Fall 2003

Summary of R&D Decisions

1. U19/1 Protest of Red Card
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. The basis of the protest was that the referee provoked the red card issued to Coach A. The R&D Committee reviewed the protest filed by Team A, reports submitted by the referee, and Team B as well as testimony provided by Team A and the referee during the hearing.

Player A dissented a call by the referee and was cautioned for dissent and shown a yellow card. Shortly thereafter, and before play resumed, Player A continued to dissent the original call and caution. After a verbal warning, the referee issued Player A a second yellow and ejected him from the match and displayed the red card.

After the match, Team Manager A went to the referee to obtain the cards issued during the match. Team Manager A misunderstood the cards issued to Player A and reported to Coach A that he received two red cards in the match. Coach A went to the referee to protest the cards issued to Player A. Coach A was advised to leave the area but he continued to argue. At this point, the referee issued Coach A a red card for abusive language.

For the record, Coach A received a yellow card during the match for dissent. Therefore, Coach A accumulated 20 disciplinary points during the match (10 points for the first yellow and 10 points for the red card after the match).

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is denied.
  2. Coach A is suspended for two games. These sit-outs must be served in the next two Team A NCSL games. Any additional yellow card Coach A receives this season will result in an automatic one game suspension for accumulated points.

2. U19/2 Protested Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. The basis of the protest was that Coach B was supposed to be serving a suspension during this match but that Coach B did not comply with NCSL Rules & Procedures on serving a suspension.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

Team A alleged that Coach B was involved in pregame activities with his team, remained on the spectator sideline during the match, provided instructions to his team during the match, and met with his team on the field directly after the match.

Coach B acknowledged that he was at the field prior to the match to provide the game card, water, and jerseys for the players. He admitted that he remained in the spectator bleaches during the entire match and that he made only one comment to his team during the match. Coach B also admitted that he walked over to his team at the conclusion of the match to listen to what the assistant coach was telling the team. Coach B stated that another team official coached the team during the match.

When asked, Coach B acknowledged that he did not know the NCSL requirements for a coach serving a suspension. NCSL Rules & Procedures Manual Section V, Paragraph G- Sit-Out Procedures contains the following requirements for serving suspensions:

A coach or team official serving a sit-out is encouraged not to attend the game at all. If a coach or team official does attend, however, he must not be closer to the playing field than 100 yards beginning 30 minutes before game time, and must remain not closer to the playing field than 100 yards until 30 minutes after the game is over. This period of time is defined as "the sit-out period." During this "sit-out period" a coach or team official must not be involved in any way with administration of the team at the game site, either directly, or indirectly.


It is clear that Coach B did not comply with the sit-out requirements.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is granted.
  2. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team A 3 vs. Team B 0.
  3. Coach B is suspended for three games. The suspension must be served in the next three Team B NCSL games. If the Team B are not planning to participate in the NCSL or if Coach B changes teams, the sit-outs remain with him and must be served with any new team Coach B joins.

3. U17/3 Protest of Red Cards
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. Team A protested three red cards issued during the match.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by TSC, the referee, and the assistant referee during the hearing.

Team A protested the following cards:

  • Coach A was issued two yellow cards for dissent and ejected from the match. Team A claimed that the second yellow card was not justified.
  • Player A was issued a red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Team A claimed that the handball was inadvertent and that the wrong player was given the card.
  • Assistant Coach A was issued a red card after the match for failure to control his team after the match. Team A claimed that Assistant Coach A was at the other end of the field and unaware that Coach A returned to the field and confronted the referees.

The referee reported that he awarded two yellow cards for persistent dissent to Coach A when he continued to protest the PK and the red carding of Player A. Coach A returned to the field of play after the match, which resulted in a confrontation with the referee crew. Although Coach A was not in the vicinity of this confrontation, the referee issued a red card to Coach A for failure to control his team. Coach As behavior was inappropriate and he failed to comply with NCSL rules on a coach being ejected from a match.

The referee reported the following sequence of events in issuing the red card to Player A: indirect kick, handball in the penalty box signaled by AR, PK which resulted in a score, red card awarded to offending player for the handball, kickoff. Once the play had restarted with the PK, the referee cannot go back and issue the red card to the offending player. The awarding of the red card to the player is a misapplication of Law 12.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is partially granted; therefore, the league administrator is directed to return
    the Team A $200 check.
  2. The red card issued to Player A is waived.
  3. The red card issued to Assistant Coach A is waived.
  4. The red card issued to Coach A stands. Coach A is suspended for an additional game.
    The sit-outs must be served in the next two Team A NCSL games. If Coach A changes
    teams, the sit-outs remain with him and must be served with any new team he joins.

4. U16/3 Failure to Sit-out
Player A should have served a suspension for carryover of accumulated points in their game played on September 7th. Team A failed to review the sit-out information posted on the web site and did not sit their player.

Decisions of the R&D Committee Chairman are as follows:

  1. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team B 3 vs. Team A 0.
  2. Player A is required to serve his one game suspension in the next Team A NCSL match.

5. U16/3 Protested Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game. The basis of the protest was that Team A scored a goal, which was acknowledged by the referee; however, after the referee consulted with the club linesman, he reversed the call.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

No assistant referees were assigned to the match; therefore, each team provided a volunteer linesman. Coach B informed the referee that his daughter would serve as Team B volunteer linesperson and that she was a certified referee. The pregame instructions by the referee to both volunteer linesman were that they should not call anything but out of bounds.

Midway through the second half, Team A scored a goal. The referee reported that he signaled a goal and placed the ball on the center circle. Team B players were loudly complaining that a Team A player was offside. The referee did not allow the game to restart and went over to the Team B volunteer linesperson and asked her if the Team A player was offside; she said yes. The referee reversed his original call and disallowed the goal. With no outside influence, the opinion of the referee was that Team A scored a goal. The referee did not attempt to determine the facts of what happened when Team A scored the goal; instead, the referee improperly relied on the volunteer linesperson to make the offside call.

Later in the game, the referee reported that he reversed his call on a penalty kick that he awarded to the Team B after he consulted with the Team A volunteer linesman.

The committee recognizes that both volunteer linesman performed their functions properly. The fault lies with the referee for requesting decisions from the volunteer linesman that are outside of their authority.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:
1. The protest is granted.
2. The game is directed to be replayed.
3. All cards issued during the match stand.

6. U15/2 Protested Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. The basis of the protest was that the assistant referee was a parent of a Team B player and that neither the referee, assistant referee, nor Team B complied with NCSL rules on an immediate family member serving as an assistant referee.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

Team A felt that the offside decisions during the match clearly favored the Team B. Team A stated that a goal they scored was called offside by the Team B assistant referee; Team A argued that they were not offside. Team A further stated that a Team B goal was allowed to stand when Team B was offside but no call was made by the Team B assistant referee. Team B felt that the calls were fair and the Team B assistant referee was calling it both ways. The R&D Committee could not make a decision on whether or not the offside calls were correct or not.

The referee reported that prior to the start of the match, he had no assigned assistant referees. The referee requested each team provided an assistant referee for the match. Parent B was a certified referee and he changed into uniform. The referee requested both the Team B assistant referee and the Team A volunteer linesman who was not a certified referee to call offside and fouls. During the match, the Team A volunteer linesman did flag offside and fouls.

Team B and the Parent B assistant referee clearly erred in not complying with the NCSL requirement to notify their opponent when a family member steps in to serve as an assistant referee. While the league encourages parents who are certified referees to step up when needed and serve as a center referee or assistant referee, the agreement of both coaches must be obtained prior to the start of the match.

The referee cannot request an uncertified volunteer to serve as an assistant referee; the volunteer does not have the appropriate training to call offside and fouls. The duties of a volunteer linesman must be limited to calling out of bounds and direction only.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is granted.
  2. The game is directed to be replayed.

7. U15/4 Protest of Red Card
The Rules & Discipline Committee Chairman determined that a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A was not required. Instead the R&D Chairman polled the committee members. The basis of the protest was that the actions of Player A did not warrant a red card ejection from the match.

The R&D Committee reviewed the protest and supplemental statements submitted by Team A, report submitted by the referee and a follow-up statement submitted by the referee based on questions raised by the committee.

The referee reported that Player A was dribbling towards the Team B goal. A Team B defender made a tackle stripping the ball away and Player A tripped over the extended left leg of the defender. In the referees opinion, this was not a foul, but a near perfect tackle of the ball. Coach A was quite vocal in his objection to the no call. He felt the take down should have resulted in a penalty kick. The referee motioned for the coach to calm down and be quiet, then the referee yellow carded Coach A when his protests continued. Player A objected to the yellow card for his coach and the referee red carded him for using insulting language. The referee stated that the decision could have been a yellow or red card.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is granted.
  2. The red card to Player A is reduced to a yellow card and five associated disciplinary points.

8. U13/3 Terminated Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the incidents, which caused the game to be terminated. The game was terminated with approximately a couple minutes remaining in the second half with the score Team A 3 vs. Team B 1.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing. Jim Fraze, NCSL VA Commissioner, arrived at the field near half time since his WAGS team had the next match on the field. Mr. Fraze submitted a detailed report as well as testimony at the hearing.

Acting Coach B dissented calls throughout the match. Near the end of the match, the referee ejected Acting Coach B. Acting Coach B removed himself from the team sideline to the parent sideline. Acting Coach B walked no more than 30 yards from the parent sideline continuing to voice his displeasure with the referee. The referee attempted to require the coach to go to the parking lot but Parent B stepped in front of the referee and directed him to go back to the field. At this point the referee terminated the match. Acting Coach B returned to the field to meet with his team still complaining about the quality of officiating.

Team B informed the R&D Committee that they recently hired Acting Coach B. The fact that Acting Coach B was recently hired and unfamiliar with NCSL Rules and Procedures is neither justification for his inappropriate behavior at a youth soccer match nor reason for his failure to comply with rules on being ejected and prohibition of returning to the field after the match. The current Team B coach accepted responsibility for failing to make sure Acting Coach B was informed and complied with NCSL Rules and Procedures and apologized for Acting Coach Bs inappropriate behavior.

It was noted that no Team Sportsmanship Liaison was designated on the game card for Team B. Having a designated TSL is required, and had one who understood the duties been assigned for this match, problems with inappropriate behavior could have been avoided.

The inappropriate confrontational behavior both during and after the match by Team B officials is totally inappropriate and unacceptable.

Acting Coach B has served his automatic one game suspension for receiving a red card in this game.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team A 3 vs. Team B 0.
  2.  Acting Coach B is suspended for two additional games. These sit-outs must be served in the in the next two Team B NCSL games. Team B is advised that if Acting Coach B is to continue as their coach, he must be added to the roster as soon as possible.
  3. Team B is fined $300.
  4. All other cards issued during the game stand.

9. U13/3 Protested Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee Chairman determined that a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A in the above referenced game was not required. Instead the R&D Chairman polled the committee members. The basis of the protest was that Team A was not informed prior to the start of the match and they did not agree to have the older son of the Coach Bs referee the match.

Team A reported that they only discovered that Coach Bs son refereed the match at the conclusion of the game when they questioned the referee concerning a misapplication of FIFA.

Coach B reported that the assigned referee for the match did not show and the assign assistant referee for the match was not able to step up to center the match. Coach B further stated in his report that in the rush to find a referee for the match, he neglected to inform Coach A that he asked his son to step in and center the match. The referee reported that he did not inform the Coach A that he was the son of the Coach B.

NCSL rules state that the referee must inform and get agreement from both coaches if one member of the crew is an immediate family member of a player. In addition, the team utilizing the family member as a referee or assistant referee has an obligation to ensure that their opponent is informed of the family relationship of the referee or assistant referee. In either of the above situations, the agreement of both coaches must be noted on the game report card prior to the start of play and must be initialed by them.

Decisions of the R&D Chairman are as follows

  1.  The protest is granted.
  2. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team A 3 vs. Team B 0.
  3. All cards issued in the match stand.

10. U13/3 Protest of Red Card
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. The basis of the protest was that the red card issued to Coach A after the game was not warranted.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by Team A during the hearing.

Coach A stated that he approached the referee after the match to ask him a question. Coach A claimed that the referee did not want to speak with him and warned him that he would issue him a red card if he did not shut up. Coach A continued to speak with the referee and informed him that he called a good game.

The referee reported that Coach A protested calls and made enough dissenting comments that he had to stop the match to warn the coach about his behavior. No card was issued during the match. After the match, the referee issued Coach A a red card because he persisted in his comments directed at the referee.

It appears that Coach A was not threatening or belligerent in his remarks; however, he was argumentative and persistent.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The protest is denied.
  2. The red card issued to Coach A stands. The sit-out must be served in the next Team A NCSL games. If Coach A changes teams, the sit-out remains with him and must be served with any new team he joins.

11. U13/6 Protested Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. Although Team A raised a number of issues in their protest, the basis of Team As protest was an allegation that Team B played illegal players that are rostered to the U14 Team B.

The league and the R&D Committee takes seriously any allegations that a team played ineligible player(s) whether or not those players are rostered to another NCSL team. Further, the committee reviews any allegation of a team playing a player declared ineligible as a result of the players requirement to serve a suspension.

It is important to point out that the first level to check player credentials is on the field prior to the start of the game. NCSL rules state that "referees will check cards only if asked by one of the coaches to do so." Neither team asked the referee to check the player passes before the start of the match.

In accordance with the testimony of the participants, and at the request of the Team As management, the Assistant Referee did, at the end of the game, check the passes of the four Team B players in question that arrived at half time.

To ensure fairness to both teams and to complete due diligence, the R&D Committee:

1. checked a copy of the Team Bs U13 official team roster;

2. checked the game card and the attached team roster; and

3. checked the player passes of all eighteen Team B U13 players.

It should be noted that the check of the Team B U13 team credentials was performed jointly by a certified referee and a certified register. No anomalies were discovered.

For completeness the committee also:

4. obtained a statement from the Team B U14 coach regarding player involvement; and

5. reviewed a copy of the official roster for the Team Bs U14 team to ensure player identification.

The Team B U13 team management was cooperative in providing all requested information and offered to provide players and their birth certificates if requested.

The committee found no evidence that Team B allowed the participation of ineligible players.

Team A alleged that the four Team B players that arrived late and played the entire second half must have been from the older Team B since they turned a tight 1-1 game into a 5-1 final score. Team B management stated that four of their best players got lost on their way to the match and that they did contribute significantly to the four goals scored in the second half. The Team B explanation seemed significantly more reasonable then the unsubstantiated opinion proposed by Team A.

In the unanimous opinion of the committee, the Team A protest was without merit. The fact that Team A was unhappy with the outcome of the match is not justification to file a protest.

On a separate note, the committee found that the referee failed to accurately report important details of the match; he incorrectly reported the score of the match and failed to record the caution(s) he issued during the match on the game card. The match report submitted by the referee did not adequately address the issues raised.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:

The protest is denied and the score stands, Team B 5 vs. Team A 1.

12. U13/6 Terminated Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the incidents, which caused the above referenced game to be terminated. The game was terminated with approximately two minutes remaining in the first half with the score Team A 1 vs. Team B 0.

The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

The referee reported that near the end of the first half, there was a 50-50 ball just in front of him. Player B and Player A collided and Player B went down. The referee called Coach B onto the field. Coach B removed the injured player from the field and complained that a foul should have been called. As Coach B exited the field, he called his team off the field. Coach B decided not to continue the match.

Coach B reported that his players were constantly being fouled and that the referee took no action. Coach B stated that he was forced to intervene to protect his players. Coach B stated during the hearing that one of his players suffered a serious injury in a previous game this season. In his report, Coach B claimed that winning or losing this game was of no importance to either team.

The committee is not in position to judge the seriousness of the injury to the player or the compilation of injuries during the season, which caused Coach B to pull his team from the match. However, the committee is concerned about protecting the integrity of the league and stressing the importance that every match should be played to completion. The outcome of the match may not have been of consequence to the Team B but it certainly was important to Team A and could have had an impact concerning promotion or disqualification for the other teams in U13/6.

Decisions of the R&D Committee are as follows:

  1. The game is declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded as, Team A 3 vs. Team B 0.
  2. Coach B is suspended for two games. The suspension must be served in the next two
    Team A NCSL games. If Coach B changes teams between season, the sit-outs remain
    with him and must be served with any new NCSL team that he joins.

13. U12/2 Protest of Game
The Rules & Discipline Committee held a hearing to review the protest filed by Team A. The basis of Team As protest was extreme favoritism by the referee. The committee reviewed the referee's report, reports submitted by both teams as well as testimony presented by both teams during the hearing.

In the written protest document, Team A alleged that the referee miss applied so many FIFA rules that the summation of all the miss application of rules culminated in a result that was predetermined by the referee. Team A further described in detail six separate items, which supported their position. The referee was not able to attend the hearing but he provided a

detailed report that addressed each allegation made by Team A.

During the hearing, the committee questioned Team Manager A and asked him to specifically explain any misapplication of FIFA rules. Team Manager A was unable to identify one situation where the referee misapplied FIFA rules.

In reviewing the detailed protest document submitted by Team A along with the referees report, the committee determined that each alleged misapplication of FIFA rules was in fact a judgement call by the referee. NCSL Rules & Procedures Manual explicitly states that incidents resulting from judgment calls may not be protested.

The referee stated that he had neither interest nor intent to influence the outcome of the match. He further stated that neither he nor any family members has any association with Team B.

The committee compliments the referee for his timely submission of a detailed and candid report of the match.

In the unanimous opinion of the committee, the Team A protest was without merit. The fact that Team A was unhappy with the outcome of the match is not justification to file protest.

Decision of the R&D Committee is as follows:

The protest is denied and the score stands, Team B 2 vs. Team A 1.

14. U11/2 Unrostered Player
It was reported to the R&D Committee Chairman and confirmed that Team A played an unrostered player for its games played during the first weekend of the Fall 2003 season. All players participating in NCSL matches must be properly rostered to their team.

Decisions of the R&D Committee Chairman are as follows:

  1. Both games are declared a forfeit and the score will be recorded, Team B 3 vs. Team A 0
    and Team C 3 vs. Team A 0.
  2. Team A is directed to either properly roster their player prior to their next NCSL match or make sure that he does not participate until properly rostered.