Question Number: 35135

High School 10/3/2023

RE: High School

Franco of Bloomington , Indiana USA asks...

My questions deal with NFHS and Indiana High School IHSAA soccer rules. I continually hear refs explain calls in a manner that is NOT in the 2023-24 Soccer rule book.

I have several of these scenarios but i will keep them grouped together.

1. Had a ref give one of my players a straight red card. Two players got in a shoving match and talking trash after a ball was played over the touchline. The red carded player came in and shoved hard the player that had shoved his teammate.
Whistle blown and red card issued, then refs discussed and they gave the original player a YELLOW card for shoving and talking trash. I asked, why is there ONLY one player getting a straight red?

Explanation - The opponent was given a yellow because his shove occurred during play. I said NOT true, he shoved my player when the ball was out of bounds. Ref said but the whistle had not blown yet, the red carded player shoved AFTER the whistle.

RULE BOOKS - Does not cove that explanation that I could find. If covers what is a red card offense.

2. Then as we were going back to play I asked the AR what is the rule on how many games does my red carded player have to miss. He said ONE game.
After the games, the refs told my administation that the red carded player MUST miss TWO games. I asked for explanation and why the change from what the AR told me.

EXPLANATION - The red carded player got a straight red and was not a result from two yellows.

RULE BOOK - i could not find anything about the difference between a red from two yellows verses a straight red and certainly didnt find anything about how many games are suspended from a red.

thank you

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Franco
My experience is that many times referees give all sorts of explanations that do not reflect what their thinking was or does not reflect what happened. Misunderstanding happens in all communication and the phrase *That is not what I meant* springs to mind.
1. Had the referee said that the first push did not involve violent conduct while the 2nd one did there would be no debate about it . To my way of thinking the whistle is not the defining part yet the force used. Violent conduct can occur when the ball is in or out of play so the whistle is irrelevant. I think one push was hard while the other was not. I also think that a 3rd player in, getting involved roughly in a shoving match connected with play may attract a harsher punishment particularly if the contact is hard.
So I think the referee may have been trying to convey that the first set of pushing was connected with play even though the whistle had sounded while the 3rd player in had no business doing that and certainly not in a hard aggressive manner.

2. It is not up to the referee crew to determine what sanction will be given for ejections. It is not a rule book decision. The answer is that it is determined by the competition organiser. As a general principle there is a difference in sanction between a straight red card and a two caution red card. A DOGSO red card is another example that may only attract a one game suspension whereas violent conduct cannot be compared to that. They are obviously not treated the same and officials should not proffer any tariff.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Franco,
I will preposition this with an admission, I generally use the FIFA/IFAB LOTG more than I know the specific rulebook of high school soccer so forgive me if I lead you astray. Our resident guru is Joe Manjone and hopefully he will respond to this question if able!

Hmmm is what was said, truly, what was meant?
Red card expulsion events involving VC (violent conduct) during dynamic play or after play is stopped, occurring On or Off the FOP (field of Play) are unacceptable at any level of play and their sanctions are often far in excess of not playing the next match and remainder of the one they are in. The time schedule of such things is no concern or ability of the referee to decide, albeit his framing of the event in testimony on the match report should give those that do set the restrictions food for thought.

It is true that a double yellow could be viewed less harshly than a direct red card as the rational of the actions are often applied to why the action occurred. SFP (serious foul play) during a match while play is active is usually occurring during a terribly excessive challenge for possession and is viewed harshly. However, when play is ongoing but there is no challenge for the ball VC is seen as a bigger deal as it is not part of the match gameplay. Then if play is not active the VC is seen as an attack, even if not particularly violent.

I pull a shirt to stop a promising attack at 35 minutes in near the midline and rightfully cautioned shown a yellow card then make a realistic challenge in the PA in the 89th minute to stop another attack but because I prevent a shot on goal I am shown the yellow card thus a 2nd caution thus now shown a red and sent off. While unsporting in nature they were made playing the game, as a game. Violent conduct and most of the SFP are actions that DEFY the very reason of sportsmanship to compete in a fair and open manner.

Referees' discretion granted in LAW 5 the referee ITOOTR (in the opinion of the referee) looms large here!

Referee is cautioning showing a yellow card for an action he believes took place prior to a stoppage (even if it was outside the FOP as you stated)
Players through momentum or normal playing actions can wind up outside the Touch or Goal lines by accident with no penalty during live play.
The whistle to stop play is a signal of an event that HAS occurred! Be it for a ball out of play or in response to a foul or a reason to halt the match from an outside force.

If I understand correctly your 1st player was pushed/shoved by a single opponent prior to the whistle.
Then a 2nd hero team mate decided to avenge this with a second shove after the whistle sounded.
The referee deemed this 2nd shove as VC and a straight red card was shown to that player alone.
After a discussion between the CR & AR the opponent who shoved your 1st player was shown a yellow card for his USB actions prior to the whistle.
Your 1st player received no sanctions?

The restart of play was it for that opponent's push/shove on your player while challenging for the ball or just after the ball ran into touch for a throw in ?
I will say this as a referee, ONCE I blow my whistle, I have indicated to everyone , I GOT this, I am dealing with it, do not interfere!

My colleague noted that rather than the timing of the event, that first push could be less force as opposed to a lined up run from afar freight train ? Excessive force is certainly a criteria but AFTER play is halted it takes VERY little force to be deemed violent as it has NOTHING to do with the match. It is about retaliation and revenge. The referee STOPPED play, let him deal with it! Or else, and in one match I recall with disdain that was so true!

I recall to this day still, spitting fury at the injustice that in the 98 WORLD CUP match between England and Argentina. Diego Simeone had just ferociously tackled Beckham, a vicious reckless into the middle of his back and laid him out sprawled on the pitch. David Beckham was, in my irritated and not so humble opinion, shown a a straight red card for lifting his leg at the knee into the leg of Diego Simeone who then dived to the ground as if his leg was torn off simulating injury. Diego Simeone was subsequently only shown the yellow card for his on the field match time challenge.

It changed the entire nature of the match and remains in my mind a terrible decision by the referee in question Kim Milton Nielsen who apparently was following some idiotic orders that ANY petulant retaliation was an auto red. Perhaps thinking I better do this or they will not respect me? Simeone indeed admitted to trying to get Beckham sent off by over-reacting to the kick and then, along with other members of his team, urging the referee to send Beckham off. I do not care what anyone thinks or argues or rationalizes it was unfair and not required, there is no justification of the letter of the law to affect the match when a simple caution was sufficient. YET play was dead and boom the red sleigh arrived out of seemingly nowhere so yes it does affect what can happen.

https://youtu.be/zWsEuczNj48

Within our woke universe I often use this Patriarchal phrase when referring to referees as a generalization of competency. "His Match! His Decision! His Reputation!" Now I meant no disrespect to those who are not men, which is to say women, but apparently my insensitivity for others' feelings is a blight upon my character. Sigh.

Each referee, regardless of their chromosomal level is to be respected for the authoritative position they are in as the referee in any match, at any level. Whether a referee gains the personal respect or approval from the players, coaches, managers, spectators, parents, pundits and peers likely depends on their knowledge, experience and honest sincerity to finding the best way to manage a match while applying the rules.

It takes considerable character to become a good referee. Applying the rules within the framework of practical game management is no easy task for the fainthearted.
Refereeing is a job. It requires hard work and discipline. The monetary value is only a token amount to off-set the abuse they take on the pitch. Nothing is more lethal to referees' discouragement and abandonment from the game than merciless dissent and abuse originating from the Touchline. Even those of us who volunteer our time I have considered the weeding out process of officials to be in part the ability to deal with abuse as responsibility & accountability goes with the rigours of being capable to function within the center circle territory. Each referee sets the field for his or her peers to succeed or fail
Unfortunately, soccer is not exempt from the social apathy that plagues the world-wide sports venues. I wrote an article many years ago " Are we still on the same side when we disagree? " I remarked there are four points of view from which a game is seen.

1 player sees what he feels
2 coach sees what he wants to see
3 spectator sees what they think they see
4 Referee sees what he sees

While I hold these 4 aphorisms are basically true, mistakes in judgment and errors in law occur at all 4 levels.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Coach,

NFHS Rule 12-8-2a states a player shall be disqualified for exhibiting violent conduct.

NFHS Rule 18-1zz gives the definition of violent conduct. It states: Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. Violent conduct is also when a player commits a violent act against anyone regardless of whether contact is made or if the ball is in or out of play.

Apparently the referee in this case did not consider the first shove to be violent conduct but instead considered it unsporting conduct which is a caution offense rather than a disqualification. However, as is indicated by the definition of violent conduct, the shoving by both your player and your opponent could have resulted in a red card for both.

As is indicated above, this is a referee decision and because the misconduct occurred when the player was challenging for the ball a yellow rather than a red card was given.

As to how many games your player is to sit out, this is an IHSAA rule, not an NFHS rule. The IHSAA Fall Bulletin indicates a one-game sit-out plus required sportsmanship training for a disqualification. However, to make certain of the penalties for disqualification, I recommend you call the IHSAA office at 317-846-6601.