Good game, 2 issues

[ladbroke8745]

Had couple of games today, first in a few weeks as took a break following recent games and falling out of love.

First game went very well. Coaches loved it that I explained decisions, briefly, where I felt required to the players and when I went past a coach to explain why I didn't give a goal (keeper had hand on top of ball, with ball between him and the ground, making it him having control). They fully accepted it all.
But the last minute was where the away team said I ruined my perfect performance.
Free kick given against away team. Away player got up and attempted to kick (took a good swing at opponent) his opponent. Sent off. No complaints, except I should have seen the home player push their player. I said I was "distracted" from the incident when 3-4 of his players come running up and surrounding me, even shouting at me, to not punish their mate. If I've missed something else that happened, blame his team for surrounding me and not allowing me to deal with the situation.
But the free kick led to a goal. And they felt the goal should've been ruled out for offside.
Free kick swung in, all on side. The ball goes close to being out so focused on seeing this. Ball doesn't go out but a high ball back in the area falls on to the head of an attacker on the goal line. They claim he was offside. But without assistants and my focus on the ball going in or out, I could not be sure whether the scorer was off or not when the ball was played. Goal given.
Disappointed if they feel my performance is marred by this but I did say to the manager, who respected my decision, that I'm not going to disallow a goal for a guess. I need to be sure.

Something else during the game.
Two players went up for header late in first half. Both clashes heads. Both hurt.
One player went off, subbed (roll on roll off). The other told his coach he is staying on. My concern is that the coach said the player had a small lump forming where the player claimed he was hit in the clash of heads. Player insisted he was fine.
As referee, is there anything I can do to insist the player takes time out? At half time, the player kept rubbing his head as if it still hurt. But was never replaced, despite RORO subs.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Was the ball nearly out over the goal line or touchline? If goal line then it's difficult to see how offside could occur immediately after. If touchline then shouldn't you have CARs to help with that so you can concentrate on other things?

You can only insist a player leaves the field if they have a blood injury or you spot something wrong with their equipment. Apart from that their safety from potential concussion is theirs and their team's responsibility. They cannot even be forced to be substituted by their own team. If they stay on the pitch refusing to be subbed off that's it and the substitution can't be completed.

 

[socal lurker]

Whining about close/unusual OS calls is a pointless effort.

An aside on the head knocks. In the U.S. in many places the R has the authority (and in some places obligation) to send off if the R suspects a concussion. So U.S. refs reading the above should take with a grain of salt and be sure they know the applicable rules for concussion for the games they do,

 

[ladbroke8745]

Was the ball nearly out over the goal line or touchline? If goal line then it's difficult to see how offside could occur immediately after. If touchline then shouldn't you have CARs to help with that so you can concentrate on other things?

You can only insist a player leaves the field if they have a blood injury or you spot something wrong with their equipment. Apart from that their safety from potential concussion is theirs and their team's responsibility. They cannot even be forced to be substituted by their own team. If they stay on the pitch refusing to be subbed off that's it and the substitution can't be completed.

Sorry, meant to say goal line.
I'd swung myself round to see if the ball was going out when an attacker moved into the 6 yard box. The ball was too close to the goal line and felt it was kept in (the defending team didn't argue it stayed in, they agreed). The attacker then lifted it back in, high, and fell kindly on to an attackers head. They argued offside. I can't be 100%, but taking in to account all probabilities, I come up with onside every time. The ball being by the goal line would, to me, mean the scorer was highly likely behind play with a hooked ball back, and at the very least, in line with play. There was also a keeper and defender on the line too. So were they there before or after the attacker?

Working solo, even without CARs as they don't have/use them here, it was extremely difficult to be 100%.

To give a bit more context, it was an U14 game. The players in question are just 13 years old. So should the head injury situation be taken out of the players control?

 

[Martiju]

They argued offside. I can't be 100%, but taking in to account all probabilities, I come up with onside every time. The ball being by the goal line would, to me, mean the scorer was highly likely behind play with a hooked ball back, and at the very least, in line with play. There was also a keeper and defender on the line too. So were they there before or after the attacker?

Sounds to me that the player was almost certainly onside. Chances are they don't understand the laws, or were just aggrieved at conceding and needed to blame someone else in the moment!

 

[RefereeX]

Sending a player off for attempting to kick another is absolutely correct in law, but it becomes a difficult sell when there is no contact, and a caution for AA may be easier to sell. Happy to be shot down though. (And of course all depends on the type of kick attempted)

 

[Kes]

Free kick swung in, all on side. The ball goes close to being out so focused on seeing this. Ball doesn't go out but a high ball back in the area falls on to the head of an attacker on the goal line. They claim he was offside.

Yes of course he was.

Because of course, they had the perfect angle and view of it stood near half way, and the goal was scored against them so naturally, that trumps any possible alternative.

Disclaimer: Above post may contain sarcasm.

 

[Johnson]

Sending a player off for attempting to kick another is absolutely correct in law, but it becomes a difficult sell when there is no contact, and a caution for AA may be easier to sell. Happy to be shot down though. (And of course all depends on the type of kick attempted)

An attempted kick that anything more than petulant is a clear red card offense. Might be a cultural difference, but here in Australia, in any game I’m watching, playing or officiating, if a player attempts to kick another player when not challenging for the ball, I would expect a red card.

I don’t think we do ourselves any favours when the correct sanction is clear and we don’t give it. Even beyond our broader responsibility to the game to help wipe out violent conduct, our match control in a game is unlikely to be helped if we perceived to be unwilling to correctly enforce the Laws. Obviously, the team’s whose player has had their opponent take a whack at them will feel aggrieved, but ultimately we’re also going to lose the confidence of the other team as well. Players want a referee that favours them, obviously, but I think, perhaps naively, they also want a referee that correctly applies the Laws, understanding this means decisions will sometimes go against them.

 

[RefereeX]

An attempted kick that anything more than petulant is a clear red card offense. Might be a cultural difference, but here in Australia, in any game I’m watching, playing or officiating, if a player attempts to kick another player when not challenging for the ball, I would expect a red card.

I don’t think we do ourselves any favours when the correct sanction is clear and we don’t give it. Even beyond our broader responsibility to the game to help wipe out violent conduct, our match control in a game is unlikely to be helped if we perceived to be unwilling to correctly enforce the Laws. Obviously, the team’s whose player has had their opponent take a whack at them will feel aggrieved, but ultimately we’re also going to lose the confidence of the other team as well. Players want a referee that favours them, obviously, but I think, perhaps naively, they also want a referee that correctly applies the Laws, understanding this means decisions will sometimes go against them.

I don't agree. I think you lose confidence by shocking people with decisions. If its clear attempt at a violent kick away from the ball, then expectation will be for a red card and that's no problem, but if its an attempt to kick a player in the immediate aftermath of a challenge for the ball and no contact is made, nobody is expecting a red card.