Hi Gary
Thanks for the question
As described you handled this correctly. It is not a caution unless the player ignored a direct instruction to remove the item. Some referees look on it as unsporting behaviour by ignoring a general instruction which I believe is harsh particularly on something that is not viewed as dangerous.
In this case the player opined that the item was not dangerous or fitted within the meaning of jewellery. I see many referees allowing pliable soft bands as they deem them not to be dangerous. I suspect FIFA was more concerned about the slogan aspect of some bands rather than being intrinsically dangerous. Probably no more dangerous than a sweat band which would be allowed,
By the way if the player can correct the equipment immediately on the field he does not have to leave to do so. Generally items that have to leave the field of play to be dealt with such as a ring removal would require the player to give it to a member of technical staff for safe keeping. If the player was beside the technical area it could be done instantly, checked and play resumed.

Gary,
If this was a high school game under NFHS rule 4-3, a caution (yellow card) would be given. The head coach would receive the first caution issued. All subsequent cautions would be issued to the player. In both instances, the player with the illegal equipment would have to leave the game and could not return until the next opportunity to substitute. The player could be replaced.
Safety is a prime consideration in high school games so that having illegal equipment that a player with illegal equipment is taken very seriously. If the illegal equipment poses an immediate threat, the game should be stopped and the player sent off. If it is not an immediate threat the player can be sent off at the next stoppage.
You did ask about U19 games, but I do hope that you get to work one of the girls high school finals at Rio Tinto Stadium.

Hi Barry
While the detail was not mentioned in the original answer the principle of ongoing training and assessment was. Thanks for sharing the Ontario position in respect of ongoing training and certification which confirms that.
Perhaps the question highlights that such information is not disseminated widely enough so as to dispel opinions that referees are not subject to ongoing development activities including review, training and assessment.

Hi Brian
Talk to your assignor. While you can probably meet the technical requirements it is always best to gain experience.
Too early a step up can damage confidence when things go wrong and it can also damage your standing in the longer term even if your capability improves with experience.

I think you should talk to your local assignor about your desire to upgrade and ask what you should do. I think they will tell you that an immediate try at Grade 7 would be making a mistake (unless you are a former professional player or coach).

Grade 7 is for those who already can center adult and U19 matches. They require a different skill set and a great deal of experience in managing angry adults under stress. It is not the place to learn the art of refereeing.

First, you will not learn as much now from the Grade 7 clinic as you will after you have more experience as a referee. The clinic is focussed on the adult match and will assume that you know from your experience as a Grade 8 referee (youth competitive matches) mechanics, positioning, and procedures. Someone who just passed the grade 8 clinic and is starting to do matches will have questions that the clinic is not designed to answer. Those answers will be at your association meetings, and at a grade 8 recertification clinic.

Second, your badge increases the expectations of the referees who don't know you. They will be very happy to help someone who is new and wants to get better. They may be angry at someone who makes errors that are typical of a Grade 8, but not of a Grade 7. If there is a Professional or Advanced referee program in your area, join it. You will find potential mentors who can answer your questions and help you progress.

Third, your assignor knows what the State Referee Committee wants for Grade 7, and can help you meet your goal by giving you assignments that will challenge you, but not so high that you will feel like a failure. (No one's first match should be a BU16 competitive game.) Many states are trying to adjust to the new grade requirements, and their new power to adjust the rules for 2015. So, your assignor may know what your state really requires when it says that actual experience at adult matches is "preferred."

I hope, in a couple years, refereeing will become a passion and you will come back and ask whether you should go for Grade 6.

Hi Brian
It all depends on your desire, commitment and willingness to progress. Also there there is no typical road one takes from a Grade 8 referee to higher.
At 31 you still have age on your side and much can depend on other factors which include ability, opportunity to advance, good refereeing performances etc.
Proving onself capable of handling more difficult games is always the test and getting those opportunites is the key to progression.
Probably best to set out a five year plan and discuss that with the relevant persons in your location.

How far you can advance will depend partially on how much time you can devote to being a referee. You will need to demonstrate your commitment to advancing: doing a lot of games, attending training sessions, being available when your assignor needs you for last-minute changes, etc.

Another factor is the type of games that are available in your area. Being in a major metropolitan area, you should have opportunities to eventually get a sufficient number of adult games - that's not always the case in more rural areas.

You do have time on your side, and should be able to get to a State level at least. Beyond that it's often a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and impressing the right people.

Hi Al
Throughout the world there are efforts underway to encourage younger good referees so the top of the refereeing pyramid has sufficient numbers and that the age profile is lowered in that process.
One of the challenges facing all associations is that when the focus in on older candidates for promotion the 'churn' is greater and quicker. Also to hone the skills of young referees many associations have academy systems and the focus is on the development of these younger referees with games at higher levels.
Now having said all that the only true test is to actually attempt to upgrade. There will always be a demand for higher grade referees and if the criteria are met then why not?
In our association getting younger referees suitable for progression is a challenge and the focus is on candidates that can progress to national levels which is the same as USSF. So while that might be the intent the reality can be somewhat different. Having enough referees at the relevant grades to cover games is the most important consideration.
My advice is to go for it with enthusiasm. The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

As long as USSF does not set an age restriction for Grade 5, ask for your assessments and go for it. I've always found age limits stupid. Does anyone really think Collina didn't have another good 5 years left? Instead the game was deprived of one of the all time greats because of FIFA's arbitrary mandatory retirement age.
At 47 you are probably at your peak, so have fun and get the Grade you deserve

Hi Elsa
The only solution is to improve one's fitness in line with the recognised standard. As you know the test is in two parts.
Test 1
6 x 40 m sprint followed by max. 1 minute 30 seconds recovery after each sprint (while walking back to the start)
Reference time is 6.6 seconds for women international referees, 6.4 seconds for women international assistant referees, for each of the 6 fast runs
Test 2
The women international assistant referees must cover 150 m in 35 seconds from the starting position (1). Then they have 45 seconds to cover 50 m, walking (2). On the next whistle, referees must again run 150 m in 35 seconds (3), followed by 50 m walking in 45 seconds (4). The minimum number of laps to be covered is 10.

I have found over the years that what works best for me is to work on my general fitness and then in the weeks leading up to the test I simulate the test on many occasions so that I become accustomed to its demands with the best techniques. It also helps me evaluate where I am at in relation to meeting the required standard . I also on some occasions when I'm feeling stronger push myself beyond the standard. That gives me an edge in that when it comes to the actual test it feels shorter and well within my capability. We have two marathon runners in our ranks and the test is simply a warm up for them!!

The FIFA fitness test at the professional level requires the correct technique.

The referee should practice the transition from walk/jog to run at the end of the 50 m rest period. The goal is to be at full speed and enter the starting area precisely when the beep alerts. Too late and the test becomes more difficult than it should; too soon is a violation. Practice using the test audio.

Training schedules for referee fitness are published on line by both professional match referee associations. They have a wealth of advice.

In England, http://refworld.com/training_and_fitness
In the US, http://www.refereeassociation.net/training.php

Good luck.

Hi Al
The future of any body is its ability to attract and develop young people. Many take up refereeing after ending their playing career and perhaps as a result by the time they have gained the relevant experience find that the opportunity to progress to the upper levels has passed them by due to age, fitness etc. In Ireland 43% of our referees are over 50 years of age which is something that is urgently being addressed.
FIFA has a mandatory retirement age of 45 for all international referees and FIFA is keen to progress young referees under the age of 30 through to its senior ranks. It can only do that if associations are providing good candidates through their Centres of Excellence and Acadamies.

An interesting observation. I am not an assessor, but my experience is that assessors can tell the difference between a competitive match that is hotly contested and a poorly managed match where there are hot tempers.

I think we kid ourselves when we say that experience can substitute for fitness in some referee equivalent to the old Weight Watcher's exchange (bread for snack). Anticipation can reduce the need for speed since knowing the right place to see the foul enables one to see the foul. But, the referee still has to run to the right place.

We need to develop referees who are fit because the game has changed. The game is faster and more physical. We still need the older pros who have the life experience and wisdom to make the right call and to demonstrate wisdom to those who have more enthusiasm than experience. It pains me when promising young referees are thrown into matches for which they are not ready. Everyone suffers, including the referee.

Refereeing requires great fitness and great judgment. I cannot fault the notion, however, that it is easier to mentor a fit referee to make better judgments than to provide fitness training to bring an older referee to the performance needs of the game. I remember years ago asking our association's Director of Instruction why fitness training was not part of the training program. 'Who would come?' was his answer. Who would come?

The Laws direct teams to switch ends at the half. But they do not say what to do about it if you forget to switch ends. This is what Ref McHugh was referencing when he said it was not covered in the Laws.

It's like asking, 'What do you do if you caution a player 3 times in one game?' There is no answer to that, because the Laws do not contemplate it happening. And yet it has ...

The Laws simply do not contemplate the referee making mistakes, so when a mistake is made, there is no pre-defined remedy. The worst cases are when the error is not found until after the game is over; then the protest committee often can only order the game replayed (as happened in the BAH-UZB WC qualifier several years ago). The wise referee will attempt to create a remedy that will satisfy fairness and expediency. The league hates most to have to replay games; if a way can be found to fairly come to a result, that should be done.

Regarding the status of any misconduct that may have happened while playing in the 'wrong direction': If a game is cancelled partway through because of weather, anything that happened in the game (except the score) will be recorded. That same principle should apply to the extra minutes if the ref chooses to fix the error by restarting the half.

If your Association receives an official reply on the situation, we would certainly be interested in hearing it.

There is also the distinct possibility that the writers of the Laws deliberately did not give every solution to potential problems! In many ways, they left leeway for referees to do what is fair and right, or to come up with solutions within the bounds of common sense which fit the needs of that game, that day.

Think about it. Law 1 says there must be corner flags, but do we not play if there aren't any to be had? Law 12 lists all the reasons we can give DFKs, but are we required to call every single offense that occurs? Of course not.

If, through some strange set of coincidences, NOBODY notices that the teams haven't switched ends until 10 minutes into the second half, then nobody really has any grounds to complain, IMHO, and there is no good reason to turn things topsy turvy.

Hi Referee McGuirk
Thanks for the follow up. When I referred to the fact that it was not covered in the Laws I meant that the remedy for this situation is not outlined in the Laws. Indeed on some interpretations one has to go back to the old Questions and Answers which are no longer part of the Laws since 2006 for an answer. This scenario is not covered anywhere in the Laws and it is a matter of interpretation. Referee Collina arrived at a remedy that was not in the Laws of the Game and the result stood with both team happy. Another referee may have abandoned the game.
In my reply I gave two option which where
1. Change ends and play the remaining 35 minutes with goals, cautions. dismissals etc counting
2. Finish the half without any change of ends.
My panel colleagues gave other solution such as abandon the game, replay the total second half.
Whatever remedy is chosen the matter is reported to the relevant authority.
My personal preference is to change ends and finish out the second half which would happen in say a weather delay, crowd disturbance etc. Could the referee say to a team that had scored at the start of the second half that the goal is cancelled and the half is being restarted after 10 minutes of play? IMO finishing out the half and changing end is the 'best' decision in my opinion. In the more likely scenario where say a team has 12 players on the field of play there is no question of restarting the half!! The Law just makes provision for any goal to be cancelled provided play has not restarted and the facts are reported. As I have said on many other similar questions prevention is better than cure and hopefully it never happens. This is not something that is going to challenge refs if at all. Anyway let us know what FIFA has to say on this.
As an aside I posted the seminar question more likely to happen about the defender deliberately pushing an attacker who then falls into the goalkeeper with the ball who in turn falls into the goal. The answer around the world on that one was not totally uniform either and while its easy on paper its never so easy out on the green stuff.

So next game, you'd prefer the selection of the goalkeeper to be arbitrary too? That's a specialty position.

The Laws tell *what* players may or may not do. Sometimes that is dependent on which team is doing it (e.g. player positions at a kickoff: only the kicking team can be in the center circle). Other times it's individual (e.g. goalkeeper permissions and restrictions or second-touch restrictions on a player taking a restart).

But nowhere in the Laws does it say *who* must do something. Only that something is to be done. Selection of the *who* is left to the discretion of the team/captain/coach.

Besides, there's some offenses that do not have an individual 'victim'; the offense affects the team as a whole.

By your logic, the guy who gets fouled out on the open field must take the free kick. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It isn't a decision for the referee to make, nor would I want for that to become part of the Laws. Then you have the headache of who kicks if the fouled player is injured, and it just goes downhill from there.

In the long run, or even in the short run, it doesn't matter. Even the 'specialists', if a team even has one, don't score every time. That's part of the excitement of the game - nobody knows for sure what will happen at a PK or free kick.

By that logic, not only would it need to apply to any free kick, but you'd also make the nearest player take any restart, and the goalkeeper take the goal kicks.

A player in the penalty area still has the option to pass the ball to any teammate - it would be unfair to suddenly force a weaker player to take a penalty kick when, had he not been fouled, he could have passed it to the best kicker anyway.

Also, what happens if the player is fouled off the ball? Do you force the player that was fouled, or the player with the ball to take the kick? What if it's difficult to determine which player has the ball, or when there's 2 attackers trying to take possession? What about handling, when no player is fouled?

Doing as you suggest means the referee needs to make another decision with potential match-changing consequences. This introduces another risk of inconsistency, and another way in which the referee can influence the outcome of a match.

Let's keep the referee out of the way as much as possible and allow the teams to take restarts however they choose.

Don't forget, the team can also change their keeper at this moment - and occasionally I have seen teams who have one player who is better at stopping penalty kicks than shots taken in typical play.

Hi
Interesting proposition but it is not going to get any support from the soccer community worldwide.
It has been a principle in all sports that the team gets to choose who should carry out certain plays/tasks rather than it being decided for the team. Many times the selection of specialists by the team does not work out and recent kicks from the penalty marks in major tournaments has proven this.
Another point about the game is that it has been ultra conservative about change and the fundamentals have been the same for over 100 years.

These are difficult problems to resolve, Ryan.

Like players who seem unable to recognize when they should retire, some referees believe they can compensate for fitness with experience. They do a disservice to the players and to themselves when they accept games that they no longer can keep up with play. Confidence is a great strength in a referee, but sometimes the same confidence leads referees to believe they can handle the levels they once did, even when they cannot.

A new/younger referee likely will not be able to persuade them and may cause unintended offense. The better course, IMO, is for the younger referee to speak with assessors, assignors and other leaders in the organization. Assessors may have the objectivity and, thus, credibility within the organization to be heard by the referee.

As to misconduct during the match, an assistant referee can only inform the referee. It is up to the referee to decide what to do. The value of a post-game conference, however, includes the opportunity to learn what factors the referee considered? Should you have brought this to the referee's attention then, or waited until half-time or after the match? How could you better have helped the referee in this situation? The post game is not, however, a time to bring your point of view or debate the issue. The referee's decision is final. Yet, it is an excellent opportunity to gain insight.

If the answer is satisfying, you gain some new information that may help you advance as a referee. If not, you've confirmed that there wasn't a good answer to your question. You then face the dilemna of deciding whether you want to work with that referee again.

Contrary to your assertion, it is not unethical to accept matches beyond your physical or experience limits. It can be unwise, of course, or even foolish but not unethical. A referee's level of fitness should always be a consideration for assignors and in a perfect world, no referee would be assigned to games for which he or she could not keep up with play.

I agree with Ref Wickham that these are difficult questions. It is sometimes helpful to ask a referee, if you are not familiar with them, what types of games do they normally do, and if you are the referee, talk about expectations in your pregame. If someone who is assigned as an AR refuses to do what is asked of them, like keeping up with play, the referee must then decide which is better - to continue with them or to dismiss them and continue without them. In the latter case you must be sure to report this immediately to your assignor. I would only recommend this course of action in extreme cases.

Hi Referee Ryan
I agree with Referee Maloney when she says that it is not unethical to accept matches beyond physical or experience limits but that it can be unwise.
Some of the best referees that I know are not 100% fit. They know that themselves yet they more than make up for that in knowledge of the game and game management skills. I have seen referees who are super fit, good athletes and they struggle with other key aspects of the game. Assignors always have to make game allocation decision based on a variety of factors and fitness happens to be just one. Where it ranks depends on the level of the game. Certainly at the higher levels passing the ongoing fitness tests is a requirement. However at lower levels if game allocation was to be awarded based on fitness levels many games would not allocated a referee.
Also part of an assessor's duty is to advise referees on areas of improvement such as fitness. It does result in marks being deducted because of poor positioning and those that are keen to improve will do something about it. Others unfortunately will not and I simply have to accept that. I expect that in vitally important games that the officials that are allocated meet the standard required for the game.

As regards the CR not dealing with repeated misconduct I would find this unusual. How this is dealt with should always be raised in the pre match discussions and I will tell assistant to try to sort it out themselves. If they call me across I will have a word with the AR and depending on the advice from the AR I will either give a stern warning/caution that if it is repeated the person will be removed or if its serious enough a straight red card/removal.

We can forgive an unfit referee who tries but can't keep up with play. Although far too many of our adult and some of our youth referees fall into this category, without them many games would not have coverage. And despite being unfit, at least they put in the effort to try to do the best job they can. Not everyone is a gazelle.

On the other hand, it is hard to forgive the lazy referee, adult or youth, who habitually hovers in and around the center circle, who only occasionally breaks into a brief trot, who rarely gets into the penalty areas, and who, in all likelihood, arrives at the field only minutes before kickoff time. These referees bring nothing but discredit to themselves and create problems for their officiating teammates.

Typically if they're adults and you're so 'brazen' as to offer suggestions they'll tell you something like, 'Don't tell me how to referee! I've been refereeing for ten years.' Sadly, that's usually not ten years of progressive experience but rather one year repeated ten times.

As others suggest, speak with the assignor. First and foremost he or she bears ultimate responsibility for who is and is not assigned to work the games. If your input makes no difference then at least be confident that you've tried to work through the appropriate first stage channel.

You might then try speaking with a trusted confidant -- a mentor or senior assessor in the area. That person might take it upon themselves to have a look. And if your observations are confirmed then take the matter to that same assignor who paid you no attention. Sometimes you have to hit a particularly stubborn mule several times with a two-by-four before it pays attention.

If none of that works, let it drop. There is no sense beating your head against a wall. Just go out and do the best job you can so that you are noticed for the good things you do on the field.

When you're the referee working with one of the 'sloths' give a thorough pregame and make it very clear you expect that AR to maintain focus and the proper position to judge offside, and to **run** to the goal line every time the ball gets deep into the penalty area, especially, each time it approaches the goal line.

If you don't get what you want in the first half repeat your instructions at halftime. If you still don't get the response you want tell your assignor afterward that you prefer not to be assigned to future games with the 'sloth' who doesn't put out any effort.

As to the referee who repeatedly refuses to acknowledge your communication of misconduct out of his/her sight....Dealing with that situation is actually quite straight forward.

First, have a talk with the referee at halftime. Don't be confrontational, but lay it on the line -- describe exactly what is going on behind the referee's back and ask the referee if he/she still requires your assistance for the second half. If the answer is 'yes' (it's hard to imagine any referee replying 'no') then politely suggest to the referee that he/she needs to pay attention and to consider your input on these critical problems that are going unaddressed.

If things change for the better, that's great. You've gotten the positive response and change the game needed.

On the other hand, if the referee continues to ignore you then finish the game and be done with that referee. Contact the assignor and let that person know what happened. Just the facts. End the conversation with a request that you not be assigned to future games with the problematic referee.

You've done all you can, politely and professionally. Wash your hands of the affair and let others deal with it or not. Eventually unless the problematic referee has a lot of 'stroke' in the local referee community the message will get through and the assignments will change. Or maybe nothing will change.

So be it. Move on. Focus on being the best referee and AR you can.