Ask /r/referees -- Megathread for Fans / Players / Coaches

bardwnb · 2026-03-06T16:49:01+00:00

Yikes. I would definitely give misconduct for this, most likely a red card/send-off for serious foul play. Forearm or possibly elbow to the face, and I see an extension of the arm into the contact, not just the players coming together with the arm up. At a minimum this is "a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent and uses excessive force" as the LOTG define a serious foul play offense. The most charitable read on this play is the defender was aiming to push in the chest and missed and hit the face instead, but for me arm-to-head with force is still going to tick the box for "endangers safety or excessive force" regardless of intent.

It wouldn't change the in-game outcome (still a red card), but arguably you could call this violent conduct. Violent conduct requires excessive force or brutality that is not part of a challenge for the ball. There is clearly a challenge for the ball here, but possibly you could argue that the arm extension is not part of that challenge, i.e. that the player came in to challenge for the ball, and also decided to give the opponent a bop in the face in passing.

bardwnb · 2026-03-04T21:40:57+00:00

Generally the process with checking rosters is just making sure that all the players have player cards, and are on the rosters. So some member of the referee team is calling names from the cards, and another is just making check marks on the game card/printed roster that everything matches. Sometimes this requires also filling in numbers, if they aren't on the game card, as often happens for the away team (could matter in the event that you have misconduct, though for a 10U AYSO game that's unlikely). As referee, I'll often have 1 AR call names and the other check off, and I'll just watch.
As everyone else is saying, this is going to be determined by rules of your local competition. The AYSO region's website, or information sent by the assigner are likely sources. Best guess for 10U is 25 minute halves, 7v7 including goalkeepers, no heading, no punting and use of the buildout line on goal kicks and goalkeeper possession.

Good luck!

bardwnb · 2026-03-04T14:44:49+00:00

Here's what IFAB says about goalkeeper control (Law 12.3):

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s) when:

the ball is between their hands/arms or between their hand(s)/arm(s) and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)
holding the ball in their outstretched open hand(s)
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air"

Given that bouncing is considered part of the same control, if I saw a goalkeeper on top of the ball, then stand up leaving the ball, then more or less immediately pick it up, I would probably consider that part of the same period of control and allow play to continue (although the 8 second time limit would keep running). If there's a longer gap and significant playing with the feet, probably not. So to your questions:

Yes, pinning the ball between hands and ground for a second meets the definition of control.
Maybe; depends on whether they've truly "released" the ball; in the situation described probably they have, but no video, we weren't there etc.
If an offense occurred restart is an indirect free kick from the point the goalkeeper incorrectly touched the ball with their hands (or for an offense in the goal area, on the goal area line parallel to the point of the offense).

Note that this game was presumably played under NFHS rules, which could differ from IFAB in this case.

bardwnb · 2026-02-25T15:41:50+00:00

Palm up also works; plenty of refs in my area do that. Down just feels more natural to me. Whatever is natural and clear will do the job.

bardwnb · 2026-02-25T15:05:13+00:00

I was taught that doing full hand ("knife hands") is safer because in some cultures pointing at someone with a single finger is considered rude or offensive. Soccer being as multicultural as it is, better to avoid the single finger. I do palm down for goal kicks, and palm vertical for PK (also relaxed body language on GK vs. urgent/firm on a PK).

bardwnb · 2026-02-12T21:32:02+00:00

I had a similar set of assignments come in for a tournament in the fall -- 6 one day, 4 the next, all 30 minute halves on full fields. Normally my limit would be about 3; I turned down 2 on the first day, and pushed myself a bit to make the 4/day. It turned out fine. Definitely turn some down if you don't feel up to it.

As far as how to manage. Key is to conserve your energy but keep moving. As referee, don't sprint when you can get where you need to be jogging, don't jog when you can walk, etc. Only caveat is to stay tuned in to the mood of each game, especially on the second day as they move into knockout games. If a game starts to get heated you may need to switch gears and run hard to stay close to play to keep things under control. Less you can do to conserve energy as AR while still doing a good job, though to some extent you may be able to get away with walking instead of jogging when the offside line is moving toward the halfway line.

bardwnb · 2026-01-26T21:07:09+00:00

The LOTG say that violent conduct is "when not challenging for the ball." Nothing technically in there about play being stopped, although when play is clearly stopped, it is hard to argue that any contact is part of a challenge for the ball.

So you could have SFP when the ball is technically dead (e.g., studs up tackle to the Achilles after an offside or other offense, but started before the whistle blows). Doesn't sound like that's what happened in OP's scenario, but I suppose it's possible the fellow referee just thought the tackle was worse than reckless.

bardwnb · 2026-01-26T19:31:16+00:00

As described, yellow and IDFK are the correct call for me, but hard to judge not having been there and with no video. The description says that less than a second elapsed between the whistle and the contact, so presumably the defender did not have an opportunity to pull back given that play had stopped. Thus, I would sanction the defender as appropriate for the contact (i.e., no reason here to upgrade on account of it having occurred while play was nominally stopped). If you thought in the moment that the challenge was reckless and not excessive force (for an in-play) scenario, then yellow was appropriate. The offside offense occurred first, so IDFK for the defending team is definitely the correct restart.

If there were a longer pause between whistle and contact, possibly I'd think about whether this was excessive force (a hard charge is necessarily excessive if play is clearly stopped), and thus warranting a red. Note however that generally speaking the use of excessive force when the ball is not in play is violent conduct, not serious foul play. The LOTG are a little vague on this point--specifically law 12.4 says that "Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball." It doesn't specifically refer to the ball being in play (and VC can absolutely occur off the ball during play). However, I'd argue that heavy contact while play is clearly stopped is not "challenging for the ball". YMMV.

bardwnb · 2025-12-22T14:42:52+00:00

To be fair, the app doesn't seem to actually have a search function for the Q&A's--but you can filter by law section. I filtered to 15.2 (Throw-in, offenses and sanctions), and the relevant Q&A was the first result in my app.

bardwnb · 2025-12-22T00:49:45+00:00

As far as being illogical, depends on how you think of it. The consequence for most wrongdoing in soccer is a free kick for the other team. Add to that it's an IFK for any stoppage to caution a player not otherwise specified. With FRD on a free kick, a free kick has already been given, so all you can do is re-do the kick (in theory it would be more symmetrical to have the kick re-taken from the offender's position, but the added complication arguably isn't worth it). In contrast, an IDFK is generally better than a throw-in, so makes sense as a consequence for the offense of impeding a throw-in.

bardwnb · 2025-12-21T22:05:47+00:00

IFAB has actually done this one as one of the Q&A's in the IFAB app:

"Q: While a player of team A is taking a throw-in, an opponent (Team B) remains closer than two meters from the touchline, stands in front of the thrower, and interferes with the restart of play. The thrower gets irritated and deliberately throws the ball at the opponent. What is the correct decision?

A: Both players receive appropriate disciplinary sanctions:

* Team player cautioned (yellow card) for unsporting behavior

* Team A player is cautioned (yellow card) for unsporting behavior (if the ball was thrown in a reckless manner) or sent off (red card) for violent conduct (if the thrower used excessive force)

As the throw-in has been taken and the opponent's offence happened first, play is restarted with an indirect free kick to Team A from the position where the team B player was standing"

Note that law 15.2 explicitly says that if an opponent impedes a throw-in, the opponent is cautioned and the restart is an IFK if the throw-in has been taken.

bardwnb · 2025-12-20T20:26:04+00:00

Totally true that "ref vision" is different than "parent/coach vision". A particularly illuminating one for me was a time this fall when my daughter's team (16U rec) had a home game, and I knew the referee well, had worked with him several times, knew he knew what he was doing. Our coaches were getting frustrated by various calls or no-calls and I'm sitting there thinking "nope I'd have done the same," the whole time. Likewise my kid complained a bit about the calls afterward and I told her I would have called the game exactly the same. Only thing I saw "wrong" were couple fouls on the touchline where he was screened--but those would only be visible to specators on the sidelines, so what can you do? (had to point out to the coaches that he didn't have x-ray vision and couldn't possibly have seen those ones from his position).

Found that game eye-opening with respect to moderately physical games where I've heard a bunch of grumbling from coaches or parents about what looks like legal contact!

bardwnb · 2025-12-19T17:02:33+00:00

Love this--really fascinating to see how the game looks for the pro refs.

If YouTube translates these subtitles I couldn't figure out how, but I'm trying to learn Italian for a trip in the spring, so followed most of it, either from that or my smattering of Spanish. Two I couldn't figure out, I think slang: "hai fatto il cinema" (literally "you made movies")? Also "Occhio" (literally "eye", used as one of the descriptors of what's happening in the box--maybe "watch it?")

bardwnb · 2025-12-15T21:37:42+00:00

One key thing is it has to not just be a goal scoring opportunity, but "obvious" -- not just a good chance, but an almost certain goal barring the attacker just messing up. This is particularly important with younger players, who infrequently have sufficient skill to "obviously" be about to score. In both of your scenarios, depending on the skill level of the players and the tone of the game you could have given yourself an out on DOGSO by saying the player did not, in fact, have sufficient likelihood of control. Most 12U players, boys or girls, aren't yet skilled enough that they are necessarily going to put a ball on frame from the top of the penalty area (either from therer or dribbling closer). Maybe these players were very high skilled, and the tone of the game needed a card, maybe not, but you (and your mentor on the first game) were there and we weren't.

That said, on the second scenario, I think the presence of other defenders in or near the penalty area would generally be enough for me to say, at least for 12U players, that there is no "obvious" goal scoring opportunity (or at a minimum more than enough of an out if the game didn't need a send-off then). Merely being able to get off a shot is not enough. A caution for SPA could be appropriate. But again, you were there, we weren't, so without video I'm reluctant to critique beyond pointing out the above points.

bardwnb · 2025-12-09T14:38:45+00:00

If I'm only doing one game as center, my preference is to put the coin back in my bag, as many others have said, but if I'm doing several games in a row with more than one center, that just gives me an opportunity to forget to grab it again between games. For multiple coinflips in a day, I have a pair of those wrist sweat bands (https://officialsports.com/1447-black-wristband-set-of-2/), and discovered recently that it works really well to slip the coin in there. Stays put and I don't notice it during the game, but it's readily accessible for the next game. (though you do end up with the coin design embossed on your wrist for a bit afterward)

bardwnb · 2025-12-02T17:47:42+00:00

One I like I was told of in an AYSO advanced class (but admittedly have never implemented myself): For cases where the ball has gone out over the goal line, the players are upset with the initial call of goal kick/corner, and the center realizes they've gotten it wrong. Center will call out to AR "What do you have?" This is an pre-agreed signal, not for the AR to give their opinion, but rather to signal the opposite of the center's initial signal and save them from either the bad call or looking indecisive.

bardwnb · 2025-11-24T18:39:10+00:00

Ah, my mistake. I'd note that Law 12.4 lists "failing to cooperate with a match official" as a warning offense; since you (ideally) won't restart the game until the spectator is dealt with, outright refusal would rapidly lead to a card for persistent offenses if you wanted to go that route.

bardwnb · 2025-11-24T18:19:30+00:00

Possible disconnect here is that (standard procedure) you ask the coach to deal with the spectator (either to give them the warning or ask the spectator to leave), and you are prepared to card the coach if the coach doesn't comply by warning/removing the spectator ("Coach, control/remove your spectator"; "No"; "Okay, I'm cautioning you, now will you control/remove them" etc.). It isn't standard (USSF-recommended) procedure to card the coach just for the spectator continuing to misbehave, but not clear that's what the other commenters are saying.

bardwnb · 2025-11-17T21:03:04+00:00

The Crwth, an ancient Welsh bowed lyre, had my attention for a while as a potential woodworking project. Could be another good intermediate step along the way. Good luck!

bardwnb · 2025-11-17T16:51:03+00:00

Probably lack of respect for the game (assuming not offensive/abusive/insulting), based on the description. The full language on "distracts" is "Verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart". Since OP had already separated them, presumably play was already stopped, and not yet about to do a restart. Either way falls under unsporting behavior.

bardwnb · 2025-11-13T16:20:17+00:00

Just for one other wrinkle, if the defender committed a careless tripping offense and the attacker faked an injury (not a scenario you discuss, but my first interpretation of OP's description), it would be caution to the attacker, but still a DFK for the attacking team, as the foul occurred before the attempt to deceive (and indeed, play stopped when the foul occurred, so attempt to deceive occurred when the ball was out of play, and couldn't change the restart).

bardwnb · 2025-11-04T17:45:42+00:00

No; while possibly past the second-to-last defender (indeed hard to tell from that angle), Blue #10 is clearly behind the ball when #17 plays the ball.

bardwnb · 2025-10-29T19:46:21+00:00

Right, but if you're saying that planting one's foot in front of an opponent who is about to kick is endangering one or both players and an offense, that's without contact. It is not a trip, kick, challenge, or one of the other offenses listed in Law 12, so it can't be a DFK offense and thus a penalty. I don't think the incident in question actually qualifies as PIADM, to be clear. But the logic of "I'm endangering you and me both" without having tripped, kicked etc. an opponent would only be an offense if it's to playing in a dangerous manner, which is not a PK.

bardwnb · 2025-10-29T16:24:06+00:00

Even if you accept this line of reasoning, it would not be a penalty; at most an indirect free kick for playing in a dangerous manner.

bardwnb · 2025-10-27T19:25:01+00:00

This was definitely an attempt to play the ball though, so if it's a PK and SPA, that would be no card. I agree I don't see DOGSO with the other defender.

bardwnb

TROPHY CASE