention to the need for referees to take up positions on free kicks which allow them to see potential illegal acts by attackers in a defensive wall.

• 01/01/2000 – Throw‐In to Keeper by Teammate o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying situations in which goal keeper handling of a throw‐in from a teammate can

present several contentious issues that referees must be prepared to handle.

PREVENTATIVE OFFICIATING LEADS TO GAME‐FLOW Referee personality to ensure player and game management will be critical in allowing for a free‐flowing game that is safe and enjoyable for players, spectators, and referees. Referees must use personality (not just blowing the whistle and waving “play‐on”) to deal with borderline/trifling fouls. The referee’s actions must be verbal and visual. The following video clips display opportunities where the referee’s personality in handling the situation can prevent the next foul from occurring.

• Video Clip: Kevin Stott talking with KC’s Lopez. A conversation that opens up a line of communication not just for the moment but later.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake vs. Chivas (48:30) in which RSL’s Mantilla body checks Chivas’ Harris. This is borderline cautionable. The referee must do more than blow the whistle. Call player over and send a message. This is a tactical foul made by a defender who knows there is a lot of attacking space behind him if Harris gets by; hence, the defender decides “the ball may get by but the attacker won’t.”

• Video Clip: Columbus vs. NY (56:20) in which the NY player is body checked off the ball in a manner that borders on “reckless.” Should the referee not caution, the player should be called over and preventative officiating applied.

• Video Clip: Columbus at Dallas (38:46) – This clip provides a good example of a referee who takes preventative action with the hopes of being able to influence positive action on the part of the players during the taking of a corner kick. Corner kicks are rife with holding (shirt and body), shoving, and aggressive body contact due to the congested posturing of defending and attacking players. Elbows can result from players jockeying for position. Referees and ARs must pay particular attention to these moments and assume a proactive role to prevent any holding which can escalate to elbowing (striking) thereby preventing the need to award a penalty kick and the need to send a player off. Hence, “presence” on the part of the referee is a necessity to prevent escalation. In this clip, watch the positive action taken by the referee and the AR. As the clip is viewed, note the following:

o The referee whistles prior to the corner kick being taken ‐ Once the referee senses too much body contact is occurring and anticipates that such contact could lead to a game control issue, the referee whistles to stop the taking of the corner kick.

o AR steps in front of the ball ‐ When the corner kick is taken in front of the AR, upon the referee’s signal to hold play, the AR should immediately step in front of the ball to prevent it from being taken as the referee is dealing with the players in the penalty area. Once the referee signals for the corner kick to be taken, the AR can return to his standard position.

o The referee moves to address the players ‐ Once play has been held up, the referee moves into the penalty area and addresses the players. He has now made his presence known and sends a preventative message: “I am aware and I am watching. I will deal with it.”

o The referee takes a strategic position for the restart ‐ Once the referee has conveyed his message in a manner that will influence the players’ future actions, he should take an optimum position that permits him to best observe whether the message has been received appropriately. Note: it may be beneficial to continue to talk to the players (from the restart position) as a preventive measure. Talking will extend the referee’s presence and reinforce the message that the referee has just delivered visually.

Remember, the referee must be flexible in his position so as to ensure he has view of all players, including those making runs from wide positions. Once the corner kick is serviced, the referee should not stand flat footed. The referee should move with the play and the players so that he always maintains the best possible view of the “drop zone” or the “hot spot.” Refer to the two diagrams below for recommended positioning on corner kicks based upon the side the kick is being taken. Notice that the referee has flexibility to decide the “optimum position” but the referee should ensure that all players, including those making runs into position, are in clear view and do not start their runs outside of the referee’s clear purview. Refer to U.S. Soccer’s 2008/2009 publication entitled, “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials” for a more detailed examination of positioning. (click on this link to access the “Guide”)

•• Video Clip: Columbus at Dallas (33:38) ‐ The work of the referee in this clip provides another example of the referee

anticipating a potential conflict and taking preventive action by exerting his presence through urgency in action/movement. This is a seemingly harmless foul – a foul that arises in most games. However, the foul has several

warning signs that it may invoke further action on the part of the players if not handled appropriately by the referee. What are the signs?

o Vicinity to the touchline and sign board area o One or more of the players are on the ground o Players are entangled, intertwined which may lead to additional contact

Upon recognizing the warning signs, the referee sprints to the spot of the foul in anticipation of potential further action on the part of the players. Once he proactively arrives at the spot, the referee is able to react positively to the friendly nature of the exchange between the players (notice the smile on the referee’s and player’s faces). However, if the player reaction was negative/confrontational, the referee’s anticipatory actions would have acted as the first step in diffusing the conflict. By sprinting to the spot of the foul, the referee did a good job of being prepared for the worst outcome (player confrontation). The referee’s actions are a visible signal that he was “prepared for the unexpected” and that he felt that his presence would be able to positively “influence the outcome.”

In the process of working to be proactive in managing players, referees must adjust their personality and game management to meet and exceed the intensity changes of the players on the field. Often times there are clear “warning” signs provided by the game that can clue referees in on impending changes in game intensity:

• Score of the Game – When one team is down a goal, the intensity level will pick up as the team works to equalize • Numerical Advantage – If a team has the man advantage, they will see the opportunity as a way to break down the

opposition and go forward at a faster pace • The Team Playing a Man Down – The team playing short‐handed may choose to “pack it in” with the hopes of playing a

quick counter to the lone striker for a counter attack • Equalizing Goal – A team has just scored the equalizing goal and they have the momentum to win the game. Normally this

is after the goal has been scored late in the match and little time is left. The defending team, on the other hand, may decide to play defensive and therefore the team that just equalized will have more assertive play in their attacking third.

• Video Clip (Added 10/9/2008): Chicago at Kansas City (10:50 – second half) ‐ This clip illustrates excellent officiating. It

shows a referee who “smells” trouble and uses his presence to defuse and prevent the trouble from escalating. In this case, the referee recognizes a warning sign: the goalkeeper is being challenged. Consequently, the referee sprints to the scene and immediately intervenes preventing game disrepute from escalating to mass confrontation. Due to his fast response and actions, the referee is able to correctly manage the situation without issuing a caution. This is an example of anticipatory work on the part of the referee. Note, if the referee deems the attacker’s actions to be unsporting behavior, he may decide to caution him accordingly but the focus of this clip was not the players actions but on how the referee was able to influence the outcome by his quick response to the warning sign (the challenge on the goalkeeper).

USE OF PERSONALITY IN PLACE OF AND IN ADDITION TO THE WHISTLE Often times misconduct can be managed by addressing the player, face‐to‐face, and keeping the card in the pocket. Remember, calculated risk taking applies not just to the use of advantage, but also to how you choose to manage individual situations during a match. Have confidence in your ability and personality. If the game is under control and the players are responding, find alternative, creative means versus cards. That’s not to say you can use personality as an excuse for failing to deal with a situation that demands a card. Specifically, there are several instances in which the referee must carefully consider use of personality over the whistle and card, and in general should defer to the latter:

1. Early, hard fouls: The referee must set the standards of conduct for the game. Hence, the earlier in the game, the less risk you should take and the less flow you may permit. Just like the player who is sending a message with the early tackle, the referee must send a message with a whistle and possibly more.

2. Tackles from behind: Tackles from behind are not candidates for flow or taking risks. They endanger the opponent and lead to further game control issues.

3. Sequential fouls: Fouls that occur in rapid fashion, normally in a tight space are critical for the referee to recognize. Sequential fouls can occur one after the other or may be spread out over a minute or so. But, in either case, they are fouls that get executed because of the intensity of the moment or the game. In some instances, the fouls may seem minor or trifling but the sequencing of them makes them more significant.

The following video clips provide evidence of referees using personality manage players through various situations to ensure complete game control:

• Video Clip: New England at Kansas City (43:55). The referee calls 2 players over to talk with each after they had words. This type of communication is not always easy but it diffuses and sends a positive message. Ensure that, as referee, you isolate

the players and look them in the eye. Note: the referee needs to get to the foul sooner. Look at the score; anticipate that the winning team will attempt to slow the restart.

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (1:00). This is the first foul of the game. See how the referee sprints to the spot and makes the foul seem “larger than it really is.” The referee then calls the San Jose player over to have a word. This is the type of management skills that the game needs more of. It sets the tone and sets it early.

• Video Clip: Columbus at DC (44:20). The referee recognizes a “no call” and does not award the attacker for going down in the penalty area. Any contact is inconsequential thus play should be continued and the game flow maintained. The referee then exhibits personality by quickly intervening between two players thus preventing escalation of a potentially volatile situation. Look at the referee’s body language and his facial expressions. They are controlled yet communicate his displeasure.

• Video Clip: Chicago at D.C. (75:19). Not only does this clip show a tactical foul committed in the center circle but also provides some critical lessons for effective officiating. After the initial foul, the referee indicates (by the raising of his arms) that he is applying advantage. As the two players get off the ground, they tussle; however, the referee exhibits awareness and immediately moves to the potential confrontation thereby preventing its escalation. Despite the application of the advantage, the referee did not ignore the actions of the defender. Well done on the part of the referee.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): New England at DC (85:55) ‐ A coach of a side that is losing 2‐1 is frustrated with an official’s decision. The coach who can be seen at the bottom of the clip is demonstrative and verbal in his displeasure. In this case, the referee has the presence of mind to remain composed. The fourth official also does a good job of moving (in a non‐confrontational manner) toward the coach to lend his support to the referee. Without over reacting, the referee takes control of the situation and uses his presence (movement toward the bench and his physical stature) to convey a very clear and firm message that future similar behavior will not be tolerated. By taking this action, the referee has “drawn his line in the sand” and has set the standard for conduct going forward. The burden is now placed on the coaching staff to modify their behavior to acceptable standards. The referee, by positively addressing the situation, has made everyone aware that he has recognized unacceptable behavior and, by conveying this, he has placed the responsibility for modification on those involved. These actions are not only positive but preventative because they convey a message regarding reasonable expectations. If the referee had ignored the coach’s actions, he would have sent a message to both technical areas, the players and the spectators that it is acceptable to visually and verbally dissent the decisions of the officials. Like this referee, it is imperative that officials do not over react but should find the right personality and solution that matches the game situation and the moment. In this case, the referee chose the most effective preventative course of action given the game.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): Columbus at New York (81:30) ‐ As this clip plays out, start by watching the bottom left corner of the screen. Observe the two players who, off‐the‐ball, are involved in game disrepute as defined in the Game Disrepute section of this text. As defined, game disrepute:

o Usually involves at least one player and sometimes two or more opposing players going at each other in an aggressive manner. The actions of the players bring the game into disrepute. Usually the ball is dead (out of play). Players feel at liberty to have a “go” at each other because they don’t have to chase a live ball. These are volatile situations. Because the ball is dead, a specific foul cannot be called but that should not inhibit the referee from taking appropriate action.

This situation meets all the requirements of game disrepute. The ball is out of play, two players are going at each other aggressively and their actions bring the game into disrepute. Immediately upon recognizing the situation, the referee and fourth official proactively move toward the scene. The voice, whistle and presence of the officials immediately catch the attention of the players resulting in the settling of the incident. Once the players are separated, the referee can be seen quickly consulting with the fourth official and then cautioning both players for unsporting behavior. The referee felt that the yellow cards were necessary given the “big picture” of the game (what had occurred previously, the temperature of the match, the players involved, etc.). It is important to note how the referee continues to have a controlled conversation with another player after showing the yellow cards. The referee does not turn his back to this player but allows the conversation to continue given it was done in a disciplined, non‐threatening manner. Calm, controlled conversations like this can lead to the opening of lines of communication in the game between the referee and the match participants.

GETTING THE MOST OUT OF YOUR YELLOW CARD The referee’s response to a foul or act of misconduct must match or exceed the severity of the player’s action. In other words, the more severe the act of the player, the greater importance the referee should place on ensuring his actions/response send a message

that the behavior displayed by the player will not be tolerated. The message the referee sends must not only be received by the player for whom it is intended but also to the other players, coaches, and spectators. An effective message that matches or exceeds the situation is the most effective tool in the referee’s ability to “draw his line in the sand.” By “drawing the line in the sand,” the referee provides the players, coaches, and spectators with measurable and visual evidence of what is acceptable behavior in that game. The referee who merely relies on the issuance of a card (yellow or red) to send messages is a reactive official – an official who does not use his personality to prevent the next foul. Referees need to manage the game with their personality by picking the appropriate method of managing or dealing with a player. Remember, the best referee is the referee who is seen and heard when the game requires the referee to be seen and heard. Generally speaking, there is a continuum of referee actions needed to ensure that the referee’s response matches the severity of the offence. Top level referees find ways to send messages aside from using the whistle. They also utilize down time (when the ball is out of play) to connect with players. Often times the connection can be positive communication and encouragement. And give consideration: In response to every misconduct situation, referees do not need to reach for and display a card immediately. At certain times, a calculated and diligent approach to the issuance of a card is best. By slightly delaying the “card” or “no card” decision, referees give themselves valuable seconds to assess the situation and to consider the action in context of the game and in context of the player who has committed the infraction. During this brief pause, the referee can make eye contact with the ARs and/or fourth official if needed to get their perspective. This almost inconspicuous pause can lead to more thought out decisions versus reactive decisions based upon emotion. The following is brief overview of three important referee responses on the continuum:

o Quiet word ‐ During the run of play, referees can have a quiet word with players. This allows players to feel the referee’s presence prior to the referee blowing the whistle. Additionally, there are some fouls for which a quiet word is an appropriate response by the referee. The referee can run with the player as the player moves to position and during the movement convey the selected message.

o Isolating the player ‐ Once the referee has whistled the foul, the referee can opt to move the player aside and have a one‐on‐one conversation. The isolation of the player sends a broader message that will resonate with all game participants and is a visual message to spectators and the media that the player’s actions were not acceptable. By looking the player in the eye, the referee sends a stronger message and can use his personality to convey his displeasure. The “look” (body language) and tone of voice chosen by the referee is important as it must also match the severity of the offense. This tactic also slows the game down and gives the referee and the player’s time to think about their actions. Remember, the referee must always be under control and calm when demonstrating his displeasure and communicating with the players and coaches.

o Issuing of a card ‐ If talking with the player(s) has not worked, the referee should then consider a stronger message which would be the issuance of a yellow or red card. This does not restrict the referee from going directly to a card should the severity of the offence mandate it. Once again, however, the referee must make sure that the appropriate communication accompanies the displaying of the card. In many instances, the quick isolation of the player while the card is displayed is critical in getting the right message across.

• Video Clip: Dallas at Columbus (49:08) ‐ The tackle committed in the clip is a certain yellow card for unsporting behavior. It

is reckless, late, from behind with no opportunity to play the ball, and takes out the opposition’s leg. As a result, the decision by the referee to caution the player is correct. However, the referee must get more out of the caution other than the simple act of displaying it. It is not sufficient to merely issue the yellow card as the player walks away with their back to you. This situation requires a face‐to‐face conversation. The action of the referee must match or exceed the action of the player. As the referee whistles for the foul, his actions starting with the tone of the whistle should signal his displeasure. Along with a strong whistle, the manner in which the referee runs to the spot of the infraction should also communicate a sense of his displeasure. Once at the area of the foul, the referee may get the fouler’s attention and motion for him to meet the referee halfway, in a neutral spot. At this point, the referee can issue the yellow card while looking the player in the eye and having a stern but effective word with him. This puts the referee in charge of the situation as opposed to the player who would otherwise be walking away from the referee as the card is displayed.

• Video Clip (Added 9/19/2008): Columbus at Toronto (41:37) – This clip provides an example of a referee who understands the importance of managing the game with more than just his whistle. In this clear cut yellow card situation, the referee uses his presence and personality to “prevent the next foul.” The referee’s actions of isolating the offender and then conversing with him not only sends a message to the player being cautioned but also to the other participants in the game. Through his actions, the referee has “drawn the line in the sand” and can use his actions to set the tone that will guide future actions on the field.

o At the time of the initial foul, the referee can be seen in the background sprinting to the spot of the foul and then changing his course toward the fouler as the defender moves away from the incident. This is the first visual action from the referee that indicates his displeasure with the foul. Consequently, even before the referee has initiated a conversation or has shown the appropriate card, the referee has sent a message (his sprinting and urgency in movement) that the foul will not be permitted in this game.

o Once he begins interaction with the player, he tailors or fits his method of communication to fit the player and the situation/game. The result is a clear and distinct message to the fouler and to all other game participants, spectators and media.

DISSENT When deciding whether a player’s actions are cautionable for dissent (by word or action) or can be red carded for offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures apply the following criteria:

• Public ‐ Are the player’s actions public in nature? From a visual perspective, can others see it and, if so, what message is the player sending? Verbally, who can hear the comments (other players, spectators, television) – consider the volume of the comments? Are the actions or comments meant to “show the referee up?” Consider whether the actions/comments create a negative impression/attitude towards the referee in general.

• Personal ‐ Are the comments directed at the referee or just said as a reasonable emotional reaction to a poor play? Consider the tone of voice and the derogatory content of what was said. Are the actions of the player aimed at the referee or merely personal frustration?

• Provocative ‐ Are the comments or actions intended to incite further misconduct or heighten the tension level? Do the comments elicit anger and potentially provoke further conflict on the field? Consider the ramifications of racial or gender based comments.

Overall, are the comments and actions disrespectful to “any referee” – not just to the referee to whom they were addressed? Officials must be aware of actions/comments that undermine the position of the referee and must take the appropriate action that matches the actions of the player.

• Video Clip: Toronto at New England (46:00 – added time) ‐ In this clip, the referee has just whistled for half time. Closely watch the player with the ball as the whistle is blown. What are his actions? Are his actions visible so that other players and spectators can witness – are the actions public? Do the actions undermine or question the authority of the referee? In this particular instance, the player shows his disregard and disrespect of the referee by, first, clapping his hands in defiance of the referee and, second, by sharply rolling the ball at the referee. This is a case in which the referee must respond with a message that corresponds to the intensity of the player’s actions; hence, a yellow card is an appropriate response that communicates a strong message to the player, the other players, and to the spectators that such dissent will not be tolerated. Recommendation: In cases where the referee anticipates potential dissent at half time, the referee would be advised to move to a neutral position on the field away from the players and coaches so as not to invite dissent and create extra space between himself and potential problem players.

• Video Clip: Houston at Dallas (73:10) ‐ The attacking player, in this clip, shows his distain toward the referee’s decision to award a foul against him by kicking the ball away. The player’s actions are magnified by the long time from the whistle to the time he takes to kick the ball away in disgust. Additionally, the force, power, and distance that he kicks the ball also displays a negative message and makes the player’s actions more distinguishable. In this case, the referee must caution the player for dissent thereby sending a definitive message that such displays of dissatisfaction will not be tolerated.

• Video Clip: New York at Colorado (80:45) ‐ Watch in this clip how the player not only negatively addresses the referee but also the assistant referee (AR). The player’s words and tone as well as his body language and the manner in which he approaches the officials clearly demonstrate his attitude and his dissent. The referee rightfully cautions him for dissent. The player is failing to show respect for the referee or for the game. Look at the score. The player’s team had a secure lead and the game was void of any controversial decisions and no significant decision occurred that would give any indication to the referee that the player’s actions were a “quick emotional outburst” as opposed to dissent. The extended nature and persistence of the dissenting player’s actions makes the player’s intent even more obvious for the referee team.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): Chicago at Toronto (29:45) ‐ The referee makes a decision that the player disagrees with. The player directs his disagreement and protest at the referee in a visual and manner by waving his hand/arm at the

referee in public disgust and disagreement. Such action, questions the referee’s authority and the referee is justified in cautioning the player for dissent by action. The referee must make a determination given the game and the manner in which the dissent is delivered whether a yellow card is warranted or whether another method (like a severe verbal reprimand) of managing the situation will deliver the same results. However, referees cannot allow players to question the authority of any member of the referee team without addressing the player involved.

HANDLING (A.K.A. THE “HAND BALL”) The determining factor in deciding if contact with the hand/arm is, in fact, a handling offense was: Did the player make himself bigger?

• Making yourself bigger ‐ This refers to the placement of the arm(s)/hand(s) of the defending player at the time the ball is played by the opponent. Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling. Referees should interpret this action as the defender “deliberately” putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent (like spreading your arms wide to take away the passing lane of an attacker).

There are other critical signs that referees should consider, in addition to “making yourself bigger,” when evaluating whether a handling situation requires a foul to be called:

• Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?” ‐ Is the arm or hand in a position that is not normal or natural for a player performing the task at hand.

• Hand to ball ‐ Referees must be ready to judge whether the player moved his arm to the ball thereby initiating the contact. • Distance ‐ The further the distance from the defender to the location from which the opponent played the ball, the greater

the likelihood of a handling offense. • The result of the action ‐ In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the

player’s action. Did the player’s action (handling of the ball) deny a pass or shot on goal that would have otherwise been available to him?

As you examine the following clips, consider the “making yourself bigger” criteria in determining why the decision to award a foul for handling would be correct:

• Video Clip: Chivas USA at Chicago (89:05) ‐ The defender is approximately four yards from the opponent at the time the ball is played. This long distance provides more time for the defender to control his actions. As the clip is replayed, look at the position of the defender’s arm – extended out from his body thereby making his body bigger and taking away the passing lane or the angle for a shot on goal. Additionally, this is not a natural position for the arm as a defender is closing down on an opponent. Also, closely look at the defender’s left arm. It too is raised up, away from his body. Given the “making yourself bigger” criteria, in this case, the referee should call a foul (handling) and award a penalty kick.

• Video Clip: Atlante (Mexico) at New England (17:31 – second half) ‐ This example is from a SuperLiga game. Once more, a defender has his arm extended out to a position that “makes himself bigger” and unfairly takes away opponent’s space to pass/play the ball. The freeze frame clearly shows the extended arm makes contact with the ball. The referee would be correct in awarding a penalty kick for handling following the “making yourself bigger” criteria.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at Houston (86:01) ‐ This example of handling the ball is a difficult one for officials – difficult because it is not only hard to identify/see but also because it happens so quickly. The clip may need to be watched several times to clearly see the handling offense (even more reason why the call is a difficult one for the referee). The attacker is able to use his arm/hand to control the ball (bring the ball down) and gain an advantage by doing so. By “making himself bigger,” the attacker has gained an advantage over the defender resulting in his being able to get off a shot and score. Referees must consider that the advantage gained by the attacker so close to the goal is unfair and that the position of the arm contributes to the unfair advantage. The player’s arm is extended from his body and he does not attempt to move the arm out of the way of the ball; hence, he has “made himself bigger” in order to control the ball and attempt a shot. Watch how the attacker even uses the arm to nudge the opponent away just prior to handling the ball. This was an attempt by the attacker to “make himself bigger” so that he could control the ball once it reached him. Given the Spirit of the Game, the referee is within his rights to disallow the goal and award a free kick to the defending team for handling the ball.

• Video Clip (Added 10/3/2008): Colorado at New York (16:02) ‐ Using the “making your self bigger” criteria, the referee correctly awards a free kick for handling the ball. The defender’s actions meet the criteria because he is clearly standing with his arms extended from his body, in an “unnatural position.” More evident is the fact that the extended arms take away the passing lane from the attacker attempting to cross the ball. The extended arms reduce the opponent’s options and take away normally available space to pass the ball.

• Video Clip (Added 10/3/2008): Colorado at New York (32:27) – In this clip, the referee is faced with another case of “making yourself bigger.” In this clip, the handling occurs inside the penalty area and the referee correctly awards a penalty kick.

Despite the close proximity of the attacker to the defender who handles the ball, look how the defender jumps out at the ball and extends his left arm out which contacts the ball. The arm is moving out towards the ball and is not at the defender’s side. The defender’s action takes away space from the attacker and the result is the denying the attacker the ability to create a scoring chance by connecting his pass with his teammate.

DEALING WITH GAME DISREPUTE Game disrepute involves situations in which players do things that are may not be acts of misconduct in and of themselves, but cast a negative light on the game. Specifically, actions in which players go at each other in a heated manner, especially those situations that involve bodily contact (chest bumping, etc), or players who go face‐to‐face need to be addressed. These situations reflect badly on the game, and are not the picture of the sport that we want to paint for spectators who may be new to the game. Game disrepute by players usually involves at least one player and sometimes two or more opposing players going at each other in an aggressive manner. The actions of the players bring the game into disrepute. Usually the ball is dead (out of play). Players feel at liberty to have a “go” at each other because they don’t have to chase a live ball. These are volatile situations. Because the ball is dead, a specific foul cannot be called but that should not inhibit the referee from taking appropriate action. Game disrepute can be dealt with in multiple ways:

• Sprint to the Situation. If the referee or AR senses a problem, SPRINT to the situation. Presence is critical in terms of carefully separating the players in a non‐forceful manner.

• Stern Warning vs. Caution. In some cases, you can deal with disrepute with a stern warning while isolating the players. See this video clip for an example. A caution is not always the answer but the referee must raise his intensity and address the case by sending a strong verbal and visual message.

• Misconduct. If the situation escalates in numbers and intensity, then the referee must deal with the scenario more stringently as misconduct. Referees must not hesitate to caution players for unsporting behavior. In many instances, game disrepute requires two players to be cautioned (one from each team) as it takes two players to initiate and continue the situation.

o Video Clip: Galaxy at RSL (87:16). This is a classic example of game disrepute and one in which two cautions are warranted. Two players go chest‐to‐chest and there is very obvious physical contact amongst them. Contact is not necessary but it makes the disrepute more obvious. Look at the time. Despite the fact there is less than three minutes remaining in the game, the referee identifies that the players’ actions need official attention and represent a threat to the “atmosphere” of the match – regardless of the remaining time. The referee uses common sense and correctly cautions both players for unsporting behavior.

o Video Clip: New York at San Jose (38:37 – second half) ‐ The referee correctly cautions (unsporting behavior) the first player for his tactical foul on the opponent. As the referee whistles for the foul, he immediately displays his yellow card. However, the preferred mechanic would have been to continue his run toward the two players prior to the issuance of the card. The referee’s closer presence may have prevented the attacking player from confronting the tackler. Once he reached the players, if his presence did not diffuse the situation, he could then intervene by separating the opponents and pulling the player(s) he will caution aside. Once the players were separated, the yellow card would be displayed. The player that was fouled also requires a caution for game disrepute (unsporting behavior). The player acts as an instigator by physically challenging his opponent. In addition, his attempt to intimidate the defender by faking a head butt (from all angles, contact is not made) can lead to further escalation and misconduct by both players and by both teams. Although a player that is fouled may exhibit some “controlled” form of frustration, this player’s actions exceed acceptable amounts. The actions are not only too aggressive they are intimidating and threatening. A message must be sent that the overly aggressive nature of the player’s retaliation is not acceptable. The referee must caution him to “draw the line in the sand.”

• Player Escalation. Be aware of players that run to the fray from long distances and from the bench. The fourth official can play a role in preventing escalation by controlling the benches and by assisting with the identification of players. If the situation warrants, AR’s should also feel comfortable entering the field to provide presence. It is critical to deal with players that “make their presence known” by injecting themselves into situations that they were not originally involved. Please deal with these types of situations in an appropriate manner based upon the game: • Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (53:40). In this situation, the referee correctly cautions the player who came from

approximately 25 yards to engage with opponents. This is the type of situation that, if not dealt with appropriately, can lead to future problems in the game.

• Video Clip: Houston at San Jose ( 59:50) ‐ The focus of this clip is the manner in which the referee positively deals with game disrepute between the two players and how he ensures, through prompt action, that the situation does not escalate to mass confrontation. Debate can be made over whether the referee should have called either of the challenges before the foul that causes the game disrepute but that is not the focus of this clip.

o The referee followed the script presented above. His immediate intervention (exhibited by his presence) between the opposing players was vital. He sprinted to the situation and positively interposed his body between the players involved. The referee’s presence prevented further body contact among the players and prevented a third player from joining in.

o Immediate intervention and presence is the key to handling game disrepute.

MASS CONFRONTATIONS According to the March 14, 2003 US Soccer Position Paper entitled “Mass Confrontation,” “The concerted actions of three or more players from the same team who are disputing a decision while surrounding the referee or hindering or forcing movement by the referee.” Often times mass confrontation manifests itself in one of two ways:

1. Several players confronting the referee, assistant referees (ARs) or fourth official – players are trying to intimidate one or more official(s) to influence a current or future outcome/decision.

2. Multiple players confronting each other – swarm of players exhibiting aggressive behavior toward each other. Physical contact is often a by‐product of the acts.

Mass confrontations where the officials are surrounded and being intimidated by aggressive players, who hope to influence the referee, is never positive, and invokes a negative public image, slows the game down, ignites further aggressive behavior, and ruins the entertainment value of the game. Referees must work to stamp these types of mass confrontation from the game. The referee team must work diligently to identify the main culprits and address their actions as misconduct (issue a caution – yellow card, or send off – red card). In general, mass confrontations share many similar characteristics that referees can use to react quickly in handling these situations:

• Caused By a Trigger Issue – Typically follows an issue or foul that is sensitive to players like a hard foul in front of the bench, or a foul where player safety is compromised. Be aware of fouls against the goal keeper or play‐maker, or the player running to retrieve the ball from the goal after scoring.

• Recognize the Trigger Issue – Officials must immediately recognize these flash point triggers. Failure to recognize, or a delay in responding will result in further escalation. Discuss potential trigger points with the crew pre‐game and be prepared to address when they arise. Being aware of the teams and players involved can often help in anticipating when flash‐points are more likely to result in mass confrontation issues.

• Get there to diffuse – Once mass confrontation amongst opponents arises, a member of the referee team must get there immediately to prevent escalation. For each step you are late, it allows one more player to participate.

• Separate and disperse – The first official on the scene should work to carefully separate the immediate players. Once three or more players enter the scene, the referee should step back and observe the situation. The two assistant referees should also take a clear vantage point to observe the actions of the players while the fourth official maintains his position and monitors the bench area. This procedure forms a triangle around the confrontation and provides a process to monitor the situation and gather information. As the situation settles, in a positive, non‐threatening manner, officials should attempt to channel opposing players into safe zones away from the hot spot.

• Prevent others from joining in and observe – All four officials should not focus on the same hot spot or become too involved in gaining control of the situation. As stated above, form a triangle around the situation, observe, and make notes (mental and otherwise). Look for positive ways to prevent other players from joining in as these players often add “fuel to the fire.”

• Consult and dispense the appropriate misconduct – Once the situation is under control and players have been channeled to safe zones, the referee team must quickly dispense the appropriate misconduct. The referee should ensure he has solicited the input of the other officials prior to taking action. Violent conduct should be the first line of focus.

The following video clips demonstrate officials in the act of handling mass confrontations:

• Video Clip: Charleston at Miami ‐ Let’s use the guidelines that were provided above to streamline the process utilized to manage mass confrontation to analyze this clip from a USL‐1 match:

• Caused by a trigger issue: typically follows an issue or foul that is sensitive to players like a hard foul in front of the bench or a foul where the safety of a player is endangered. In this case, the trigger is the deliberate kicking of the ball into the opponent who is on the ground.

• Recognize the trigger issue: officials must immediately recognize the flash point or trigger issue. Failure to recognize or a slow response by the referee will usually result in further escalation. The referee fails to recognize the flash point (the action of kicking the ball into the opponent). The fact that the player kicks the ball so late (after the original foul is whistled) and the fact that the ball is hit directly at the opponent when there is so much other free space to kick the ball should alert the referee to the seriousness and deliberateness of the offense. The referee has no urgency in his reaction or his ability to recognize the potential for escalation. Whenever a player deliberately kicks a ball into or at an opponent, the referee must recognize this as a flash point due to the seriousness of the offense.

• Get there to diffuse: once game disrepute amongst opponents arises, a member of the referee team must get there immediately to prevent escalation. For each step the referee is late, one more player is allowed to participate. In this case, the referee is closest to the situation and he must establish his presence. The referee fails to exhibit urgency after the first foul let alone after the player kicks the ball into the opponent on the ground. As a consequence, what may have been managed as game disrepute turns into mass confrontation. Note: after the ball is kicked into the opponent, in addition to sprinting to the situation, the displaying of a quick red card (for violent conduct to the player kicking the ball into the opponent) may aid in signaling to the players that the referee is taking action and prevent escalation.

• Separate and disperse: the first official on the scene should work to carefully separate the immediate players. The other officials should prepare themselves to intervene based upon their “feel” and “read” of the situation and the warning signs noted above. The two assistant referees should also take a clear vantage point to observe the actions of the players while the fourth official maintains his position and monitors the bench area. This procedure forms a triangle around the confrontation and provides a process to monitor the situation and gather information.

First and foremost, remember, once the situation escalates to mass confrontation and is unmanageable for a single official (based upon the warning signs noted above), the entire referee crew should step back and observe. At this point, do not attempt to separate players. Stay close while taking notes. In this video clip, the “triangle of patrol” around the situation was not correctly implemented by the referee team. First, AR1 (the bench side AR) gets overly involved in separating players and, in fact, can be seen turning his back to the hot spot. Second, AR2 (far side assistant) comes in too slow. Like the referee, he must show more urgency. Once the situation escalates from game disrepute to mass confrontation, AR2 should immediately sprint in to form the triangle. Additionally, AR2 separates players (resulting in his back being turned to the bigger situation) instead of standing back and observing one or more of the hot spots. Lastly, the fourth official does a good job preventing bench personnel from entering the field and joining the fracas. • Prevent others from joining in and observe: all four officials should not focus on the same hot spot or become too

involved in gaining control of the situation. As stated above, form a triangle around the situation, observe, and make notes (mental and otherwise). Look for positive ways to prevent other players from joining in as these players often add “fuel to the fire;” however, this must be done in a way that does not take focus off the main instigators.

A broad perspective is crucial to success. When officials are too close to the situation, they miss many of the actions for which players must be held accountable. In this clip, the ARs are too involved separating players and managing the fringe. The ARs need to step further back and create a more acute angle of vision. • Consult and dispense the appropriate misconduct: once the situation is under control and players have been

channeled to safe zones, the referee team must quickly dispense the appropriate misconduct. The referee should ensure he has solicited the input of the other officials prior to taking action. Violent conduct should be the first line of focus.

Because the officials were too involved in the scenario and too close, they miss critical components and miss the worst offenders. The improper forming of the “triangle of patrol” and the improper handling of the event leads to misconduct being handled incorrectly. As you watch the clip, look for the player on the red team who slaps at the face of an opponent. The referee team must be in position to identify this and any similar action as violent conduct. Note: the player who deliberately kicks the ball into the opponent on the ground must be sent off for violent conduct.

• Video Clip: San Jose at Real Salt Lake (80:25) ‐ A trigger issue occurs: a player is fouled and his safety is jeopardized. The referee’s actions show he has identified the potential for mass confrontation by opponents – without hesitation, he sprints to the scene. Watch as he channels players away from the hot spot and into safe zones. Finally, he dispenses the appropriate misconduct in a timely fashion (30 seconds) that quickly sends a message to everyone that he is taking the action and players do not have to take action into their own hands. In this case, at 80:37, the assistant referee (AR) can be seen at some distance in the background. It would have been preferred for the AR to also move quickly to the scene and

either assist with dispersing the players or move to be better positioned to witness any further actions on the parts of the players. In this clip, the referee exhibits urgency, preventative skills, and his actions exceed the intensity level of the game.

• Video Clip: Houston at Dallas (76:58) – This clip shows a referee who is reactive and does not anticipate the actions of the players. The player who commits the first foul is wearing a cast. This should be the first sign as contact is made with the cast and an opponent. The action is cautionable. The referee must feel this situation. Adding to the negative reaction of the players is the fact that the referee delays his whistle as he decides there is a potential advantage as the ball proceeds to the goalkeeper. This is a poor risk given the player’s cast and the fact that the infraction is cautionable. Once the whistle is blown, it is too late and the referee is too late to the hot spot. Any opportunity for preventative work on the part of the referee has been wasted due to the late whistle and the lack of urgency. Once the moment of truth passes without immediate action on the part of the referee, mass confrontation amongst opponents is the by‐product. Finally, the referee takes too long to disperse the punishment to the players. During the more than three minutes it takes to resolve this situation, players tempers continue to rise and the doors are opened for more potential conflict amongst the two players as well as other opposing players.

• Video Clip: Houston at Real Salt Lake (89:00) ‐ The referee team in this clip has the opportunity to utilize the triangle to manage the mass confrontation between the players. As the foul occurs, the referee sprints to the area of the foul. Initially, only two players are involved. But, quickly, others become involved causing the confrontation to escalate. At this point, the referee and AR need to step back and observe while the fourth official monitors the benches. The far side AR can join the other two officials to make the third point of the triangle. All three should monitor the situation and take notes. In this clip, notice how the referee and AR are so involved that they lose a broad perspective. Additionally, in the background, watch how the fourth official runs in and takes a position next to the AR. Again, too close and overly involved – as instructed previously, he must be by the benches preventing their participation and entry onto the field. Once the situation settles and players are in neutral areas, the referee, ARs, and fourth official should meet and identify the culprits and decide on the official actions to be taken. Notice how the closeness and direct involvement of the AR and the Referee can cause them to miss much of the action and, thereby, hand out the wrong punishment. A broader, wider, and calmer perspective will lead to clearer identification and better decisions on the part of the entire referee team.

SIMULATION Simulation, diving, embellishment, gamesmanship, play acting. Whatever term is used, the action should be addressed by the referee. Players who employ this tactic not only ruin the enjoyment of the spectators but are attempting to cheat the game and influence a potentially game‐deciding ruling from the referee. Furthermore, simulation also often raises the frustration level of opponents resulting in face‐to‐face confrontations. Remember, the ultimate goal of players is to get the referee to unfairly punish the opponent. As a consequence, simulation is a prime candidate for cheating. As a potential act of simulation confronts the referee, the official must quickly consider the following guidelines:

• Human Act vs. Intentional Act o Human Act ‐ Does the situation involve incidental contact? o Intentional Act ‐ Is there deception involved? No contact or contact intentionally created by the attacker.

Referees must train their eyes, mind, and responses. When evaluating a player’s action to determine if it meets the criteria of simulation, consider the following signals:

• Location on the field ‐ Often times, players dive in or near the penalty area. The player is willing to take a chance that his cheating will go unnoticed by the officials and result in a penalty kick or dangerous free kick.

• Contact ‐ It is difficult to caution a player for simulation (unsporting behavior) when there is contact with the opponent. Hence, contact and who initiates it, must be taken into consideration. Do not mistake simulation for embellishment. Embellishment occurs when a player “play acts.” In other words, the player makes a minor infraction seem much grander in scale. Embellishment, is cautionable for unsporting behavior.

• Score of the game ‐ A team that is needing a goal to tie the game or to gain a lead, will attempt to garner a penalty or free kick in the “danger zone” (30 yards or so from goal).

• The ball ‐ Can the attacker get or play the ball? Attackers with the ball who have touched it too far in front of them will go down easily as a defender challenges them because they know they will not be able to get to the ball (it will go over the goal line or an opponent will get it) and they will lose possession.

• The attacker’s feet ‐ As the player is going down, observe his feet. Does the player bring his feet together and drag them along the ground causing him to intentionally lose his balance and go to the turf?

• The attacker’s actions before he lands and when he lands ‐ First, evaluate the attacker’s eyes and head. As divers go down, they are likely to try to make eye contact with the referee. It is a natural reaction for players to look for the decision maker (the referee) and to see where he is positioned. Second, evaluate the attacker’s arms – bracing the

fall. Attackers who go down as a result of an unfair challenge, often times do not have the opportunity to brace their fall. Players who plan their fall, will look to cushion their fall by extending their arms out or by rolling on their shoulder.

Remember, players who utilize diving/simulation are cautioned for unsporting behavior.

• Video Clip: Chicago at Columbus (70:00) ‐ Watch the clip and pay particular attention to the attacker’s actions. How does the criteria above help the referee identify the action is simulation/diving and, thus, a yellow card?

• Video Clip: TFC at Chicago (11:02) ‐ In the clip provided, the referee decides that the attacker’s action were an “intentional act” in which there was no contact with the goalkeeper or the contact was created by the attacker’s intentional actions. Hence, the attacker is cautioned by the referee for unsporting behavior.

o In reviewing the three views of the attacker’s actions, determine whether the player going to the ground is: A result of a foul by the goalkeeper ‐ If the referee determines that the goalkeeper makes contact with

the attacker in a manner that would have prevented the attacker from keeping possession of the ball, then the referee should award a penalty kick and caution the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior;

A “human act” ‐ Incidental contact that was accidental in nature and not a cautionable offense: the result of a collision by both players causing the attacker to go to the ground; or

An “intentional act” ‐ The attacker’s actions were predetermined and done to deceive and cheat the referee into giving a decision in his favor. As stated previously, when contact exists between an attacker and a defender, it is difficult for the referee to justify cautioning the attacker for simulation/diving (unsporting behavior). The exception may be the attacker’s actions after the completion of the simulation. In this event, the attacker may be guilty of embellishment and be issued a yellow card for unsporting behavior.

o In this clip, diving, simulation, or embellishment do not exist. This means that there is no “intentional act” of deception involved and a caution is not warranted and should not have been issued. The referee must then examine the situation and determine if either the goalkeeper has fouled the attacker (restart with a penalty kick and a caution to the goalkeeper) or whether there is a “human act” which involves incidental contact that has resulted from a fair challenge for the ball by the goalkeeper (no foul and the game would be restated appropriately).

• Video Clip (Added 9/25/2008): New York at Columbus (7:45) ‐ The attacker is in possession of the ball and is entering the penalty area. Hence, the attacker is in an advantageous location. The attacker sees that his chances of advancing the ball are minimal as there are four to five defenders within range to close him down. Sensing his chances for advancement are almost nonexistent, the attacker takes a risk that the referee will be fooled and dives. The attacker falls to the ground, within the penalty area, hoping to cheat the game and gain an unearned penalty kick. Notice, there is no contact by the defenders and the attacker’s immediate reaction to the “no call” by the referee is to get up and chase the ball.

In this case, the referee would be justified in cautioning the player for unsporting behavior. Law 12, “Fouls and Misconduct” and FIFA’s recent addendum to the Laws entitled “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees,” state that a player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior if the player “attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation).”

Note, this case of simulation occurred early in the match and served as a model for similar additional simulation/embellishment later in the match. Early recognition and management of this form of gamesmanship should work as a deterrent for the remainder of the game.

TWO MAJOR CLASSES OF UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR In considering misconduct, it is important that players must not feel that the “first foul” in the game is free. In other words, because the game is relatively young or the player has just entered the game, players must not feel they can commit fouls that endanger the safety of the opponent or are “reckless” in nature and go unpunished. Do not allow players to be exempt from misconduct regardless of the time of the game or how long they have been in the game. 100% misconducts must be given. These types of unsporting fouls generally fall into two main categories:

1. Tackles 2. Tactical Fouls

TACKLES

In the case of Tackles, there are several video clips that provide examples of fouls that must be sanctioned with a caution: • Video Clip: Chivas at Galaxy (5:30). Notice the time of the game, the referee correctly cautions the player for unsporting

behavior despite the early time in the game. This type of tackle must be sanctioned as it is “reckless” and is done with

complete disregard of the danger to, or the consequences for, the opponent. The fact that the player got some of the ball should not enter into the referee’s decision because the defender went through the opponent (clear contact is made) to get to the ball. By issuing a caution in this situation, the referee sets the tone for the remaining 84 minutes of the match.

• Video Clip: Chivas at Galaxy (79:37). In this case, the player committing the foul has no intent to play the ball. This is evident by the lateness of the challenge and the location of the ball at the time of the challenge. Notice that the player disguises the exposure of his cleats in the challenge by using his upper body (freeze the view at 79:41). Failure to call this foul, leads to retaliation by the first attacker fouled. Referees must recognize these types of fouls and punish them with a yellow card.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at Chivas USA (25:14) ‐ This is a reckless foul where the defender kicks the opponent in the trail leg after the ball is gone. Keys to identification: ball is gone, contact with the trail leg/foot, and stops the attacker from progressing into open space (the attacking third of the field) with the ball.

• Video Clip: Chicago at Dallas (1:24 – second half) ‐ Another reckless foul committed with complete disregard of the danger to the opponent. Keys to identification: the tackle is committed from behind, the only way for the defender to play the ball would be after contact with the attacker, the bent/trail leg is what makes contact with the attacker, the distance of the tackle is short and the lead foot (exposed cleats) is not making contact with the opponent. Should the lead foot and cleats make contact with the back of the attacker’s leg/foot, the referee would be justified in considering a red card for serious foul play as the challenge would be defined as “using excessive force” because the tackle could now potentially injure the opponent. Because the player is injured, the referee waits for him to get up and then issues the yellow card.

• Video Clip: Colorado at Toronto (28:12) ‐ A caution is required in this situation given, amongst other criteria, the danger facing the attacker. The defender has no regard for the safety of the opponent as he initiates a reckless upper body challenge. This challenge is similar to others provided in prior “Referee Week In Reviews” in which cautions were required. Keys to identification: the proximity to the sign boards and cement pavement (increases the likelihood of injury), the speed at which the body charge is initiated, the extension of the forearm to make contact, the “lining up” of the player by the defender just prior to the foul and the fact that if the defender does not foul the attacker, the attacker and the ball will be behind him headed to goal. Hence, a foul and caution is required as the defender’s action has to be considered as breaking down a promising attack. Note, the AR can also provide assistance to the referee if he has electronic flags and has a good view of the situation as contact is made. By beeping the referee, the AR would be sending a signal that he has seen a foul. The AR can also provide a “silent signal” that the foul is worthy of a caution by patting his breast pocket indicating his opinion that the foul involves misconduct.

• Video Clip: TFC at Chicago (52:36) ‐ The referee is close to play. Key to the referee’s ability to identify the defender’s action is that the referee does not turn immediately follow the ball as it is played away by the attacker who is eventually fouled. The referee anticipates a late challenge based upon the defender’s body language and run up to the attacker as the attacker passes the ball. This is not the typical sliding tackle. This is a form of reckless challenge that involves a defender who stays on his feet. Late contact is made with the upper thigh/leg of the defender as well as the attacker’s foot to the back of the attacker’s leg/ankle. The referee must recognize this as unsporting behavior and issue a yellow card. Note, key to identification is the tardiness of the challenge, the fact the challenge is from behind, and the fact that the ball is not within playing distance.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at Chivas USA (92:40) ‐ This clip shows a player intent on taking down an opponent who is traveling at a high speed without the ball. The fouler tries to disguise his act so that it would not be recognized by the referee. As one player attempts to chase and track down the opponent with the ball, he is tripped in such a way that he does not know the challenge is coming; hence, he is at risk for a more serious result. The subtle but dangerous trip is done with complete disregard to the danger presented the opponent. It is therefore reckless and must be cautioned. The fact that the game is in additional time (92:40) should not be a consideration. The fact that the score is tied at 2‐2 should not be a consideration.

TACTICAL FOULS

Tactical fouls are an area that requires more consistency in application. These are the type of fouls that don’t necessarily endanger the safety of an opponent but are committed in order to either strip a team of an effective attack (like shirt pulling) or are committed to gain an advantage in attack. Players work very hard to hide these types of fouls and make them difficult for the referee to recognize. Some may call them gamesmanship but, in effect, they are fouls designed to cheat the game and/or disrupt attacking play. Often times, these fouls seem so minor that the referee fails to recognize the reason the player is committing the foul. To aid in identifying such situations, the following are general characteristics of tactical fouls:

• Usually in attacking end of the field or midfield. Defensive players commit the foul because they acknowledge that the attacking team will have a credible opportunity to go‐to‐goal with a high degree of effectiveness. It normally involves speed of the attack.

• Numerical advantage. Committed by defenders to prevent an attacking team or player from gaining a numeric advantage – not to be confused with denying a goal scoring opportunity.

• Time to defend. Tactical fouls are committed to give the defending team time to get goal‐side of the ball. In other words, to give the defending team (as opposed to the attacking team) time to get a numeric advantage between the ball and the goal.

• Prevent the ball and/or player from advancing. Normally, committed to prevent the ball and/or attacking player from getting into space behind a defender or behind the defense. This assists in developing a numeric advantage. It is the “if the ball gets by, the player doesn’t or if the player gets by, the ball doesn’t” theory. Look for open areas of space that the ball would normally be played into or where an attacking player would run into if they were to receive the ball.

• The defender knows he is beat. Defenders commit this foul because they know they have been beat by the attacker. Look for one vs. one situation.

• Minor nature of the foul. These fouls are often times considered minor because they normally don’t involve hard, physical contact. Because of this “soft” classification, they often go unpunished. Shirt pulling or using their body to make contact with the opponent and impede their progress are frequent examples.

The following video clips provide for examples of fouls of a tactical nature designed to interfere with attacking soccer:

• Video Clip: DC at Real Salt Lake (43:20). This is a clear case where the defender knows the attacker will get behind him, into the space. This is a tactical foul intended to destroy attacking play. Hence, a yellow card must be issued. Note that the referee seems to be spending more time dealing with the player fouled than the player committing the offense.

• Video Clip: SJ at Colorado (66:44). This is an example of a tactical foul that requires a YELLOW CARD. Several items cause the referee to miss this cautionable offense. First, the referee is too far from play. He is standing and not accelerating as play develops. Consequently, he is screened and does not see the foul. The referee must move on the field so as to anticipate play and always have a clear line of vision of the action. Second, the AR makes the call despite the fact that he is 28 yards away. Clearly, this is a decision a well‐positioned referee would be able to make without AR assistance. Third, the referee needs to “smell” this tactical offense and take his time to look to the AR for confirmation that the foul was cautionable. The AR, in turn, must then indicate a yellow card is needed. Note the AR should not be making the call here but rather assisting the referee with the decision.

• Video Clip: Colorado at Chicago (11:04). Another foul committed early in the game. A foul that is designed to take away an opportunity for the attacking team to get the ball behind the defense. There is approximately 22 yards of space in front of the attacker, all in the penalty area. Referees must be aware of this. With the speed of the attacker, it does not take much for them to go down. If the referee blows the whistle with similar fouls, a yellow card must be issued. Notice that the player who commits the foul does not argue.

• Video Clip: San Jose at New York (35:20). Similar to video clip 11 but, in this case, the referee correctly issues a caution as the defender impedes the attackers advance. It is a tactical foul intended on destroying an attacking run with the ball.

• Video Clip: Chivas at Galaxy (7:00). Early in the game, the attacker is hoping to catch everyone off guard with a tactical foul aimed at gaining an advantage in the attack. The attacker is taking a risk that the offense will go unnoticed by the referee and AR. The assistance provided by the AR in a case like this is critical since it is a counter attack and the AR has a clear view of the action. The referee must punish this type of cheating with a yellow card. Although the offense is not committed against an opponent, it is an offence committed against the spirit of the game. The gravity of the offense can be measured in the result (not necessarily the action itself) should the offense not have been seen by the officiating team.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at D.C. (78:21) ‐ In this clip, the skillful and creative player uses his technical ability to beat four defenders. As he beats the last player, he knows he has space in which he can attack and carry the ball. Seeing this, the defender decides he has no other option than to foul. Although the foul is not representative of the standard hard, sliding tackles common place in today’s game, it does prevent the talented player from advancing and from possibly breaking down the defense further with a pass or his dribbling ability. Referees must be aware of defensive tactics and be prepared to intervene as necessary.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at Chivas USA (60:00) ‐ The act of holding the opponent is not cautionable by itself. The Laws of the Game require that a player be cautioned for unsporting behavior if they “commit a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack.” This foul is not a tactical foul as defined previously:

o The location of the foul does not make it a strong candidate for a tactical foul. It is in the defensive third of the field only 12 yards or so from the goal line. There is no credible go‐to‐goal opportunity.

o Because the foul is committed deep in the defensive third of the field, there is no possible numeric advantage for the attack. There is plenty of time for defending players to get goal side of the ball and the opponent.

o The defender’s foul does not prevent the attack from getting behind the defense or from carrying the ball with speed into open space.

The referee decided that this challenge was cautionable when, in fact, it was a careless foul committed in the defensive third of the field. Consequently, a yellow card was not necessary and a simple foul would suffice for this type of action in this part (defensive third) of the field.

TACKLES FROM BEHIND Tackles from behind can present a myriad of issues for officials as they must quickly and accurately assess a situation that can be both extremely dangerous and extremely volatile. For the most part, referees can eliminate such dangerous tackles from the game through the use of preventative refereeing by setting the tone through personality and communication with players to explain reckless tackles from behind that could endanger the safety of the opponent would not be tolerated.

• Video Clip: New York at New England (2:07) ‐ As this clip begins, note the time – only 2:07 into the game. Ask yourself, “What is going through the referee’s mind at this early stage of the game?” It is the opening moments of the game but this should not deter the referee from taking appropriate action. In prior “Weeks In Review,” the message was clearly sent that players should not feel that the first foul of the game is “free.” In other words, just because the game is in the early stages, the referee must not hesitate to deal with fouls that are 100 percent misconduct. This tackle from behind is such a foul and must be dealt with as such by the referee. The foul is directly from behind and committed in a reckless manner. Additionally, there is no chance for the defender to play the ball as he must go through the attacker’s legs and body to even attempt to make contact with the ball. This is the perfect opportunity for the referee to set an early tone and put earn control of the game. As a general comment, referees need to set the tone early in the game. Setting the tone does not have to be with a caution – it can be done by imparting personality early on. Consider the following strategy: Make the first hard (non‐cautionable) foul seem larger than it really is. In other words, make your presence known in a visual and verbal manner that positively communicates to all participants that the referee will be directing today’s orchestra.

• Video Clip: Columbus at Galaxy (31:22) ‐ This is a tackle that is complicated by the fact that the player executing the tackle is one caution away from a MLS‐enforced one game suspension for the accumulation of too many yellow cards. Prior to the game, the referee is aware of this situation and, unfortunately, allows this knowledge to influence his decision not to issue a yellow card for a tackle from behind that is also tactical in nature. This foul is not a borderline cautionable offense where the referee can use discretion. The foul must be cautioned as unsporting behavior. As you view the clip, ask yourself the following two questions:

o Is the foul reckless? The foul is committed in total disregard to the player’s safety and it is made after the ball has passed the defender, thereby making it impossible for the defender to cleanly make a play on the ball.

o Is the foul tactical? “Week In Review 7” provided characteristics officials can apply when evaluating a foul to determine if it is tactical and, thus, should be cautioned for unsporting behavior. As the play progresses, the defending player’s intent is obvious: prevent the ball and the attacker from advancing because he is beat and the result will be an attacking opportunity at goal. Due to the fact that the foul is both reckless and tactical, the referee has no choice but to caution the defender for unsporting behavior. Knowing that the player is one caution away from suspension should not factor into the referee’s responsibility to the game.

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT A top class referee is able to identify and deal with players who persistently infringe the Laws of the Game. At the same time, referees must possess the courage to issue a second caution to a player and then send him off for receiving a second caution in the same match. Let us first explore the concept of Persistent Infringement. Managing persistent infringement requires that the referee maintain an ongoing database of information during the game. As fouls are committed, the referee should use the database to store information regarding the players involved, the time, and the frequency of the fouls. As the referee processes the information, he must decide when the stored information requires official action (yellow card). This is not easy due to the speed of the game and the other game management issues confronting the referee. Despite the difficulty in processing the stored information, it is critical that the referee possess the skills necessary to identify players who fall into the categories below and then address them. PLAYERS WHO REPEATEDLY COMMIT FOULS

To disrupt play and ruin the entertainment value of a game, players persistently/repeatedly foul opponents. Such conduct often causes the frustration level of opponents to rise and, therefore, the intensity level of the game to increase. This can lead to dissent and retaliation. Recognizing players who persistently/repeatedly foul opponents is critical to game control. Once the referee has identified the disruptive actions, the referee must pick the appropriate time to caution the culprit for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game. There is no magic number of fouls that define persistence. The severity, the frequency, the time between the fouls committed, and the atmosphere of the game are all factors that the referee should consider when determining whether a player is

guilty of persistent infringement. In writing the game report, the referee should state that the caution was issued for “persistently infringing the Laws of the Game.”

PLAYERS WHO ARE REPEATEDLY FOULED

Often times an individual player is the target of repeated fouls – fouls from not one player but from multiple players. This targeted player can be the skillful/creative play maker, the player who gets repeated touches on the ball. In this case, persistent infringement is evaluated in terms of the number and nature of the fouls committed against a single opponent as opposed to the number of fouls committed by a single player. The referee should also consider the time span of the fouls.

Note: When a referee identifies a case of persistent infringement that falls under category 2 above (“Players who are repeated fouled”), the game report should list the caution as being issued for “unsporting behavior.” This should be the case as this is more of a philosophical approach to persistent infringement.

According to U.S. Soccer’s DVD entitled, “Persistent Infringement,” referees should consider the following when evaluating persistent infringement:

• Read the game tactically • Be aware of creative players • Be aware of destructive tactics aimed at destroying the rhythm of the game • Be aware of the time span of the fouls: three fouls in three minutes vs. three fouls occurring in minutes 2, 47, and 88. • Promote the beautiful game

The following video clips provide examples of officials recognizing (or failing to) persistent infringement and examines the important aspects in identifying persistence:

• Video Clip: Chicago at FC Dallas (25:44) ‐ The game is in the 26th minute. A player commits a hard foul in midfield which the referee calls. Although the clip does not fully show the referee’s action, he uses personality to call the player over and his player management skills to send an appropriate message to the player that he needs to modify his behavior. The action, on the part of the referee, “sets the table” for the next foul by the defender (what is not shown is the same player committed a previous foul at 22 minutes). Approximately 1:40 later, the same defender commits another foul that takes away an attacking play by preventing the attacker from getting around the corner and into the penalty area. Having just warned the defender about his questionable play, the referee now issues a yellow card for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game. This is excellent execution on the part of the referee because he “drew his line in the sand” on the first foul by positively imposing his personality on the game by warning the defender. Remember, there is no set number of fouls necessary to define persistent infringement. In this case, it was the time span between fouls and the severity of the two fouls that led to the yellow card. The referee used his databank recalling the same player committed fouls at 22 and 26 minutes and a third foul at 28 minutes.

• Video Clip: New England at Houston (53:03) ‐ In this clip, a player enters the match at halftime. Then, in a span of 34 minutes is involved in three questionable plays – two of which are potentially cautionable on their own. After the first foul, at 53:05, the referee exhibits his displeasure with the player’s actions. Approximately six minutes later, the same player goes in for an aerial challenge that the referee determines is fair. But, remember, the referee’s mental databank needs to register the players involved in hard challenges. Finally, some 34 minutes after the initial hard challenge, the player commits another careless (even potentially reckless on its own) foul from behind where there is no opportunity to play the ball. At this point, the referee must be able to recognize that the player is persistently infringing the Laws of the Game and caution him.

SECOND CAUTION Referees must have the courage to issue the second yellow card despite the possible ramifications (one team playing shorthanded) and despite the time in the game. In the case of the video clips below, there are two clear cautionable tackles each one, on their own, representing unsporting behavior. Both tackles are reckless in nature therefore requiring the referee to sanction the tackler with a caution. Remember, that the second caution and subsequent red card is to remove from the field a player who has previously been officially notified through the first caution that the player’s behavior is unacceptable and that, upon repetition, the player will not be permitted to take any further part in the game. In the clips below, the referee sends a message with the first caution but the player chooses not to receive the message.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at FC Dallas (17:00) ‐ This clip not only shows a reckless tackle but it also contains other valuable lessons. First, the referee is keen enough to award an advantage to the attacker who has sufficient space to advance with the ball. Secondly, when the referee calls the foul, he is excellently positioned. He is close to the play and possesses a clear

line of vision to the offense. The tackle is clumsy and late and it is committed at an angle in which the defender cannot play the ball. Hence, a caution is issued for unsporting behavior.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at FC Dallas (37:47) ‐ Just under twenty minutes later, the same two players are involved in another late challenge. This is an unnecessary challenge as the attacker is moving away from the penalty area; however, the speed at which the attacker is moving with the ball leads to the reckless tackle. Also, note the defending player’s reaction after the tackle. He seems apologetic as though he knows he committed a cautionable offense. Once again, the referee is correct in deciding that the tackle is worthy of a caution for unsporting behavior. Thus, the referee displays the yellow card and then the red card for receiving a second caution in the same match. Given the game is still in the early stages, this is a courageous and correct decision.

• Video Clip: TFC at Colorado (69:32) ‐ The player who commits the foul does so having already been cautioned. The player commits a reckless upper body challenge. The force of the challenge is unnecessary and places the attacker/opponent in a dangerous position. The fact that the players are near the sign boards and the fact that the challenge is done in such a manner that it propels the attacker toward the boards, should heighten the referee’s sensitivity and should be taken into consideration when evaluating the severity and the level of the contact. Notice the location of the ball and play when the challenge is initiated: the ball is clearly going out if it has not done so already. So, the referee must ask himself as he evaluates the severity of the punishment, “why is the opponent making such a challenge given the ball is not playable and is out of play?”

o Observe how the referee first shows the yellow card as he judged the offense as unsporting behavior. After displaying the yellow card, the referee immediately raises the red card signifying the player is being sent off for “receiving a second caution in the same match.” The urgency shown by the referee in issuing the cards keeps the situation from escalating to game misconduct (actions by multiple opponents).

• Video Clip (Added 10/30/2008): Dallas at Galaxy (27:43) ‐ This clip is of a correct first yellow card issued to the player who will receive his second caution in video clip 2. The foul committed by the defender falls under the “reckless” classification. It is “reckless” because it is done with complete disregard to the consequences to the opponent. Further, it is unsporting behavior because the foul is committed for the ”tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack.” As the attacker progresses with the ball, look for the space in front of him. This is the space that the attacker would be able to exploit if it were not for the foul. Getting the ball and the player into the more than 30 yards of open territory would provide the attacking team a “promising attack.” Hence, the defender is cognizant of the opportunity for the attacker and decides that the best course of action is to prevent him from getting into the space behind the defense by fouling. Watch the defender’s legs as he executes the tackle. One leg is raised as contact is made in order to prevent the attacker from being able to jump over the tackle and keep possession of the ball. This is not a red card tackle as it is not done with “excessive force” or done in a manner that could potentially injure the opponent. The tackle is from the side, not straight on, and the contact is made with a bent leg of the defender and not with a straight leg with cleats exposed. Given these characteristics, the referee is correct in determining the tackle is unsporting behavior and, thus, a yellow card.

• Video Clip (Added 10/30/2008): Dallas at Galaxy (3:26 – second half) ‐ The game is still relatively early (41 minutes remaining). Despite the time remaining, the referee is faced with a difficult decision: Do I send a player off for his second cautionable offense? The same defender, who was cautioned in video clip 1 above, is again the focus of another unsporting tackle. The attacker is in possession of the ball and progressing with speed. Similar to the example in video clip 1, the attacker has space in front of him that he can exploit. There is approximately 12 yards of open field facing the attacker, in the attacking third, if he is able to get around the challenging defender. The defender must track the attacker down and trip him up from the side to prevent the advancement of the player with the ball. Once again, this is another tactical and reckless foul intended to impede the progress of the attack and the attacking player. Although the foul is not committed with malice, it is committed in a manner that is “reckless” and meets the criteria for unsporting behavior in that the foul committed was tactical in nature so that the opponent’s attack is broken up. Remember, often times, defenders, who may be beat, result to tactics to ensure that the man/attacker will not get by them because it as easier to take out (foul) the man/attacker than cleanly win the ball. The referee correctly cautions the player for unsporting behavior and then sends him off for receiving a second caution in the same match.

Note: The referee uses proper mechanics to issue the second yellow card and ensuing red card. First, the referee must show the yellow card. Once this card has been displayed, the referee may then display the red card to indicate that the player has been sent off. This is an example of a well executed issuance of a second yellow card and resulting send off.

DELAYING RESTARTS OF PLAY Delaying the Restart of Play generally falls into one of two categories:

• A team attempting to slow the restart of play by an opponent (standing in front of the ball, kicking the ball away, engaging the referee in “debate” over a foul forcing the referee to delay the restart while managing the players, etc)

• A team attempting to slow the restart of play on their own restarts (free kicks, goal kicks, throw‐ins, corner kicks, etc)

There are many situations in games where players of one team will attempt to delay the restart of play by the opponent, or where one team will attempt to slow the pace at which they put the ball back into play themselves. Referees must be aware of these situations and deal with them promptly. There are many talented free kick specialists now playing in MLS. Hence, the “red zone” becomes even more critical. Defending teams want to take away any advantage the kicker may have. Get 10 yards and maintain 10 yards. Additionally, referees must be cognizant of the score and the time in the match. Teams ahead in score will often “push the envelope” and test the referee to see if they can slow the opposing restarts down. We must deal with these two scenarios by being active and having a presence around the ball/situation.

• Video Clip: New England at Kansas City (43:45): The referee makes a solid foul decision. New England is ahead 3‐1; hence, every second that ticks off the clock is to their advantage. The referee must be aware of this. Earlier actions by defending players send messages that must resonate with the referee. Once we are aware, we can then take action to prevent the delay. The referee should sprint to the spot of the foul and ensure the defender’s opportunity to interpose himself in front of the ball is minimized. Once New England has delayed, the referee’s use of personality to address the two players is fantastic.

• Video Clip: Toronto at Galaxy (46:00). Wall management will become increasingly important and critical since over 30% of goals are scored from restarts. Referees must reduce the time the ball is out of play, get a FULL 10 yards, and ensure no one advances to block the kick (not permit free kick interference). If a player advances and makes contact with the ball, the referee is empowered to retake the kick without having to caution the player but allow the team the opportunity that they earned. Note, in this clip, it takes 1:40 from foul to the taking of the free kick.

Specific notice should be taken of goalkeepers attempting to delay restarts and/or waste time through violation of the “6‐Second Rule” or through prolonging the taking of a goal kick, etc. There have been instances of the goalkeeper keeping possession of the ball, in his hands, for more than six seconds. While we realize this is a technical offense and seldom called, we are asking officials to be proactive in ensuring the goalkeeper release the ball within the 6 seconds. A whistle from the referee should not be required if preventative work is done.

• Referees and ARs must be cognizant of situations in which a goalkeeper may want to hold the ball for extended periods. When a team is in the lead, the goalkeeper will “push the envelope” so as to reduce the time the ball is in play.

• Look at the time and the score. • Be proactive. Move close to the goalkeeper while he has the ball in his hands so a visual message is sent. Have a verbal

exchange as you move to the keeper. • Motion to the goalkeeper, with your hands/arm, encouraging him to put the ball in play. • The next time the ball goes out near the goalkeeper, have a word with him. • Talk with the captain on the team and ask him to speak with the goalkeeper. • The AR can also assist by communicating and getting the goalkeeper’s attention and encourage more rapid release of the

ball. • NOTE: THESE REFEREE TACTICS ARE APPLICABLE TO OTHER TYPES OF GOALKEEPER DELAYS LIKE DELAYING THE TAKING OF

A GOAL KICK.

MISCONDUCT BY SUBSTITUTES AND SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS In the following example, a substitute warming up was first cautioned and then sent off (red carded) for improper behavior. The Laws of the Game specifically empower the referee to caution or send off any “player, substitute, or substituted player.” In each case, the referee must show the yellow or red card. A unique situation arose in the game, in which a substitute who was warming up behind the goal line but near the senior assistant referee (AR) became verbally involved with the AR. Substitute players are held to the same standard as players regarding conduct despite being off the field. Consequently, they may be cautioned or red carded. The Laws give the referee the power to caution a substitute or substituted player if he commits any of the following three offenses:

• Unsporting behavior, • Dissent by word or action, and • Delaying the restart of play.

o Note: substitutes and substituted players cannot be cautioned for the four (of seven) other offences for which players can receive a yellow card.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at Chicago (73:50) ‐ This clip shows a substitute player who is cautioned for dissent and then given a straight red card for “using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures.” Notice the substitute players warming up behind the goal line as play is in progress. This is the designated area at this stadium for substitutes to warm up. Despite being in front of the sign boards, the subs are not permitted to approach the field or the AR to express their opinions, dissent, or become involved in any interaction with any active player. Watch at 73:59 as the AR signals to the referee to caution one of the substitutes warming up. Although the clip does not show it, the referee displays the yellow card to the sub after cautioning the defender for the foul. The referee’s initial focus is on the two players involved in the foul as this is the situation that has the opportunity to escalate. Hence, the referee only deals with the substitute after he has dealt with the other two players and he is certain that the initial situation has been resolved. Once the referee feels the first situation is resolved, he can turn his attention to the act of the substitute and caution him, based upon the information received from the AR, for dissent by word and action. At the time the caution is issued, the referee warns the player that further misconduct will result in him being sent off.Just over a minute later, as play is being restarted from the spot of the foul, the AR gets the referee’s attention by wiggling his flag overhead and calling him over. At this time, the referee approaches the AR and is advised to red card the player for using offensive, insulting or abusive language. Refer to “Law 12 ‐ Dissent” for a set of standards officials can utilize to define dissent and abusive language: public, personal, and provocative. The referee correctly displays the red card and motions to the player to leave the area around the field of play.

Note: it is not recommended that a referee leave the field of play to display a card to a substitute or a substituted player. Referees should attempt to remain on the field of play as substitutes may not enter the field without your permission and the boundary lines create another visual barrier between the referee and the substitutes.

REMOVING VIOLENCE FROM THE GAME – THE RED CARD One of the primary responsibilities of officials is to ensure that all players are safe, and to deal with situations in which players cross the line and endanger the safety of opponents. There are several factors that go into evaluating whether a situation involved misconduct that warrants a send off for Serious Foul Play or Violent Conduct:

• Speed of play and the tackle • Intent • Aggressive nature • Position of the tackler – in particular, his legs • Opportunity to play the ball • Atmosphere of the game

In instances where a player uses “excessive force” or “endangers the safety of the opponent,” referees must act quickly and decisively to remove these types of tackles from our game.

• Video Clip (Added 10/30/2008): Kansas City at New England (41:26) ‐ The tackle illustrated in this clip is a calculated tackle that is intended to, at a minimum, endanger the opponent’s safety. The tackle is executed with “excessive force” and is “brutal” in nature. Hence, it is a clear red card for serious foul play. There should be no question, when applying the aforementioned criteria, that the player committing the tackle should be sent off. The aggressive nature of the tackle should be the first warning sign. The defending player initiates his lunge toward the opponent from a long distance and at a high speed. Hence, the force of contact is tremendous. The cleats are exposed and the legs/knees are locked and headed straight at the opponent’s leg. No attempt is made for the ball; solely the opponent. Aside from a correct red card for serious foul play, the clip illustrates solid assistance by the AR. The AR not only calls the foul but the AR can be seen indicating that the foul is deserving of a red card. Watch closely as the AR pats this back right pocket in order to indicate to the referee that a red card is warranted (this is a pre‐arranged signal established in the pre‐game meeting amongst the referee crew).

The referee does well to bring out the red card immediately. This urgency dispels any potential frustration and escalation resulting from a perception of inaction on the part of the officials. By issuing the card quickly, the referee sends a message that he is dealing with the incident and the players do not need to take action into their own hands.

• Video Clip: New England vs. Chicago (6:05). Although early in the game, the referee was well positioned to make a determination that the tackle involved “excessive force” and could have injured the player. Of note is that the referee also cautioned #21 for dissent and showing disrespect to the referee.

• Video Clip: Columbus vs. NY (80:45). The decision on the part of the referee was to issue a second caution; however, the National Referee Office prefers a straight red card for serious foul play. The tackle is from the front, over the top, and the speed and distance of the tackle make the likelihood of playing the ball minimal.

• Video Clip: Real Salt Lake at DC (87:54). Looking at the foul itself, this is serious foul play. The defender is beat and he uncontrollably lunges at the attacker from a long distance. The intent is not to play the ball but to stop the attacker and potentially injure him. The defender has an outstretched leg and sends the rest of his body sliding through the attacker. Look at the raised nature of the defender’s tackling foot – high and late.

• Video Clip: New England at FC Dallas (90:00). This foul represents a red card regardless of the time or the score. This is a late tackle that uses “excessive force” and actually injures the opponent. Notice the speed of the tackler as well as the aggressive nature of the tackle (lunging with no opportunity to play the ball). The attacking player’s ankle is exposed to the player’s cleats. The defender’s intent is to send a message to the attacker. Hence, the referee must send a message (red card) to the defender and the other players that such action is not permitted.

• Video Clip: San Jose at DC (37:05 – second half) ‐ Clip 3 provides a clear example of the referee applying the criteria that has been established to determine whether a foul is merely “reckless” (due to its aggressive nature) and requires a yellow card or “using excessive force” (exceeding the necessary use of force and in danger of injuring the opponent) and requires a red card.

• Video Clip: Colorado at San Jose (76:45) ‐ This clip represents a tackle in which the tackler/defender utilizes “excessive force” and “endangers the safety of an opponent.” Both of these components are provided in the Laws of the Game as factors that make challenges serious foul play and offenses for which a player must be red carded. The defender lunges at the opponent – from behind – using excessive force. The attacker is unaware of the defender’s uncontrolled challenge and is unable to protect himself from the tackle. Notice how a scissors‐type tackle is used. The defender’s trailing leg connects with the back of the attacker’s ankles and Achilles. Consequently, the defender should be sent off for serious foul play. Keys to identifying the tackle as a red card are: ball gone, challenge from behind, no opportunity exists to cleanly dispossess the opponent of the ball, and two legs are used in defender’s lunging at the attacker. This type of tackle does not belong in the game at any level. Note, the AR should be prepared to provide assistance to the referee as the foul occurs near the touchline. The AR should feel empowered to use the visual signal referenced in video clip 2 above to signal his opinion of the tackle and to reinforce the seriousness of the foul.

• Video Clip: Seattle at Portland (32:40) – In this clip, the referee applies the proper criteria relating to the correct interpretation of red card tackles and, consequently, makes the correct decision to send the player off for serious foul play. Below is the criteria:

o Speed of play and the tackle o Intent o Aggressive nature o Position of the tackler – in particular, his legs o Opportunity to play the ball o Atmosphere (the referee’s feeling of what has occurred thus far on the field in the match) of the game

The tackle, although not done with the force or speed of many others, does meet a number of the aforementioned red card criteria. Remember, all the criteria do not have to be present in each red card situation. The referee is well positioned to judge the defender’s action and evaluate the criteria. T he following evaluates the four most obvious of the aforementioned criteria. Remember, the referee must make the same analysis but in a split second. Using a quick but thoughtful pause prior to making a decision can assist officials in ensuring all the factors are evaluated.

o Intent ‐ The defender/tackler comes from behind in a manner that is intended to send a message and “endangers the safety of the opponent.” There is no need for a challenge of this type. Watch how the defender starts his run from 10 yards away and has the opportunity to control his challenge (stop his run) and merely contain the attacker. Instead, the defender decides to continue his run and goes through the opponent’s legs. The defender’s intent is clear: take the opponent out and send a message.

o Aggressive nature ‐ Although the tackler does not leave his feet, he does aggressively make contact near the knee and the Achilles of the attacker. In addition, the defender continues the motion or swipe of his leg through his opponent thereby taking both his legs out from under him.

o Position of the tackler ‐ The tackler runs through the opponent, from the side, and the tackler uses his legs then to insure the contact is more severe than just with upper body contact.

o Opportunity to play the ball ‐ No opportunity to play the ball exists. The defender starts his run 10 yards from the attacker and is two or more yards from him when the attacker passes the ball. By the time the defender gets to the attacker, the ball is approximately five yards gone.

• Video Clip: Seattle at Portland (84:37) ‐ Approximately 52 minutes after the red card issued in clip 1 above, another challenge occurs that meets the criteria for a red card. Unfortunately, the referee fails to correctly apply the aforementioned requirements and decides to caution the tackler for a challenge that endangers the opponent’s safety and thereby is serious foul play. Pay particular attention to the following and decide, for yourself, under which criteria the actions fall.

o Tackle is directly from behind. o Tackle is initiated from close distance which leads to more hard body contact than just contact with the feet/legs. o As the defender follows through with the force of his tackle, he uses his legs to “scissor” the attacker and cut his

legs out from under him. The referee should look for ways to enhance his view and positioning. In the clip, the referee is standing flat footed (not moving as the ball is moving) and would be better served to move from behind the player that may be obstructing a portion of his view. Assistant referees (ARs) should be empowered by the referee to assist with identifying the tackle as a red card. This is a critical game situation. If the AR is certain the tackle is serious foul play, the AR should provide the information to the referee by either using a pre‐arranged “silent signal” (pointing to the back pocket) or by calling the referee over and providing verbal confirmation. Failure by a referee to correctly identify this tackle as a red card, is viewed as an injustice by the players in the clip (examine their reactions). The result is frustration. Frustration often times leads to retaliation as players feel the referee is not protecting them.

• Video Clip: Chicago at New England (63:43) ‐ Tackles and certain fouls can be disguised by players; hence, it takes a critical and sharp eye to identify the actual result of the player’s challenge. As this clip is viewed, look at how the first challenge (which goes unpunished) is disguised by the tackler as an attempt to play the ball. Remember, the Laws of the Game specify the following when evaluating whether a player’s action constitutes serious foul play (use these definitions along with the criteria provided in the two prior clips):

o The use of excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball. o The tackle endangers the safety of the opponent. o A tackler lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one

or both legs, with excessive force and endangers the safety of an opponent. The referee does not identify the first challenge as a foul and send off and allows play to continue. The missed first call leads to a second retaliatory foul that the referee is forced to caution as unsporting behavior. The first foul is a red card challenge. Unnecessary excessive force is used, the defender comes in late, with a straight leg that lunges at the opponent’s leg/shin, makes contact with exposed cleats and endangers the safety of the opponent. The referee needs to identify the first challenge and issue the appropriate punishment which would be a red card for violent conduct. This would eliminate the second taking‐matters‐into‐your‐own‐hands‐tackle and resulting yellow card.

Referees must also be aware of violence that occurs when the game is often most vulnerable to such intrusions – on restarts of play. In particular, the use of elbows to fight for position down field of a restart has become a common issue. Over the past several years, there have been increasing incidents of elbows on restart services into the penalty area. These all have similar characteristics that referees should use to their advantage in detecting these infringements:

• They are long services • Attacking players are attempting to move into an advantageous position • Defenders attempt to disguise the elbow as a forearm to the opponent’s chest as a normal run of play.

Referees, ARs, and 4th officials must be prepared. On the long services, focus should be on the group of players and not on the ball. ARs must be given the leeway to intervene. 4th officials should move slightly down the midline to view the collection of players. Referees need to position themselves so that their main focus is on where the ball will land yet manage the ball with peripheral vision.

• Video Clip: New England at Kansas City (47:15). Unfortunate for the referee team, an elbow to the head of the opponent went unnoticed. Note the referee’s position. A more advantageous position would be at the top of the penalty area near the arc. From this vantage point, the referee’s primary focus can be on the players and where the ball will land. While the ball is in flight, the referee will not have as many players potentially in his line of sight. Peripheral vision can manage the ball and players surrounding the ball. The referee’s primary focus should be on the target area for the ball and not on the restart. The AR should feel obligated to participate in this decision if the AR sees the defender’s actions.

Often violence can occur as a result of a less‐serious offense that must also be dealt with by the referee. Players must be held accountable for their actions, and the “he did it first” mentality cannot be used as a rationale to excuse violent behavior. In the following video clip, a player is held by an opponent (a cautionable offense), but responds with a violent act of his own before the referee can intervene. In this single situation, the referee makes three tactically correct decisions: red card, caution, and restart for the first foul.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at Columbus (35:48). It is still early in the match and the referee displays excellent execution in issuance of a red card and yellow card in the clip. The red card is precipitated by the innocuous shirt pull and the referee is playing advantage and allowing the attacker to breakaway as there is space in front of him to continue to carry the ball (a case can be made that an early whistle would have prevented the red card but the player’s reply does not correlate to the hold). The attacker’s response to the hold is violent conduct – a shove directly to the face of the opponent with both hands.

o The referee was not influenced by the time of the game. o The referee exhibited a keen awareness of the “big picture.” He sends the player off for violent conduct but he

also cautions the player for the hold (unsporting behavior) and awards the free kick to the team receiving the red card.

RAISING AWARENESS OF “FLASHPOINTS”

Certain situations in games are “flash points” or warning points for potential problems for referees. One such flash point is the final five minutes in a game where a team has the lead. Contemporary tactics call for attacking players to hold the ball in one of the attacking corners in an attempt to waste valuable seconds. The longer the attacker shields or holds the ball in the corner, the less time the opponents have to play. The longer the attacker shields/holds the ball in the corner, the greater the likelihood an opponent is going to take a shot at him to gain possession of the ball or look at the situation as an opportunity to send their own “payback” message out of frustration. Examples of flash points include:

• Attacker shielding/holding ball in the corner in the last few minutes of a match in an attempt to protect the lead. • A defender delaying the restart by holding a ball that belongs to the other team. • An untimely challenge on a goalkeeper near the goal mouth. • A foul in close proximity to the team bench area.

Preventative refereeing recognizes the potential for problems before they occur and ensures steps are taken so the problems might not materialize. When a referee is faced with a flash point, they should have a tool box of solutions primed to meet the challenge especially since they are typically recurring themes throughout the game at multiple levels.

• Video Clip (Added 9/25/2008): New York at Columbus (87:44) ‐ This clip provides an example of one of the flash points noted above: the attacker shielding/holding ball in the corner in the last few minutes of a match in an attempt to protect the lead. With just over two minutes remaining in the game and the attacking team leading by two goals, the referee should be prepared for attacking tactics aimed at wasting time while the ball is in and out of play. Watch the clip and identify the opportunities, as they unfold, that are presented the referee to prevent the eventual red card.

o The short corner kick played back to the kicker ‐ As the ball is played short and back to the kicker, the referee must leave his normal corner kick position and impose his presence on the players.

o The short throw‐in ‐ Like the short corner, as soon as the referee sees that a short throw‐in will be taken, the referee must revise his positioning and move to the ball and the area where potential challenges for the ball may occur.

o The attacker turns the ball back to the corner instead of taking it to goal ‐ The attacker has the opportunity to take the defender on and potentially beat him along the goal line. Instead, the attacker dribbles the ball back to the corner flag.

o The attacker shields the ball facing the corner flag with his back to the defender and the goal ‐ An attacker holding the ball with the defender marking him from behind is a sign that contact with the attacker’s Achilles or the back of his legs is inevitable. Noting this, the referee should call the first foul/kick to the shielding player’s leg. In all likelihood, the early whistle would have prevented the last kick that results in the player being sent off for serious foul play.

Additionally, the referee’s presence very close to the ball should be a deterrent. The referee’s presence needs to be “felt” (physically seen and verbally heard) by the defender thereby serving as a preventative reminder that any negative actions will have consequences.

If these preventative measures do not work and the defender decides to commit the same foul, then the referee has no recourse other than red card the player for serious foul play. In the clip, the referee correctly sends the guilty player off for serious foul play. However, the question remains, “Could the send off have been prevented if the referee had used the preventative measures outlined above versus waiting and reacting to the player’s violence?”

VIOLENCE IN THE GAME – USE OF THE ELBOW AND FOREARM The following taken from the August 31, 2005 US Soccer Memorandum: Use of the Elbow: The International Football Association Board (IFAB) has urged referees to be more aware of and to deal properly with the use of the elbow during challenges. Increasingly, the Board has noted, elbows are being used to gain an unfair advantage and, often, to injure opponents. USSF shares this concern and notes a growing number of such incidents in professional matches:

• Video Clip: (KC Wizards ‐ Columbus Crew, 7/23/2005), #3 Garcia cynically and with excessive force targets #29 Cameron’s head. A red card was clearly warranted.

• Video Clip: (NY MetroStars – Columbus Crew, 5/31/2003), Wolyniec retaliates against #5 McCarty for an earlier foul and uses excessive force to the opponent’s head. Another definite red card.

• Video Clip: (FC Dallas – NE Revolution, 7/16/2005), #22 Leonard is closely behind #9 Mina and Mina uses his elbow or upper arm to strike backwards. The action was reckless but not performed with excessive force (the arm was moving naturally as both players were at a full run). A caution was warranted.

• Video Clip: (Chicago Fire – LA Galaxy, 8/13/2005), #29 Thiago is closely marked (considerable contact and some holding) by #8 Vagenas and Thiago, in recklessly swinging his arm backward to ward off further contact, strikes Vagenas in the face. A caution was appropriate.

• Video Clip: (NY Metrostars – CD Chivas USA, 8/20/2005), #11 Ibrahim jumps up to challenge and, while doing so, rakes a straight arm along the face of #7 Ramirez. While arguably a foul, it does not appear to have involved misconduct (contact with the elbow was incidental to contact with the entire arm).

• Video Clip: (NE Revolution – Colorado Rapids, 8/17/2005), #2 Dempsey is jumping up to challenge, leads with an arm extended and bent, and connects with #3 Kotschau. The decision as to whether such foul is seen as reckless or committed with excessive force depends, of course, on the referee's angle and information he may receive from his assistants and fourth official. In all cases the safety of players must be a primary concern and the inherent danger of blows to the head recognized.

Taking these and other clips together, certain generalizations are possible regarding criteria on which officials should focus when evaluating situations involving the use of an elbow (the guidelines below assume that the action occurs during play, on the field, and against an opponent):

• When an elbow is used, the potential offense is striking and therefore the action must be assessed in the context of Law 12 (careless, reckless, or excessive force).

• Any form of striking, including the use of an elbow, also carries the high likelihood of being misconduct – if the action is reckless, the player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior but, if excessive force is used, the player must be sent off and shown a red card for violent conduct or, if competing for the ball, serious foul play.

• Given the impact and likelihood of injury, a player who appears to be targeting the head (based, for example, on the direction of the player’s view) must be dealt with firmly and promptly.

• Jumping toward an opponent with the arm bent and held above shoulder level must be considered particularly serious since the force is increased by the weight and momentum of the body. If contact is made with the elbow or forearm, the foul must be called and the offending player’s misconduct dealt with accordingly. In such cases, the referee should not consider applying advantage except under the most unusual circumstances.

• Although it is possible for a player to contact an opponent with an elbow or forearm entirely accidentally, this is rare and referees must be prepared to suspect that a foul has occurred unless concretely convinced otherwise. Instances where the offending player is looking at the opponent or where the opportunity to avoid contact was ignored should draw the referee’s attention and concern. The natural movement and placement of an arm while running should be taken into account in deciding if contact is reckless or merely careless.

• The angle of view is critical and referees must expend an extra effort to achieve a position to see the event clearly when their reading of the play and the players suggests that elbow or forearm contact is possible. Where a poor angle is suspected, the referee must quickly determine if an assistant referee can provide relevant information before making the decision.

When evaluating an aerial challenge for an offence, the decision must move beyond a simple evaluation of the “swinging motion of the arm” and give more consideration to the following three questions:

1. Does the player lead with the forearm and/or elbow as he jumps at or toward the opponent instead of straight up? An arm extended from the jumper’s body is like a battering ram (solid, hard and unforgiving). Think “up and in” toward the opponent.

2. Is the aerial challenge done in such a manner whereby there is disregard to the safety of the opponent? When a solid, extended arm makes contact with a player’s face (soft tissue), the player’s safety is endangered. The referee needs to take into consideration the safety or well being of the opponent. The fact that the facial/head region is involved should be a signal to the referee that the safety of the opponent is jeopardized.

3. The result of the forearm and/or elbow contact, not just whether the player swung his arm/elbow to make contact. The following video clips provide examples of aerial challenges that should be evaluated using the above criteria for aerial challenges:

• Video Clip (Added 9/19/2008): Houston at San Jose (38:00) ‐ Following the criteria above, this aerial challenge should be sanctioned as serious foul play and a red card issued. As the replay unfolds, note the following:

o Does the player lead with the forearm and/or is the arm extended from the jumper’s body? ‐ The jumper leaps “up and in” to the opponent. The arm is extended out and he jumps into the opponent leading with the forearm. Carefully watch how the arm is also moving forward.

o Is the safety of the opponent endangered? ‐ The solid forearm of the jumper strikes the face of the opponent. The jumper needs to consider the consequences of putting his arm in that position and the potential result of his solid, extended arm making contact with the soft tissue of the opponent’s face. The jumper must consider the opponent’s safety as he executes his aerial challenge.

o The result of the contact ‐ The result of the challenge is contact to the opponent’s head/face.

• Video Clip (Added 9/19/2008): Real Salt Lake at New York (86:00) ‐ Similar to the Houston v San Jose clip above, the jumper extends his arm toward the opponent. This time, the arm involves more “swing” as the opponent is challenging from the side and the jumper leads and swings his arm toward the direction his opponent is coming. The result is contact with the opponent’s face and an injury. This challenge should be considered serious foul play and the referee should send the player off.

• Video Clip(Added 9/19/2008): Chicago at Colorado (10:08 – second half) ‐ This clip shows correct judgment on the part of the officiating team to only caution the defender for unsporting behavior. Although the defender slows the attacker down by swinging his forearm toward the opponent, the key factor is where the contact is made. In this case, the contact is below the shoulders in the chest and shoulder blade area. Although the attacker’s actions seem to indicate that he was struck in the face, the referees, based upon their position and view of the play, interpret the contact was below the shoulders and outside the facial area. The referees felt that the safety of the opponent was not endangered as the foul was reckless and tactical in nature and not a red card offense. Note: If the referee deemed that contact was made above the shoulders in the facial region, the referee would have been correct to give the defender a red card for serious foul play.

o Given the proximity of the challenge to the AR (assistant referee), the AR should feel obligated to provide assistance to the referee in managing the situation and in deciding whether the foul was a yellow or red card. On this foul, the AR may have a better view of the actual contact area than the referee as he is closer and can see the front of the players as they approach him down the touchline. The referee, on the other hand, will have a side or trailing view. At 10:18 on the clip, you can see the AR using the prearranged “silent signal” (touching his breast pocket) to tell the referee that the foul was cautionable. The referee crew should be commended for the teamwork utilized to get this decision correct.

o Also of note is the presence and personality the referee uses in dealing with the defender and issuing the yellow card. First, watch as he exhibits urgency in sprinting toward the defender after he whistles for the foul. This establishes his presence and immediately defuses the situation and the potential reaction from the opposing team. Second, watch how the referee deals with the cautioned player. The referee uses personality to calmly interact and get his message across. The players around the ball also respond positively as they sense the referee is in control of the situation. All in all, the referee has sent an appropriate message.

• Video Clip(Added 9/19/2008): Real Salt Lake at New York (14:15) ‐ This clip provides more of a challenge to officials. However, this is an example of a fair aerial challenge where no misconduct action on the part of the referee is warranted. Notice that there seems to be no contact with the opponent’s face/head by either player; hence, the safety of neither player is in danger. Plus, both players are jumping with their backs to each other and did not jump “up and in” leading with their arms. The referee is well positioned to view the contact and to make the appropriate decision.

• Video Clip (Added 9/25/2008): Chivas at Real Salt Lake (76:20) ‐ The game provides warning signs that misconduct is

brewing or warning signs that precipitate or cause player actions. This clip illustrates such a warning sign that leads to

violent conduct. Whenever a player possesses the ball (especially in their hands) in an attempt to prevent the opponent from getting it or putting it back into play, the referee can anticipate a conflict. A quick whistle or immediate presence on the scene can send a message that the referee is aware of the situation and will deal with it. The referee’s quick intervention (with presence and/or audibly with the whistle) lets everyone know that the referee is aware of the gamesmanship and, hopefully, prevents the situation from escalating. In this clip, the referee blows the whistle only after the contact above the shoulder occurs. Additionally, the referee should consider quicker movement into the space between the confronting players. Watch as the player grabbing for the ball uses his forearm to contact the facial and neck region (under the chin) of the opponent. Despite the action seemingly in clear view of the referee, the referee only cautions the player. This should have been recognized as violent conduct (striking an opponent) and the player sent off. Was the referee’s perspective influenced by his late arrival and his closeness to the elbow at the time the act is committed? Possibly, but he must “sense,” “feel” or read the situation based upon the reaction of the player (the player’s head, neck and chin go back quickly in an unnatural manner). If the referee “senses” this action, he can take the time to confer with the near assistant referee (AR or fourth official, if applicable) thereby ensuring that the correct decision is made. The AR is approximately 20 to 25 yards from the incident and should feel empowered to draw the referee’s attention to the action of the player. Like the referee, ARs can anticipate these type of actions given the manner in which the situation plays out (starting with the gamesmanship of delaying the restart by holding the ball). If the AR sees the infraction, he has the responsibility to bring it to the referee’s attention in spite of the referee already having taken action that conflicts with what the AR has observed. FOCUS: Get the decision correct! In this clip, the player using his forearm to contact the opponent above the shoulders should be red carded for violent conduct. The referee should also caution the opponent for delaying the restart of play (withholding the ball from the opponent preventing the opponent from putting the ball into play as well as provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play).

VIOLENT CONDUCT – CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS

• Video Clips (Added 9/25/2008): Carolina at Charleston (28:44) ‐ In this USL‐1 clip, mass confrontation arises that leads to two players making contact above the shoulder with their opponent. In both instances, the players should be sent off for violent conduct (striking an opponent) as required by Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct, within the Laws of the Game. As the play unfolds, the referee whistles for a foul and sprints toward the spot of the infraction anticipating issues. As he approaches the spot, the situation escalates to mass confrontation. Despite the effort of the referee to defuse the situation, by getting to the infraction early, splinter groups erupt. As the referee is initially moving to admonish the player committing the foul, he should observe the surrounding situation. As the splinter groups gather, the referee should adjust his tactic and change his focus from the fouler to the larger situation. The referee can and should come back and address the fouler once everything else has settled. By changing his direction and tactical approach, the referee should be better positioned to see the actions of the group as opposed to being focused on a single individual (the fouler). The nearest AR can also move into the field and begin forming the “triangle of patrol.” As he does in this clip, the near AR should not turn his back to the bigger situation. Instead, he should step back and observe. The far side AR should begin to sprint across the field in the event his presence or intervention is required. If need be, the far side AR can form the third point on the “triangle of patrol.” The fourth official remains at the bench area to monitor behavior. All officials should position themselves so they can observe the “hot spots.” Once the situation has settled down and the teams have retreated to neutral/non‐confrontational positions, the referee team can convene and decide on the appropriate action. By utilizing the “triangle of patrol,” the officiating crew should be properly positioned to identify the perpetrators and take action. As indicated by the yellow circles, players from both teams make deliberate contact above their opponent’s shoulders. As a consequence, each player should be sent off for violent conduct as they have endangered the opponent’s safety and used excessive force toward the facial area.

• Video Clip (Added 10/3/2008): Kansas City at Chivas USA (54:43) ‐ The second situation commonly associated with elbows is illustrated in this video. An attacker picked up speed, pushed the ball by the defender and passed the defender on his run with the ball. As the clip proceeds take note of the warning signs:

o Speed of the attacker. o Lack of speed by the defender because he has to change direction and play “catch up.” o The ball is pushed by the defender. o The defender must find a way to slow the attacker’s progress and keep him from the ball. o The elbow/arm go in an upward motion not horizontal. o The attacker holds his throat.

Once the referee has recognized the warning signs, he must be prepared for a potential elbow or extending of the arm into the opponent to impede his progress. Once, the elbow/arm is extended, the referee must then be prepared to identify the area of contact (above the shoulder or at chest level). The area of contact then determines the referee’s sanction. As the replay is shown, it is clear that the area of contact is above the shoulders and the safety of the player has been endangered. Hence, a red card is in order. In this clip, the referee’s view of the contact is hampered by his position directly in line with the play, trailing it from behind. However, the referee does know that an arm/elbow has been extended. Having this information, the referee should take note of the attacker’s reaction (holding his throat) as this may be a valid warning sign. Once the referee has noted the warning signs and has determined his line of vision was not optimum, he should take his time in deciding the punishment and ensure he consults with the rest of his officiating team to determine the appropriate punishment. The warning signs point to a CRITICAL GAME SITUATION. The referee must recognize this and ensure he takes all the necessary steps to get the decision correct. This includes consulting with the nearby assistant referee (AR) and the fourth official as they are the two referees who have the optimal view of the situation. Of these two, the fourth official has an even better perspective.

• Video Clip (Added 10/23/2008): Dallas at Real Salt Lake (21:14) ‐ Following the definition above and found in other “Week In Reviews,” the contact above the shoulder and in the facial region of the opponent portrayed in this clip should be dealt with as violent conduct (red card). In watching the deliberate slap to the opponent’s face, ask yourself the following:

o Was contact to the face necessary? o What was the player’s intent? o Why not a push to the chest? o Why did the player go for the facial region when a greater area of the opponent’s body is exposed and easier to

contact? Contact in the facial region of the body is not necessary, not justifiable and is not defensible by the receiving player. It is done to intimidate, send a message and to potentially injure the opposition by endangering the player’s safety. Watch as the player’s head goes back with the contact. For these reasons, a red card is warranted. In watching the clip, several other areas of instruction arise. First, the AR does a good job indicating the handling offense by the defender who has “made himself bigger” by positioning himself with his arms extended out and taking away portions of the passing lane. Secondly, a caution is correctly issued to the defending player for delaying the restart of play. The defender interposes his body in front of the attacker with the ball thereby preventing him from putting the ball into play quickly. The defender not only makes one attempt to interpose his body but he does it a second time. Thirdly, the AR does an effective job of intervening and getting to the scene after the first bump (body contact of the two players). The AR can hope that his action is a deterrent. The AR is also close enough to observe the contact above the shoulder. Sensing the AR has also potentially observed the contact above the shoulders, the referee should strongly consider consulting with the AR prior to deciding upon the official, formal action. By consulting with the AR, a “team” decision will result. Plus, additional time can be used to consider all the options and for the referee team to replay the action in their minds. Empowerment of the referee team begins in the locker room but is executed on the field during the heat of the match. Referees should focus work on recognizing those situations where it is wise to consult with the AR or the fourth official prior to pulling a card. In clear situations like this, officials cannot let the time of the game, the participants, or the importance of the game be factors in the decision to refrain from sending the player off for violent conduct.

VIOLENT CONDUCT – INITIATION AND RETALIATION As defined in the U.S. Soccer publication “Advise to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” violent conduct occurs when the following is present:

• A player (or substitute) is guilty of aggression towards an opponent or towards any other person (a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a spectator, etc.).

• The player(s) are not contesting for the ball (the ball is not within playing distance). • The ball can be in or out of play. • The aggression can occur either on or off the field of play.

• Video Clip: Kansas City at Toronto (91:57 – additional time) ‐ As this clip illustrates, the defending player strikes the back of

the opponent’s head with his arm. Despite the fact the ball is in play, neither the defender nor the attacker are playing the ball (the defender is not contesting for the ball). Consequently, the referee correctly red cards the defender for violent conduct. Referees must act quickly and decisively in such cases for the safety of the players and to maintain the Spirit of the Game. Notice that the referee’s decision to send the player off was not influenced by the time of the match (only minutes left) nor the score (0‐0). The defender’s action was a 100 percent send‐off offense and the referee did not hesitate to issue the red card. It is important to note the referee’s position on this decision. He is close to play in his corner quadrant. It is as though he is anticipating the act. The referee also exhibits keen skills in that he does not follow the ball as it is played out of the back by the attacking team. The referee keeps the “after play” in view so he can detect any potential acts that would normally be out of view of the referee if he turned his back to the play too soon.

Normally, violent conduct between two opponents requires a player to initiate the action and, then, a player who responds to the initial action by way of some calculated retaliation. Often times, the initial action is much more subtle or disguised and, therefore, more difficult to identify. Retaliation usually comes after some sort of prior commotion where everyone’s attention is already drawn to the players and usually retaliation comes with greater force. As a result, retaliation is normally more visible and easier for the referee team to identify. For these reasons, referees, ARs, and fourth officials must be certain to identify and deal with the originator as well as the retaliator. IDENTIFICATION AND PREVENTION

Failure to handout the appropriate misconduct to the individual initiating the actions will result in increased frustration levels among the players and possible further retaliation as the game progresses. In order to help identify instigators, it is critical that some of the game officials keep their eye on play after the ball has left the area. Leave the next phase of play and following the ball to the referee and the lead AR. The trailing AR and fourth official should “cover the referee’s back” by keeping their focus on the action that might occur off the ball.

• Video Clip: Colorado at Galaxy (42:50) – Although this clip is shown under the heading of violent conduct, it also is a fantastic exhibit of team work to ensure the call is correct. Watch as the player on the ground initiates contact with the opponent by kicking him. The opposing player then retaliates by kicking back at the player on the ground. The referee immediately indicates a red card for violent conduct to the player who retaliates. This swift action on the part of referee prevents escalation and further actions by opponents towards the retaliator.

While the initiator is on the ground injured, the trail AR moves onto the field (this is not pictured). The trail AR and the referee confer and the referee decides the player on the ground will also be sent off for violent conduct. However, the referee delays showing the red card to the injured player because he is on the ground and standard practice has been to refrain from cautioning or sending off a player who is injured and on the ground. In cases, however, where the potential for further escalation and misconduct exists on the part of the players, the referee should consider actions that make it clear that the injured player is also being sent off. U.S. Soccer recommends either displaying the red card immediately or pulling the red card out and holding it at your side so that there is a visible signal that the injured player is also being dealt with. Depending upon the referee’s read of the game, the referee may consider showing the red card in the air and indicating that the injured player has been sent off. This procedure should be used when the potential for escalation is high and a quick message must be sent that official action is being administered.

• Video Clip: DC United at Chicago (54:00) – Once again, violent conduct on the part of two opponents and teamwork are the theme. In this case, the fourth official is able to communicate the actions of the two players to the referee in order to

enable the referee to take the appropriate action and send the two players off. In a situation like the one displayed in this clip, the fourth official must be certain of what he observed. This is especially important given the distance between the fourth official and the actions taking place.

• Video Clip 1 | Video Clip 2: Columbus at Kansas City (81:00) ‐ Crew #4, Robin Fraser, kicked Wizards #22, Davy Arnaud, in the 80th minute. Fraser and Arnaud had been competing for the ball and, as a result of tactics by Arnaud which Fraser thought were unfair, Fraser lost the challenge. At this point, Fraser kicked Arnaud as Arnaud was pulling away with the ball. The kick was

o Delivered from behind o To the upper leg of the opponent o In retaliation o With no intent to play the ball.

A kick is an inherently violent act and, under the above circumstances, was clearly the sort of misconduct under Law 12 which must be handled by sending the offending player from the field and displaying the red card. Referees must act quickly and decisively in such cases for the safety of the players and to maintain the Spirit of the Game.

When the referee is seeking information from one of his fellow officials, the official who witnessed the actions should follow the following steps:

• Get the referee’s attention ‐ At the appropriate moment, get the referee’s attention by either raising your flag (for ARs) and/or by verbally calling for the referee. The fourth official may need to move toward the nearest AR and ask for assistance in getting the referee’s attention by having the flag raised. During this time, the AR and the fourth can consult and exchange information about what each has seen. Note: the severity of the offense(s) should guide officials in determining how quickly the referee must be notified. It is recommended that for any intervention requiring a red card the referee be notified immediately and the game be stopped immediately. In instances in which a yellow card(s) will be issued, depending upon the severity, it may be acceptable to get the referee’s attention at the next stoppage.

• Face the field and the action ‐ Once the referee approaches the other official, every effort should be made for the two to face the field and the players thereby putting themselves in a position to see any further action on the part of the players. In some cases, the exchange may take place on the field because one of the officials has had to enter the field to provide game control assistance.

• Separate from the players ‐ As the officials confer, they should make every attempt to separate themselves from the players and coaches so that an uninterrupted exchange of information can take place. In other words, find a neutral spot where you are not under the pressure of the players and coaches to make a decision.

• Provide information ‐ The official(s) who observed the actions should specifically tell the referee what they saw including the player’s number, the player’s team, and the specific actions they observed. This exchange should be short but distinct. The official should provide a recommendation to the referee, using the specifics of the Laws of the Game, as to whether a red card or yellow card should be issued. As information is exchanged, try to refrain from pointing at players.

• Take action ‐ Based upon the information provided and their own perspective of the situation, the referee should then take action by administering the appropriate form of misconduct.

THE F‐I‐R‐E PRINCIPLE FOR DEALING WITH ABOVE‐THE‐SHOULDER CHALLENGES

Actions aimed at the face of an opponent must be dealt with severely REGARDLESS OF THE FORCE USED if the actions are: • Deliberate • Intended to intimidate • Endangering the safety of an opponent • Insulting and/or offensive in nature • Potentially inciting further action on the part of opponents

The following lists some specific examples (but not all examples) of the manner in which the contact can be initiated are: • Use of the backhand • Open handed slap • A push/slap to the face • The jabbing of a finger(s) to the face • Grabbing hair • Use of a fist

To assist referees in recognizing and properly addressing these situations, the acronym F‐I‐R‐E was provided to assist officials with the identification of elbows that should be defined as red cardable offenses (violent conduct):

• Frustration

• Intimidation • Retaliation (payback) • Establish Territory or Space

When applying the aforementioned examples, the use of force becomes increasingly important as it relates to contact with the back of the player’s head as the likelihood for injury is somewhat lessened as compared to contact with the face. Consequently, some discretion may be exercised on the part of the referee as it relates to contact with the back of the head depending upon the intent and the force used.

• Video Clip: Los Angeles at DC (41:05) ‐ When viewing this situation, apply the standards set forth above. This clip does not depict the more frequent violent conduct for the elbow (cocked and thrown) but illustrates a deliberate slap to the opponent’s face that is intended to intimidate as well as endanger the player’s safety. Additionally, such action, unless dealt with promptly, can lead to further misconduct/retaliation on the part of the opponents and jeopardize match control. The offence is initiated by the defender holding, from behind, the attacker with the ball in order to prevent his advancement. When situations like this (defender holding from behind) unfold, the referee team should be prepared for the attacker to take action to “release the defender” and create space to continue their path with the ball. The “release the defender” action is frequently done with above the shoulder contact or an elbow. Anticipation and a quick whistle on the part of the referee may assist in preventing the violent conduct. As the slap to the face unfolds, notice the position of the referee, AR, and the fourth official – all seem to have clear views of the action from different angles. If any of the officials clearly see contact with the hand to the opponent’s face, they must bring the violent action to the referee’s attention if the referee on his own does not identify the offense as a red card. Notice the eyes and head of the player committing the slap just prior to the hand going back: he looks over his shoulder to see the position of the opponent thereby ensuring the success of his slap. The eye and head movement of the player is a sign that the action was deliberate. Additionally, the evidence of blood from the player’s nose should be another sign (most obvious) that unnecessary force and contact was made. The correct action by the referee team in this clip would be to send off one player for violent conduct (slap to the opponent’s face) and issue a yellow card to the other player for unsporting behavior (tactical holding foul).

• Video Clip: New York at Chivas USA (25:33) ‐ This situation involves incidental contact albeit with the arm/elbow. When evaluating this clip, it is evident that the defender did not intend to intimidate, retaliate, or unfairly establish territory or space. Notice the defender’s focus – on the ball. He does not look back to “size up” the attacker. Contact is initiated by the attacker who jumps up and into the defender. Also take note of the fact that the attacker does not leap as high as the defender. In fact, his jump takes him only as high as the defender’s elbow and forearm. Given these factors and the fact that the defender does not cock and throw his elbow, the actions should not be considered as misconduct.

• Video Clip: Chivas USA at Toronto (45:00+) ‐ During additional time of the first half, off a long and high clearance by the goalkeeper, two opposing players jump to head the ball. As they go up, one player swings his arm out, away from his body and contacts the opponent in the face. The initial contact by this player is caused by an aggressive and deliberate swing of the arm. This deliberate arm swing is intended to “establish territory or space” as noted above in the F‐I‐R‐E criteria above. Hence, the referee should issue a red card for violent conduct. Upon observing the player’s action/challenge, the referee must immediately ask himself, “Why did the player have his straight arm extended so far out and why did he swing it?” In this situation, the referee determined it was to “establish territory or space” to win the header and to intimidate the opponent by preventing him from a full, fair aerial challenge. After the initial arm swing and contact, the player on the receiving end of the elbow, retaliates by striking an opponent. The referee has no choice but to also send this player off for violent conduct (striking). This elbow and forearm swing also meets the criteria of F‐I‐R‐E in that it is done in “frustration” and as “retaliation (payback)” for the initial player’s action. It is interesting to note the referee’s perspective and view of the situation as it transpired: “The first indicator to me regarding the first contact was the distance the player was from his opponent with his straight arm sticking out. The first elbowed player’s reaction and retaliation was immediate and then he grabbed his face” Overall, the referee correctly applied the Laws of the Game and issued two red cards. Remember, retaliation is not permitted regardless of the severity of the first offence and the referee must also deal with any form of retaliation by players that is a cautionable or red cardable offence.

DENYING OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITIES ‐ DOGSO

THE 4 D’S OF DOGSO

A foul is a foul regardless of who commits it. Soccer is a fast‐paced game with lots of counter attacks. Consequently, referees and ARs can anticipate many chances to make decisions relating to DOGSO. Positioning and fitness levels must be commensurate with this style of play, and referees must be reading to evaluate the 4 conditions of DOGSO:

• Defenders ‐ Are there any defenders between the attacker and the goal that could dispossess the attacker of the ball and prevent a scoring opportunity?

• Direction ‐ Is the attacker’s position on the field such that he is headed/moving directly to goal? Consider the attacker’s touch on the ball, is it headed toward the goal area or at an angle away from the goal?

• Distance to Goal ‐ As the attacker plays the ball, is his proximity to goal such that he is close enough that he would have a reasonable opportunity to advance the ball without opponents tracking him down. The further the distance to goal, the less opportunity for a scoring chance.

• Distance to Ball ‐ Is the attacker close enough to the ball to be considered to have “possession” or a clear chance to play the ball or will the goalkeeper or another player get to the ball before the attacker?

Clips will show several different opportunities for the referee to deal with DOGSO • Video Clip (Added: 9/19/2008): Houston as San Jose (78:33) ‐ This opportunity for DOGSO results from a quick counter

attack. It is a counter that requires the referee to close down play quickly and a counter that requires heightened attention on the part of the AR. Upon review of the situation, it is clear that all “4‐D’s” exist. The foul is seemingly also clear. Both the AR and the referee must be able to identify that the attacker goes down quickly and sharply to the side – the same side as the challenge by the defender. Additionally, both officials should be able to see the shirt collar being grabbed. The result of the foul should be a red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and a penalty kick as the holding foul continued into the penalty area.

o Watch the replay from behind the goal. The referee is following straight and immediately behind the play. By moving to a wider position and angle of vision, the referee may have enhanced his view thereby providing a better perspective of the defender’s foul. Trailing play directly behind the two players does not provide the optimum view. Get wider sooner.

o Despite his distance from the foul, the AR needs to share ownership of this situation and similar situations with the referee. This is a critical decision that the referee team needs to get correct. Given the attacker is a step ahead of the defender, the AR should be able to see the reach of the defender and the grab of the shirt collar. Again, watch the replay from behind the goal. Look at the two player’s position as the attacker finally goes down inside the penalty area. The attacker is a step in front. The defender’s arm is now grabbing/reaching out in front. The AR should be focusing on the upper body as he sees the defender reaching out. The side angle should provide the view of the defender’s extended arm, the collar grab and the space between the attacker’s and defender’s bodies. An AR who makes this decision would be serving the game and the referee.

o If the referee were to make the call, the AR must then provide assistance by indicating that the holding foul finished in the penalty area therefore a penalty kick is in order. Upon hearing the referee’s whistle, the AR would stand at attention and drape the flag across his waist (similar to the substitution signal). This would be the “silent signal” to the referee that awarding a penalty kick was needed.

• Video Clip: Toronto at Galaxy (69:40). The Toronto attacker is clearly behind the defense and in possession of the ball. The Galaxy defender, knowing he is beat, grabs the arm of the attacker. This foul is made with the hand/arm. The referee must recognize the tactical nature of the offense and “feel” the speed of play. Based upon the speed, it does not take much to knock the attacker off the ball. This is DOGSO and a red card must be issued. The following is a quote from Galaxy head coach Ruud Gullit: "I think we were lucky there. It was the only luck we had the whole game."

• Video Clip: Chicago at San Jose (52:23). The attacker is moving to goal with speed and is behind the defense. However, the defender catches up and the attacker loses possession of the ball on a fair body challenge. Both players are using their body but not with undo force. It is a matter of the defender’s speed surpassing that of the attacker. A no foul call is appropriate. Well done and a good feel for the situation is exhibited by the referee.

• Video Clip: Chivas at Houston (83:02). A red card is issued for Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO). This is a clear cut example of DOGSO.

o Defenders: there are no defenders between the attacker and the goal. o Direction: the attacker is centered on the field and moving directly to goal. o Distance to goal: as the attacker plays the ball he is at the top of the penalty area; hence, his proximity to goal is

approximately 18 yards. o Distance to ball: the attacker is playing the ball with his head.

• Video Clip: FC Dallas at Houston (75:27) ‐ An attacking player makes a penetrating run through the center of the defense. At this time, a pass is made that precedes the runner behind the defense. Just as the runner is prepared to gather the ball

and take off for goal, he is taken down, desperately, by a defender. Now, apply the four principles outlined above to determine if this is a case of DOGSO. It is clear that there are no defenders between the attacker and the goal that have the ability to track down the ball or the attacker. Second, the direction of the ball and the attacker’s run is clearly headed up the middle of the field, to goal. Third, the foul occurs approximately 25 yards from the goal which provides a reasonable chance to score. Finally, the attacker is only a few feet away from the ball as the ill‐timed challenge is made. Given these factors, a red card should be issued for “denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.”

• Video Clip: FC Dallas at Houston (89:31) ‐ In the same game as clip 5, another instance of DOGSO arises. This case is a bit more subtle but still holds up to the principles of analysis set forth. Again, apply the four principles of defenders, direction, distance to goal, and distance to ball. The defender’s challenge meets all four of the standards that are required for a DOGSO to exist. The uncertain factor is whether the defender’s challenge is fair or not: Did the defender commit a free kick offense? In other words, did the defender cleanly play the ball or did the defender go through the opponent and thus make contact with him to play the ball? In making this determination, the referee must take notice of the position of the ball relative to the attacker in possession of it as well as the direction of the tackle.

Notice that the attacker’s body and legs are between the ball and the chasing defender. The ball is on the attacker’s right foot and the defender is initiating his tackle from the left side of the attacker. Additionally, the tackle is committed from behind the attacker. Watch as contact is made just as the attacker begins his shooting motion. Close review of the last replay shows that contact may be made with the ball but only after the defender has made contact with the attacker by going through the attacker’s legs. Each of these positions point to the fact that the defender must first make contact with the attacker in order to play the ball. If this is the case, then the referee must award a direct free kick (tripping) and red card the defender for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

• Video Clip: Galaxy at FC Dallas (24:31) ‐ This clip provides an example of where the defender denies the attacking team an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) and should result in the defender being sent off. In this game, the referee and the AR misjudge the challenge and determine that there is no foul and, as a result, they fail to identify that the defender’s actions meet all the criteria of DOGSO. This foul is a moment of truth for the officiating team and between the referee and AR. The team must get the decision correct. In cases like this, the decision is critical in nature and the AR must feel empowered to assist the referee in making the decision if the AR is 100 percent certain that a foul has occurred. Both the AR and the referee must read the challenge and be able ascertain the intent of the defender and make a determination that the defender’s actions constitute a foul. As the clip is viewed, the following items should aid understanding and interpreting the defender’s challenge and then in making the determination that a foul has occurred and that the situation involves DOGSO:

o Anticipating the pass up field ‐ The referee is slow to react to the pass up field and, thus, is too far behind play. A referee nearer to the play will have a better feel and view of the contact.

o Gut feel ‐ The referee and AR must recognize the characteristics of the players involved. In this case, there is a very fast forward and a slower defender. The referee and AR must see that the defender is beat and trailing the attacker. Ask yourself: “How can the defender get the ball?” Because he is challenging from behind, his only recourse is to go through the attacker. Look at the position of the ball and the attacker. The attacker’s body is interposed between the ball and the defender. The referee and AR must feel this.

o Defender’s first action ‐ The officials must recognize that the defender first attempts to throw his upper body/arm into the speeding attacker. Then, seeing the attacker is pulling away and this tactic/challenge will not stop him, the defender decides to make a last second tackle. The referee and AR must see that the first attempt (upper body) does not work and then anticipate the second attempt – the tackle from behind.

o The tackle ‐ Both the referee and AR should see that the challenge is from behind and there would be no chance ‐ at that speed of play and at that angle of challenge ‐ to play the ball without going through the attacker’s legs. Contact is made with the attacker’s right leg. The defender ends up with the ball but that is only because the attacker has been illegally tackled off the ball prior to the defender gaining possession.

• Video Clip: Chicago at New England (15:33) ‐ This clip shows a long ball that goes approximately 40 yards in the air and results in an attacker isolated on goal, in the middle of the field being chased (from behind) by the last field defender/opponent. As you view the clip, ask yourself: “If the foul does not occur, does the attacker have an opportunity to shoot on goal or score?” In this case, the answer is yes. Therefore, DOGSO exists and a red card as well as a penalty kick should be given as the foul occurs in the penalty box. The early time of the match is inconsequential. As situations like this develop, officials should take note of the following:

o Referee anticipation ‐ Referees must anticipate the long pass and start their movement up field before the 40 yard pass is executed. Secondly, once the pass is made, the referee must sprint to follow the pass and close the gap

between himself and the ball. Referees cannot relax nor assume that the defender or goalkeeper will win the ball. Misreading play by not sprinting will cause the referee to be too far from the challenge in the penalty area. Failure to anticipate by sprinting to get a good side view of the contact and failure to close the gap between the referee’s initial position and the drop zone of the ball will lead to poor positioning and may lead to poor judgment.

o Location of the ball ‐ The ball comes down on the attacker’s left foot/left side. The defender is approaching from behind but from the right shoulder of the attacker.

o The challenge ‐ The defender’s challenge is from behind and from the attacker’s right side. The attacker’s body shields the defender from the ball which is on the left foot of the attacker. Consequently, it would be very difficult for the defender to cleanly play the ball without contacting the opponent. The defender’s left foot makes contact with the right leg of the attacker at high speed causing the attacker to go down.

o Assistant referee (AR) involvement ‐ An AR who clearly sees the incident/contact can participate in making the call as the foul is critical in nature. Parameters of such involvement should be discussed and established in the referee team’s pre‐game conference.

By quickly assessing the items above and being strategically positioned, the referee can aid in his ability to clearly identify the contact as DOGSO.

o Video Clip (Added 10/30/2008): Houston at Chivas USA (49:02) ‐ Only four minutes have ticked off the second half clock. With 41 minutes left in the game, a referee decision to award a penalty kick and simultaneously send the goalkeeper off for DOGSO would certainly have an impact on the game as would not making the correct decision. Despite this potential game impacting scenario, the referee in this clip makes a correct decision in deciding the goalkeeper’s foul meets the DOGSO criteria listed above. This play starts from a long counter attack in which the ball is played in the air more than 35 to 40 yards. In this situation, the referee must read the play and notice the streaking attacker and the two defensive players closing down on the attacker. The fact that the ball hits the ground is another warning sign that the attacking team/player has an advantage over the onrushing defenders. Recognizing these warning signs, the referee must increase his work rate and speed so that he can make up as much ground as possible as quickly as possible. Once the attacker is behind the defenders, the referee team needs to read/anticipate the next potential phases of play and put themselves in the best possible position to see the next phase of play and/or the next challenge (ARs need to be prepared to assist the referee in identifying whether the ensuing event involves DOGSO). The fact that the attacker is behind the two defenders and is headed toward a one‐on‐one confrontation with the keeper should heighten the awareness of the referee and near side AR.

o Assessing the situation, the officials must realize that the following three decisions are a possibility: o Foul or no foul ‐ Will there be contact with the goalkeeper and will the resulting contact be a foul or a fair

challenge? The challenge by the goalkeeper meets the criteria for a foul. The keeper, who is the last defender, is

beat. The goalkeeper dives in a manner intent on preventing the attacker from reaching the ball he has pushed by the keeper. The goalkeeper extends his body in front of the attacker making contact and preventing the attacker from getting a shot off. The goalkeeper does not play the ball, his body and arms/hands are off the ground in unnatural positions since the ball is rolling on the ground. The goalkeeper seemingly raises his left hand in an attempt to make it more difficult for the attacker to hurdle him to get to the ball. It is important to note that just there is no requirement that the attacker must fully fall to the ground in order for a foul to be present

o Penalty kick or no penalty kick ‐ As the attacker rushes toward the penalty area, the referee and AR must be ready to determine the location of the challenge and contact by the goalkeeper. Often times, the AR will be better positioned to assist as they will have a better view of the top of the penalty area.

In this case, it is clear that the foul occurs inside the penalty area. In close situations, the AR must be prepared to provide information to the referee regarding the location of the foul. If the foul occurs inside the penalty area, the AR, after the whistle from the referee, would stand at attention and hold the flag across his waist mimicking the substitution signal. This would indicate to the referee that the foul the referee called was inside the area and a penalty kick should be awarded.

o DOGSO or not ‐ Does the foul meet the criteria for DOGSO? The referee must also scan the field as the whistle is blown to ascertain the positioning of the defending players in relation to the ball.

Defenders: With the exception of the goalkeeper, there are no players who could have dispossessed the attacker of the ball or prevented the goal scoring opportunity. All opponents are well behind the attacker and ball at the time of the goalkeeper’s foul.

Direction: The attacker is headed directly to goal. The attacker’s touch of the ball positions the ball directly in the middle of the penalty area toward the penalty mark.

Distance to goal: The attacker is in the penalty area; consequently, distance to goal is not a question. Distance to ball: The ball is under the attacker’s control and he is only hampered from playing/shooting

the ball as a direct result of the keeper’s unfair challenge. No other player would have gotten to the ball before the attacker.

Given the clarity of all these factors, the referee should award the foul and a penalty kick as well as send the goalkeeper off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Mechanically and procedurally when calling the foul, the referee placed himself in a poor position. As the referee signaled the foul, he ran toward the penalty spot thereby allowing players to surround him in mass confrontation. Referees should consider improving their mechanics by blowing the whistle and pointing to the penalty spot as they run to neutral space on the field. By taking this course of action, players would be required to chase the referee in order to surround him. By creating distance between himself and the upset players, the referee not only ensures he does not get surrounded but he is better able to control and warn the players as they approach him from the front. The red card to the goalkeeper does not need to be displayed immediately. Within a reasonable time, once the referee feels that the situation is under control, he may then show the goalkeeper the red card. This provides two benefits. First, the players have calmed slightly and, second, this gives the referee time to visualize and mentally review the DOGSO decision. If need be, the referee can also make eye contact with the AR to receive any pertinent information regarding the ARs perspective on the DOGSO. In the pregame meeting, the referee team should discuss DOGSO and designate a clear signal (normally a pat to the back pocket by the AR) to indicate that the challenge requires a red card. Finally, the referee must deal firmly with the dissent exhibited by the players. Referees are advised not to take the abuse being demonstrated by several of the players. The referee should identify the main culprit and caution him for dissent if the referee has taken appropriate action to defuse the situation. Persistent and demonstrative dissent should not be tolerated.

Two incidents occurred during a match between the NY MetroStars and DC United on August 10, 2005, which highlight the need to understand and properly implement the send‐off for interfering with an obvious goal‐scoring opportunity. In both situations, the player was fouled while attacking the opponent's goal from within 20 yards. The referee must quickly and accurately assess the criteria for a goal‐scoring opportunity (the "4 Ds") and respond firmly with a red card when all four criteria are not only present but "obviously" present:

• Video Clip: In the 60th minute, Gaven (MetroStars # 24) played the ball several yards forward and to the right of the goal when he was fouled by Moreno (United #99). At the time, both the United goalkeeper and at least one other United player were between the foul and the United goal and therefore capable of defending if Gaven had kept control of the ball. Given these facts, several of the criteria (Direction, number of Defenders, and Distance to the ball) were not concretely obvious.

• Video Clip: In the 70th minute of the same match, United #16 (Carroll) was tackled by MetroStars # 3 (Leitch), tripped, and then kicked by Leitch from behind. At the time of these fouls, Carroll was running from left to right across the top of the penalty area. Due to this Direction of play, an obvious goal‐scoring opportunity was not present.

DOGSO – WHAT IF THE GOAL IS SCORED?

Given a foul judged to be an interference with a goal or a goalscoring opportunity and given the referee’s decision to apply advantage, the following scenarios should be considered carefully:

• If the advantage does not continue, the referee is expected to stop play as soon as this is evident. The defender committing the foul must be sent off and shown the red card, and play must be restarted correctly (based on the foul and its location).

• If the advantage continues and the attacking team is able to score a goal (regardless of whether it was by the attacker who was fouled or by a teammate), the defender who committed the foul may not be sent off for DOGSO (since a goal was not prevented and the team’s goal scoring opportunity was not interfered with successfully). The misconduct would be more appropriately categorized as unsporting behavior (tactical foul) warranting a caution and the showing of the yellow card. However, if the foul involved violent conduct or serious foul play, a red card must be given.

The following video clip provides for examples of these situations:

• Video Clip: Chivas at New England (May 13, 2006) ‐ Twellman (Revolution #20) was fouled by Llamosa (Chivas #11) at the 39th minute. The referee applied advantage (though this is not evident from the clip). Several seconds later, the referee judged that the advantage had been lost (the foul slowed Twellman sufficiently that an opponent was able to catch up to and challenge him). The referee stopped play for the original foul and, prior to the restart, cautioned Llamosa. If the original foul had been considered an interference with an obvious goalscoring opportunity (all elements for this misconduct

– the “4 Ds” – were present), the correct referee action would have been to send off Llamosa for “denied goal by foul” (DGF).

• Video Clip: Arsenal at Barcelona (May 17, 2006) ‐ In the Arsenal‐Barcelona clip, the referee stopped play after the Arsenal goalkeeper, Lehmann, fouled Barcelona’s Eto’o at the 18th minute at the top of the Arsenal penalty area. Just after the whistle was blown, Barcelona teammate Giuly came streaking in from the right and struck the ball into the net. The goal was canceled and Lehmann was sent off. If the referee had allowed the advantage to develop, the offended team would have scored and, prior to the kick‐off, Lehmann should have been cautioned. The goal, regrettably, was not valid because the referee decided the advantage had not continued and stopped play before the ball was struck into the net. Under these circumstances, the referee had no choice but to return to the original decision that a goalscoring opportunity had been denied – Lehmann was sent off and shown the red card.

CONTACT WITH GAME OFFICIALS – WHERE IS THE LINE? Not every occasion when a player physically makes contact with a match official is misconduct. Players may seek to offer sincere congratulations for the work of the official or to greet in friendly fashion an official with whom they have had previous experience. Officials should not tolerate physical contact by a player (including a substitute, substituted player, or any other person under the authority of the referee) which:

• involves force or aggression (grabbing, pushing, slapping, bumping, stepping on feet, and so forth) • the official has sought to avoid by moving away and by making a gesture which clearly indicates any further approach is

unwelcome (continued pursuit by a player, if performed in a threatening manner, is included here even if physical contact does not result)

• is initiated from an unexpected direction and unaccompanied by any warning • is delivered in a context which clearly includes disapproval, lack of friendliness, or anger • restrains or prevents an official from withdrawing from the contact (e.g., by blocking retreat or holding)

It follows, however, that officials themselves should not initiate contact with players under similar circumstances except to the minimum extent needed to perform the responsibilities required by the Laws of the Game. Where an official observes one or more approaching players who appear intent on making impermissible contact, it is appropriate to take reasonable measures to avoid the confrontation, but this should not require the official to retreat in haste or for an excessive distance. The official should indicate as quickly as possible that the approach is unwelcome, at which point player movement toward the official should cease. If it does not, the action by the player could be dealt with in accordance with this memorandum or, if it involves several players without physical contact, under the guidelines for mass confrontation. Under no circumstances can aggressive, unwanted physical contact with officials be tolerated and all instances must be dealt with firmly both by the appropriate action under the Law (red card for violent conduct) and by including all details in the match report. The four video clips associated with this memorandum provide useful examples of how these guidelines can be applied.

• Video Clip: NY Red Bulls and FC Dallas (July 8, 2006): the referee’s hands are slapped down by a player. This is aggressive contact and must be dealt with severely (USSF advises a red card).

• Video Clip: Chivas and Colorado (July 20, 2006): a player grabbed the referee and forced him to turn around. Again, this entirely unnecessary and aggressive contact requires a very strong response (USSF advises a red card).

• Video Clip: Kansas City and Los Angeles (July 1, 2006): the referee is aggressively pursued despite attempts to indicate that the player should not approach further (preferably, some sort of warning gesture in addition to moving away would have sent this message even more clearly to the player). This is covered by the second bullet point (the player had already been sent off so his subsequent impermissible actions need to be described in detail in the match report).

• Video Clip: Colorado and Real Salt Lake (June 9, 2006): The player’s actions are aggressive and unwanted. Even more importantly, they were directed toward the assistant referee who was then forced to call upon the referee for a response. This behavior also needs a firm response under these guidelines (USSF advises a yellow card).

FAN INVASION AND OBSCENE GESTURES BY PLAYERS Due to the close proximity of spectators to the fields, there has been a recent trend of fans invading the field and there also exists the possibility of players reacting to comments made by spectators. In the case of a spectator entering the field, referees and players must be aware that players may be held accountable for their actions and any acts of violence toward a spectator may be handled as violent conduct and, therefore, result in a red card. Remember, according to U.S. Soccer’s “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” violent conduct includes:

“. . . aggression towards any other person (a teammate, the referee, an assistant referee, a spectator, etc.). The ball can be in or out of play. The aggression can occur either on or off the field of play.”

Referees must be able to distinguish between players reasonably protecting themselves versus players who use excessive force, aggression, and extreme measures towards the spectator. Referees must also be aware of players using obscene gestures towards spectators. This is particularly an issue as new stadiums place spectators very close to the action on the field. Consequently, comments by fans can be readily heard by players. Gestures by players, towards spectators, that are obscene must be dealt with as “using offensive, or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures” and, therefore, as a red card offense.


LAW 13 – FREE KICKS


• 11/22/2002 – Restarts after Striking, Throwing, or Spitting o A US Soccer publication that provides guidance on how to handle instances of striking in which contact may or may

not have been made between opponents, and addresses issues such as “where is the restart?” • 11/22/2002 – Positioning at Free Kick Restarts

o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides guidance to officials on areas of concern that referees should be prepared to address during the taking of free kicks and how positioning can help in dealing with those situations.

• 10/26/1999 – Ceremonial Restart after Misconduct o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides emphasis that referees should look to allow a team’s right to a quick

restart of play, except in situations in which a card is issued for misconduct, at which point the restart becomes ceremonial.

THE QUICK FREE KICK Referees are advised in the most current edition of Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game, under Law 13 in Section 13.3, of the following: “An attacking team which chooses to take a free kick with an opponent closer than the minimum distance may not thereafter claim infringement of the distance requirement, even when the ball is kicked to the infringing opponent, who thereby is able to control the ball without moving toward it. In such a case, the referee cannot caution the opponent who has not remained at the required distance from the ball.” The key phrase to remember when viewing the attached clip is, “able to control the ball without moving toward it.” It is the consensus of the U.S. Soccer technical staff, that in this particular clip (Video Clip), New England’s Wells Thompson did move toward the ball by thrusting this leg forward to block the kick. The free kick should have been retaken and set up as a ceremonial free kick with the required distance from the ball attained.


LAW 14 – THE PENALTY KICK


• 08/01/2007 – Violations of Law 14 (The Penalty Kick) o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the FIFA LOTG in regard to proper restarts in situations in which either the

attacking or defending team infringes the laws on the taking of a penalty kick (ie: encroachment) • 06/13/2005 – Penalty Kicks and the 2005‐2006 Law Changes

o A US Soccer issued emphasis on the 2005 Law Change regarding restarts for infringements of Law 14. • 04/05/2001 – Feinting at the Taking of Penalty Kick

o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying that feinting (faking) motions at the taking of a penalty kick are allowable under the Laws of the Game.

COURAGE TO MAKE THE CALL In the case of penalty kicks, a decision to award a deserved penalty kick should be made without concern of the score. Having the courage to make these calls will assist the referee with game control through not allowing the losing team to feel as though they get a “free shot” at players on the opposing team just because they are on the losing end of the score line:

• Video Clip: Columbus vs. NY (50:40). NY attacker is pulled down in the area as he turns past the defender. NY was winning 2‐0 at the time.

Often times the decision to make a penalty kick is not always obvious. Referees must be prepared to look for subtle, yet significant contact that deprives a player/team of the chance to develop a goal scoring opportunity:

• Video Clip: New England vs. Chicago (34:35). Chicago attacker is brought down. Although subtle, contact is made in 2 manners: with the arm and then a clip on the heel.

GETTING TO THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME

Referees must be acutely aware of any challenges in and near the penalty area. Decisions of penalty kick or no penalty kick are often controversial and can influence the outcome of the match. Consequently, referees and ARs must posses heightened awareness as the ball approaches or enters the penalty area. Additionally, referees must ensure they are positioned as close to play as possible in order to make the correct decision. This season, there have been multiple instances where the referee relaxes on long services and does not follow the projection of the ball into the area with enough urgency, speed, and acceleration. The result is often poor positioning because the referee is too far from play as well as possible incorrect decisions due to poor vision. Referees MUST NOT relax on balls that have the opportunity or chance to result in challenges in and around the penalty area. Long counter attack passes, long punts from the goalkeeper, long free kick services, and long goal kicks are all examples of situations in which the referee cannot “take for granted” the end result. Referees cannot assume that the ball will go unchallenged or that the ball will go directly to the opposing goalkeeper. When the referee sees that a ball is headed toward the penalty area, the referee should assume/anticipate that there will be a challenge and quickly move to a strategic position in order to judge the potential challenge. Simply, this is NOT a time to relax. Concurrently, ARs must be prepared to assist the referee in these so‐called long ball situations. The AR must know that it will take time for the referee to close down the play and that, for a brief moment, the AR may be better positioned to make a decision on any resulting challenge. Based upon the pregame instructions agreed to by the referee team, when the AR observes a situation that is a certain foul and that is a critical decision, the AR should provide information to the referee that they have observed a foul. This information may be communicated (based upon pregame instructions) by a wave of the flag, use of beeper flags (if available), or some other signal that is effective but simple.

• Video Clip: Chivas USA at Toronto (39:10) ‐ This clip illustrates where teamwork and extra urgency in the referee’s position can help ensure that the correct decision is reached on a challenge that occurs in the penalty area. Key factors to consider when evaluating this clip are:

o The long free kick traveling approximately three quarters of the field. o The free kick goes to the head of an attacker. When officials see a lone forward going up for a header from a

long pass, this is a sign that the forward will look to head or flick the ball onto a teammate running behind him to goal.

o There is a lone attacker running behind the teammate heading the ball. This player will attempt to pressure and/or win the ball. If he can’t win the ball, he can pressure the opponent into giving the ball up in the defensive third.

When these or similar circumstances exist, officials should consider the following: o Referee

o Move with speed to the next phase of play. Read the situation described above and move as quickly as possible to judge the next phase of play. The referee cannot stand and observe. The referee must anticipate and move out of the center circle and into the attacking third at a wider angle that enables him to have a better view of play.

o Assistant Referee o Be prepared to assist. Visually determine the referee’s position relative to play. Based upon the referee’s

distance from play and angle of vision, the AR must assume responsibility for deciding whether a foul has occurred as well as the location of the foul.

In this clip, a foul exists: the defender holds the attacker and prevents him from having a clear challenge for the ball that has entered the penalty area. The defender is beat as the attacker has run past him and the attacker has a positional advantage. This positional advantage is the reason the defender holds the attacker preventing him from advancing to the ball. Not only does a foul exist but the foul has been committed in the penalty area and should result in a penalty kick being awarded. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity does not exist as the attacker does not have possession of the ball and, even without the holding, the goalkeeper has the opportunity to arrive at the ball before or at the same time as the fouled attacker. The referee may, however, decide that the defender’s action is tactical in nature and decide that the defender should be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the referee were to have made the foul call, the AR should provide the referee with assistance regarding the location of the foul as the foul occurs just slightly inside the penalty area. As soon as the referee whistles the foul, the AR should drape the flag across his waist (mimicking the substitution signal but across the waist) as an indication to the referee that the foul was inside the penalty area and should result in a penalty kick.

ENCROACHMENT AT THE TAKING OF A PENALTY KICK Managing penalty kick restarts is a complex issue and one that can have significant ramifications depending upon the type of violation that occurs at the taking of the penalty kick. Keeping players in compliance with the requirements of the Law is a difficult task. Players on both teams want to rush in to claim space and the ball should it rebound back into play. The sooner and closer they get to goal, they feel they have an advantage on a missed penalty kick. On August 1, 2007 a U.S. Soccer position paper, “Violations of Law 14 (The Penalty Kick),” was published outlining the outcomes of various violations relating to Law 14. It is important to remember that players are restricted in where they can be and what they can do during the taking of a penalty kick. If there are violations of these restrictions, Law 14 dictates the action the referee must take. Please note, it is no longer mandatory that the referee issue a caution for a violation of Law 14.

• Video Clip: New England at Columbus (88:45) ‐ Although it is not shown in this clip, the referee has correctly awarded a penalty kick late in the game. Once the penalty kick has been awarded, the referee must assume the task of managing the restart. The Laws require that players other than the kicker be located:

o On the field of play o Outside the penalty area o Behind the penalty mark o At least 10 yards from the penalty mark (outside the penalty arc)

In the situation provided, the referee does preventative work and a good job getting all players to comply prior to his signaling for the kick to be taken. However, as he whistles and before the ball is in play (it is in play when it is kicked and moves forward), several players from both teams enter the penalty area. At this moment, regardless of the

outcome (goal, rebound into play, ball wide), the referee is empowered to retake the penalty kick. This becomes especially critical when the outcome of the kick is influenced by one or more of the players who violated the Law by entering too soon. Watch carefully, the ball rebounds off the goalkeeper to an attacker who has encroached. This attacker then scores directly off the rebound. Hence, the referee should ask himself: “Did anyone gain an unfair advantage as a result of their entering the penalty area early?” In this case, the goal scorer gained an advantage. Given the fact that multiple players from each team violated the Law, the referee should disallow the goal and have the penalty kick retaken. If just the a teammate of the kicker entered the area early and the ball had rebounded into play, the referee would be required to restart with an indirect free kick from where the player encroached. The aforementioned position paper contains all the appropriate restarts for the potential violations of Law 14.

• Video Clip: New England at Columbus (88:45) ‐ This clip offers a still picture of the players who have encroached as well as a good picture of the referee’s position. At the top of the penalty area, you can see the attacker who eventually puts the rebound into the goal. In terms of positioning and prevention, consider the following:

o Communicate requirements ‐ Move to the top of the penalty area and verbalize the requirements. Visually remind players by pointing to the line may be helpful. Make eye contact with as many players as possible thereby letting them know that they are on notice.

o Wide angle of vision and no one positioned behind you ‐ Take a position that gives you a wide angle of vision. Do not allow any players to be behind you where they can run into the penalty area prior to the ball being in play. All players must be in view.

o Presence ‐ The players must feel your presence. Assuming a position closer to the top of the penalty area is becoming more standard so that the players see you and feel your presence. Don’t position yourself in the running lanes of players.

• Video Clip (Added 9/19/2008): Columbus at Toronto (12:15) ‐ This is a clear case of the goalkeeper leaping forward off the goal line prior to the kick being taken. In fact, the goalkeeper takes one or two stutter steps off his line prior to the kick being taken. As a result of his actions, the goalkeeper gains an advantage and is able to use the advantage to save the shot. Notice the distance the goalkeeper jumps from the line (two to three yards) and how early he does it. Both factors should resonate with the referee and the referee, in this case, should call for a retake of the penalty kick.

• Video Clip (Added 10/16/2008): Toronto at Dallas (91:15) ‐ The referee has awarded a penalty kick and prior to whistling for the kick to be taken the referee has ensured that all players are properly positioned, the kicker has been identified to the goalkeeper and the defending goalkeeper is stationed correctly on his goal line. The referee, in this case, takes a good position so that he can observe the actions of all the players (goalkeeper, kicker, and potentially encroaching players). The referee’s position is wide enough so that no player is behind him yet close enough that his presence is felt by the players at the top of the penalty area. Despite his efforts, a player on the attacking team clearly encroaches (enters the penalty area) after the whistle is blown but before the penalty kick is taken and the ball is in play (kicked and moves forward). The referee must await the outcome before deciding upon the appropriate action. In this clip, a teammate of the kicker encroaches several yards into the penalty area prior to the kick being executed. The referee correctly awaits the outcome which was a goal. Since a goal was scored and an attacking player encroached, the referee must order a retake of the penalty kick. When the kick is retaken, the same or a different player may take that second kick.

PENALTY KICK MANAGEMENT Management of restarts is a critical component of a referee’s job description. Referees must work diligently to get the game restarted as quickly as possible as the enjoyment for the spectators is negatively impacted when the ball is not moving. In addition, when the ball is out of play, players tend to focus their attention on the referee and the opponent instead of chasing/playing the ball. The result can be many extracurricular activities and increased frustration levels of the players. Therefore, it is vitally important that referees possess the skill to get the game restarted quickly at any stoppage.

• Video Clip: San Jose at TFC (66:50) ‐ The referee awards a penalty kick. It takes the referee over two minutes to have the kick taken. The official takes too much time explaining his decision and managing the players. Then, at the taking of the kick, players encroach and no action is taken. Watch as players from both teams encroach prior to the taking of the kick. Given this, the kick must be retaken.

o The referee has made his decision and must not allow so much discussion and dissent. The referee must find a way to send a message through stronger body language or a caution for dissent, that the players that he has allowed to engage him must cease their actions. Penalty kicks, just by their very nature, are contentious events.

However, the referee must be prepared for some dissent but he must also be prepared to “draw his line in the sand” and ensure that penalty kick is taken in a reasonable time and without undo distractions to the team taking the kick.


LAW 15 – THE THROW‐IN


• 01/17/2006 – Regarding Law 15 (Throw‐in) Enforcing the Minimum Distance o A US Soccer Memorandum that provides clarification on the enforcement of the 2‐yard minimum distance

required on throw‐ins. • 11/22/2002 – Throw‐In to Keeper by Teammate

o A US Soccer Memorandum clarifying situations in which goal keeper handling of a throw‐in from a teammate can present several contentious issues that referees must be prepared to handle.

RESTART POSITION OF A THROW‐IN A trend has been noticed whereby teams are advancing the ball on throw‐ins to obtain a more advanced attacking position or to waste time. Referees and ARs should work in unison to prevent undue advancement of the ball on throw‐ins and to minimize delays caused by such actions. It is common practice for defenders to run up the field with the ball to gain 10 or more yards and put their team in a more advantageous position. The practice is also becoming more common in the attacking third of the field as teams have throw‐in specialists who can direct the ball into the penalty area as though it were a corner kick. Referees and ARs need to raise their awareness and take preventative measures to ensure the restart is taken within a yard or so of where it exited the field. Consider enacting the following preventative steps:

• Indicate the restart location – early and often: The referee should indicate the position of the restart both visually and verbally. Verbally ask the players to comply. Visually show the players the restart location. The closer to the attacking half, the more important referee intervention becomes. Additionally, ARs can also indicate the location of the restart; however, this must not be done at the expense of a correct position.

• Tell the players – use the whistle: If the players are not complying with your consistent requests, use the whistle to indicate the location.

• Award the throw in to the other team: Once you have asked the players to comply and then warned them with the whistle, you are empowered to call an illegal throw‐in if it is taken from the wrong location.

Once again, use preventative measures and, if they fail, you may send a stronger message by awarding the throw‐in to the opposition from the location the original throw‐in should have taken place. Remember, it is not an illegal throw‐in until the ball is thrown and enters the field of play.


LAW 16 – THE GOAL KICK


• None Available


LAW 17 – THE CORNER KICK


• None Available


ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

• 04/07/2008 – Match Reports Involving Discipline o A US Soccer emphasizing the need for clear, concise game reports that allow for proper administrative handling of

situations after the fact. Includes guidance to officials on the types of information to include in written match reports involving discipline issues.

• 04/06/2005 – Dealing with Severe Weather o A US Soccer Position Paper providing broad guidance to officials on how to handle issues associated with adverse

weather conditions. • 04/02/2006 – Availability of Water During a Match

o A US Soccer Position Paper providing guidance to officials on allowing players to receive water during a match, including where the action should be allowed to ensure player safety.

GAME REPORTS Report writing, and the content of reports, are critical in the decision making process relative to suspensions and fines at all levels of the game. Reports can be submitted for, amongst other items:

• Post‐game behavior/misconduct • Misconduct that occurs during the game.

Unclear, incomplete, or misleading reports do not lend themselves to effective reviews of player and coach behavior. Reports must indicate:

• Who was involved? • What violation occurred? • Where did it happen? • When did it happen? • How did is happen?

Reports should include specifics about what was said, how it was said, any preventative action taken by the referee team, a description of distances traveled, how long the action took, was it visual as well as verbal, and a specific reference to the reason as stated in the Laws of the Game. DISMISSAL OF A NON‐PLAYER

If you dismiss a non‐player you MUST use the term DISMISSED in your report. Merely writing the circumstances is not sufficient. There have been incidents in the MLS in which a report was written about a coach who entered the field after the game to complain; however, the referee crew failed to use the term “dismissed” in the disciplinary report. A poorly written description of the coach’s actions was provided but this is not sufficient for the Disciplinary Committee to take action. The REFEREE TEAM must take official action first. For further detailed information on disciplinary report writing, refer to the April 4, 2008, U.S. Soccer position paper entitled, “Match Reports Involving Discipline.” POST‐GAME MISCONDUCT

Referees may issue and display yellow or red cards to players and substitutes after the game. In terms of non‐player personnel, the referee should inform the coach on the field and/or via a supplemental report that he has been dismissed after the game. Referees

must ensure the report is delivered to the team coach by the referee liaison. These reports must be as descriptive as reports made for misconduct during the game.

SUBSTITUTES WARMING UP In games where there is a limit on the number of substitutes, players who are warming up must return to their bench once the last substitute is utilized by their team. Since no more changes to the composition of the players on the field are permitted, there is no need for these players to continue warming up. Officials (especially the fourth official) should ensure that once the last substitution is completed, the remaining subs return to the technical area. Remember, substitutes who are warming up or who are on the team bench must wear a different colored shirt or bib to distinguish them from the players on the field of play. This preventative effort ensures that an AR or the referee does not mistake them for a player on the field. Additionally, subs may not use balls to warm up because these balls could enter the field of play and/or be confused by the officials as a ball on the field. A player who has been substituted out of the game may “cool down” in the area designated for players to warm up. Subs are not permitted to approach the field or the AR to express their opinions, dissent, or become involved in any interaction with any active player. Substitute players are held to the same standard as players regarding conduct despite being off the field. Refer to “Misconduct by Subs and Substituted Players” for more information.


PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF A MATCH

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO DETERMINING THE WINNER OF THE MATCH

• 04/21/2005 – Tie‐Breaking Procedures o A US Soccer Memorandum that announces FIFA’s change to only accept Away Goals, Extra Time, and Kicks from

the Penalty Mark as methods for determining the winner of a match. • 10/14/2004 – Kicks From the Penalty Mark (Updated)

o A US Soccer Memorandum that clarifies the procedure of penalty kicks at the end of a match as a method for determining a winner. Includes information on who is allowed to kick, how the kicks proceed, position of players during the kicks, etc. (Replaces 12/16/2003 “Kicks from the Penalty Mark”)

• 06/11/2002 – Kicks From the Penalty Mark – The Reduce to Equate Principle o A US Soccer Memorandum that specifies the procedure and circumstances in which the teams must “reduce to

equate” prior to the taking of Penalty Kicks at the end of a match when a team finishes with fewer players than the opposing team.


THE FOURTH OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO THE FOURTH OFFICIAL

• 05/09/2008 – The Fourth Official (Power Point) o A US Soccer prepared Power Point presentation that highlights the important duties of the fourth official as it

relates to bench management and participation in the officiating crew. • 05/09/2008 ‐ The Fourth Official – An Exercise in Teamwork

o A US Soccer publication that provides written support to The Fourth Official Power Point.

DEALING WITH INTRUSIONS TO THE FOURTH OFFICIAL AREA At games where sign boards are present in front of the team benches and 4th official, the 4th official MUST position himself on the bench side of the boards as to provide better access to the teams and substitutions. In cases where a TV camera protrudes into the 4th official’s area and separates the 4th official from one team bench or another, effort should be made on the part of the 4th official to modify his position during the game so as to not be showing “favoritism” to one bench or another.

USE OF SUBSTITUTION BOARDS/SIGNS The use of substitution boards is for the spectators, television, and players. Therefore, the 4th official should make certain that the “flip boards” are available and utilized in bright light where electronic boards are often ineffective due to glare. Television, in particular, likes to make a live shot of the board when the 4th official indicates stoppage time.

MANAGING BENCHES Gamesmanship by coaches, in particular, continues to be noticed in the games and officials continue to find reasons not to deal with it. Fourth officials must be more aware of their surroundings and more active in intervening when bench personnel (players included) do not follow guidelines. Awareness and intervention will lead to preventing further incidences. When bench personnel move within or leave the technical area to voice their displeasure with the referee or another player, the fourth official must move toward the personnel and intervene. Presence and proximity is critical. Bench personnel do not have the right to leave the technical area for any reason. If this occurs, depending upon the severity, the fourth official should issue a stern warning. Upon repetition, the offending individual should be dismissed. The following guidelines have been issued by the US Soccer Referee Department to aid 4th Officials in their management of the technical area:

1. Meet with the coaching staff before the game and discuss with them their official duties and responsibilities. 2. While it is ideal to have the head coach (and others) seated on the bench, there are some coaches that are more

comfortable standing or roaming the technical area. While this is acceptable, only one (1) person may provide tactical instructions. The “instruction‐giving coach” may not, at any time, impede the movement of the assistant AR.

3. The coach and other officials must remain in the technical area, except in special circumstances, for example, a physiotherapist or doctor entering the field of play, with the referee’s permission, to assess an injured player.

4. The coach and other occupants of the technical area must behave in a responsible manner at all times. 5. If a situation arises where these is irresponsible behavior, consider following these guidelines:

1. ASK – Ask the person(s) to stop 2. TELL – If there is another occurrence where there is irresponsible behavior, you are to inform (tell) the person that

the behavior is inappropriate and is to stop. 3. REMOVE – If the inappropriate behavior continues, you must remove the person immediately.

These guidelines do not prevent you from having someone removed immediately if the improper behavior is excessive.

6. At all times, officials are to act in a professional manner, never berate, or raise your voice or intimidate anyone in the bench area.


THE TECHNICAL AREA

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS RELATED TO THE TECHNICAL AREA

• 03/22/2006 – Management of Behavior in the Technical Area o A US Soccer publication that provides definition of the term “team officials” for purposes of handling individuals

within the technical area. Also clarifies the responsibilities of individuals within the technical area as it relates to proper behavior.

• 09/20/2005 – Bench Behavior and Decorum o An official MLS Memorandum to teams and coaches addressing behavior issues in the technical area, including

dissent and foul language usage. • 05/27/2005 – Bench Decorum (Language)

o An official MLS Memorandum to teams and coaches addressing the use of foul language by bench personnel in matches and providing emphasis that officials are within their rights to dismiss bench personnel for such behavior.

COMMENTS TO PLAYERS AND COACHES Referees, ARs, and Fourth Officials must be aware of the comments they make to players and coaches. Anything said may be misconstrued intentionally/accidentally in the heat of the moment and used to the coach/player’s advantage. Officials must use discretion when making comments about a decision or action on the field. It is safer to say “I don’t know” than to assume and provide information that may later be incorrect. Be friendly, listen, and respond when appropriate, but play the safe route.

BENCH BEHAVIOR In reference to the March 22, 2006 US Soccer Position Paper entitled “Management of Behavior in the Technical Area,” Referees, ARs, and Fourth Officials must take action when the behavior of bench personnel exceeds the bounds of “acceptable” decorum. Visual instances of coaches or other bench personnel being demonstrative (waving arms, pointing, jumping, etc) must be dealt with immediately. Often times it is the referee crew themselves responsible for bench behavior that becomes unwieldy through inaction on the part of the officiating crew to deal with the situation before it escalates. Remember, consider using an approach of “ask, tell, remove” to deal with escalating behavior. What follows are clips from games in which the referee took no action. In each clip, look for the location of the referee, fourth official, and nearest AR. Can they see or hear the coach’s actions? Then decide what action should be taken.

• Video Clip: New England at Dallas (84:05). The coach is visually dissenting, yelling at the referee, and has left the technical area. And, the decision is against the opposing team (in his favor!). Freeze the picture at 84:05 and you can see the coach is along the touchline, outside his technical area. Look at the photo to the right and ask yourself: Is this appropriate behavior? The referee probably cannot observe the behavior of the coach. However, the fourth official should have a clear view of the coach’s actions. No action is taken. In this case, given all the actions by the coach, the demonstration is so egregious that the referee is within his rights to dismiss the coach from the game.

• Video Clip: New York at Toronto (84:10). The coach is seemingly loud, demonstrative, and potentially having a not‐so‐

friendly conversation with the opposing coach as well as the referee. The fourth official is lending presence to the situation. However, the fourth official is not taking official action. Several similar clips can be made of this coach, in the same game, acting similarly and being dealt with by the fourth official. The referee team must be aware of the constant negative behavior throughout the game and take this into consideration.

o Start with holding the game up, approaching the coach, providing a stern word, and then hold the coach accountable for his actions. If this does not work, US Soccer and MLS will support your decision to dismiss the coach from the game.

In deciding when and how to handle these situations, officials are provided with the following guidance:

• Discuss the referee team’s tactical approach in the pregame. Is there a signal the 4th official or AR can make to the referee to indicate there is borderline behavior in the technical area. This is preventative.

• Referees and 4th Officials must use common sense in dealing with this but we cannot allow coaches/team officials to bang on the signage boards, stand‐up and have extended negative commentary directed at the officials nor leave the technical area under the guise of asking the 4th official questions.

• Players situated in the bench area are also not permitted to jump up in protest of decisions. • The visual and loud verbal impact of these actions reflects negatively on the referee crew and on the game. This is why MLS

has asked U.S. Soccer to enforce a more rigid (but common sense) approach to dealing with behavior in the bench area. • There have been instances in the MLS where the 4th officials stand‐by calmly as the coach is berating the referee for an

extended period. There is a difference between bench personnel “blowing off steam” in a quick and professional manner that is not loud and does not use “offensive, or insulting or abusive language” AND between team officials/bench personnel who utilize loud, abusive language for an extended period of time.

• When considering how to handle dissent, consider the following: o The language used. Is it offensive, or insulting or abusive language? o Who can hear it and how it is said. The volume and tone. o The combination of the verbal and the visual. Who can see it? o On how many previous occasions have I spoken with the individual(s) regarding their behavior? o The length/duration of the tirade.

• Depending upon the severity of the offense, the referee does not have to send the coach off but the referee MUST deal with it and issue a stern warning. At the first stoppage of play, convey a strong message to those in the technical area, and then hold them accountable because you will be held accountable. If an individual “crosses the line,” you are empowered to take official action (dismissal).

Managing the Technical Area: Positive Referee Intervention Too often referees leave the burden of managing the technical area solely on the fourth official. This puts the fourth official in a difficult position because they do not want to “ruin the referee’s game” by having a person in the technical area removed. Plus, the referee’s word carries more weight with players, coaches, and technical area personnel. It is important to note, ultimately, the referee owns the behavior/conduct in the technical area not the fourth official. Consequently, referees need to take more ownership of (including the recognition of) conduct in the technical area. Referees cannot ignore comments and leave the “dirty work” to the fourth official. In this clip, the referee takes ownership and assumes responsibility for actions off the field. The strongest preventative message that can be conveyed using the “Ask, Tell, Remove” strategy comes from the referee – the person who ultimately enacts any official action including dismissal.

• Video Clip: Colorado at Real Salt Lake (32:52) ‐ This clip illustrates a referee who takes action when he hears dissention from a team bench and sees several of the personnel within the technical area get up to express their dissatisfaction. The referee shows ownership by holding up play to positively address the head coach relative to the behavior of the coach’s bench personnel. Notice the referee’s demeanor as he approaches and communicates with the coach: controlled, calm, professional, and confident. All in all, the referee has created a non‐threatening environment to communicate his message. The referee approaches the head coach in order to “ask” him to “tell his staff to stop complaining.” As you can see in the clip, the coach responds and agreement is reached. A professional approach on the part of the referee precipitates a like professional response from the coach. The presence of the fourth official is also worth noting as it adds reinforcement and shows that the fourth official was also aware of the behavior. The fourth official should feel empowered to also use preventative measures in dealing with the coach and the rest of the technical area staff.

PROACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE TECHNICAL AREAS Proper behavior within the technical area can often be managed by proactive steps that the referee crew takes. In addition to reducing the likelihood for misbehavior, such preventative steps also help to solidify the referee crews decision to dismiss bench personnel should the situation arise. In one particular MLS game, a referee team took appropriate action and dealt with irresponsible behavior that exceeded the position reiterated multiple times by U.S. Soccer. In the game involving Colorado and Houston, on two separate occasions, the referee correctly dismissed and sent off an assistant coach and a player who had been substituted out of the game. In both cases, the referee, fourth official, and senior assistant referee applied common sense before taking official action. In both cases, warnings were issued. In both cases, the individuals in question were held accountable for their actions. VIDEO CLIP 1 VIDEO CLIP 2

Prior to taking official action, the referee team exercised preventative techniques that were not heeded by the teams. The following summarizes the excellent preventative work of the referee team and they are applauded for the manner in which they dealt with both situations:

• Roster Exchange. During the pregame roster exchange, the referee reminded both team staffs of their responsibilities within the technical area.

• Pregame Warm‐up. While on the field warming up, the referee approached BOTH coaches and had a friendly word, again, reminding them of the importance of proper bench decorum.

• During the Game. Prior to the dismissal of the Colorado assistant coach, the senior assistant referee had warned the assistant coach for his dissenting behavior in the first half. In the second half, another warning was issued by the fourth official. The player who was red carded was also warned earlier by the senior assistant referee as well as the fourth official for leaving the technical area to complain.

• Official Action. After the various warnings issued to the assistant coach and player, the officiating team decided action was in order. The fourth official informed the referee that the assistant coach must be dismissed and, later, that the player must be red carded. In the case of the dismissal of the assistant coach, the decision of the referee was based upon: the language used, the gesturing, the volume of the negative comments and who could hear them, and the persistence of the behavior. Although the red card issued to the player was for “offensive language and gestures” as provided for in the Laws of the Game, the decision of the referee is supported by several other reported facts like: the language used, the visual gestures of waving arms, the entering of the field, and the persistence of the behavior.

US Soccer Guidance for Officials - Utah State Soccer ... Soccer Guidance for Officials ... o A US Soccer publication addressing the ... The referee, in this clip, awards the attacking

Documents