retake or protest inevitable?
Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by anonym on January 9th, 2009
http://www.fifa.com/refs/qa_E.html
LAW 13 question #8
An indirect free kick is awarded to the attacking team outside its opponent's penalty area. The referee fails to raise his arm to indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into goal. What action does the referee take?
Answer
He awards only a goal kick because the initial offence, punished by an indirect free kick, is not nullified by the referee's mistake.
(1a) It is a DFK penal foul outside the penalty area 21 yds but the referee mistakenly indicates it as an INDFK by raising his arm the ball enters the goal directly the keeper makes no attempt to stop it and the referee says no goal, I goofed , retake?
(1b) It is a DFK penal foul outside the penalty area 21 yds but the referee mistakenly indicates it as an INDFK by raising his arm the ball enters the goal directly the keeper has no chance it is a howitzer, top corner never get to it in a million years and the referee says no goal, I goofed , retake?
(2)It is a DFK penal foul outside the penalty area 21 yds but the referee mistakenly indicates it as an INDFK by raising his arm the ball enters the goal directly the keeper makes no attempt to stop it and the referee says goal, I goofed , kick-off restart?
(3) It is a DFK penal foul outside the penalty area 21 yds but the referee mistakenly believes it is an INDFK restart for handling the ball and indicates it as so by raising his arm, the ball enters the goal directly the keeper makes no attempt to stop it and the referee says no goal, restart goal kick.
(4) It is a INDFK for impeding outside the penalty area 21 yds but the referee mistakenly indicates it as DFK by forgetting and not raising his arm,. The impeding had a bit of physical contact and could easily been thought of as holding or charging by the attackers the ball enters the goal directly the keeper makes no attempt to stop it and the referee says no goal, I goofed, restart goal kick.
A referee can alter or correct a decision before play restarts but in these senarioes under law what are his options. Is FIFA saying he can not correct his mistake?
In all 4 senarioes totally true to life and all have taken place. Are any or all correct? Is there a correct answer? Are common sense and law in conflict?
After the game I approached the ref and asked her why she called an IFK for a foul ... to which her response was "yeah, I guess I messed up there". Too right!!!! Of course, I blame myself for letting the ref restart play without at least questioning her call - maybe I could have got the (correct) retake call had I not allowed the goal kick to proceed.
A year or three later, when a ref gave the other team a PK for a foul at midfield, I went ballistic. The home team coach (home team provided the refs) of the other team whom I knew as a league and club officer had no comment. After interrupting the game and being asked to leave, I returned to the sidelines, and remembered it's just a game, and went back to coaching. The game ended 1-0 with the PK being the only goal.
Morals of the story. It's a lot easier to help the ref, when he realizes you're arguing against your team. It's just a game, and the officials are part of the game. You feel much better when you work for the good of the game.
The bottom line in all cases -- Get it right the first time or get it fixed before the ball is in play because YOU (REFEREE) are going to have to do the explaining!
When I read stories like this I can understand players who make a habit of asking "direct or indirect?", even when I don't have my hand up. My first reaction is to think that older youth players should know the signals, but I cannot fault them for double-checking. I would rather have them ask and avoid a screw up.
That's a good point -- when it's older / higher level teams, I expect them to know too. I'll stop expecting that.
What you are describing is exactly what I and others consider to be the slipery slope/can of worms/Pandora's box of the current application of the Laws.
***
What you suggest may be done by a player or captain, though there is no specific requirement in the laws and it is up to the referee to make sure they do not go too far, or engage in dissent. Appealing calls is done all the time and though not commonly encouraged by the refereeing community, has long been integral to the game.
But a coach or bench personel is not a player. They have no status in the game at all, and we only permit them to be present in the technical area during play only so long as they behave in a responsible manner so that they may convey tactical instructions to the players, and when they are done they must return to the bench.
Not only is there no provision in the laws for a coach to address the referee, but in respect to a coach attemping to influence a call or directly intefere with the outcome of the match, this is absolutely prohibited. The referee is charged with preventing this and dismissing any coach or bench personel who even tries to interfere.
***
I don't agree that there is no room for this. If the 14 or 15 year old referee has trouble getting the rules right, how do you expect the 9 or 10 year old player to know any better, and to intelligently raise the point with the ref. You assume that the coach is intimidating the ref. Some might. However, we have been talking about the situation where the coach is helping to get it right. What is so wrong about asking the ref why a direct free kick in the box is not a penalty kick? What, if you are the opposing coach or team, do you have to complain about? This happens in other sports, and I don't see any reason why it cannot, or should not, happen in ours as well, especially when we are dealing with players who do not know the rules well enough to defend themselves.
Yes, some coaches may start to abuse it, and they will need to be warned. But this shouldn't be an excuse for barring any (thoughtful, polite) communication. Implicit in this statement is that you are not attempting to intimidate a young referee to do something wrong!
As I noted above, DC, you have to be careful. If I'm handling your game, and make such an error, I have no problem with you pointing it out and I'm big enough to admit my mistake and correct it then (if it's not too late) so that the kids don't get penalized. Others don't share this view, and you run the risk of getting yourself in trouble by speaking up. Tough situation. Good luck.
... I blame myself for letting the ref restart play without at least questioning her call - maybe I could have got the (correct) retake call had I not allowed the goal kick to proceed.
Coach,
As we start down this slippery slope remember that there are a couple of things that have not changed (ie. Law 3, IBD 2). So, don't blame yourself, coach. It was not up to you to question the referee's call and it was certainly not your place to interfere or prevent a restart. This would have been irresponsible behavior and you would have brought the game into even greater disrepute than the unpopular or questionalble restart by the offical.
Teach your players to know the restarts and if they have a quesiton, ask. But, if you think the referee has made a mistake, even though there is now a precedent whereby they can rectify it, if they do not, other than protesting it, or notifying their assingor, there is still absolutely nothing you are permitted to do.
It is going to be difficult, but you must restrain yourslef.
Sherman
Coach,
As we start down this slippery slope remember that there are a couple of things that have not changed (ie. Law 3, IBD 2). So, don't blame yourself, coach. It was not up to you to question the referee's call and it was certainly not your place to interfere or prevent a restart. This would have been irresponsible behavior and you would have brought the game into even greater disrepute than the unpopular or questionalble restart by the offical.
Teach your players to know the restarts and if they have a quesiton, ask. But, if you think the referee has made a mistake, even though there is now a precedent whereby they can rectify it, if they do not, other than protesting it, or notifying their assingor, there is still absolutely nothing you are permitted to do.
It is going to be difficult, but you must restrain yourslef.
Sherman
Sherman,
It's a very fine line, but there are times when I think a coach can and should at least question a referee's decision. I am constantly faced with referees at the start of their career (14/15 year old kids) who are in the process of learning the basics. I see plenty of throw-ins given to the wrong team, corners instead of goal-kicks, missed offside calls etc. and I have absolutely no issue with any of them - they nearly always even themselves out of the course of a game and rarely occur in game changing situations (unlike having a legit goal knocked off)
However when a referee, especially one just starting out, makes a call in contradiction to the LOTG, I see no reason I as a coach should not question the decision - in a polite manner of course!
As an example, in the very next game we played, the referee came up to me before the game and intimated that this was the first time she had refereed a travel game. Forewarned, I payed close attention to how she applied the LOTG, and she was not bad, just the usual list of mistakes above. However midway through the first half (and 0-1 down), one of my forwards was tripped in the penalty area and she blew for a foul. Next thing I know she placed the ball at the feet of the fouled player and indicated the player should take a DFK where the foul occurred (hmm, DFK in the penalty area, sounds like a penalty kick to me).
I defy any coach in that situation not to call the referee on that misapplication of the laws! I did, calmy but firmly calling the the referree "excuse me ma'am but was that foul inside the box?". I got a sheepish "oh yes, sorry" in reply as she picked up the ball and placed it on the spot (then my forward proceeded to rocket it over the bar :( ).
Yes, there is no place for a coach to be kicking and screaming at every mistake a referee makes ... but that shouldn't preclude him from asking the referee to explain questionable decisions (before a restart!) where the ref has truly misapplied the LOTG.
Whipple, i don't understand the distinction that is apparently being drawn in your response. why is it acceptable to retake the kick when the referee's error is unfair to the defense but not acceptable to retake the kick when the referee's error is unfair to the offense?
in the original scenario, it should have been an indirect kick, but the referee's signal (or lack thereof) indicates it is direct, so the offensive player blasts it on goal without getting a second touch. the offensive player was relying on the referee's signal just as much as the goalie may have been in the remaining scenarios.
don't get me wrong. i agree that it is not fair to award the goal when the goalie didn't try to stop it in reliance on the ref's signal. however, it seems to me that it is equally unfair to tell the offensive team that they just lost their free kick outside the box for the identical reason.
with respect to the initial question and answer that started this thread, is it clear that a retake is precluded, or simply that you cannot under such circumstances award the goal? if the point is that the ref cannot award a goal on what should have been an indirect, that makes sense, but, . . . , well, i think you get my point.
What does the wise gentleman in Maryland say about the original question (and its fairness)?
blech,
I may not have made myself clear. If you read my response, I am suggesting a retake in scenario 4 as well, on just the rational that you suggested, but I separated it from the first 3 because the quote from our friend in Maryland was directed specifcally at the defense, but I believe the principal applies to both.
Further, this statement was part of a communication made back in 1999, and though accompanying the offical position, was not, at that time, the official USSF position and so I would not want to improperly respresent it as such.
Again we are looking at a situation where referees are under pressure to get the call right, even if it means retaking the restart. In other words making it right before we go on, or even going back, based upon new information. It will be interesting to see where this leads.
interestingly, by acknowledging as we have in other threads (and perhaps in this one as well) that the ref can change his/her decision in some circumstances, then i think we also need to allow some room for player/coach objection and comment (as long as it is done in a professional manner). i don't see anything wrong with DC braveheart attempting to get the ref's attention and asking why an indirect kick has been given for a foul, and, within limits, i don't see anything wrong with the ref taking 5-10 seconds to hear the coach's question. the ref then has to say that s/he's changing the call, or tell the coach that s/he's not changing it. at this point, the coach has to shut up and let the game go, but as a player, coach, and ref i don't personally have any problem with this kind of exchange, and think it's healthy.
of course, as a player or coach, you run the risk that you won't have a ref who is so open to comments. but, as long as it's done professionally (i.e., no screaming, no tantrum, just the simple asking of a question), i don't see a problem.
interestingly, by acknowledging as we have in other threads (and perhaps in this one as well) that the ref can change his/her decision in some circumstances, then i think we also need to allow some room for player/coach objection and comment (as long as it is done in a professional manner). i don't see anything wrong with DC braveheart attempting to get the ref's attention and asking why an indirect kick has been given for a foul, and, within limits, i don't see anything wrong with the ref taking 5-10 seconds to hear the coach's question. the ref then has to say that s/he's changing the call, or tell the coach that s/he's not changing it. at this point, the coach has to shut up and let the game go, but as a player, coach, and ref i don't personally have any problem with this kind of exchange, and think it's healthy.
of course, as a player or coach, you run the risk that you won't have a ref who is so open to comments. but, as long as it's done professionally (i.e., no screaming, no tantrum, just the simple asking of a question), i don't see a problem.
What you are describing is exactly what I and others consider to be the slipery slope/can of worms/Pandora's box of the current application of the Laws. It is where, for the past three years we anticipate serious problems at the youth level for the less experineced referee.
With experineced referees at the higher levels, not only is the occurance of an error requiring a change in restart quite rare, but specific sanctions are in place to serve as deterrents for irresponsible behavoir by bench personnel. So one could say that this change represents an improvement for the higher level game, MLS, etc. But an improvement at one level is not always necessary or desirable at all levels.
What you suggest may be done by a player or captain, though there is no specific requirement in the laws and it is up to the referee to make sure they do not go too far, or engage in dissent. Appealing calls is done all the time and though not commonly encouraged by the refereeing community, has long been integral to the game.
But a coach or bench personel is not a player. They have no status in the game at all, and we only permit them to be present in the technical area during play only so long as they behave in a responsible manner so that they may convey tactical instructions to the players, and when they are done they must return to the bench.
Not only is there no provision in the laws for a coach to address the referee, but in respect to a coach attemping to influence a call or directly intefere with the outcome of the match, this is absolutely prohibited. The referee is charged with preventing this and dismissing any coach or bench personel who even tries to interfere.
A the higher levels, of course, there are fines and suspensions for coaches who fail to act responsibly. This is why, even though this spirit/law applcation has been in place at that level for the past three years, there have been no problems. The type of exchange you descirbe occurs only between players and officials and not with coaches.
But for a coach and a youth match, with a young relatively inexperineced referee, to engage in such an intervention, we now have a sitution which becomes not only unhealty, but downright dangerous for not only the referee but the players. Which coach do we listen to? Do we give them equal time? Should they disagree do we let them resolve their dispute by hurling cow patties at each other from ten feet? How about the fact that an offended team is entitled to a quick restart?
Can you imagine some 15 year old grade 8 with one year of exprience, who is still learning, standing up to a 35 year old adult preventing the start of play and demanding he change the call, because he believes he has some special right under the spirit of the law?
So to get back to your origianl post, yes, we are getting new instruciton which expands the situations (though rare) where a referee can change his/her decision or restart. But this, in my opinion, should not be seen by coaches as an opening to cheat or gain influence over the referees decision or impact the outcome of a match, irrespective of how reasonable it seems or politetly they do it. To the contrary, I see this as the time to put coaches on notice that they must behave even more responsibly, remain in the technical area, and even greater repect for the referee's judgement.
However when a referee, especially one just starting out, makes a call in contradiction to the LOTG, I see no reason I as a coach should not question the decision - in a polite manner of course!
DC,
The short answer is that the coach has no status and it is not allowed. You have absolutely no right to question any decision of the referee made during play (more on this). One would think that if you are going to play the game you play by the rules.
The long answer is that, other than venting your frustration or agressionn on a child which is at a minimum pointless or at worse, child abuse a felony, any comment you direct at a referee during play will do more harm than good. If you really want to be helpful, you notify the assignor or referee coordinator, but that is all you do. Contact the assignor as many times as necessary until either the referee learns or quits. This approach actually works well and does so on two levels.
On the first level, rather than being a confrontation between a child and adult, it is two adults who can disucss the referees actions dispassionatly, away from the emotion of the game and often clear up misunderstandings (sometimes coaches don't know all the laws). Then the assignor or referee coordinator can discuss the issues with the referee, clarify, support, mentor and even ajdust their assignments until the gain more expeience. Problems are solved.
On the second level, we don't lose referees. In leagues and programs without policies either prohibiting any comment (ZT) or procative mechanisms (Mentoring, Code of Ethics, etc.) the attrition rate of entry level referees runs 80 to 90% . Referees are so abused that most quit before they ever gain the experience or judgement necessary to handle a competitive match. Worse, they never discover how ejoyable and rewarding officating can be so having gotten their badge, they have been cheated twice, mostly by well meaning coaches.
Conversely, in legaues and programs where irresponible behavior is not tolerated either through league policy (ZT) or just a strong referee organization enforcing the Laws, along with mentoring and open lines of communication between assignors, administors and coaches, attrition is cut in half. Referees are retained, improve and more important there are enough to have full crews at every field so everyone benefits not only from more referees, but more experineced referees. Quantity and quality, who could ask for more?
(I should point out that I am an assignor, though I do not usually see referees until they have at least three years experinece, since I assign at the premier level. I also work with the state committee so I have some familairity with these issues.)
So, coach, that is the long and the short of it.
Actually there is an even longer answer which goes back to the period when the game was first offcially organized between 1863 and 1895 and the correlation between the philosophical (Transcendentialist) debate on civil disobedience versus criminal behavior, one bing a right of man and the other being the denial of the rights of man. I will, however, not go there having found that most have trouble following such twisted paths, and others just want to thoreau up and would send me off and show a red card.
Sherman
A referee can alter or correct a decision before play restarts but in these senarioes under law what are his options. Is FIFA saying he can not correct his mistake?
In all 4 senarioes totally true to life and all have taken place. Are any or all correct? Is there a correct answer? Are common sense and law in conflict? [/B]
Griz,
The following quotation comes from a very wise gentleman in Maryland and would apply directly to the first three examples:
"According to Law 5, you may change your mind only prior to the restart on things that preceded the stoppage in play, for whatever reason it has been stopped or stopped because the ball went out of play. However, the Spirit of the Law overrules the Letter of the Law in _every_ case. In this case, the Spirit of the Law says that the restart was unfair to the defending team ..."
"Why was it unfair? Because the referee signalled for an indirect free kick for a foul committed well outside the penalty area. Everyone, even players, knows that you cannot score directly from an indirect free kick, so, based on the referee's signal, they are playing intelligently if they allow the ball to go straight into goal."
This would suggest that a retake would be the correct decision in all three and that there is no confilict.
In the fourth scenario, it is the attacking team for whom the referee's mistake has been unfair. Again we can not be arbitrary or capricious, so, again the proper restart would be to retake the kick, making certain every player was aware what it is this time.
I know that I had some difficulty accepting this, since I see it as opening a "can of worms" particularly for novice referees who I felt whould be the ones most likely to make such errors. So far, however, most of the restart issues I see are with more experineced referees who should know better, and when they make a mistake, won't admit it.
AS a coach we have had the free kick taken as a result of offside from just inside our half by our premier defender only to send it directly into the opposing net past a stunned keeper. I actually had to have my captain goto the referee and explain the goal was not legal and to restart with a goal kick. The referee did not have his arm raised at all but the law says offside infractions are punishable by an INDFK. He then thought we should retake it but I said no my team is aware of the law and know it required a second touch.
My first three examples are related to this situation. A defender tries to protect her face and handles the ball outside her penalty area inside the arc. The referee blows for the the foul. The attackers set the ball and blast it into the goal. The keeper totally out of position to make an effective save claims the referee had raised his arm indicating a INDFK so no goal, but goal kick.
The attackers are dumb founded it was a DFK for a deliberate handball never mind that no caution or send off was considered. THe referee had not verbally stated anything but raised his arm as the kick was commencing.
Argument of dissent oh ok the referee made a mistake thinking only an INDFK was needed. Now a retake resultant second attempt missed. Huge dissent and a good game now gone bad. Game result? THe attacking team loses by a goal. They protest saying the goal was a good goal unfairly denied by the referee. The foul was for the deliberate handling of the ball and the restart is a DFK.
The referee gave an INDFK because he did not think the girl meant to handle it but as her hands knocked the ball down he felt the attackers should get something. In actuality it appears that the handling may not have been deliberate but a protection of the face. So the defenders protest that the call should not have been made and thus no goal could have been scored.
I am not saying common sense law 18 can not be applied here.. Where there is time to set the wall and where you hear the referee say INDFK as well as signal INDFK. Even if the referee is in error of the call the attacking team can accept the signal without reservation and would not in all likelyhood blast it in but do the two touch thing as in most INDFKs.
If a referee was to make it plain that it is an INDFK in such a manner and a goal is directly scored then realize oh my god it is a DFK I doubt there would be the total chaos as in the first incident where niether team was truly aware should the free kick be retaken. I would not want the job of sitting on the committee deciding this one.
in the original scenario, it should have been an indirect kick, but the referee's signal (or lack thereof) indicates it is direct, so the offensive player blasts it on goal without getting a second touch. the offensive player was relying on the referee's signal just as much as the goalie may have been in the remaining scenarios.
don't get me wrong. i agree that it is not fair to award the goal when the goalie didn't try to stop it in reliance on the ref's signal. however, it seems to me that it is equally unfair to tell the offensive team that they just lost their free kick outside the box for the identical reason.
with respect to the initial question and answer that started this thread, is it clear that a retake is precluded, or simply that you cannot under such circumstances award the goal? if the point is that the ref cannot award a goal on what should have been an indirect, that makes sense, but, . . . , well, i think you get my point.
What does the wise gentleman in Maryland say about the original question (and its fairness)?
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
