Question Number: 15915

Law 5 - The Referee 6/30/2007

RE: U14G Comp Under 15

Rob Johnson of Folsom, CA USA asks...

As a disinterested bystander, I was enjoying a U14G soccer tournament this weekend, a Premier level game (to give an idea as to the presumed skill of the officiating crew) when, during play, a goal was denied by the Center Ref because the shooter was fouled while kicking the goal. The ball was brought back to the point of infraction and the shooter was awarded a free kick. The team's parents went berserk when the player subsequently missed her free kick. Is this right? What sense does it make to take away a goal, even if there were, indeed, a foul? Can this really be a rule of soccer? If so, why wouldn't a defender foul in every instance when a shot threatens their goal?

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

This was supposed to go last... read the others first, software glitch

Goodness Rob, there are no impartial bystanders at a Football match, it is just too emotional a Game. You can't be one 'cause you saw something that didn't look right and wondered.

A goal is always better than a free kick and referees try to let that happen at every opportunity. Trouble is, some referees are at the point in their careers where their reward for foul recognition is a break from all the running around. I tell the new guys I qualify to do just that, when you see it blow. I know that at some point in time a referee is going to hit the whistle too soon. I know this because EVERYONE of us does it. When we make that mistake, killing a goal by too quick a whistle, we learn an easy lesson. My only hope is that it is done when it doesn't upset the outcome of a match.

BUT the lesson is so important that I accept a huge, match upsetting, BooBoo as necessary. When the referee hits the whistle too soon and has to call a goal back he learns to wait a bit. Each of my colleagues has addressed the late whistle as better than a quick one. This is how we all learn it.

If this referee does it again, he is hopeless and will quit on his own. If I see him on a match and he does it there will be paper written.

Thanks for caring,

Answer provided by Referee Jon Sommer

It seems to me that the referee triggered his whistle too early here, and once blown, he has to award the freekick, he can not then award a goal. If a ball was goal bound and the striker is fouled, we will tend to wait that extra second to see if the ball enters between the posts and under the crossbar...if it does, we award the goal, if not, we award the freekick. Having said this, yes it is the correct decision because the referee of that day made it. If a defender kept fouling on my field of play as you say, they wouldn't be on it for very long.

What Ref Fleischer says is spot on by the way, We have all tackled this as the referees we are now...having done exactly this, blown too early. Referees get high up in the game by learning from such mistakes and do it just this once. It is when we see, as Ref Dawson noted, referees put in charge of top European games making these mistakes that we worry. And I can tell you, these referees are assessed every minute they step onto a field at this level. Thanks for taking the time out to comment

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Rob,
it was likely a too quick whistle by the referee reacting perhaps to a serious type foul. The issue is once a whistle goes to end play the keeper may relax so too the other defenders as the referee has stopped play.

I have seen whistles sounded as a ball is on its way into the goal to end a half or a match . This is called situational awareness and these referees have momentarily lost focus and forgotton to be observant. Heck it happens even in high level matches the Barca Arsenal game where Lehman was sent off and a goal brought back because a whistle sounded rather than play advantage. I watched the old Vancouver versus Seattle pro match I think where the whistle sounded off a deliberate handled ball just prior to the goal being deflected in. That referee knew if he did not give the goal he must send off the player and award a PK. He chose to award a goal and only caution the defender. Thus one team got their goal and the other did not play a man down. He was called to task though in front of others to explain his call.

Players who foul regularly get carded for persistent infringement and eventually sent off if they fail to stop or if any one foul by itself is reckless or excessive again cards are likely. Not all referees make perfect decisions sometimes they make a decision that could in retrospect have been done different. This appears to be one of those times.

However in defense of experience and wisdom where a slight delay of the whistle is better or whether we award advantage we also look at retaliation and the need to react quickly to a flare point in a match. A referee must be always focused, aware and anticipate well to be effective, a momentary lapse at any juncture and we could make our own flash points needlessly!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Both Ref Sommer's and Ref Dawson's answers are fantastic. I whole heartedly agree.

Ref Dawson points out that it's far better to wait for a moment to see what will happen when the situations dictates it. The best referee's will give some extra time only to be told about "late calls" and "indecisive timing" by spectators. No good deed goes unpunished. It's teams and fans clammoring on about "late decisions" that really ought to think about what they're asking for in the game - because in your situation a late whistle would have meant you get your goal - but a quick whistle right after the foul can result in situations we all don't want.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

The "rule" you seek is simple: play stops when the referee blows his/her whistle. I'm certain that's what happened here. It's a foolish referee that blows the whistle immediately upon seeing an infraction. If the whistle was blown, the ball was dead and there could be no score.