Question Number: 23395

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/30/2010

RE: competitive Under 11

Greg of Dallas, Texas USA asks...

I was an AR in a U10 girls game the other day. Team A was winning 2-0 and one of their strikers was dribbling the ball inside the penalty box. She was between the goal area and the edge of the penalty box, about 20 yards from me (if that). She knocked the ball by team B's defender too far and it was clearly going to roll out of bounds. Right before the ball went over the goal line for a goal kick, she was tripped. I was waving it off with my free hand to inform the ref not to call it but he blew his whistle and pointed to the penalty mark before the ball had rolled out of play.

He then came over and asked me what I saw. I told him, yes, she was tripped, but in my opinion it was probably best had it been left a no-call and a goal kick.

The younger referee asked me what I would do in the situation had I already blown the whistle and pointed to the mark. I admittedly didn't know and told him it was his decision.

My question is, can the call be changed to a goal kick in this situation? And does the position of the ball have any bearing on if the call can be reversed. For instance, if the ball had already crossed out of play when the call was made, can we then change it to a goal kick? But if it was still in play when the whistle was blown for the foul does the call have to remain? Thanks in advance.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The referee has the power to change the decision so long as the penalty kick has not been taken.

But, it is difficult to sell a goal kick without making it appear that the referee has let the AR overrule the decision - -a perception that can lead to trouble. Moreover, it is the AR who must adjust to how the referee is calling trifling; not the referee who should adjust to the AR's standard.

I prefer, when asking with younger referees, to ask them 'what did you see' before I tell them what I saw. If the referee saw a trip, the decision was a correct one even if I might not have made the same judgment call. I will try to correct an error in the application of the laws and provide additional information about things the referee didn't see, but I do not try to change their decision about what happened. My concern is that if the referee is thinking about the last decision, the chance greatly increases for a mistake in the next decision. After the match is the time I prefer to teach the referee alternative ways to approach a call.

If the referee were convinced that the decision to award the penalty kick was an error, and is looking for a way to sell changing the call: one reason that the players might accept is that the ball was already out of play at the moment of the trip.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Greg
If the ball is out of play a penal foul connot be committed and the restart is the normal restart such as a goal kick, throw in or corner kick. If a penalty has been awarded in error as the ball is out of play then the referee can and must change his decision to the correct restart.
Now if the ball was in play and the player was tripped then that is a penal foul and the correct restart is a direct free kick or penalty. Whether the ball is going out of play is irrelevant. Many times the foul is not awarded because the referee believes that the ball is in fact out of play or the foul is trifling.
In this case the correct decision is a penalty kick. The trip happened in the penalty area while the ball was in play. If the AR informed the referee that the ball was out of play at the time of the foul then the correct restart is a goal kick and the referee changes his decision. He can inform the attacking side of why he changed his decision.
In a recent PL game Wayne Rooney for Manchester United won a sprint to the ball with the goalkeeper inside the penalty area. He made a heavy touch on the ball knocking it towards the goal line and he was then immediately fouled by the GK. There was no possibility that Rooney could have got the ball before it went over the goal line had he not been fouled but there was also no question that he was fouled. The referee awarded a penalty which was the correct decision. IMO the referee should not consider what happens to the ball just that it is in play when determining free kicks.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

While the trip had little or no effect on the current play - the ball was going out regardless - it could have had a great effect on the overall game. When fouls are not called, players begin to resent it. This is especially true at younger age levels, when right/wrong has no shades of gray to it. Be very careful of applying the concept of trifling infractions at this age level.

One saving grace in this scenario: The signal for goal kick and penalty kick is very similar. The referee could get away with changing the call if he decided, based on the advice of the AR, that it was the wise thing to do.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

ANY call a referee makes may be changed as long as play has not restarted as in this case. The whistle is a signal that play has ALREADY been stopped. The actual event of the ball being out of play happens when the referee decides it has, before the whistle blows. That said, if the ball really was out of play when the referee decided to stop play there can be no foul