QUESTION and ANSWER TOPICS

Obtained from : http://www.corshamref.net/.

CAN CONES OR SAND BE USED FOR TAKING GOAL KICKS?

Question: Can young players use a kicking-tee cone or a pile of sand (like they use in Rugby) to help then achieve greater length with their kicking - such as during the taking of goal kicks?

Answer: Law 1 (The Field of Play) and Law 4 (The Players' Equipment) are the Law sources of what is allowed and what is not allowed (on the field of play). Sand and cones do not form part of the Laws in terms of taking goal kicks, and should therefore be discouraged. There is no need for these items to be used in a game of football. To do so, would also lead to calls of favouritism, and lead to dependency by players who would be better off practicing goal kicks using normal methods. If a Referee allows a player to use a non-standard piece of equipment (e.g. cones or piles of sand), and that player (or another player) injures himself when using this unrecognised piece of equipment (or sand) the Referee will be the one who will be held responsible of sanctioning it in the first place. For example, how would the Referee (or the parent) feel, if a 'kicking-tee cone' (or sand) sanctioned by the Referee, was accidentally kicked into the eye of a young player and blinded him?

The reason why the Laws are as watertight as they can be, is that over the many many years, they have evolved to protect the safety of players as much as they can do in this high contact sport. I would strongly advise Referees against sanctioning anything that is peculiar to the game (and this includes cones and sand used for taking goal kicks). If there are any complaints, when a Referee prohibits the use of cones and sand, then all the Referee needs to do, is to clearly remind the players, parents and coaches, that these items have never been sanctioned in the laws since they came into being in 1863.

The Referee is responsible for the safety of the players at all times. If an injury did occur, you can bet your life that the parent or the coach who persuaded the Referee to allow unsanctioned items to be used, would be the last persons to take any blame; it would be the Referee who cops it and nobody else.

IMPEDANCE OR NOT?

Question: When the ball is running out of play and is being shielded by the defender and the attacker is trying to get round the defender to get at the ball..... I know this is OK if the defender is near to the ball but what if he is a distance from the ball? The attacker is trying to get passed him.

My question is.... Would this be impedance and an in direct free kick or would it be a direct free kick? If it was in the penalty area would you give a penalty?? What puzzles me is that contact will usually be made but by the attacker and not the defender shielding the ball. Please help!

Answer: In football, a reasonable amount of bodily contact is allowed. Therefore, players are allowed to physically interpose their bodies between an opponent and the ball, so long as they keep the ball within playing distance. The Referee will have to decide whether the leaning is part of the acceptable physical contact allowed in a game of football, or whether the leaning is a cunningly disguised act of holding. In most cases, opponents leaning on each other in these types of situations is acceptable, and play would normally be allowed to continue, so long as the defending player manages to keep the ball within playing distance. It can be difficult in these types of incidents, to decide which player is leaning on whom; it's up to the Referee to decide who to penalise if he thinks that the contact goes beyond what is normally accepted! Impedance requires no contact; therefore, impedance rarely happens in these closely contested situations, as the players are usually too close to each other for impedance to easily occur. An offence is far more likely to be a penal (direct free kick) offence such as holding or pulling etc.

In nearly every case, there will be nothing for the Referee to do, except monitor the action closely, and offer proactive vocal advice such as, "Steady lads". In fact, I can't even remember the last time that I saw a foul committed or penalised in such circumstances. This is because players (both attackers and defenders) know that this is an accepted part of the game and are quite happy to have it so. In such circumstances, a Referee should not look to conjure up an offence that the players' themselves do not want.

If a Referee is having difficulty in judging these incidents, the advice is simple. It's usually 100% obvious when a real infringement occurs. Don't focus on trying to make irrelevant contact more than what it is, but work hard to get nearby, and trust in your instinct and the players' reactions before you make any decisions.

TWELVE PLAYERS ANYONE?

Question: At the beginning of the second half you (the Referee) count that each team has 11 players. After 60 minutes you notice that one team now has 12 players. I am I correct in saying you stop play, caution the 12th player and ask him to leave the field of play, you take play back to the last point at which you knew the game was being played 11 vs 11 (e.g. half time) and start from there. Any goals scored are discounted but any misconduct remains?

Answer: There are endless scenarios and holes that a Referee can dig for himself when an additional player has been part of the team for some time without the Referee realising it. My simple advice is to caution the 12th player (if you know who it is), complete the remainder of the game, and report the facts to the appropriate authorities.

WHEN EXACTLY DOES A GAME END?

Question: This incident happened recently when I was on the line....
An attacking player was fouled just outside the defending team's penalty area in an excellent position for a potential free kick. Instead, the ball continued to make its way out very wide and was met by another attacking player not in a very good position. I was about to raise my flag for the original foul, when the Referee signalled advantage being played. I kept the flag down. Knowing that time was running out, the attacking player shot from a ridiculous position and completely missed the goal. From the resulting goal kick, the Referee blew for full time whilst the ball was in the air. After the game the Referee told me that he had played an advantage because there were only 10 seconds left (i.e. there would not have been enough time to take the free kick had he awarded it). He then blew about 50 seconds later after the goal kick whilst the ball was up in the air. When can you and and when can't you blow for full/half time? Does the ball have to be in play? If the ball is in play and there are 10 seconds left and a foul just outside of the box is committed. When do I blow the whistle? Is it while the team is getting ready to take the free kick? Is it just after it has been kicked? I am unclear. Can I blow for time when the ball is out of play for a throw in, goal kick etc? Please help.

Answer: You can blow the whistle when you have added enough time (in accordance with Law 7 - The Duration of Play) to compensate for time lost due to substitutions, injuries, removal of injured players, time-wasting or any other cause. The ball can be in play or the ball can be out of play (it makes no odds).

In your scenario, the Referee was very astute to allow advantage, knowing that only 10 seconds were left; because had he blown for the free kick, there would certainly not have been enough time remaining to take the free kick, and the Referee would have had to blow for the end of the game. In other words, a free kick would not have been advantageous to the attacking team, whereas the continuation of play was a potential benefit (i.e. there was still time for a possible goal to be scored within the remaining 10 seconds). This is the whole crux of the advantage clause; you penalise the team that commits the offence, by allowing the offended team to gain the best benefit from the situation. And the best benefit in your scenario, was to allow play to continue.

There are two schools of thought as to when exactly you should blow your whistle for the end of the game.

The first school of thought, advocates that you should blow the whistle on the exact second that the added lost time has reached. You can adhere to this method if you are prepared for big trouble many times in your career.

The second school of though, says don't fret to much about trying to get it perfect to the exact second, as it will land you in a guarantied heap of "$^$ Only YOU know what time you want to add on, so it's easy to persuade yourself that there were a few seconds more or a few seconds less to add or subtract from your eventual accumulated lost time - and no one would be the wiser! The secret is not make problems for yourself, when it is much easier to use a bit of common sense to end the game when there is no chance at all of a goal being scored (like your astute Referee did in your original scenario!).

I hope that you make the best of your secondary school of education today!

SHIELDING THE BALL BY THE CORNER FLAG

Question: What advice can you give to a Referee, on how to deal with an attacking player who tries to waste time by shielding the ball by the corner flag in the last moments of a game?

Answer: This is one of many situations that a Referee will have to proactively manage in a game, before it gets out of hand, which it always will do if the Referee does nothing. The advice I always give, is that a proactive Referee can always find something to award, when there is a potential of a nasty incident occurring in the last minutes of a game when an attacking player shields the ball by the corner flag.

Sprint to the scene very quickly, and as soon as the players make contact, (which they always do) give a direct free kick for pushing / charging / kicking etc., by communicating a very strong signal to let the players know that you will not be changing your mind. It makes no odds what you give the free kick for, just give it! And be strong. If you give the free kick to the attacking team, they will do exactly the same again, by taking they ball back to the corner flag, so award the free kick to the defending team, as this has fewer consequences.

Conversely, purist Referees who are not proactive, and are happy to wait for something to happen, or for a nasty injury or a melee to occur, will not be disappointed.

HOW MANY REPORTS?

Question: If I give a player a yellow card for a tackle, and when I show him the card he then swears at me. i.e. "You're a F---ing joke ref". Do I then show a red card and the yellow still stands? Or would I forget the yellow card, and just submit a red card report to the authorities, being the more serious offence?

Answer: These are two separate offences occurring at different times, which require their respective punishments to be justly applied for each occasion.
The first caution offence of unsporting behaviour is for the reckless tackle, and a caution report has to be submitted to the authorities. The second offence that occurs a few moments later is the 'straight' sending-off offence, of 'using offensive or insulting or abusive language', and a separate sending-off report has to be submitted to the authorities.

There are some lessons to be learnt from this scenario. Ask yourself if there was anything that you could have done, to prevent the additional sending-off offence from occurring?

One method would have been to spend a few moments calming this player down before issuing the yellow card. Isolating the player and giving him more time to let off steam can achieve this. Before you take his name for the unsporting behaviour offence, clearly remind him that if he commits another offence, there is a great danger that the Laws require you to send him off. Make sure that he understands what you are saying. For example, say to him, "Do you understand what I'm saying?" (By doing this, you put the onus on the player for accepting his own decision for getting himself sent-off despite your warnings). This is a subtle psychological ploy that moves the responsibility - or the blame - for the sending-off, onto the perpetrator as opposed to you the Referee. It works wonders if used astutely in lots of situations; and will very often prevent abusive language).

Take his name, and whilst doing so, if he is still angry, repeat that he will get sent off of he does not calm down.

These incidents are very common in most games, and it is the Referee's duty to be proactive in understanding the frustrations of players, by man-managing each situation as assertively as he can.

MINIMUM TIME TO BE PLAYED

Question: As I understand it, the Fourth Official’s board signals "...the minimum amount of added time...", so if it's three minutes, the referee may, in reality, want to play 3mins 30 seconds; indeed he may add on time because of a delay in added time itself. But, how can added time be less than the time signalled by the Fourth Official? For example, three minutes displayed by the Fourth Official, and then the Referee blows the whistle to end the game after two minutes thirty seconds?

Answer: It is very easy for a manager at the end of a game, to tap his watch angrily whilst approaching the Referee, in a gesture that clearly says to all the watching World that it was the Referee who was responsible for the Managers’ team not winning a Cup Match when they were losing 2-1 with only a matter of seconds left to be played on the Manager’s watch. It is much harder for a frustrated manager to initially accept that his tactics (or the performance of his players) may have been the true cause of losing, or even the fact that the best team won. These are the understandable frustrations of a stressful manager the are ‘part and parcel’ of a Referee’s requirement to understand and manage sympathetically. Notwithstanding the fact that a Referee is human and can make the odd mistake; as you can appreciate, it would be impossible for a Referee (in the final climatic end to games) to accurately calculate, and then inform the Fourth Official of the amount of time to be added in minutes AND seconds. Hence, the accepted calculation is based on the minimum number of added time minutes to be played. But this calculation also requires some common sense on the part of the Referee. For example, if there are 2 minutes and 59 seconds of added time to be played, does the Referee indicate 2 minutes or 3 minutes to the Fourth Official?

The Referee is the sole timekeeper of each game, and as such, it is his watch alone that calculates the correct amount of time to be added on. In addition to this timekeeping, there can be many other watches ticking along at the same time (for example, the managers’ watches, the television pundits’ watches, the stadium clock, spectators’ watches and even the watches of those who are viewing the game on the television. Whilst all of these may purport that their watches were started at the exact same time as the Referee started his watch, and that their watches are of such accuracy that they match the Referee’s watch in every sense! It can therefore be seen, that there are many factors that can influence why two different watches may differ in their timekeeping.

The only way that just criticism could be levelled at a Referee, is if his watch was connected to the stadium clock for all to see. Until then, we must trust to the integrity of each Referee to calculate the correct time by his watch, and not anyone else’s.