You Call It Our Questions YOUR Answers AskTheRef.com

Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules

You-Call-It 15

Question...

In a close u-12 girls match a defender on the goal line acts like a keeper CLEARLY preventing a ball from entering the goal by handling the ball deliberately. While you award a PK you only warn the player. The resulting PK misses and later that defender scores the winning goal for her side. The losing team protests the match claiming the scorer was supposed to be sent off and was an illegal player. You are called up to defend your actions to the review committee. Your match, your decision, your reputation! Somewhere in between black and white there lies a truth those not good at seeing shades of grey to fight for justice distinguish the venial from the venal ordinary vesus extraordinary wrong doing hardship does not bring out best the need for victory

Our Hint

law 12 law 5 a warning is NOT a caution it is a verbal do not do that

Our Answer...

Here our referee recognized the offence of handles the ball deliberately as a DFK foul upgraded it to PK status based on its location inside the penalty area but in our question we offered no reasoning as to why a send off could not apply only that this referee choose not to despite a CLEAR goal being denied.

It is certainly well founded given the discretionary power of a referee to consider the NEED to do something but misapplication of law is difficult to explain away.

So was this a misapplication of law?

Or an opinion on facts of play?

You have no control over what or how a review committee might rule. Competition authorities be it inter house league, school, travel, weekend tournament or state or even national all have policy and procedures for protests to be filed and review procedures . Usually there is a time frame or dollar value for such things to be taken into account. There maybe no reasonable way to replay a match under certain conditions! The meeting might be a simple courtesy exchange of, ?Sorry nothing we can do the referee decision is final.? Or they glare wide eyed over the table as you try to defend something that in law is not defendable and figure a way to remedy the situation!

As a referee, if you saw the criteria met you can not defend the decision based on the written application of the law. Which states,
Quote
Sending-off Offences!
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any
of the following offence:
? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply
to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
end quote

The decision to NOT follow through on applicable misconduct as an opinion on a fact of play is in direct opposition when the referee in law MUST deal with misconduct WHEN the referee sees it or is informed by the ARs or 4th as neutral officials, BEFORE any new restart of play. The purpose of this is so the referee CAN NOT CHANGE the decision later

Yet does not a protest seek to CHANGE what the referee decided?
The dilemma is the referee decided NOT to show a red card, not that DOGSOH did not occur! BUT, if he admits the DOGSOH criteria was met but chose not to send her off , is it too late?

In this case, much like a poor offside decision as a fact concerning play and the referee as the final judge of events and goals scored we cannot undo bad decisions. The failure to discipline according to what he COULD have done does not alter the fact he chose not too.

There is little doubt the game was affected by the decision to not follow through with a send off. The player was not shown the red card and the player was not sent off hence she remains a legal player and her goal stands!

Quote
The REFEREE
? takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable
and sending-off offences. He is not obliged to take this action
immediately but must do so when the ball next goes out of play

Decisions of the Referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play,
including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match,
are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realizing that it is incorrect
or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth
official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the
match.
end quote

Here the referee identified the foul with a PK outcome but choose not to act on the misconduct that accompanied that particular foul thus as a fact of play is it a done deal? No matter what a video showed or others thought it is a done deal if in the opinion of the REFEREE the send off criteria was NOT met. HOWEVER if our referee knew it was a send off offence, knew the criteria was met but if he used she is too young to understand as his excuse then his failure to apply the law is not an opinion but a fact.

In eleven aside competitive matches where outcomes and results matter, the laws can be stretched to accommodate certain situations however scoring a goal is a big deal and FIFA has determined that unfairly preventing it is also a big deal.
Is the denial by a 9 0r 10 or 11 year old a cheating act less than a 21 or 31 year old?

Is not the 9 or 10 or 11 year old shooter denied the opportunity to celebrate?
What if the young shooter had NEVER scored before?
Mom and Dad watching robbed of that special event?
The team denied an opportunity to advance in a tournament for the first time out of a group?
Or a league standing missing the playoffs or chance to continue to state provincial or national opportunities by this one loss?

Sure in recreational inter school recess soccer such things are overlooked but when you decide to COMPETE in a competitive 11 aside soccer environment all the laws apply. There can be accommodation in the way a send off for youth is handled as calling in the coach to help the player (who likely could break down and cry) deal with being sent off for DOGSO. While we are all for allowing the conditions for kids to succeed which is why mini soccer is so important it is NOT a fundamental flaw in humanity to discipline a child for a SPECIFIC act that has SPECIFIC consequences. It is not JUST the showing of a card that makes the impression it is recognition that if that happens, this occurs. Players are shown cards, receive cautions and send offs their entire careers so the lesson is not one of understanding but of accepting consequence.

If the young girl had struck another opponent with her fist we certainly could enforce the send off for VC so why do the two DOGSO points #4 and #5 seem to make us more sympathetic to the younger players in that we do not want them to be sent off EVEN though by virtue of the ACT and the consequences for that act are CLEARLY spelled out they should?
Is this simply a big persons offence?
What if the failed goal scorer said that?s crap and spit at the player who had just committed DOGSOH?
If you do not apply one send off criteria surely you can not apply another?

We have all watched dozens of matches where in OUR opinion VC (violent conduct) or SFP (serious foul play) red card items were down graded to USB a yellow card item !
Foul and abusive languages and gestures a red card item are not only incorrectly dismissed as dissent a caution and a yellow card item but often ignored altogether. Spitting to clear the throat and wind assisted hits an opponent can be overlooked as a fact of play the referee controls this and in choosing not to sanction it, he has permitted it and the match continues.

It seems to me that it is only in DOGSO that there appears to be this concept the child really does not need to be sent off. If that is so strong in the associations' mental outlook then if a league so wishes to institute policy where some restarts or laws are NOT to be followed they best have them LISTED categorically and publicly displayed so a referee is NOT confused in his integrity or duty to the game and the players and his own code of conduct when accepting a match.

If the referee has an opinion regarding an offence then he is the final say as to what happened UNLESS he applies the Law incorrectly. In the case of DOGSO it is an opinion whether or not the criteria were met. If there is a protest and the referee states, or his match report states, he saw the offence as handling and awarded a penalty for that offence then that was an opinion regarding facts connected with play.

The fact he did or did not consider disciplinary measures pertinent is of no consequence UNLESS he states he did not physically see anything other than handling. If that's the case then the league has the right to form an opinion based on what ever evidence is presented.

Nothing prevents the league from ever assigning that referee as a match referee again until his opinions concerning what portions of the Law he enforces comes closer to what the IFAB has decided necessary to publish as Law.

Quote
Sending-off Offences
A player, substitute or substituted player IS SENT OFF if he commits ANY of the following seven offences:
? serious foul play
? violent conduct
? spitting at an opponent or any other person
? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
? denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
? using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
? receiving a second caution in the same match
End quote

Law 12 tells us a player who handles a ball deliberately is guilty of a direct free kick infraction, and Law 14 tells us if that infraction takes place in the penalty area, it is a penalty kick. If a player should have been sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling, but hasn?t been, the referee will have to explain why to the review committee. Law 3 tells us a goal scored by a player illegally on the field = no goal if discovered before the kick-off but if discovered after the kick-off, the goal counts. In this case the player was on the field legally, but only because of referee error. The referee must submit a full report to the league authorities, and they will make a decision about whether to replay the game or not, based on their rules.

In our case here, one can only wonder if the referee failed to do her duty because it was ?just an U12 girls? game? by warning the player instead of sending her off. If a penalty kick was awarded, a Law 12 direct free kick offense had to have been committed. As the offense was apparently handling the ball deliberately ? in this case preventing a goal in the process ? the referee must have the courage to send her off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball.

Failing to send her off for DOGSOH is a misapplication of the Law.

In the alternative, if the referee felt the handling was not deliberate, then the referee erred by awarding the penalty kick, as no offense had occurred. Under Law 5, the referee?s decisions on the facts of play are final, but a game may be protested if a misapplication of the Laws has occurred. It will be very difficult to justify her actions in failing to send off the player to the review committee or in the alternative, giving a penalty kick where none was warranted.

The review committee will have to decide whether to let the game stand as played or whether to replay the game, and award any necessary sanctions post-report/game. The referee should throw himself on the mercy of the committee, and learn from the error, go forth and gain more experience!

Here is the full story about how this question came to be!
> When we look at referee conduct and the reasoning for a judgment or a decision on the pitch it is amazing to me how after all this time we still find topics to discuss. I was struck by a recent tournament controversy at a provincial championship regional match where the winners advance to a central provincial playoff and then on to nationals.
> Although there were both sexes and 6 age groups u-12 to u-18, the age group of concern was the u-12 the youngest ages but still a full value 11 aside match with a lot at stake.
> In the early morning boys u-12 game the referee called for a PK as
> the keeper grabbed the ankle of the attacker and pulled him down
> dead centre of goal. A CLEAR DOGSO by a free kick foul! The referee
> motioned for the coach to come into the field to meet with the
> keeper and himself. The referee explained in a quiet but
> compassionate voice that he was sending off the keeper for DOGSO
> point 5 of the send off offences saying, "I am sorry but I have no choice!" The referee then raised the red card and asked the coach to escort the player off in a tearful display.
> There were comments both pro and con for the action taken by the referee from the spectators but as a referee I felt the decision was 100% correct and silently applauded his courage and manner in which the send off was handled. The resulting PK was scored and the team reduced to ten lost the match.

> Nice story but the salient point came in the afternoon u-12 girls
> match 28 minutes in a lovely curling ball beats the keeper and is
> headed into the goal when the only defender in the vicinity reaches
> out and palms the ball down CLEARLY preventing the ball from
> entering the goal by the deliberate use of her hands. It was a as
> CLEAR a denial as one could possibly witness. This referee awards a
> PK but does not send her off, he does not caution. The resulting PK
> misses and in a well timed bit of irony that player who should have
> been sent off for POINT 4 of the send off DOGSOH scores the winning
> goal later in the match.
> A disgruntled law aware parent of course asks the question at the
> half as the referee was leaving the field, why was she not sent off
> she denied the goal with her hands? The referee replied it is just a
> u-12 game get over it! The parent suggested to the coach to protest
> saying she needed to be sent off. The referee coordinator got wind
> of this incident and asked the referee what was going on? The
> referee explained in his judgment the denial did occur but given the
> age of the player he did not think it necessary to send her off!
> To his credit the coach did NOT protest but was curious as to why if
> the referee admitted it was a goal denied could he chose not send
> her off given the referee in the earlier match said he had no choice?
> I thought that a very interesting point!
> Is it a misapplication of law for a referee to ACTUALLY admit the
> send off criteria was met but chosen to be ignored for any reason,
> this one being she was 11 years old? The referee could have lied
> saying in his opinion there was reasonable doubt the ball going wide
> etc.. As an opinion if the criteria were thought to not be met it
> could not be contested but to admit the criteria was met? Once a
> referee acknowledges the send occurs can he refuse to follow through
> with what the law requires? And if he in fact admits it could a protest be successful?

Richard,
Here is the answer to your question.

Jim Allen
USSF National Instructor Staff
Question:
A recent discussion created much debate about the duty and
responsibilities a referee under law 5 had to exercise an opinion on
law 12 send off offences when playing 11 aside soccer. The question
posed was the failure to show a red card for a send off offence that
the referee actually admitted was in fact a send off offence but the
referee refused to send off a player because the player was between 9
to 14 years of age a miss-application of law? If a referee was to
stop play and award a dfk or pk for a spitting at another or a DOGSO
incident where the player CLEARLY denies a goal via the illegal use
of the hands but chose not to show a red card due to age is that an
opinion on a fact of play or is it a miss application of law? I
understand that as an opinion the referee can say there was no
criteria for send off and as a fact of play not much can be done but
can he say I saw the goal denied point 4 states the player is to be
sent off but I do not care? Are not the send off offences more along
the lines of if that occurs then this happens not if it does happen I
can pretend it didn't because the player might get upset?

USSF answer (August 5, 2008):
Yes, the Federation suggests that the referee weigh the facts in
every case of misconduct, so as to ensure that both the Letter and
the Spirit of the Laws are satisfied. But if the referee chooses to
excuse a player aged 9-14 for committing an infringement that should
be punished by an immediate sending-off simply because he or she is
so young, how will such players ever learn right from wrong and how
to play soccer properly, not to mention to exist in society?

Furthermore, who would want to be such a referee on the witness stand
testifying as to why he let "Davie" stay in the game because he was a
cute 11-year-old who had performed a studs-up tackle on "Mark," was
let go this time, and then broke "Freddy's" leg two minutes later
with the exact same maneuver. Whether the referee shows a red card
or not, a violent player must be gotten off the field

That was our Question YOUR Answer is...

Al a Referee from Strathroy ON CANADA

There is no defense. The only way to maintain any sort of reputation is to be honest:

"I figured at this age, the players are developing and that a warning (since the handling was somewhat instinctive) was more appropriate than a Sending Off. Obviously my decision 'backfired' twice. In truth, a very harsh learning moment for me and, unfortunately, 22 players have learned that ir'a OK to deny goals by illegal means."

Whether U12, U8, or any other age, a Sending Off can be done with an, "I'm sorry, but I don't have a choice," attitude. It sends a clear message that you are compassionate, but that you must also enforce the Laws of the Game.

Warren a Referee from Sydney NSW Australia

Unless you specifically have different rules for U12s that I wouldn't be aware of (being from Australia) it's a clear DOGSO (Number 4 "Sending off Offences" FIFA Law 12) and should be red-carded.

So if I'd made the decision to warn only, I'd suspect the only thing on my reputation before the match committee would be egg :-)

However, if I had genuinely believed that the ball was only a MAYBE to go into the goal (eg would have struck the defender on the body if she had not used her hand) and that was the reason that I had awarded a PK and a warning then it wouldn't matter how many other people thought it was "CLEARLY" a GSO, because as the referee I did not have that opinion , and what I determine about the facts of the play is final (FIFA Law 5).

And if I was one of those self-justifying refs who covers their mistakes rather than admits them, then I imagine I'd be inclined to suddenly have that view of things (that it was not a clear GSO even if it had been) when presenting to the match committee... which would just make me a doubly-bad ref... incompetent *AND* unwilling to learn from my mistakes.

Warren :-)

Curt a Player from Vancouver Canada

I would state that the ball was clearly handled by the defending player preventing an "Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity," that’s why the penalty kick was awarded. However based upon the age of the player's within the competition, I feel that as a ref you must uphold the integrity of the game but have a responsibility as well to teach the laws of the game.

No good can come of sending an 11 year old player off for DOGSA when perhaps they were unaware of the laws surrounding the goalkeeper or of sending off offenses. (Let's face it, FIFA doesn't do a great job of keeping adult players up to date with rule changes, at least here in North America. Chances are an 11 year old isn't going to have easy access to the laws of the game.)

A verbal warning that their actions were unacceptable, and a penalty kick is sufficient discipline in this circumstance. Its too bad that the player in question here scored the game winning goal, and that the opposing team decided to protest the game, however FIFA mandates that you "grow the game" and based on their age, sending a player off for something that they may have been unaware of, and where no harm was caused is not upholding my oath to teaching as well as growing the game.

Steve Salis a Referee from Vero Beach FL USA

Law 5 states:

The Referee enforces the Laws of the Game.

The Referee takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable and
sending-off offences. He is not obliged to take this action immediately
but must do so when the ball next goes out of play.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final.

Law 12 tells us:

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red
card if he

4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off and
shown the red card must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the
technical area.

The player violated SO4 and by Law must be sent off and shown the Red Card. The only "defense" for this poor, kind hearted referee is that he A.) did not consider the handling deliberate (not an option per the scenario) B.) Did not believe that the player's actions prevented the goal or a goal scoring opportunity. He could make a weak attempt in saying that a PK is a Goal Scoring opportunity, but that would contradict the written Law 12.

The referee needs to admit that he made a mistake by not sending off the defender under Law 12 SO4. The protest will most likely be upheld as there is nothing in Law 5 that gives the referee the authority to circumvent or bend Law 12 SO4.

The referee should ask for assessment of his skills in the next match to make sure that there are not other points of Law that he is slipping away from.

Jon a Soccer Fan from Houston TX USA

Well it looks like the referee here screwed the pooch on this one. I can't think of a provision in the law that would allow you to do what the referee did. The criteria for DOGSO is met, and a PK was awarded. The only thing I can think of for the referee to possibly justify his decision is to claim that DOGSO WASN'T met for some reason or other (despite the fact that it was). As for the goal, it is legal and must stand. The referee is the sole arbiter of match facts. The defender wasn't an "illegal" player, the referee allowed the defender to continue playing. However, I could see the league ordering a replay when something like this happens.

Mike a Coach from Chino Hills CA USA

The coaches on the losing team need to get over themselves. The league that my daughter plays in would not ask me to defend my decision. Nor would the other team protest the match. For some reason, in our town everyone understands that this is a recreational game amongst 9, 10 and 11 year old girls with the best of intentions. Nobody is out to kick anyone off the field for such an innocent mistake given the skill levels of these young players. Based on some of the answers that I've seen from this panel, it does appear that there are some competitive poor sports out there who would protest such a decison and demand "discipline". Fortunately, they don't live in my city, and our girls are allowed to have fun. So what if the girl scored a goal afterwards. The other team had their PK and missed it. And they had their chance to defend their goal and missed that too. I doubt the girls on the other team (many of whom are probably school mates and friends of the girl) thought anything of it. My guess is that it's the losing coach doing all the whining. Would this be Coach Fleischer? (see his response in question 18309). Given that we are the 16th safest city in the country, we must be doing something right. (see last paragraph of http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_9629376)

I certainly don't see the lawlessness that Mr. Fleischer fears.

Thomas Evins a Referee from Naperville Illinois USA

I have applied a discretionary power that, under the laws, I do not posess, and must own up to it. Law 12 says a player "is sent off," (and not, "may be sent off") for the clear-cut situation above, deliberately handling the ball to deny the opposing team a goal.
However, the mistake is not one which may be remedied by a review committee. Since the only legal time for a send-off was over when the game restarted and the penalty was saved, this became an irreversible misapplicaton of the rules on my part.
Local boards may have processes that allow them to change the result, but they should not, in this case. It's no different than any other unintentional error of fact or of judgment by an official. And did I have anything to do with that crucial penaly being stopped?

AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999

<-->

Soccer Referee Extras: Sunday, November 24, 2024
Offside Question?
Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

<>
Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Recent Questions

Click Go to view all recently posted questions