Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.

The referee whistles loudly when someone commits a foul.

Breakdown of Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.

• machen: to make
• wenn: when
• laut: loudly
• jemand: someone
• ein: a; (neuter, accusative)
• der Schiedsrichter: the referee
• pfeifen: to whistle
• das Foul: the foul

Questions & Answers about Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.

Why is the verb pfeift in second position in the first part, but macht is at the very end of the second part?

German has two different word-order rules here:

1. Main clause (first part: Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut):

   • In a statement, the finite verb (conjugated verb) must be in second position.
   • Der Schiedsrichter = position 1 (subject)
   • pfeift = position 2 (verb)
   • laut = comes after that (rest of the sentence)

2. Subordinate clause (second part: wenn jemand ein Foul macht):

   • The conjunction wenn introduces a subordinate clause, and in such clauses the finite verb goes to the end.
   • wenn = conjunction (position 0, not counted)
   • jemand (subject) + ein Foul (object) = middle
   • macht (verb) = final position

So:

• Main clause: Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut → verb in 2nd position.
• Subordinate clause: wenn jemand ein Foul macht → verb at the end.

Why is there a comma before wenn?

In German, subordinate clauses must be separated from the main clause with a comma.

• Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut = main clause.
• wenn jemand ein Foul macht = subordinate clause introduced by wenn.

Whenever you have a structure like [main clause] + wenn + [subordinate clause], you must put a comma:

• Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.
• Or reversed: Wenn jemand ein Foul macht, pfeift der Schiedsrichter laut.

In both word orders, main clause and subordinate clause are separated by a comma.

Why is it jemand and not jemanden here?

The form depends on the case and the role in the sentence.

• jemand = nominative (subject form)
• jemanden = accusative (object form)

In wenn jemand ein Foul macht:

• jemand is the subject of macht (who does the foul?).
• ein Foul is the direct object (what is done?).

So you must use jemand (nominative), not jemanden.

Examples for contrast:

• Jemand foult den Spieler. – Someone fouls the player. (subject = jemand)
• Der Schiedsrichter bestraft jemanden. – The referee punishes someone. (object = jemanden)

Why is it ein Foul and not einen Foul?

Foul in German is:

• Gender: das Foul (neuter)
• Nominative singular with article: das Foul
• Accusative singular with article: das Foul
• With ein: ein Foul is both nominative and accusative.

In jemand macht ein Foul, ein Foul is the direct object (accusative), but because Foul is neuter, nominative and accusative look the same: ein Foul, not einen Foul.

einen would be for masculine nouns in the accusative, e.g.:

• ein Ball → einen Ball
• ein Spieler → einen Spieler

Why do we say ein Foul machen instead of a single verb like “to foul”?

German often uses a verb + noun combination where English uses a simple verb. Here:

• English: to foul
• German: ein Foul machen (literally: to make a foul)

Other options:

• ein Foul begehen – more formal, often in written language or rule books.
• foulen – exists in colloquial sports language, but ein Foul machen is very common and neutral.

So ein Foul machen is the usual, everyday way to say “commit a foul” in German.

What exactly does pfeift mean, and why don’t we mention a whistle?

The verb pfeifen means:

• to whistle (with your mouth)
• or: to blow a whistle (in the context of referees, trains, etc.)

In sports context, pfeifen by default implies “to blow the whistle.”

So Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut naturally means:

• The referee blows his whistle loudly.

Adding in die Pfeife (into the whistle) is usually unnecessary, because it’s understood from the situation. You could say:

• Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut in seine Pfeife. – very explicit, but not needed in normal context.

Why is laut not changed (like “loudly”) – why don’t we have something like lautlich?

In German, many words can be both adjectives and adverbs without changing form. laut is one of them.

• As an adjective:
  
  • ein lauter Pfiff – a loud whistle
• As an adverb:
  
  • Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut. – The referee whistles loudly.

So you don’t need (and normally cannot use) a special ending like -ly. German often uses the basic adjective form as an adverb.

Could we also say Wenn jemand ein Foul macht, pfeift der Schiedsrichter laut? Does that change anything?

Yes, that word order is fully correct:

• Wenn jemand ein Foul macht, pfeift der Schiedsrichter laut.

The meaning stays the same. The difference is just which part you put first:

1. Main clause first (more neutral):
   
   • Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.
2. Subordinate clause first (often emphasizes the condition):
   
   • Wenn jemand ein Foul macht, pfeift der Schiedsrichter laut.

In both cases:

• Subordinate clause: wenn … macht → verb at the end.
• Main clause: pfeift … → verb in second position.

What is the gender and case of Der Schiedsrichter, and why is it der not den Schiedsrichter?

Schiedsrichter (referee) has:

• Gender: masculine
• Nominative singular: der Schiedsrichter
• Accusative singular: den Schiedsrichter

In Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut:

• Der Schiedsrichter is the subject → nominative case → der.

You would use den Schiedsrichter if it’s the object:

• Ich sehe den Schiedsrichter. – I see the referee. (object → accusative)

Why is the present tense pfeift used instead of a future form like wird pfeifen?

German present tense (Präsens) is used for:

1. General truths / repeated actions

   • Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, wenn jemand ein Foul macht.
     → This describes what usually happens in that situation.

2. Future actions, especially when the context makes it clear.

   • Morgen pfeift der Schiedsrichter wieder. – The referee will whistle again tomorrow.

Using wird pfeifen sounds more like a specific, future event and is less natural for this kind of general rule. So the present tense is exactly right here.

What is the difference between wenn and falls here? Could I say falls jemand ein Foul macht?

You could say:

• Der Schiedsrichter pfeift laut, falls jemand ein Foul macht.

But there is a nuance:

• wenn expresses a whenever/if-when condition that is expected or typical.
  
  • wenn jemand ein Foul macht → whenever someone commits a foul (and this really happens).
• falls expresses a more hypothetical “if, in case that” idea.
  
  • falls jemand ein Foul macht → if someone (perhaps) commits a foul.

In the context of describing the usual rule in a game, wenn is the more natural, standard choice.