Here you will, hopefully find help, information and advice on the Laws of the Game.

(page updated Wednesday 12th August 2009)

THROW-IN

Most throw-ins are routine but some can change games.

In the 1995 Anglo-Italian Cup Final, Andy Legg (Notts County) took a throw-in, and the ball passed through a crowded goalmouth into the net. The referee awarded a goal because he thought the ball had touched someone on its journey - a goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in - but slow-motion film suggested that the ball had not been touched. The referee's decision is final.

One of Ian Hutchinson's long throw-ins helped Chelsea win the 1970 FA Cup Final replay. Charlton (Leeds) mis-headed the throw, and Webb (Chelsea) bundled the ball into the net. Scientific experiments showed that Hutchinson had an extension of the spine and was double-jointed in both shoulders. This enabled him to perform a `windmill action' with his arms revolving rather than popping out. But the BBC Match of the Day team's slow-motion footage showed that some of Hutchinson's longer efforts were foul throws as both feet were not always on the ground when the ball was released.

A game can also be changed by a sending-off provoked by a throw-in. Adrian Serioux (Millwall) was sent off when he threw the ball at Lee Cook (Queen's Park Rangers), who was standing the required one yard away (November 2004). The law was then changed so that opponents had to be at least two yards from the thrower until the ball was in play (2005). It is a cautionable offence to be closer (2006).

Albert Jarrett (Stevenage) was standing some distance away from Lee Protheroe (Gravesend) when Protheroe took a throw-in and deliberately hurled the ball hard at the back of Jarrett's head (April 2005). Jarrett retaliated and both players were sent off.

Shaun Smith (York City) was cautioned by the referee after spending seventeen seconds taking a throw-in in the 57th minute of a match against Scarborough (December 2004). It was Smith's second caution of the match so he was dismissed.

In football's earliest days, the first player to touch the ball over the boundary-line was allowed to restart the game with a one-handed throw at right-angles to the boundary-line (1870 London rules) or a kick in any direction (1870 Sheffield rules). Presumably this is why the boundary-tine became known as the touchline.

The idea behind kick-ins was to punish the side kicking or heading the ball out. If the punishment was harsh enough, all the players would strive to keep the ball in play to prevent a throw-in. But kick-ins have never proved a deterrent, and experiments in the 1940s, 1970s and 1990s have all ended with the retention of the throw-in.

When the Sheffield and London rules were eventually unified (April 1877), the compromise was to accept London's one-handed throw-in but also accept Sheffield's any direction rule. The throw-in was taken by a player of the opposite side from that which last played the ball, and it was taken from where the ball went over the line. Another player had to touch the ball before the thrower could play it again.

There was, however, still inconsistency between the Scottish throw-in (at right angles to the touchline) and the English one (in any direction). This led to a dispute before the 1880 Scotland-England match. These throw-in inconsistencies were discussed at the first-ever IFAB meeting (December 1882). The difficulties were resolved by an entirely new system - a two-handed throw in any direction. This restrained the first generation of long-throw experts. William Gunn (Notts County), John Graham (Preston), Ted Corrie (Everton) and Hugh Wilson (Sunderland) had all been capable of throwing the ball one-handed from the touchline into the goalmouth.

Throwing distance was further restricted by a rule compelling the thrower to stand with part of both feet on the touchline (1895). The rule was changed so that the thrower's foot had to be outside the touchline (1925) or on or outside the touchline (1932), and a new generation of long-throwers was born. Spectators were startled by throws into the goal area by Sam Weaver (Newcastle) and Tom Gardner (Aston Villa). Immediately after World War II, Dave Russell (Sheffield Wednesday) and Cliff Holton (Arsenal) developed long throws after practising with medicine balls. In the 1960s, David Mackay (Spurs and Derby County) prepared for his version of a long throw by wiping his hands on his shirt. But players are not allowed to dry their hands on a conveniently placed towel.

The referee keeps a mental check list for what constitutes a foul throw. If the answer to any of these questions is `No', the throw-in is awarded to the other team: Is part of each foot on the ground when the thrower releases the ball? Is part of each foot either on the touchline or behind the line (both heels on the line and toes over the line is acceptable)? Are both hands used with equal force? Does the thrower throw the ball from behind and over the head in a continuous motion? Is the ball thrown (rather than dropped)? Does the throw come from behind the head? Is the throw-in taken from the right place? Is the ball thrown without any spin? Is the player facing the field with some part of the body? Has there been no use of a purposefully placed towel to dry the ball?

A foul throw was originally punished by a free-kick. After protests from many clubs, this was changed so that the other team was awarded the throw-in (1931). More recently, a throw-in taken from the wrong position was labelled a foul throw, and the throw-in conceded to the opposition (1987). Previously it would be taken again from the right place. In 1982-83, the Football League treated time-wasting at throw-ins as the equivalent of a foul throw, but this was quickly stopped by IFAB.

Foul throws have been spotted at the highest level. The 1974 FIFA World Cup Final contained a foul throw when a Dutch player failed to take the ball properly over his head, and the 2004 women's under-nineteen World Championship had a foul throw in the Germany-China final.

A goalkeeper was allowed to pick up a team-mate's throw-in for the first five years of the back-pass law (1992 to 1997) but after 1997 a throw-in counted as a back-pass. If the ball brushes the goalkeeper's hand and goes into the net, the referee would probably award a goal rather than an indirect free-kick, i.e. the referee would apply the advantage clause. Players cannot be offside from a throw-in (1920).

An important addition to the throw-in protocol - 'a goal shall not be scored from a throw-in' - was added in 1898. Frank Boakas (Barnsley) took a long throw-in and goalkeeper Breen (Manchester United) deflected the ball into the net for a legitimate goal (January 1938). A confident goalkeeper could have let the ball go into the net and be rewarded with a goal-kick (provided the referee agreed that the ball hadn't been touched).

When Barnsley beat Huddersfield Town 3-1, Huddersfield equalised with a controversial goal (August 1996). The referee ruled that Andy Morrison (Huddersfield) had got his head to Tom Cowan's long throw, but furious Barnsley players claimed that the ball had gone straight in. Birmingham City's second goal against Aston Villa had a similar controversy (September 2002). Goalkeeper Enckelman (Villa) attempted to trap a throw-in only for the ball to roll under his foot and into the net. The referee decided to give the goal on the basis that the goalkeeper had touched the ball with his foot. Otherwise the decision would have been a corner kick as a Villa player had taken the throw.

During Bournemouth's famous 1958 FA Cup run, Ollie Norris (Bournemouth) developed an unorthodox tactic of jumping up in front of opponents when they were taking throw-ins. This tactic was later classed as ungentlemanly conduct (IFAB 1966). Members of the defending side are allowed to stand within two yards of the thrower but they are not allowed to jump up and down, and not permitted to gesticulate or make facial expressions. They must stand still.

If the ball hits two players at the same time and goes over the touchline, referees try to give a quick signal. Some referees consistently give that sort of decision to the defending team; others consistently give the throw to the attackers.

Throw-ins are so abundant that they need to be taken inside the first five seconds if possible. In the 1960s, it was estimated that first-class matches averaged 85 throw-ins. There may be fewer now, but so much will depend on the width of the pitch, tactics, standard of play and weather conditions (especially wind).

Somersault throws by Changez Khan (Stafford Rangers) and Steve Watson (Newcastle United) were confirmed as legitimate (FA 1990). Such acrobats usually do a handstand on the ball before completing the somersault and throwing the ball in. Obviously all the principles of a throw-in need to be
adhered to.

Other players have throw-in techniques that may need closer scrutiny, in the manner that authorities study the bowling actions of certain cricketers. In EURO 2004, Reiziger (Holland) demonstrated an unusual style whereby he twisted to the right but seemed to correct the motion just in time so that he delivered the ball as he was facing the pitch and brought the ball over his head rather than his right shoulder.

 

 

The Throw-In: Part 2

Introduction:

The throw-in is just one jigsaw piece (constituent part) of the game as a whole that you will have to manage and control. If handled correctly, the throw-in should rarely cause you a problem, but there are a few things that you can do, that will help you when overseeing throw-ins and help you to minimise problems occurring. A throw-in is usually the first decision that you will have to make as a Referee in each half of the game, as invariably, within a matter of seconds, the ball will leave the field of play over one of the touchline boundaries. This offers you a first opportunity to be proactive by unconsciously manipulating players into taking all restarts from the correct position. Below, you will find the following three stages of managing a throw-in.
Stage 1: Involve yourself 100 percent in the very first few throw-ins in each of the two 45 minute periods of play.
Stage 2: Confidant body language and signalling.
Stage 3: Consolidating.

If you can incorporate these three ideas immediately into your game, will get you off to a very good positive start. 

Stage 1: Involve yourself 100 percent in the very first few throw-ins in each of the two 45 minute periods of play.

As soon as you blow the whistle to start each half, be prepared to make your first decisions. This will very often be simple throw-in decisions. Commit yourself 100 percent to manage these first few throw-ins as if your life depended on it, as this can be your 'tipping-point' in terms of the players beginning to accept your authority right from the very start. 

The aim is to impart an early unconscious message to all the players that you; 

· are professional

· are dressed correctly and smartly

· intend to take this game seriously from the very start

· expect restarts to be taken from the correct place

· expect players to look to you for decisions if they are unsure

· expect players to be wary of your ability not to be manipulated or too frivolous with Law application

· expect players to look to you for positional instructions if they are not sure where to take a restart

· expect players to recognise your authority as the official Referee of their game

· are as keen as they are to fulfil your part to the best of your ability

· will strive to reach credible monitoring positions by working hard at all times

not to see you as an official dictator but rather as a necessary part of their game

When you break down the benefits of involving yourself 100 percent in the very first few throw-ins of each half, as shown in the list above, it is not surprising that at least some of them will inevitable be consumed into the players' unconscious mind. This can only be beneficial to you as a Referee as the game unfolds. The ideas in this advice are things that you will physically and mentally have to do - so don't expect players to respect you without earning it. 

Involve yourself 100 percent by:

· anticipating where your first decision will be made

· working hard to be as close as practically possible

· sprinting adjacent to where the ball has left the field of play

· using your whistle clearly and confidently when making your first few decisions

· using your outstretched horizontally held arm to emphasise where you want the player who is taking the throw to stand

making eye-contact and looking the thrower in the eye as he prepares to take his throw-in

If you can quietly achieve the above, players will not only look towards you automatically prior to taking the throw-in, but more importantly, they will look towards you on subsequent restarts to check your acceptance.

only use verbal and additional whistle signals as a last resort to achieve correct positioning by the player. It is very rare that you will need to do this, as your positioning and close attendance is normally all that is needed.

 

Stage 2: Confidant body language and signalling.

The idea is not to BOSS these early restarts by being overly assertive, but rather to quietly and confidently involve yourself 100 percent. If you are too strong when dealing with the minor trouble-less elements of a game (like these early throw-ins), it will lessen the assertiveness impact that will serve you better when dealing with possible serious incidents later on. 

To involve yourself 100 percent without being overpowering, you need to achieve a level of authority that does not end up making you look like a dictator who cares nothing about helping players to enjoy their sport. 

You can achieve this during the early restarts by:

· not trying to impose yourself by forcing players to do exactly what you want by using domineering commands

· not executing arm, whistle and vocal signals like a Sergeant Major!

· having the flexibility to interpret the Laws without insisting on applying them in minute detail 

· wearing a friendly smile on your face in the early stages

· being slightly relaxed yet focused, by using a good upright posture that exudes a good attitude

· making an effort to get into the correct position and not standing 50 metres away

· demonstrating an enthusiasm and positive attitude for the game

· using early stoppages to show in a quiet way, that if you are 'up for this game' 

· always being polite 

· acknowledging your Assistant Referees support with quick early subtle thumbs-up signals

· not penalising trifling Law breaches or looking to conjure up deliberate faults when there are none

quietly saying to a player who was near to committing a fault, for example when he took the throw-in, "Be careful with your feet on the next throw-in." Or, "Make sure you take it from exactly the right place next time."

If you can achieve all or some of the above, it will positively influence the subconscious mind of the players before they have had a chance to try and influence YOU! If you can get into their minds before they get to yours, it will be of great benefit to everyone involved. These actions subtly set the scene of the referee's capability in the players' eyes. Effective communication techniques such as these will subtly guide players into taking throw-ins from the correct place, and this will subsequently lead to other restarts being taken correctly. 

Stage 3: Consolidating.

Throw-in consolidation:

· when the ball leaves the field of play for a throw-in, once you have shown the direction with a raised angled arm signal, sprint and position yourself square to where the ball left the field of play

· if you can't remember which way the throwing team is kicking, just shout, "Red throw" or Yellow throw" etc. until you are confident that your arm direction signals are pointing the right way!

· if you don't know which way to award the throw-in, give it to the defending team, unless you want too invite players to exploit your indecisiveness - but aim to get your first few decisions correct (this is even more important if you are an Assistant Referee)

· be proactive and stop players from taking throw-ins from the wrong place

· raise an arm horizontally and hold it there for a minimum of 5 seconds to show everyone where the throw-in should take place

· only use your whistle to signal to stop play for a throw-in if there is any doubt (but use it for the first few occasions)

· if players gain illegal ground use short blasts on your whistle (peep peep peep) to reposition them correctly

· if the short whistle blasts do not work, use vocal instructions and approach a few steps nearer

once the thrower is in the correct position, sprint to your drop-zone point to monitor where the ball is likely to land when it is thrown 

If you do this for the first three or four throw-ins in each half of the game, you will notice that players will start looking towards you for positive affirmation before they take subsequent throw-ins. As the game progresses, you will find that players no longer try to gain those few illicit metres up the touchline. You no longer need to provide any positioning signal apart from standing square to where the ball should be thrown back in. Eventually, you don't even need to stand adjacent to where the ball should be thrown back, instead you will be able to sprint directly to your drop-zone monitoring position without having to indicate where the throw-in should take place; because the players themselves will go to the correct place automatically. Once this level of control has been achieved, apart from giving the throw-in direction, your involvement only needs to be heightened (or re-established) if there is a disputed throw-in, or if the players' standards begin to slip later on. This subtle proactive technique, covertly guides the players into doing correctly what they should have been doing correctly in the first place!

Keeping the anticipated play area in view.

As a general rule, try to keep the drop-zone area (where you anticipate that the ball will be thrown) in good view and the subsequent anticipated play area in front of you when positioning yourself to monitor a throw-in. There are exceptions to this of course; one being when the defending team near their goal line, take a throw-in. In the latter case, don't stand on the goal line but take up a position further up the field towards the middle rather than near the touchline. 

Keeping the subsequent play area in view (generally in front of you), gives you a better angle of view, and keeps you out of the players' path. And more importantly, stops you straying into the zone where the ball is most likely to go. There may be the odd occasion when you will need to monitor a throw-in from the touchline or a goal line. But placing yourself at the extremes of your patrol path is always to the detriment of optimum positioning, which should consider all possibilities of where the ball could travel if it breaks away quickly. 

Finally, closeness to play is always a major factor in decision-making; more so when Club Assistant Referees are being used. For example, it is wise not to stick too rigidly to your diagonal patrol path when the throw-in is near your Assistant on the far side of your diagonal path. Be prepared to compress play by coming 'way off' your diagonal to closely monitor a throw-in, especially if any trouble is expected. Remember - try to be proactive and NOT reactive. The nearer that you are to a decision-making moment, the more readily the players will accept your judgment and the more credible your decision will be. This is also important if you need to 'sell' a decision that you are not 100 percent sure about. Players more readily accept a difficult decision made from a few meters away; this is not the case if you make a difficult or important decision from 50 metres away. This is very important when you make the first few decisions in each half time period of play. 

Summary: 
Hopefully, if adopted, the above suggestions will minimise foul throw-ins, and encourage players to look towards you (the Referee) for positive confirmation at throw-ins and other restarts. The overall message is to be proactive and not reactive. Don't wait for a foul throw-in (or any other restart) to occur, when it is so very easy for referees (as guardians and Champions of the Laws) to prevent it.

I have shown how easy it is to be proactive, how to subtly manage the restart positions to minimise infringements, and hopefully, I have encouraged you to be more thoughtful in your positioning and efforts in the very first few minutes of each half. Try using some of these ideas to manage other early restarts and stoppages. 

Work hard to quietly/assertively and professionally manage the first few throw-ins in each half by being prepared to subtly guide the players into the correct place to take the throw-in. They will then start to look towards you on subsequent throw-ins, and this is when you can ease off your involvement (but remain watchful). 

The overall aim is to show players very early on, that whilst you can allow some leeway and flexibility with restarts, it is you that control the amount of leeway and when to apply it - and not them. 

Happy Refereeing. Stay safe.
Regards, Julian Carosi

 

 

WEDDING RINGS

 

                 Below are copies of two  letters sent out firstly by Neale Barry to all Contributory Leagues and Supply leagues. This letter was circulated on the 14th July 2008. Further on is a more recent letter circulated by Ian Blanchard with further advice to those referees operating below Supply League level.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

To: Contributory League Secretaries

Supply League Secretaries

 

Dear Sir,

 

Players Equipment - Safety

 

In readiness for the start of season 2008/09, can you please ensure all your constituent clubs are aware of the directives issued to match officials in respect of player equipment as outlined below:

 

Players Equipment - Safety

 

Match Officials are reminded that Law 4 states: “A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player including any kind of jewellery.”

 

• All items of jewellery (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands etc.) are strictly forbidden and must be removed. Using tape to cover jewellery is not acceptable.

• Under-shorts worn by players, are to be of the same main colour as the shorts.

• If undergarments (shirts or shorts) are worn, the colour must be the same main colour as the playing kit or shorts. If a long sleeved under garment is worn the sleeve colour must be the same colour as the sleeve of the short sleeved shirt.

• Please note that under garments and thermal shorts may contain clothing manufacturer’s marks but must not exceed an area of 20 square centimetres and must not be visible outside playing kit during the period of a match.

• Match Officials are also to incorporate a footwear inspection into the pre-match safety check of players’ equipment. This will take place in the tunnel immediately prior to the game.

 

 

Boot manufacturers have recently been experimenting with designs and some give cause for concern. The use of blades on the sole of the boot is an example of such concern.

 

The Football Association have offered the following guidelines:

 

“When inspecting footwear officials are to be alert to the possibility of the edge of the blade developing rough areas on either the plastic or metal used in their construction.

 

These burrs are very sharp and have been the cause of lacerations on opponents. If match officials are concerned over the condition they should refuse to sanction their use until they have been made safe.

 

If evidence emerges during the game e.g. torn stockings, lacerations, you may wish to follow up the inspection with the player(s) concerned during a stoppage.”

 

Referees are to report any instance where the kick-off has been delayed, as a result of the footwear inspection.

 

I hope this is of assistance.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Neale Barry

Head of Senior Referee Development

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Jewellery

 

In light of the recent letter sent by Neale Premier League, Football League, National Conference and to Supply League and Contributory League club secretaries (copy attached); I thought it an appropriate time to offer advice on the implication for grass roots football.

 

Can I stress this is only advice and guidance to CEO’s, County Secretaries, Referee Development Officers and other county personnel to assist with any questions they may be asked..

 

Of course we need to be abiding with the Laws of the Game. At a senior level I believe it is very easy to implement the removal of all jewellery however at local level I do feel we need to extol an element of common sense.

 

In respect of anyone wearing any item of jewellery the advice must and always will be to remove the article.

 

The main responsibility of a referee operating at the grass roots level is to ensure that the game takes place and that it is safe to do so.  Before the game, referees should carry out an inspection of all players’ equipment. If a player is unable to remove, say a plain wedding ring, then the referee should apply a practical approach to the management of the situation. Participation and the opportunity to play football at grass roots level, provided it is safe to do so, is a fundamental responsibility of the referee.

 

We do not want to place our referees in a potential confrontation situation prior to the game starting over the issue of a plain wedding band.

 

The issue of wearing jewellery and head coverings, as part of someone's religion, has been highlighted before and we offer advice on our website.

 

Ian Blanchard

Head of National Referee Development

August 2008

 

 

Offside, Another Consideration?

 

                 Following the recent ‘controversy’ over the goal scored by Ruud van Nistelrooy UEFA released the following press statement

 

UEFA has emphasised that the goal scored by Netherlands striker Ruud van Nistelrooy in the recent UEFA EURO 2008™ match against Italy in Berne was valid, and that referee Peter Fröjdfeldt acted correctly in awarding the goal.

 

Not offside

 

UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."

 

Still involved

The starting point, said Mr Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goalline than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.

Rare incident

"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "

Law applied

Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner. If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."

 

 

The new Law book contains a completely re-written chapter entitled, 'Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees'. This chapter contains compulsory advice that supplements the Laws. It is based on the old FIFA Questions and Answers, and the previous Law book chapter entitled, ' Additional Instructions for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials'. It is recommended that all Referees read the new chapter.

An interesting unpublicised Law change has been slipped into the new Law book.

In the Law 12 chapter, a new infringement (tackles an opponent) has been added to the first 6 Direct Free Kicks offences which are committed, carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force. This makes it now 7 offences.

The following infringement has disappeared completely from the remaining Direct Free Kick offences:
Tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball.

These changes, whilst on first glance seem insignificant, are major changes in both the way that Direct Free Kicks are taught to candidates, and how Referees decide what a Direct Free Kick offence is when officiating.

This unpublished change has caused some debate here in England.

Julian Carosi The Corsham Newsletter

 

One of the plagues of the modern game, simulation or diving as it is know.  Here we have some good advice on this subject by Julian Carosi, taken from his regular publication ‘The Corsham Newsletter’

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-

 

"Simulation is one of the worst things in football. It's a cancer in football. And not from a refereeing point of view, because some people think that simulation is against the Referee. 
(Ex-FIFA Referee Pierluigi Collina 2001)

'The credibility of the result goes out of the window if a game is settled by a dive. The only way we can stop simulation is to give a caution.'
(Ex Premiership Referee Graham Poll 2004)

'One issue that concerns me personally, is technically termed `simulation. Let's get real - this is diving. Cheating in fact. We've all got to show more honesty here. Every week, Referees are coming under intense scrutiny when making split-second judgment calls in this area. It's impossible to get them all right and everyone has got to take a greater level of responsibility. Respect for the game is paramount and respect for the Referee is essential.'
(Brian Barwick 2005 The FA England)

How to deal with Simulation.

Introduction:

Diving by players has become a scourge of the game. It takes a brave Referee to quickly flash a yellow card for simulation when an attacking player tumbles down too easily in the penalty area. Most Referees in their career will have chastised themselves on several occasions for not having the courage of their conviction by cautioning perpetrators for simulation. Simulation is a difficult decision to make, especially when players are jostling each other at fast speed. If Referees allow simulation to continue as it is, then they are failing their duty as the guardians of the game and its image.

There is a big drive worldwide to protect the 'Image of the Game'. And one of the areas under the spotlight remains simulation.

The Law requires a Referee to caution for unsporting behaviour any player where simulating action is intended to deceive him. However, a Referee should be 100% certain that a player has simulated (feigned) an unfair challenge before cautioning him for unsporting behaviour. The Referee must be convinced that there has been no (or very little) physical contact whatsoever by the player who is challenging for the ball.

If, however, the Referee is not totally sure but there is a hint of simulation, the Referee is advised to take the earliest opportunity to be seen to speak clearly to the player(s) involved. It is not recommended that a referee makes any gesture with arm or hand as this may inflame the situation.

Players who clearly simulate injury in order to deceive the referee must also be dealt with under Law 12, International Board Decision No. 5.
(FA Learning Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game booklet.)

When a player gets away with diving, it may not cause his opponents physical injury as a foul might, but there is no doubt the game is hurt. It is hardly surprising, that attention is now turning to the vexed issue of gamesmanship.

Players acknowledge that it is a difficult aspect for Referees to punish simulation. There is no easy way to be 100% accurate when deciding if an incident has been simulated or not. Players are expecting Referees not to sit on the fence, but to actually do something about it by eradicating it from the game! In this article (which focuses mainly on the diving aspects of simulation), you will find some guidance that can help you (as a Referee) to deal more confidently with simulation. And just as important, this article encourages you to be brave, make strong decisions and apply the correct punishment (a caution) when you have to.

The FA direction has always been there. Your duty as a Referee, is to mandatory caution perpetrators at all levels, for unsporting behaviour in accordance with the Law 12 Decision No. 4:

Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the Referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour.

Types of Simulation:

DIVING: Attacking players very often dive and fall easily to the ground inside their opponent's penalty area. This normally occurs at speed, with the aim being to dupe the Referee (and/or the Assistant Referee) into awarding a penalty kick, when in effect, no foul has been committed on the attacking player. 

There are four types of simulation to look out for: 

Firstly, when there's clearly no contact. 

Secondly, when there's minimal contact and it's exaggerated. 

Thirdly, when the player drags his leg; and finally, 

Over-reaction, such as when a player goes down clutching his face after an opponent brushed past him.

 

FEIGNING INJURY: Thankfully, this is becoming less prevalent in the game, but it still occurs from time to time. A typical example of this occurs towards the end of a game, when players on the winning team use it as a ploy to either waste time, or to stall the positive momentum of the opposing team.

Simulation - How To Identify It

By R.D. Britto. Found on the Referees' Association England discussion page 3 July 2006: 

A player who is tripped, will pitch forward, his head will go forward and down, his back will arch away from the ground, his arms will fly forward and down and he will try to recover the tripped leg under him to avoid an uncontrolled fall. When a player simulates a dive, he will do the opposite of these things to one degree or another. He pitches forward, of course, but he throws his head up and back, he arches his upper back away from the ground, his arms fly up and back and the leg apparently tripped, he leaves behind him with the toe pointing towards the ground like a ballerina. He deliberately engineers a controlled fall by curving his body away from the ground to maximise the impact in the eyes of the Referee. 

A further significant feature in all cases of tripping versus diving is that a trip is abrupt and sudden, whereas a dive is relatively slow and naturally graceful. 

If Referees rejected appeals in all cases where a player falls down exhibiting the dive characteristics shown above, simulation would soon stop, especially if accompanied by a caution.

Clearly, not all instances of players falling to the ground are simulated. Some collisions are genuine fouls. Equally, on many occasions, the fouled player could have continued without falling down and making a meal of it. It is the Referee's job to differentiate the genuine from the simulated.

The following advice is from Terry Boyd B.App.Sci.(Physio), F.A.S.M.F. Sports Physiotherapist Australia.

Other simulation signs include the tactic of 'flicking up' both feet simultaneously. In this manoeuvre, the cheating player's body can be seen to remain relatively upright, as both feet are smartly kicked up towards their buttocks in a (strangely obvious) manner, to suggest that they have been tripped. In the event of such a trip actually being committed, the fouled player's head and body will suddenly pitch forwards, with the arms outstretched and the perpetrators feet well behind the centre of gravity.

A second "zero points" effort, is when an opponent makes contact with a player fairly at shoulder level, and the player then proceeds to fall as if he has been hit by a bus, shoulders inward, towards the tackler, with his legs sliding away from his opponent. It seems so obvious a dive to most of us: the relevant body parts are moving in the directions opposite to that which would occur if it were indeed an illegal push. 

Simulation - How To Be Decisive and Creditable.

The greatest asset that a Referee has in relation to making the correct decision, is his proximity and 'angle of view' during simulation (diving) incidents. This is why it is very important for Referees to work hard in achieving creditable monitoring positions when attacking moves approach the penalty areas. The nearer you are, and the better view you have when making a decision, the more credibility you will have. The one important factor that always sells a decision on simulation, is where was the Referee when he made the decision?

It is difficult to make the right call all of the time. Players have become so convincing, that it is shameful to see the close up camera-shots of (cheating) players who are heroes to some children. 

In say out of 10 incidents of simulation, there will probably be one occasion that was a genuine foul. If a Referee can accept that he will occasionally penalise a player for simulation when no simulation has occurred, it will increase that Referee's endeavour to play his part in ridding the game of this blight.

In a televised game, even close-up camera shots can be inconclusive when trying to identify simulation. But in the majority of games, where no cameras are in place, the only people that have any part in the act, are the diving player and the Referee. Most of the other players will not have been in a position to have a clear view of the incident. Therefore, make a decision if you have to, and don't worry whether or not anyone else has a better view, as this is very unlikely. 

Key factors to consider before issuing a caution for simulations:

If you decide to caution, you have to be very strong and swift in your action. No pussyfooting about here! Be strong, assertive and believe in your decision. Once you have made the decision, stick with it and deal swiftly with any dissent by issuing a caution in record time! This will take you to the point of no return. In other words. Players will see that you have applied the correct punishment, and know that you will not be changing your mind. The more delay you have in issuing the caution, the more time players have to try and influence you.

Don't make a meal of the occasion by humiliating the perpetrator. A swift caution clearly shows what you think of his antics. Further chastisement by you will only inflame the situation. Get the game restarted as soon as you can.

Forget it, if you are in the centre circle catching up with play. There is no credibility in making a decision from inside the centre circle, involving a simulation act inside of the penalty area.

Be brave. You get nowhere as a Referee if you lack courage. Simulation is no different to a foul. Deal with it.

Trust your instinct always, as it often proves to be correct, even though you believe that you have maybe not assimilated all of the facts. 

Accept that you will get a few decisions wrong - but keep this thought, it is possible to make even a wrong decision seem right for the majority of the onlookers. 

Summary:
Referees are the guardians of the Game, and it is their duty to punish simulation whenever it happens. In time, a concerted effort by all Referees will hopefully purge the game of this blight.

A Referee who is prepared to accept that he may occasionally punish a player for simulation when no simulation has occurred, is a much better Referee than one who is always too frightened to ever penalise diving, because such decisions are difficult to make! 

Stop sitting on the fence and letting players get away with cheating. Be brave and punish simulation. And work hard at getting as near as you can when making your decisions. You will need to sell each decision; so be strong and positive and confident whenever you penalise simulation.

When dealing with simulation, the aim is to issue a swift caution and get the game restarted in record time, This way, you save a heap of grief and force the players into refocusing their attention on the game instead of haranguing you.

Can you play your part in ridding the game of this menace?

Happy reffing.

Regards, Julian Carosi. 

Law Amendments & Changes

The following has been taken from thefa.com website. Please make note and familiarise yourself with the changes to Law:

 

Law 1 – The Field of Play

Present Text:

Matches may be played on natural or artificial surfaces, according to the rules of the competition.

The colour of artificial surfaces must be green.

Where artificial surfaces are used in either competition matches between representative teams of member associations affiliated to FIFA or international club competition matches, the surface must meet the requirements of the FIFA Quality Concept for Artificial Turf or the International Artificial Turf Standard, unless special dispensation is given by FIFA.

 

Approved Text:

Matches may be played on natural or artificial surfaces, according to the rules of the competition.

The colour of artificial surfaces must be green.

Where artificial surfaces are used in either competition matches between representative teams of member associations affiliated to FIFA or international club competition matches, the surface must meet the requirements of the FIFA Quality Concept for Football Turf or the International Artificial Turf Standard, unless special dispensation is given by FIFA.

 

Law 11 – Offside – Interpretation of the Laws of the Game

Present Text:

When an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick to be taken from the position of the offending player when the ball was last played to him by one of his team mates.

If a defending player steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee must allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of play.

Approved Text:

When an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick to be taken from the position of the offending   player when the ball was last played  to him by one of his team mates.

Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on his own goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play. If the player leaves the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

 

Procedures to determine the Winner of a Match or Home-and-Away

Present Text:

If at the end of the match and before the kicks start to be taken from the penalty mark, one team has a greater number of players than their opponents, they must reduce their numbers to equate with that of their opponents and the team captain must inform the referee of the name and number of each player excluded.

 

Approved Text:

If at the end of the match and before the kicks start to be taken from the penalty mark, one team has a greater number of players than their opponents, they must reduce their numbers to equate with that of their opponents and the team captain must inform the referee of the name and number of each player excluded. Any player so excluded may not participate in kicks from the penalty mark.

 

The Technical Area

Present Text:

Only one person at a time is authorised to convey tactical instructions and he must return to his position after giving these instructions.

The coach and other officials must remain within the confines of the technical area except in special circumstances, for example, a physiotherapist or doctor entering the field of play, with the referee’s permission, to assess an injured player.

The coach and other occupants of the technical area must behave in a responsible manner.

 

Approved Text:

Only one person at a time is authorised to convey tactical instructions from the technical area.

The coach and other officials must remain within the confines of the technical area except in special circumstances, for example, a physiotherapist or doctor entering the field of play, with the referee’s permission, to assess an injured player.

The coach and other occupants of the technical area must behave in a responsible manner.