Question Number: 16065

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/18/2007

Dan of Topeka, KS USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 16035

I reference to the U20 World Cup game and the red cards. I watched the video clip and the very first thing saw was what Nathan Lacy mentioned about the two red players running by and "brushing" or steppin on the down white player. I figured both of those were worthy of yellow if not red plus #11 white who first grabbed the refs wrist and later pushed him should have been red carded along with the two who were.

Here is where I have a question. As an AR would it have been proper and prudent for him to immediatly come onto the field when he saw the two red players do that to the down white player to assist in controlling diffusing the situation before retaliation could occur? Hollaring, "I've got them" or something like that. The AR was very close to this and in my opinion could have done that. He could have then talked with the CR and indicated he thought they deserved cards?

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

I agree with your observations. This depends on what the referee said during his pre game. The bench needs to be controlled as well so one AR needs to observe the technical areas. Usually the other AR enters the field and observes and records. It is not smart to try and touch other players or break up fights. The referee should concur with both ARs and decide on any disciplinary actions to be taken against the players.

Answer provided by Referee Nathan Lacy

I alluded to involvement by the AR in this situation in my original answer. As Ref Mueller points out the level of involvement by the AR could be highly dependent on the pregame instructions. Here is my PERSONAL take on this situation based on the video clip but not having been there I in no way want to discredit the officials nor the way they handled it. Please merely consider this as "food for thought" should a similar situation present itself in one of your matches. It is my understanding that a greater level of involvement by the ARs is being encouraged at all levels of the game. While bench control is certainly an issue to be concerned about, you can almost keep the benches from becoming a problem at all by immediately and assertively involving yourself, as the AR, with the situation at hand on the field. There are any one of a number of ways to do this and you describe one - for you this would probably be an appropriate method of involvment but for another ref that approach might not be. We each have our own style. That having been said, I would like to think that at this level that a sufficient degree of latitude would be given that should the AR believe that their presence on the field were warranted in order to deal with a potentially explosive situation that it would be an appropriate thing and agreeable to the officiating team. By getting close to the event and dealing with the red players the involvement by the white player in pushing red in the back of the head and all of the subsequent nonsense MIGHT have been avoided because the ref (AR) would have been "right there" to, hopefully, deter the retalliation. Additionally, should bookings have been appropriate (and I think they were) for the two red players then this would have/could have occurred as well ensuring that white feels that they are being properly protected and the red team appropriately chastised. So to summarize, I would have liked to have seen the AR get involved by moving onto the field and dealing with the players "brushing by" the player on the ground; the 4th should be involved with bench control in that half of the field in which the event was taking place; and the ref could then get information from the AR as to what transpired regarding the player on the turf even after the fracas with the white players taking the card out of his hand, etc. (which might not have occurred if the first push had been circumvented). Food for thought. All the best,

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

When I offered a response to the referenced question I took my usual slant and chastised what The Game has become. In retrospect what transpired was just the end of what happened to the match officials on that event. Granted, they are well above me on the food chain. We can not fault their decisions because, in the end, theirs [his] are the only one that matters.

We can look at their mechanics. There we may offer suggestions that might tend to mitigate happenings like this future matches.

Facts:

A player was pulled down from behind.

The referee was near by and moving at a walk.

The assistant, though out of the picture on the right, perhaps, was closer to the action.

After blowing for the foul play the referee was not moving toward the point of the foul.

Two Chilean players took liberties with the Portuguese player.

NO one looked where the referee was.

A Portuguese player saw the liberties taken and retaliated.

The referee saw this.

Conjecture

From the commentators statement "this has been a war of attrition" I must assume the incident took place closer to the end of the match than the beginning.

The players, based on what happened, had fallen into a "we must protect ourselves" mode for some reason.

The match officials must have done something in the match to lead the players into having to protect themselves.

Right, I'll attempt to offer a howcum this happened, and it starts with International FA Board Decision 8 of Law 5 prior to 1997.

"The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."

This has been called the heart of refereeing. It tells the referee he doesn't have to intervene every time there's a breach of the Law. It says interfere as little as possible. It says penalize deliberate breaches of the Law. It says don't blow for trifling or doubtful breaches. What it doesn't say is this:

To whom is what happened a trifling thing?

Many, many, many referees think this means what is trifling to THEM. This is not what it means -- as a player, getting constantly hacked was a pain and at some point it ceased to be a little thing [trifling] and becomes a royal pain in the arse; at that point I wanted help. If the referee didn't recognize my need AND help out, sooner or later [usually sooner on a men's game] I helped myself.

I believe that the referee MUST determine if what he sees is trifling to the player on the receiving end; in other words he accepts it. The referee MUST, repeat MUST, indicate he has seen what happened. It's called empathy, and there is a place for that on the park. All it takes is after that happens approach the bruised player and ask if he wants the foul or the advantage on those things. Believe it or not he will give you an answer, do what he wants, don't guess. The player knows you saw it, knows it hurts, and knows he has told you what he wants. Go with it. BUT be aware his level of acceptance will change over time.

The referee has one tool he can use AND not blow for the foul. That tool is advantage. When someone gets hacked play off an advantage, that says you saw a foul!!! AND that counts toward a persistent infringement booking. If the player getting bumped shows irritation at his decision to play advantage after getting hacked three or four times AND you have played advantage you have seen three or four fouls. That's persistent infringement.

In the USA the referee must warn before that kind of caution. Though I can always sell a persistent infringement booking because I'll be able to show a player where on the field he has committed the fouls I played advantage for. So, when I finally blow for the thing that used to be trivial to the player getting hacked, and is no more, I have four or five happenings of that thing and THAT is grounds for a persistent infringement booking.

The second thing a referee can do is make the players look where he is BEFORE they do something stupid. In this incident they DID NOT look for him. How the referee makes them look is, on every foul whistled for, the referee runs to the point of the foul. He does this every time until the players expect him to be there. He knows this because they will always look for him when the whistle goes. Once he sees them looking he can just move a few steps toward the point and when the players separate or relax be need only smile and move on. He has created the illusion he will be at the point of the foul each time and the players buy into it. If they start thinking he won't be there, just reinforce their belief by going to the point a few more times.

So I suggest the referee could be a little more intolerant of things he considers trivial unless the players agree. I also would like to see the players always looking for where the referee is before doing something stupid. This shows they "fear" or are wary of the referee and trust he will do something if something happens. Referees like this usually slip by assessments because their matches appear too easy to assess. Players miss what the referee is doing as well, until the next day when the bruises aren't there.

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 16080