Author: Jim Allen

Advice to Referees

PARRYING, PLAYING, AND POSSESSION

Posted on by

Question:
I was an AR in a Boys U14 Division 5 match the other day.

When White played an errant ball to Red’s goalkeeper, who was well within his own penalty area, the ‘keeper reached down, stopped the ball from going across the end line with his hand, stood back up, then picked up the ball. I believed this to be an offense, as I explain below, but I didn’t flag for it, as I’ve been chastised by CRs in the past for calling what they considered to be trifling, obscure offences, and I believe that’s what my CR would have thought, especially considering the low skill level of the teams playing.

But I’d like to make sure that my interpretation is correct that this action violated the Law 12 stipulation that “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences: … touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player.”

Is “possession” in this context defined as actually holding and supporting the ball with the hand(s), or is a mere deliberate, controlling touch with the hand(s) sufficient for “possession,” as happened in this case?

USSF answer (April 17, 2011):
It may be obscure and it may be trifling, but it is the Law, clearly expressed in Law 12 and interpreted in the USSF publication “Advice for Referees on the Laws of the Game” for players, coaches, referees, and older referees who never read the Laws:

12.19 SECOND TOUCH BY THE GOALKEEPER
After relinquishing control of the ball, a goalkeeper violates Law 12 if, with no intervening contact, touch or play of the ball by a teammate or an opponent, he or she handles the ball a second time.  This includes play after parrying the ball. Referees should note carefully the text in the IGR, which defines “control” and distinguishes this from an accidental rebound or a save.

In judging a second touch with the hands by the goalkeeper, referees must take into account tactical play which may seem unsporting but is not against the Laws of the Game or even the spirit of the game. If a goalkeeper and a teammate play the ball back and forth between them, the goalkeeper can handle the ball again legally so long as the teammate has not kicked the ball to the goalkeeper.  However, of course, an opponent can challenge for the ball during such a sequence of play.  The players are “using” but not “wasting” time. The referee’s goal under these circumstances is to be close enough to manage the situation if the opposing team decides to intervene.

The “second possession” foul is punished only by an indirect free kick from the place where the goalkeeper handled the ball the second time*. Please note: A goalkeeper may never be punished with a penalty kick for deliberately handling the ball within his or her own penalty area, even if the handling is otherwise a violation of another restriction in Law 12.

In the strictest sense you were correct in your interpretation, but you did well in not raising the flag. There are mitigating reasons why a non-call is appropriate.  (1) The first touch of the ‘keeper meant to stop the ball from advancing,  Although this is not parrying in the strictest sense it had the same purpose.  (2) This appears to be a trifling offense.

We recommend that the referee warn the goalkeeper on the first occurrence and punish the act if it is repeated.…

"Inventive" Refs

SECOND CAUTION? STRAIGHT SEND-OFF?

Posted on by

Question:
A player receives a caution for a tackle. The player who was tackled is still down for several minutes, there has been no restart to the game. Can the referee issue a Second Caution to the same player?

USSF answer (April 17, 2011):
1. Directly to the question you posed:
On what pretext would the referee want to issue a second caution in this situation? The referee saw the initial act as either reckless or as unsporting behavior, so called the foul and issued the caution. The fact that the “injured” player is still down is not grounds for a second caution.

Instead of worrying about a caution, the referee should be interested in the condition of the player on the field. If the “injury” seems to be serious, the referee should allow a competent person from the player’s team to examine the player and help him off the field.

2. An alternative solution:
Because play has not been restarted the referee may, upon mature reflection over the nature of the challenge and subsequent foul, change his or her mind from the initial caution to a send-off for serious foul play or violent conduct, whichever is applicable.…

"Inventive" Refs

CHASING BALLS

Posted on by

Question:
What obligation does my keeper have to chase after errant shots on goal that go 30-40 yards out of bounds after each shot. Our rules required the home team (not me) to provide 3 game balls but they only provided one. After the first errant shot, I asked the AR where the other game balls were and was told there were none. I suggested they get some because my keeper is not going to run 60-80 yards after each bad shot. After no other balls were forthcoming and after about the fifth bad shot, I told my keeper to walk to get the balls, and the referee criticized me for timewasting. I said this would not be an issue if you would get the required number of game balls. My real question is does my keeper have to get the balls at all?

USSF answer (April 12, 2011):
Whichever team is putting the ball back into play must make the effort to go after balls that are kicked beyond the immediate area of the goal line. (We cannot give a specific distance as a measure, as fields differ in their setting.) In any case, in order to expedite play each team should volunteer one person to stand behind each goal to retrieve the errant balls.

If the rules of the competition (league, cup, club) require that the home team provide three balls, then the referee MUST also enforce the rules before worrying about the visiting team not running great distances for the ball. However, if the home team cannot come up with three balls, then the visiting team may be able to furnish them. (The referee must also have checked all three balls prior to the start of the game for suitability, in accordance with Law 2 and Law 5.)…

IFAB Circulars

INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT (WITH A TWIST)

Posted on by

Question:
“An attacker in an offside position whose gestures or movements, in the opinion of the officiating team, cause an opponent to challenge for the ball has interfered with an opponent and should be ruled offside whether the attacker touches the ball or not.”

Just what gesture does a attacking player have to do? I have never seen this explained anywhere. No examples. Does the attacker really need to gesture or move?

Generally, in all the soccer I watch, if a pass is made to an attacker they do not need to do any special to get a defender to run over to them. This seems to say that if an attacker does not gesture or move there is no offside offense.

What if the only reason the offside attacker did not receive the ball is if the defender make a deflection or cleared the ball out of bounds as a defensive play on the attacker (who did not gesture or move)?

Does the defender really have to guess whether they should clear a ball based on the gesture or movement of the attacker?

Should the attacking team benefit by receiving a throw or corner from a play made against an offside attacker?

Is the referee right? No flag?

USSF answer (April 11, 2011):
Your introductory paragraph is taken from a position paper issued by U. S. Soccer on August 24, 2005, explaining a Circular issued by the International Football Association Board, the body that makes the rules we play by, the Laws of the Game. (No, it is not FIFA that does this, although FIFA is a powerful member of the IFAB.)

However, that document does not provide the full information you need. A later memorandum of March 25, 2009, should fill the gap:

Subject: Offside – Interfering with Play

Date: March 25, 2009

The first goal scored in the new MLS season (New York Red Bulls at Seattle Sounders, March 19, see accompanying clip) was the subject of controversy based on the argument that a teammate of the scorer was in an offside position at the time and had become involved in active play by interfering with play. The goal was from Sounder #17 (Montero) against the Red Bull goalkeeper #1 (Cepero) and the Sounder forward alleged to have been offside was #23 (Nyassi).

The following facts are not in dispute:
• Nyassi was in an offside position.
• Nyassi did not become involved in active play by gaining an advantage (historically, this is only an issue if the ball has rebounded from the crossbar, a goalpost, or a defender, which it did not in this case).
• Nyassi did not interfere with an opponent. He did not get in the way of a defender, make any movement or gesture which deceived or distracted an opponent, and, most importantly, did not block the goalkeeper’s line of sight (the attack came in from the goalkeeper’s left whereas the attacker ran from the goalkeeper’s right and was at least several yards away from the goalkeeper when the shot on goal was made).
• Nyassi did not interfere with play (no contact with the ball).

The assistant referee was well placed, in line with the second to last defender, to confirm these essential elements in deciding for an offside violation.  Accordingly, there was no offside violation and the goal was valid.

• The debate has been vigorous over the last several years regarding the way in which an attacker in an offside position can be involved in active play. The definition provided by the International Board regarding “gaining an advantage” is clear and based on concrete observable facts. The definition of “interfering with an opponent” involves various judgments but is generally clear in its application since the primary issue here is whether the interference results from blocking paths and/or lines of sight.

This memorandum confirms that “interfering with play” cannot be decided unless the attacker in an offside position makes contact with the ball.

In brief, blocking the line of sight or an opponent’s path while in an offside position comes under the heading of “interfering with an opponent” but the third element (distract/deceive) does take movement – i.e., merely standing there, in a particular place, is not enough (unless that “there” blocks sight/path), the attacker must do something, but that “something” has to be “in the opinion of the referee.”…

IFAB/FIFA Experiments

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT REFEREE EXPERIMENT

Posted on by

Question:
With the addition of the fifth and sixth match officials in certain competitions, there are questions that arise about the roles of the referee and his various assistants. Has USSF started any training to institute the additional referees (with a nod to placement of a team at future major world competitions)? And from cursory watching of televised matches, it certainly appears positioning of the CR in the 6 man crew is WAY different than we have come to expect.

The recent CL game between Chelsea and Man United brought this thought to me. The CR’s positioning was so different then what we have been shown to be effective that I thought USSF would need to be thinking of what to do going forward. If we are to advance our referees into the major competitions, and we have no experience in the 6-man crew, that would be a serious drawback. Also, I can’t figure out why the CR’s positioning needs to be so different.

And although, I do not expect to ever be placed as a fifth or sixth, will you eventually publish something along the lines of your current publications that detail the roles of the various referees on a match?

USSF answer (April 11, 2011):
The AAR (Additional Assistant Referee) SYSTEM is an “experiment ” granted by FIFA to only a few competitions. Usually an “experiment” granted by FIFA is for 3 years. After that evaluations of the experiment are submitted to IFAB for consideration.

At this point, U.S. Soccer is not one of the participating confederations using the Additional Assistant Referee System (AAR). Since we are no participating, we are not currently training our referees to work within this system. If that changes, we will train our referees accordingly.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

RIGHT TO THE BALL AFTER A GOAL IS SCORED

Posted on by

Question:
This is a very important point that creates a lot of confusion amongst the players, coaches and referees:
• A team that was behind in a game scores and all the sudden sense a comeback. A player from the team that just scored; rushes to the net to grab the ball to bring it as fast as possible to the center. The goalie (who just got scored on) grabs the ball from the opponent since it is “his team possession” (kickoff after being scored on).
• I believe that the team who got scored on has the right to bring the ball to the center in a timely matter as long as there are no signs of wasting time.
• We see this incidence over and over in professional soccer. One time, there was a game between Arsenal (ARS) & New Castle (NC) where NC was down 4:0 and as soon as they scored, the goal scorer ran to the net to grab the ball so the ARS goalie blocked him and went to grab it himself. The referee ended up cautioning ARS goalie as he considered him wasting time. Of course, when the goalie rushed to the net to grab the ball, he was pushed by the opponent player (who got away from a card).

My question here: What is the proper approach/call that the referee must take in such a situation? I am sure this is a common situation in U13 & up games especially for high flighted games.

USSF answer (April 5, 2011):
Your logic would seem to be correct. The ball actually “belongs” to the team scored against, as they must kick off. If the referee detects delaying or timewasting tactics in this process, he or she is empowered by Law 7 to add time to make up for that which was lost.

The following answer was published on January 23, 2010. It includes the reasoning and suggestions for what the referee should do in such cases.

QUOTE
TUSSLE OVER BALL IN GOAL
After the referee has stopped play for a goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Red). A player who provokes confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (See Law 12, “Delaying the restart of play,” in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2009/2010.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (B) who was interfering with the Team A player carrying the ball to the center of the field.

The team which has possession (Red) may “allow” the opposing team to hold/transfer/carry/etc. the ball by acceding to the action (i. e., not disputing it). However, the opposing team does this at its peril. In your game, Blue, perhaps believing that Red was moving too slowly to carry the ball back to the center circle for the kick-off, tried to take the ball that “belonged” to Team Red. Blue has no right at any time to request that the ball be given over to it (including such childish behavior as attempting to grab the ball or punch the ball out of the Red player’s control.

Rather than immediately cautioning either player, the true owner (against whose team the goal was scored) and the “wannabe” owner (whose team will be defending at the kick-off), it would be better if you simply spoke quickly to both players, admonishing the wannabe owner to leave the ball alone. You could also tell the player that you will judge whether there is any “delay” in getting the ball back to the center spot and will, if necessary, add time to make up for any time lost.

There is little reason to immediately caution either player if you do what we suggest above. In any event, the possibility of a caution would depend on HOW the Blue player attempts to gain possession (i. e., how aggressively, how prolonged, etc.). We cannot see how the mere fact of attempting to gain possession is itself cautionable.

The critical fact that makes the player’s action cautionable is that his attempt to retrieve the ball caused a tussle with the true “owner” of the ball, the GK. If this hadn’t been inserted into the scenario, then the referee could well have ignored the whole thing . . . because there would in fact have been no delay.
END OF QUOTE…

"Inventive" Refs

GOALKEEPER AND FIELD PLAYER CHANGING PLACES?

Posted on by

Question:
Law 3 states that refs should wait till the ball is out of play before cautioning players that make a keeper switch without permission. Why?

What about the moment after the keeper has the shirt off but before the new keeper has it on? Right then the defense is playing WITHOUT a keeper. That’s forbidden.

What if the other team attacks while the keeper jersey is laying on the ground? Certainly this is to be avoided.

I’m pretty sure this is just angels dancing on the head of a pin, because I have never seen it, but the instant I saw the keeper take his shirt off, I would be sorely tempted to stop play. Is my position defensible?

USSF answer (March 30, 2011):
No, your position is not defensible. How can we say that? Read on.

As appears to be the case in your question, if the goalkeeper and the field player haven’t actually exchanged jerseys yet, it can’t be an illegal goalkeeper change because—guess what?—no shift in positions has occurred. Were they ABOUT to? Sure (at least a reasonable inference), but it is not illegal to attempt to change places or to have the thought in one’s head that you want to change places. About the only thing you could get them on is for removing their shirts, and that would be a mighty long stretch.…

Law 5 - Referee

PRO REFEREE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES

Posted on by

Question:
What device are current MLS referees using? I know they were REFTALKS, but now what are they?

USSF answer (March 30, 2011):
It is still RefTalk, but the ear piece has been modified. The receiver is slightly smaller and the wiring has changed. In short, it is the new and improved version.…

Advice to Referees

GOALS AND PREGAME INSPECTION

Posted on by

Question:
I had a question on what constitutes “superfluous items” on a goal post. I was officiating a game the other weekend when the ball bounced off the wheels attached to the goalposts (these are the movable goals), and in the subsequent play the attacker scored a goal. The defenders said that the ball had hit the wheel (that was attached to the goalpost) and came back unto the field of play. I talked to the AR and after the discussion allowed the goal to stand. At half time we went over to the goal post and put the ball down in front of the wheel and noticed that the wheel was placed in such a way that the ball never left the field of play, that part of the ball was on the goal line.

However, I was just reading the ATR and noticed that 1.7.b noted those items that were “non-regulation apparatus” and if the ball touched these items that the ball should be considered out of play, regardless of the ball rebounding back into the field of play.

The question I have is should I have consider the wheel attached to the goalpost to have been a “non-regulation” apparatus and therefore have waved off the goal?

USSF answer (March 25, 2011):
This answer repeats what we have replied in three earlier answers and in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

The referee should not have allowed the goal to be used in the first place. An appropriate pregame inspection would have prevented such a thing. Wheeled goals fall under the same category as standard U. S. football goalposts. This is covered in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

(b) Non-regulation appurtenances (see 1.7)
These include superfluous items attached to the goal frame (such as the uprights on combination soccer/football goals) and not generally subject to movement. If the ball contacts these items, it is deemed to be automatically out of play and the restart is in accordance with the Law, based on which team last played the ball.

The intelligent referee will either not permit equipment that is not in accordance with the Law or be prepared to face the problems that occur. Full details should be included in the match report.

This question emphasizes the importance of a thorough pregame inspection. However, if the referee has inspected the field and determined that the goals or other appurtenances meet the requirements of the Law, then he or she cannot later rule that the equipment is no longer acceptable–unless something has happened that changes the state of the equipment. In that case, the wheels are still regarded as unofficial superstructure and if the ball is affected by them, the ball is dead and play stops, with an appropriate restart in accordance with the Law (corner kick or goal kick, depending on who last played the ball for a ball that left the field, and a dropped ball if the ball remained on the field).…

"Inventive Coaches"

INDOOR SOCCER PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
During an indoor soccer match, a defending player turned his back on a shot by an attacking player. The defender was in the area and his arm was struck by the ball which resulted in a penalty kick. As the referee for this match, I cleared the “18 box” and placed the ball on the spot. When I the blew whistle, a defending player rushed the ball and struck it before the attacking player struck the ball. I blew the whistle and called for a re-kick. Both teams stated that once the referee blew his whistle, the ball was in play and could be struck by any player. I have not found any rule for indoor soccer that states the ball is in play after the whistle, only after an attacking player strikes the ball. Please help.

USSF answer (March 18, 2011):
There are two different restart scenarios that your players are confusing. Indoor has both a penalty kick and a shootout. On an indoor penalty kick, no other players should have been anywhere close enough to do that.

In the case of a shootout, the restart is from the center of the yellow line (50 feet from the goal line). The keeper is to stand on at least one foot on his own goal line, other than the shooter, all the other player must be in the other half of the field. The remaining attacking field players must be outside the center circle, the defending teammates of the GK are inside. Once the referee blows the whistle the ball is “live” and the shooter can dribble, the keeper can come off his goal line, and the players in the other half of the field can then run toward the play.

The penalty kick is pretty much like the outdoor except the goalkeeper must have both feet on his own goal line and can’t move forward until the ball is struck. All the remaining field players are back behind the yellow line and must remain there until the ball is struck.

It’s unfortunate that you were assigned to indoor without being trained on the rules. However, your men’s amateur players are typical. They will say anything to justify what they do, just as outdoor players do.…