Author: Jim Allen

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

NO SEND-OFF HERE!

Posted on by

Question:
A through ball puts a player on a clear break away. The opposing goal keeper comes out of the 18 yard box to play the ball and bobbles it as the attacking forward is less than 2 meters away. To avoid turning over the ball, the goaltender picks it up with his hands. The call on the field is a direct free kick from the spot where the goalie picked up the ball. Should the goal keeper be given a red card for taking away a goal scoring opportunity?

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
Yes, the goalkeeper has committed a direct-free-kick foul, but your scenario does not make a case for a send-off for denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. The dismissal for DG-H requires that, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would have gone into the net but for the handling. It sure doesn’t sound like that in your scenario. The referee should call the foul, award the direct free kick, and perhaps also a caution for unsporting behavior for the tactical foul.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MUTUAL (BUT NOT SIMULTANEOUS) FOULS PLUS MISCONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
Blue and Red player have been challenging pretty hard during the game….all fair, a little tugging on the jerseys in close. Referee has made a verbal to them both during play…ie hands down, etc. Nothing real major.

Second half, blue is a little upset as red starts to tug on the jersey a little excessive from behind. Referee is about to whistle for red holding, but blue player, before the referee can blow the whistle…sticks his arm out and with a backwards motion strikes the red player in anger for retaliation against the hold. Neither has had a foul called on them in the match.

My question is since the intent of the referee was to call a holding foul on red, and just the delay to bring the whistle to the mouth does not negate that…..the initial foul would be holding on red. Then the follow up misconduct would be the strike by blue as in this case it happened after the referee intended to stop play, so it can’t be a foul. Restart with DFK blue as it was the natural restart Or Just call the foul on both and as both are penal and one is not greater than the other, drop ball (hate having to do that)

Now, with that said What if the same scenario, but the strike was reckless but occurred as retaliation for the hold. Although you verbally admonish the hold, you enforce the strike as it was more severe, show the yellow, and DFK Red for the blue reckless strike.

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
Once the referee has determined that a non-trifling foul has been committed and the referee is about to blow the whistle to stop further action, play has already stopped as far as the restart goes. Any infringements that follow the foul to be called are thus treated as misconduct. Only the referee knows how it went down, at least until he or she writes the match report, so there is no need for explanation of the decision to anyone but the competition authorities and the assessor, if there is one (and only if he or she asks).

Given the situation as you present it, the referee should stop play as quickly as possible and get to the spot of the incidents. Deal with each of the two fouls and/or acts of misconduct as the Law prescribes. If the holding foul by Red was NOT blatant, award the direct free kick to Blue and do not caution the Red player. If the holding foul WAS blatant, caution the Red player. If the Blue player’s act of striking was not done with excessive force, it must, by definition, have been done recklessly, and thus the Blue player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the striking was done with excessive force, the Blue player must be sent off for violent conduct, not for serious foul play (because the ball was already out of play based on the referee’s decision to stop for the original holding foul by Red), as the two players were then not contesting for the ball (a requirement for SFP).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SERENDIPITY RULES

Posted on by

Question:
In the ManCity-Swansea match, around the 83rd minute, a ball is played off a City player and is heading toward his own goal line, in danger of giving a corner kick (the ball was not a pass played backward by City, only a deflection. Also, no Swansea player was in the near the goal line, and the ball was about 8 yards away from goal). The City goalkeeper, in an effort not to give up a corner kick, knocks the ball with his hands to keep it in play. The ball bounces but does not touch another plaeyr, and then the keeper picks it up in the penalty box. Is this an example of a parry and an illegal touch, because of the deliberate action of a touching the ball with the hand and then another deliberate touch?

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
No, it’s an example of a parry and a legal touch. If, in the opinion of the referee, the ‘keeper’s motivation was solely to keep the ball from leaving the field for a corner kick, it was a legal play. The fact that the goalkeeper gained a serendipitous advantage is irrelevant. There was no true control or possession, so there was no infringement of the Law.…

"Inventive" Refs

“I GOT THE BALL!”

Posted on by

Question:
Recently the USSF released a position paper called “I got the ball” which stated that there can still be a foul even if the one committing the foul touched the ball first. I recently saw the 1999 Fouls and Misconducts Women World Cup instruction video from the USSF.

In the past, some of the “fouls” shown at the beginning 5 minutes might have been considered clean (they were clean judged by the referee), but with the release of this position paper and changes of the interpretations of the law, the video might be outdated since upon some examination, the fouls show what the position paper states: “Getting the ball first does not make a tackle legal.” and “Getting the ball first but following through with the rest of the body in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force does make the tackle illegal.” Please watch the video and offer me some opinion because these two things combined are confusing me. Upon further pondering, I think going with the most recent position paper would be the best bet.

USSF answer (August 15, 2011):
The Federation has been teaching the principles stated in the position paper for many years. The problem is that too many referees have chosen not to make the proper call. Rather than make that proper call, they have chosen — and many still choose — to listen to coaches, players, and spectators instead of following the Law.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

REFEREE SUCCESSION

Posted on by

Question:
This is not a situation I have encountered, but came to mind when reading “Subbing the Referee” (March 8, 2011). My question relates to a different hypothetical, inspired by the answer given.

It has been established that a CR cannot be subbed out and should remain the CR throughout the match. It was established elsewhere that a CR who is injured and cannot continue may be replaced by the fourth official or senior AR. But what if a CR, for whatever reason, does not wish to continue, but sees no cause to suspend, abandon, or terminate the match? Sounds weird, I know, but I strained myself to think of just such a situation:

CR is working a match when his very pregnant wife (sitting at pitch-side) goes into labor. The CR is physically able to continue the match, but feels obligated to go with his wife to the hospital. The CR appoints the fourth official (4O, I call him) to continue in his stead and finish the game.

Let’s make the following assumptions:

1. We know that the Laws do not have allowances for this or any other personal matter; match officials (CR and company) are well-aware that they are expected to give the match the highest priority when they choose to accept the match, and in an ideal world, the CR might not have accepted the assignment knowing that his wife is due any minute.

2. We assume that the league director was aware of the circumstance and didn’t have any problem with it; maybe this CR was the best in the league and the director was willing to take the risk for this championship game… or something.

3. The director designated the 4O to be the CR’s first alternate in care of incapacity, pursuant to the second bullet point in this page: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/law/newsid=1290885.html

In the event that the CR is able but unwilling to continue the match, or even if he just “walks off the job” as it were, can or should the 4O take over as CR? Should the match be considered abandoned and replayed with a new CR who isn’t going to put other obligations ahead of his game?

I’m split, as the incapacity clause might be invoked if the CR, due to his wife’s medical condition, is found psychologically incapable of continuing – a condition not unlike a physical incapacity. But it’s also a stretch, since the CR here is voluntarily choosing to abdicate his authority to the 4O. What would you do?

USSF answer (August 14, 2011):
We are not familiar with the term “CR,” but presume it to mean the referee.

Unless the game involves only a single referee, with no neutral assistant referees or fourth official, your citation from the Notes at the end of the Laws of the Game regarding who will succeed the referee who must leave the game for any reason before the game has been completed is correct. The competition authority, i.e., the people who make the rules for the competition, determine which match official will take over if the referee has to relinquish control of the match. The reason for the departure is immaterial; if the referee must leave, whether for physical or mental health or for any other legitimate reason, then he or she must be replaced by designated match official.

If the game is officiated by that single referee mentioned in the previous paragraph, then the game must be terminated and a full report sent to the appropriate authorities.

We certainly hope that no referee would leave a match simply because of “other obligations” — beyond the pregnant wife or seriously-ill relative/partner. To do so would be a violation of the first three points of the referee Code of Ethics (see below), for which the referee could be severely punished by the refereeing authorities.

Code of Ethics for Referees
(1) I will always maintain the utmost respect for the game of soccer.
(2) I will conduct myself honorably at all times and maintain the dignity of my position.
(3) I will always honor an assignment or any other contractual obligation.

The only possible problem that might arise if the referee leaves is choosing the correct restart when the game is halted for referee departure. If it was for any reason not stated otherwise in the Laws of the Game, it would be a dropped ball.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

ADDING TO PLAYER ROSTER ONCE THE GAME HAS STARTED

Posted on by

Question:
Can a player or substitute be added to a roster once the game has started?

In an amateur match, a team asked the assistant referee if he could add a player’s name on the roster – the official allowed the coach to add another name to the roster. This incident occurred during half-time and after all the players and substitutes were previously checked in before the kick-off had started. Is this legal? Is a team allowed to added a player’s name to its roster during the match and/or at half-time?

USSF answer (August 15, 2011):
The rules of the competition (league, tournament, cup, etc.) dictate what will happen in this situation. We will provide the rules used by FIFA for its competitions, but many competitions use different rules. Our motto: Know your local rules!

The following rules appear in the International Football Association Board’s “Questions and Answers 2006,” the last year in which the Q&A were published. As they have not been restated in the Laws of the Game in any other way, they continue to be valid. The particular points occur in the Q&A under Law 3, questions 21-23:

21. A competition rule states that all players must be named before kickoff.
A team lists only nine players and the match begins. May two other players who arrive after play has started take part?
No.

22. If no substitutes have been named and a player is sent off before play has begun, may the affected team complete the side with a player who subsequently arrives?
Yes.

23. A team reports the substitutes’ names to the referee before the start of the match, but they arrive after the kick-off. Should the referee admit them?
Yes.

…
"Only in America!"

GOALS THAT DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW 1

Posted on by

Question:
Law 1 tells us that goalposts and crossbars must be white and that they must be shaped a certain way (e.g., if the goalposts are rectangular or elliptical, the longer axis must be perpendicular to the goal line).

In Tennessee, we have goals that aren’t white (they’re bare metal), and it’s not uncommon to see portable goals that aren’t shaped as now specified in Law 1. For example:
http://www.hayneedle.com/sale/alumagoal7x21rectangularsteeljrgoalspair.cfm?srccode=cii_10043468&cpncode=00-36212823-2&source=channel_intelligence_shopzilla

If a referee notices unsanctioned goals (wrong color, wrong shape, or both), does US Soccer really want that referee to mention this in his/her referee report? Also, should goals that are the wrong shape be treated the same way as goals that aren’t white?

Should these two parts of Law 1 be ignored (by referees)? After all, neither infraction is a safety issue, and neither should be the reason for preventing a match from being played.

I’m asking how we should handle such goals because my instructors are asking me how they should teach the material and how they should respond to “What do I really do” questions.

USSF answer (August 12, 2011):
The safety of the players and other participants always comes first. Referees should conduct a complete inspection of the field and its appurtenances before every game (and again if something happens to endanger a participant). If there is a problem, such as the goal made of steel 2 x 4s in the hotlink you provided, the referee must judge whether or not the item is truly safe for the players. If the referee decides that the goal or any other appurtenance is unsafe — and there is no viable alternative — then the game cannot be played.

IN all such cases, the referee must include full details in the match report.…

Advice to Referees

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY AGAINST A TEAMMATE? NO!

Posted on by

Question:
High kick foul- If a player raises his foot, and kicks a ball near the face of a player from his own team, wouldn’t that still be considered dangerous play? Is there a procedure to deal with that?

Would you just talk to the player after play is stopped?

USSF answer (August 11, 2011):
Such a rule exists in the U S. high school rules, to which we are not authorized to speak. On the other hand, under the Laws of the Game no offense has been committed; however, the referee might still have a word with the player about the need for safety. Here is what we tell referees, taken from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing “in a dangerous manner” can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground). Committing a dangerous act while an opponent is nearby is not, by itself, an offense. The act becomes an offense only when an opponent is adversely and unfairly affected, usually by the opponent ceasing to challenge for the ball in order to avoid receiving or causing injury as a direct result of the player’s act. Playing in a manner considered to be dangerous when only a teammate is nearby is not a foul. Remember that fouls may be committed only against opponents or the opposing team.

In judging a dangerous play offense, the referee must take into account the experience and skill level of the players. Opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through. Younger players have neither the experience nor skill to judge the danger adequately and, in such cases, the referee should intervene on behalf of their safety. For example, playing with cleats up in a threatening or intimidating manner is more likely to be judged a dangerous play offense in youth matches, without regard to the reaction of opponents.

…
Disciplinary Matters

MAJOR REFEREE ERROR

Posted on by

Question:
The game has finished, the players are on the sideline when the ref issues a player without their jersey on with a yellow for decent, the player blows up again so the ref issues another yellow to the same player resulting in a red, what is the outcome if the ref reports the wrong player in the paperwork since he had no jersey on how can he be sure he reports the correct player ? and if he does report the wrong player can the team challenge the result ?

USSF answer (August 11, 2011):
The final whistle has been blown, the game is over! Players may now remove their jerseys if they like, whether they are on the field or off. The referee committed an error in judgment and procedure by not determining the player’s name and number before issuing the caution for dissent and the subsequent caution and dismissal for receiving a second caution in the game. (Yes this period counts as part of the game if the referee has not left the area after the final whistle.)

The referee could have resolved the problem by informing the team captain and or a team official, such as the coach, that this player was being cautioned and then sent off and asking for the player’s name.

In answer to your final question, we cannot know what course the competition’s disciplinary committee will take in this matter, other than to remind the referee that procedure should be followed.…

"Inventive" Refs

“DIRECTLY”

Posted on by

Question:
In response to the May 18, 2011 question about the meaning of “directly” in Law 11, I imagined the following hypothetical scenario:

Red takes the throw-in, #7 is in an offside position. Ball is received and played by Blue, and no Red player gets to touch the ball. While meandering about in the Blue half near the halfway line, Blue #4 passes back toward Blue GK, with no Red player still having touched the ball since the throw-in. Red intercepts the backward pass and scores.

My instinct tells me that this should be a call for offside and disallowed goal, because the ball wasn’t deflected or misplayed, and it appeared that Red #7 was intentionally in that position to gain an advantage. At the same time, it seems to comply with the letter of the law, in that he was not guilty of an offside offense because the last time the ball was played by a teammate was the throw-in. Since the ball is not in play until the thrower releases it and it enters the field (my understanding), can #7 be called offside here? If so, why (if possible, refuting the arguments presented as if a referee needed to defend his call after the game)?

USSF answer (August 11, 2011):
No, Red #7 cannot and must not be called offside in this situation. Red #7 was indeed in an offside position when the ball was thrown in by his teammate, but that is not an infringement of the Law under any circumstances.

Why? The Law does not say that a player may never be be in an offside position during the game. In fact, Law 11 excludes a player in an offside position at a throw-in from being called offside directly. Law 11 also states that a player in an offside position may be called offside only if he (or she) is in an offside position at the moment a teammate plays the ball and the player in the offside position is involved in play. In addition, Blue, the defending team, took clear possession of the ball from the throw-in and thus Red #7 can not be called for offside until one of his teammates plays the ball and he becomes involved in play.

Finally, referees have to answer questions only from their assessor and in response to their own conscience.…