Question:
The attacking team makes a long pass downfield. The ball is heading toward the goaline, just inside the penalty box. An attacker is sprinting downfield trying to get to the ball before it rolls out of bounds. A defender is giving chase as well.

The attacker is able to stop the ball right before it crosses the goalline, and the ball rolls backwards about a yard, sitting inside the penalty box, about halfway between the side of the goal box and penalty box.

However, the momentum of the sprint to the ball causes both players to leave the field of play by a few yards. The attacker is a bit more agile than the defender, and is able to change direction first.

However, prior to the re-entering the field, the defender turns, and grabs the attacker’s jersey, preventing him from getting to the ball and making a cross to an open player.

My very small, meager, and limited understanding of the Laws (I have no business earning a badge and suiting up in the yellow shirt on Saturdays) are that the action by the defender is classified as misconduct, as it occurred off the field of play. In all likelihood, the defender shall be cautioned for unsporting behavior for the blatent shirt pull. However, the only possible restart in this case is a dropped ball at the point where the ball (if outside the goalbox, moving it parallel if not) was when the misconduct occurred.

If my interpretation is correct, to put it mildly, this really sucks for the attacking team. Sure, the defender gets a caution, but for robbing the attacking team from having the ball in a prime location, the result is a dropped ball. That just seems to go against the spirit of fair play.

I would also hope the referee in this situation would double check with his AR who studiously sprinted down the sideline as well to make sure that tug on the shirt didn’t happen to conclude with any part of it occurring over a blade of grass on the outside edge of the goalline, inside the penalty box, where a penalty kick could be awarded.

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
Any infringement of the Laws committed while off the field by players who have left the field during the course of play must be punished by a caution for unsporting behavior or a send-off for violent conduct, as applicable to the action. The only restart permitted by the Laws of the Game is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when the infringement occurred (keeping in mind the special circumstances regarding restarts in the goal area).…

Question:
I was working a tournament and the field that I was on had the temporary style goals. Because of the style of goals and the way the ground was the top right corner of the goal was leaning back from the field. We had a player come down the left side of the field and at about 5 feet off the end line took a shot. The ball crossed the opening of the goal and hit the inside of the upright near the top on the right side. Due to the angle of the shot the ball then bounced back toward the player that took the shot. With the amount that this corner was leaning back when the ball hit the inside of the post the ball had fully crossed the line. My A/R was right on the line and put his flag up. When I looked at him he sprinted up the field and I awarded the goal.

Some referees say this is a good goal and others say it was not. In your opinion did we call this correct?

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
The Law requires that the ball cross the entire goal line, below the crossbar and between the goal posts. If that was the case in your game, then the goal was legal.

Your question brings up an important point regarding the pregame inspection: If the referee inspects the field and finds it meets the standards required by Law 1, when in fact it does not, then he or she places his or her authority and credibility in danger when a situation like this occurs. Lesson to be learned: Be certain that both teams know of the condition and how you will call goals. This, of course, violates our general instruction that referees not lecture the players or make “promises” as to what they will do, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

Even if the referee has inspected the field before the game, this sort of thing could happen if a player had run into the temporary goal just a moment before the situation you describe occurred. We believe that the whole of the ball crossing the whole of the goal line between where the goal posts SHOULD be is enough to call it a goal.…

Question:
I am the AR2 for a match which the CR is having assessment by an assessor. There is a situation which happens near the AR1, which the defender attempt to hit the attacker after a confrontation from the attacker. It was after the defender made a foul on the attacker.

The CR give a DFK for the attacker but he did not give Red Card for the defender who attempt to hit the attacker. It is very obvious that i think both the CR and the AR1 noticed that but CR did not give the card or AR2 did not remind the CR to give the card. It might be lack of knowledge of the law, or not courage enough.

As i am the AR2 on the other side of the field, i also do not have the courage to ask the referee over to remind him to give the card.

Can i ask him over to advise him on any decision which happens near the other AR?

If yes, can i ask him over if the attacker has already took the quick restart from that DFK, which is the ball is in play? Should i flag up? or should i just shout/call for him?

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
Confining our answer strictly to the United States, we can say with confidence that the trail AR is much too far away from the location of whatever went on to attempt to intervene with advice on what the referee should do, particularly in view of the likelihood that the referee and/or the lead AR saw what happened.  If the trail AR feels that a mistake in judgment or courage was made, he could discuss it at the midgame break or at the end of the match . . . or listen in as the assessor discusses it.  The ultimate solution for the trail AR is to decide not to work with either of the other two officials again if he felt strongly about the matter.…

Question:
Defender in effort to clear the ball from the penalty area trips all on his own. He falls forwards and intentionally puts out his arms ahead of him to break his fall. His hand lands on the ball and pushes it out of the penalty area. Fair or foul? Is the intent to put his hands out sufficient to constitute intent to handle though he had no apparent intent to handle the ball. It is surely hand to ball, not ball to hand.

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
A player attempting to break his fall must put his hands somewhere. If they simply happen to touch the ball that is already in the spot, no infringement of the Law has occurred. Do not make trouble for yourself by inventing fouls. It will only injure your credibility with the players.…

Question:
Several referees were discussing a general offside situation where a ball is headed backward by a defender. For example assume A1 sends a high diagonal ball towards the 18 yard line. D1 heads it only to have it go backwards to an attacker behind him in an offside position.

These refs believe that, because the act of heading the ball is a “deliberate act, not a deflection”, that it will automatically reset the offside situation, regardless of where the ball ends up. Thus the attacker who ends up with the ball behind the defender is not offside, regardless of whether it was the defender’s intent to play the ball backward and regardless of whether the header was controlled or if it simply skimmed of the very top of his head.

While I realize the final judgement is always itootr, I think that most of the time when a defender heads a ball backwards to an attacker, giving the attacker a good scoring opportunity, that this is not a controlled play but rather the equivalent of a mis-hit kick.

In that case, if my judgement is that the ball was mis-hit by the defender and hence accidentally went backwards, I don’t believe it would reset the offside situation.

Could you please clarify this situation. Thanks.

USSF answer (June 18, 2008):
Looking solely at your direct question, the fact that the act of heading the ball is “deliberate” has no bearing on the matter. If the opponent (D1) did not establish full control of the ball originally played by A1 toward his/her teammate, then the heading of the ball is a deflection or touch, not possession or control. Therefore, the attacker in the offside position to whom the ball was headed by D1 is offside if he becomes actively involved in play.

There are, however, other aspects to be considered. The defender could be deliberately heading the ball back (say, to his keeper so that the keeper could handle it) and not know that there was an attacker back there also. In such a case, it is a deliberate play and the attacker should not be punished for the defender’s error by being called for offside if he then gathers the ball and attacks the goal.

A defender might also deliberately play (possess and control) the ball by heading it but misdirect the ball so that it goes to this attacker … and again the attacker should not be called for offside.

Why should a defender gain the benefit of an offside call against this attacker simply because the defender didn’t play the ball accurately or well — he still played it. Deflections, ricochets, bounces, and the like would not of course constitute a play.

In closing, we need to remember that officials, whether referees or assistant referees, should not defend for the defenders.…

Question:
Player’s foot slides over the top of the ball as his opponent tries to kick the ball.

Player’s cleat is over the ball while the opponent’s leg is swinging toward it. Contact is made, unavoidably by the opponents ankle to the first player’s cleat. Had the opponent’s timing been better the contact (cleats to ankle) would have still occurred.

I felt the first player was careless allowing his foot to go over the top of the ball and awarded a DFK against him. Nobody liked my call. The sore ankle team thought a caution / send-off was in order, the cleat over ball team went to the “I got the ball first”. I get 50/50 opinions on this situation. Can you give me any easy guidance?

USSF answer (June 18, 2008):
“Cleats up” means little if that is the only way the player can play the ball. What the referee must be concerned about is the nature and result of the play.

Referees should pay particular to the actual foul here, the “over the top” (of the ball) tackle. Unless the referee on the spot detects some malice in the play, this is a simple foul. However, if it is done other than through accident — and “accident” would appear to be the case here — it is the sending-off offense of serious foul play. The final decision must rest with the referee on the spot.…

Question:
If a player taking a throw-in complies with all four of the ‘Procedures’ listed in Law 15, but takes it from further than one yard (one meter) of where it crossed the touchline, (and the ball directly enters the field of play) is that throw regarded (under ATR 15.4) to have been taken ‘illegally’ – and so possession given to the opponents, or is it taken ‘improperly’ – and the team permitted to throw it again?

USSF answer (June 16, 2008):
The requirement that the ball be thrown in from no more than one yard (one meter) of the place where it left the field is one of those items that the International F. A. Board, the authors of the Laws of the Game, assumes that everyone knows and therefore does not need to be included in the Law. (The same is true of the fact that a player sent off may not be replaced; these and a few other items used to be in the Laws, but are now “universally accepted” and thus no longer included.) It should be regarded as one item in the procedures for throwing in the ball correctly. Therefore, failure to throw the ball in from within the correct distance could be regarded as a reason to award the throw-in to the opposing team.…