Question Number: 24408

Law 5 - The Referee 12/9/2010

RE: Under 11

Scott of Evansville, In USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 24397

I would like to think my first priorty is player safety, but I think your response to stop play immediately for all injuries to u-littles is a bit too much. If a player is injured (say takes a ball to the face) and everybody stops, I stop play immediately. If a player is injured (standing or down) and is in the vicinity of play where he might not be able to protect himself from further injury I stop play immediately. If a player is injured and puts his team at a distinct disadvantage I stop play immediately. But if player is injured and in a safe location, I often will let play continue for 5 to 10 seconds. That's a lot of time in the development of a play, but will make no difference in the required treatment (if any) of the injured player. Do you think this approach is unreasonable?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
Your approach is not unreasonable and I would not have any difficulty with this. It is up to each referee to decide their approach to this for the level, age and standard of play. The referee has to take into account what is acceptable at the level among coaches, parents etc.
Perhaps another way to look at this is through the eyes of the parent. By continuing with play for 5/10 seconds the referee can be perceived to be indifferent to the possible injury to the child and yes it will make no difference to the required treatment but that is not the point. Most times it is not an injury of consequences yet I have seen so many 'spats' between refs and coaches/parents about not stopping that IMO the 'best' decision is to stop for every injury and then there can be little complaint.
I would rather be berated by a coach/parents about why I stopped play for a player that is 'injured' rather than allowing play to continue. I have yet to hear a parent berate a referee that they were wrong to stop the game for their son/daughter when they were down with a possible injury.
The referee who stops the game is then viewed to be safety/player centered with play a secondary consideration on a possible injury and that is welcomed by parents.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The original question referred to nine year olds, and the answers regarding u-littles would not apply to older players.

IMO, there is no reason to let little kids continue to play when someone is injured. U-little soccer is about enjoyment of the game, not competitive play. The players care about having fun and snacks. They worry about injury and want to know that the referee is their to protect them. My experience has been that children who go to the ground may not get up until an adult tells them they are ok. Nothing is lost by letting the coach do so.

Moreover, the mama and papa bears on the touchline (for both sides) do not care about 'distinct advantage' when a small child may be hurt. Not stopping play can lead to serious confrontations.

Your notions are fine as the players get older and the skill levels increase. And, then an interesting thing happens. In the over 40 leagues I work, most players return to expecting (and appreciating) that play is stopped when someone goes down. I think they realize that there no longer are unserious injuries. Just like when they were six.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The difference is not in whether we stop play immediately or not. We do that at any age, for any serious injury.

The difference with U-littles is that the standard for 'serious' goes down - WAY down. Taking a ball in the gut can knock the wind out of a player, but it's not an injury. But to an 8-year-old, it brings tears to the eyes as the player sinks to his knees and bends over. That's 'serious enough' in my mind. Sure, there are those 10-year-olds who are so competitive they want to play through everything. He'd get up and run around on a sprained ankle if you let him. But that's not the standard young player, and we have to change our threshold of seriousness.

That said, there are times when I'll do a competitive U14 in the morning followed by a rec U10 in the afternoon, and it takes me a little to 'recalibrate' myself. I wonder why everyone on the sideline is up in arms about the supposed fouls I'm not calling, and why they want me to stop play for a boo-boo. Oops, I forgot - younger kids, different standards.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

The question is what constitutes 'serious'. And for ULittles serious is ANY injury. Of course, it's up to you what you do. We ALL stop play for what we consider any 'serious' injury. A U14 Rec game has different standards then a U19 Select and a U12 rec etc. But at U10, I'm stopping for every injury. If not, I don't feel I'm being responsible.

Answer provided by Referee Gene Nagy

Scott, I think you got if figured out! That is pretty well how I ref. The speed with which you stop the game is directly proportional to the age group. A known diver in Serie A lying prone dead may not get an immediate whistle but in a U11 game you and I would stop the game BEFORE the kid hits the ground. OK, a slight exaggeration, but you get the point.