Question:
A common issue continues to come up in games. The issue revolves around the ceremonial restart after a foul is called. The common misperception is that the defense has the right to a whistle by the referee prior to restart if they choose to build a wall. Furthermore, it is the understanding of most players, that if one of them stands in front of the ball so as to require the referee to tell him to move. That this automatically gives them a dead ball situation and ample time to set the wall.

There are 3 reasons for a signal required before a free kick restart, if my understanding is correct:
1. If a card is issued
2. If an injury has taken place
3. If the OFFENSE request a wall relocation.

Otherwise it is the offense’s right to put the ball back in play immediately. As a referee I am aware of this, and there have been numerous discussions about this at meetings and clinics and the logical position is that the defense should not gain an advantage by commiting a foul. Problem is that the players never see this info and TV games further confuse the matter, in that pro players know how to get a signal restart, and the announcers rarely infuse it in their commentary, thus creating the impression a whistle is required any time there is a wall situation. Could you please confirm/elaborate on this issue briefly for us so we can make the info available to Team representatives.

USSF answer (December 7, 2007):
You will find all anyone, even players and coaches, could possibly care to know about this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which you may purchase (or view online) at ussoccer.com. The pertinent portions of the Advice are 13.1-13.4. Thousands of other referees have taken advantage of this opportunity. Your group could be next.

Normally, we instruct referees to allow the kicking team to take the kick quickly, if they wish, without interfering with it. However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the defenders are too close to the kick, he or she should avoid playing into the defenders’ hands and becoming an unwitting player on their team — the referee has done the work of the defense by delaying the restart of play and has not made the defenders pay any price for this benefit. Once the referee has decided to step in to deal with opponents who are too close to the kick, the threshold for a caution has been met.

The defending team has only two rights at a free kick:

(1) The right to retire immediately a minimum of ten yards away until the ball is in play, i. e., is kicked and moves. Any player who fails to do so runs the risk of being cautioned and shown the yellow card for failure to respect the required distance at a free kick, no matter what they may see in professional games.
(2) The right not to be diverted by the referee interfering with the action in other than a ceremonial free kick situation. This is what the referee is doing when he or she starts talking with the opponents — even if saying nothing more than to back away — or, worse, when the referee is actively engaged in being “the first brick in the wall” while still allowing the kicking team to kick whenever it wishes. The Advice lays out a fairly simple set of rules — keep your mouth shut, unless you have to or are asked to step in — in which case the free kick automatically becomes a ceremonial restart and the first thing out of the referee’s mouth had better be an admonition to everyone that the free kick cannot now be taken without a signal by the referee. The kicking team has rights too: the right to a “free” kick, free of interference from the opponents and, if they wish to take the kick quickly, free from the interference of the referee. The referee cannot abdicate the responsibility to ensure that the free kick is indeed “free.”…

Question:
Indirect free kick for attacking team just outside the (opponents’) penalty area. An opponent moves closer to the spot of the kick before it’s taken and then he deliberately touches the ball with his handles. Ok caution, but retaken indirect free kick (for infraction law 13 – distance) or penalty kick (for handling)?

USSF answer (December 3, 2007):
We presume you meant that the opponent handled the ball rather than touched the ball with his handles (plus, we are not entirely sure where his handles would be).

What you describe is a classic example of the section in Law 5 that requires the referee to punish the more serious violation when a player commits two or more offenses simultaneously. Here, the opponent violated Law 12 by failing to retreat the required minimum distance (and compounded his offense by clearly interfering with the free kick). For this alone, the referee would stop play, caution the opponent, and restart by having the IFK retaken. However, the opponent also committed a foul by touching the ball with his hands after it had been put into play. For this alone, the referee would stop play, caution the opponent for committing a tactical foul if appropriate, and restart with a DFK (or, in this case, a PK if the handling occurred inside the opponent’s own penalty area).

Given that the two infringements were committed at the same time, the referee should stop play, caution for the failure to respect the required distance, and restart with a DFK (or PK if the handling occurred inside the opponent’s own penalty area). There is no issue of sending off the opponent for interfering with an obvious goal scoring opportunity because a goal cannot be scored directly from an indirect free kick.…

Question:
We had a situation in a match that raised a question that I (and other referees) could not definitively answer. Here it is:
Attacker evades goalkeeper (who goes to the ground) in a one-on-one and attacker proceeds unchallenged to the goal line where he stops the ball with his foot just outside the goal (it would have gone in for a goal if he did not stop it) and waits for the goalie to get up and try to recover before putting the ball into the goal. The action was clearly taunting and deserving of a caution. If given a yellow card for unsporting behavior, what is the appropriate restart? IFK from point of foul and goal does not count because foul stops play? Kick off (goal counts) after the caution. Another option?

USSF answer (November 26, 2007):
Without delving deeper into the matter of the attacking player’s sportsmanship, the correct restart, if the referee does indeed stop to caution the player for unsporting behavior — and has decided to do so before the ball is kicked — is an indirect free kick, taken from the place where the misconduct occurred. (Don’t forget the special circumstances described in Law 8.) And if the game is stopped for the misconduct, the goal certainly cannot be counted.…

Question:
My questions relate to Advice 11.6 that an off-sides player is “gaining an advantage” when he can capitalize immediately on a defender’s mistake (usually seen in non-controlled keeper deflections or goal post rebounds per Advice) and 11.14.2 that the off-sides determination is “re-set” when a defender gains possession/control of the ball (not simply deflecting it).

Consider Attacker A1 passes to the right flank area where A2 is standing in an off-sides position (10 yards). A2 makes no movement for the ball and even steps back from it (A2 judged not to be involved at this point). Onsides attacker/midfielder A3 begins to moves towards ball. A Defender will get to ball before A3 arrives. Next:
1. Defender’s first touch on the ball, seeing A3 approach, is to purposefully pass it back to keeper to kick a clearing ball. A2, passively observing till now, chases the ball to intercept it or at least challenge keeper’s clearance.
2. Defender gains control of ball and starts to dribble forward and within 2-3 seconds is challenged (otherwise fairly) from A2 who approached from Defenders rear.
3. Same as scenario 2 but A2 arrives 4-5 seconds later.

In each scenario, Defender exhibits some ball possession or control. To what extent, if any, should Defender be allowed to play absent A2’s involvement?

USSF answer (November 26, 2007):
“Off-sides”? “Onsides”? First things first, with a brief lecture on terminology. In soccer, the word is singular — offside or onside — unless we are talking about multiple violations. Second, we must always be clear about whether we are talking about “position” or “infringement,” so it is best at every opportunity to refer to offside or onside position and to an offside infringement.

Perhaps we misunderstand the question(s), but once a defender plays (meaning “possesses and controls”) the ball, there is no longer any immediate concern for the offside or onside position of any opposing player because, by definition, they cannot commit any offside infringement. The referee and the Laws of the Game cannot compensate for the mistakes of players. If a defender gains control of the ball and then misplays it or is so unaware of the position of any opponent as to allow that opponent to sneak up and successfully challenge for the ball, oh well, life is hard.…

Question:
Here is the scenario:
Three players are in offside position and run towards the ball, drawing defenders as they go. In the meantime, a fourth attacker runs from an onside position onto the ball and scores with it.

Are we to disallow the goal because the three players distracted their opponents? If so, how does this reconcile with the guidance that “a player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”

USSF answer (November 20, 2007):
It is now an established principle that in situations where an attacker is coming from an onside position and another attacker coming from an offside position, each with an equally credible chance of getting to the ball, it is imperative that officials withhold a decision until either it becomes clear which attacker will get to the ball first (even if this means having to wait until one or the other player actually touches the ball) or the action of the attacker coming from the offside position causes one or more opponents to be deceived or distracted.

From from your description, it is possible that the three attackers, by drawing defenders away from play elsewhere, have interfered with their opponents. The referee in this situation must decide whether in fact that actually occurred. Did these three attackers prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movement, or by a gesture or movement which in the opinion of the referee deceives or distracts an opponent. If so, the correct call is offside. If not, then there is no offense.

The confusion here appears to lie in the “exclusivity” of the guidance you cite. That guidance refers only to the issue of whether an attacker is interfering with play. In other words, suggesting the need to wait for a decision when an onside attacker and an offside attacker are both making a play for the ball is related to whether one or the other of the attackers will interfere with play. If, apart from this, one or more attackers who are in offside positions are interfering with an opponent, this presents a separate issue.…

Question:
I have been a volunteer referee for our league for two years, at the U-10 level, which means I have refereed maybe 20 U-10 games total. I know I have “blown” some calls and will probably make more mistakes in the future, fortunately most parents and coaches are kind and generally, it is all good fun.

In the last game of the season this year (a good close game) an attacker at midfield passed the ball forward. I checked downfield and was certain that the most forward attacker was a good six feet offside, with no other defender except the keeper between the attacker and the goal. The forward pass did a slow roll to the offside attacker about 4-5 seconds later and about halfway between the circle and the box. I blew the whistle and indicated for the IFK. When the coach realized what I was calling, loud protests erupted. The coach, the assistant coach, and at least one parent all yelled and pointed at a defender that to me, had materialized out of thin air in front of the goal box. In U-10, we rarely have linesman, much less ARs, so I was alone on this one. While I was moving towards the spot, wondering to myself how I could have missed a defender standing in front of the net and whether I could do anything about it, the coach marched out to the center of the field to discuss the call with me. I told him that I didnÕt see the defender he was pointing to at the critical moment, it was too late now, and even allowing for the possibility, or even the near certainty, that I had made a mistake, I couldnÕt and wouldnÕt change a call based on something that I did not see. I told him that the coach can’t walk onto the field to have a conference with the referee and that he should return to the sideline, which he did without further protest. I then restarted with an IFK for the defense. I did put a comment on my game card about the unusual on-field conference Ð first time that ever happened to me.

Two questions:
1. Is team official reaction a valid basis for changing a decision, where it is contrary to what you think you saw but you strongly suspect that you may not have seen everything?
2. If it is, when should you use this tool, since it also struck me that, if I start changing calls when the coach yells loud enough, the coach is going to yell more, not just at me but at other volunteers — and I don’t think we will get many volunteer referees if coaches spend the game pointing out the “facts of play” during the games.

USSF answer (November 6, 2007):
1. We normally counsel referees that they cannot call an infringement if they or one of their assistant referees have not seen it. Referees should certainly not take the advice of team officials, who are bound to be protective of their own team’s interests. In this case, it would appear that your first glance down the field missed the defender near the goal. If that is true, you would not be the first referee to which this happened and will certainly not be the last. If the defender was actually there when the ball was played — and you suspect that to be true — then the only correct restart is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when you stopped play.

We suggest that the referee apologize for missing the defender when he or she looked downfield and let the teams know that the proper restart for this mistake is a dropped ball.

2. Very few coaches actually know the Laws of the Game (or even the rules of the competitions in which their team plays). Always acknowledge their “advice” with a smile and get on with the game. You do not have to put what they say into action. However, if the coach behaves irresponsibly, in other words, becomes abusive, you have the authority to expel him or her from the game and include all details in the match report/game card.…

Question:
I am a new referee and have a question about Position Paper “Law 11: Offside Interfering with Play and Interfering with an Opponent,” dated August 24th, 2006.

I understand the main point of the paper, but then don’t understand how the goal cannot be disallowed in the specific example in the video clip and paper. The explanation in the paper says the Romario “is in an obvious offside position” and later has the ball played to him to score a goal. I thought the law was once in an offside position, a player continues to be considered offside until a change of possession. What is the intervening action that canceled his ‘original’ offside position?

The paragraph from the paper is below.

In the attached USL clip, Miami player Romario is in an obvious offside position when the ball is last touched by his teammate, Gil, and Gil then plays the ball forward almost directly toward Romario. However, Romario neither touches nor makes any play for the ball. Furthermore, there is no opponent close enough to be reasonably obstructed or impeded in any way nor does Romario make any gesture or movement which could reasonably be considered deceptive or distracting. Gil proceeds to run forward, takes control of his own pass, moves farther downfield from Romario, and then passes the ballback to Romario who ultimately scores a goal. The goal was valid and, in particular, there was no offside offense during any part of this sequence of play.

USSF answer (November 15, 2007):
You may have omitted an essential part of the offside equation while considering this problem. Under many circumstances any player may be in an offside position when his or her teammate plays the ball without fear of being punished for offside. In fact, a player could spend most of the game there without being punished in such a case — unless he or she completes the equation by becoming involved in play. Becoming involved by interfering with play or with an opponent is the point of the entire position paper.

For more up-to-date information, see the two position papers issued on October 16, 2007, “Offside Issues,” and October 17, 2007, “Offside Myths.”…