Author: Jim Allen

Advice to Referees

PUZZLED ABOUT COMING FROM AN OFFSIDE POSITION

Posted on by

Question:
Player A is in the offside position. His teammate player B is the ballcarrier. Player A realizing he is in the offside position does not get involved in the play and backs off. The Ref and AR are aware of this and let play continue. Player B loses control of the ball to the defender who takes over and starts his dribble in his own end of the field. Player B who is still in the offside position the entire time comes up from behind the defender who is still in his end of the field and player A takes the ball away from the defender and player A begins his attack… possible scoring.

Is player A called for offsides or a delayed offsides? Or is it that once the opposition has taken control of the ball offsides is no longer a concern for player A?

USSF answer (October 20, 2010):
Note: No player can ever be “offsides.” There is no such offense in soccer; a player can only be called “offside.”

Please study this excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” Pay special attention to the second paragraph, beginning “The result . . ..”

11.14 BECOMING “ONSIDE”
The possibility of penalizing a player for being in an offside position must be reevaluated whenever:
1. The ball is again touched or played by a teammate,
2. The ball is played (possessed and controlled, not simply deflected, miskicked or misdirected) by an opponent, including the opposing goalkeeper, or
3. The ball goes out of play.

The result of such a reevaluation, of course, may be that the player remains in an offside position based on still being beyond the second-to-last defender, the ball, and the midfield line. Referees must remember that a player cannot simply run to an onside position and become involved in play. The player’s position with relation to the ball and the opponents must change in accordance with the Law.

In the case of the ball leaving the field in favor of the team whose player was in an offside position and actively involved in play (e. g., a corner kick or throw-in for the attackers), it is traditional to call the original offside offense. If the restart would be in favor of the opposing team (e. g., a goal kick or throw-in for the defenders), it is usually preferable to ignore the offside infringement, as the defending team’s restart gives them the possession under circumstances not much different than the indirect free kick for offside-and often with less controversy.

It is best to think about taking a “snapshot” of the situation. When the defensive player takes control of the ball the snapshot shows an opponent (Player A) being in an offside position. According to Law 11 this in itself is not an offense. Player A can only be penalized for being in an offside position if, while still in that position, the ball is touched or played by one of his own team. Since the defender is dribbling the ball, player A may challenge the defender for the ball and take control of the ball if possible. There is no offense here.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PARAMETERS OF THE FAIR SHOULDER CHARGE

Posted on by

Question:
Please help me understand the parameters of a fair shoulder charge — especially when it comes to skilled players in U16 matches and above.

I believe that when a player approaches another, especially from a near 90 degree angle, with enough force to blast a player off the ball with the shoulder (all other parameters of legal charge are used; feet on ground, contact at shoulder area, in playing distance, no use of elbow/arm) that the charge becomes careless if not reckless. I was taught that “playing the player” prior to playing the ball is a violation of the LOTG. A friend and very respected and talented referee has chastised me for calling charges made with what I believe to be “freight train” force fouls. He states that nothing in the ATR or LOTG supports my belief that aggressive charges are fouls. Here is an exchange we had via e-mail:

Me:
What exactly would constitute a careless or reckless charging foul other than one not directed to the shoulder?? And if a charging foul could be committed with excessive force, what would that look like?

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

Him:
I personally do not believe that it is possible to execute an otherwise fair shoulder charge (feet on the ground, contact with the shoulder to the opponent’s shoulder area [due to size difference it may not be possible to be exactly shoulder-to-shoulder and as the ATR notes this is NOT required], and while within playing distance of the ball) in a careless or reckless manner or to use excessive force. The object of such a charge is to knock the opponent away from the ball. In these instances the stronger player is legally allowed to use his body and strength to displace the opponent from his desired position AND THEN go collect the ball. There is certainly no requirement within the LOTG to “play the ball” under such circumstances.
Soccer is a tough game which can often be quite physical. As long as the contact is done in a legal manner, I am never going to deem the charge to be a foul.

I would really appreciate and answer regarding this matter as [my state] has no SRA or DRI and I have nowhere else to turn on this matter.

USSF answer (October 20, 2010):
We applaud your correspondent, who has an excellent grasp of the fair charge.

There is no other sort of charge than a “shoulder charge”; no hips, no hands, no holds or pushes. A fair charge is shoulder to shoulder, elbows (on the contact side) against the body, with each player having at least one foot on the ground and both attempting to gain control of the ball. The amount of force allowed is relative to the age and experience of the players, but should never be excessive. This is as defined by the referee on the game, not some book definition, adjusted as necessary for the age and experience of the players and what has happened or is happening in this particular game on this particular day at this particular moment. It all boils down to what is best for the referee’s management and the players’ full enjoyment of the game.

Although often overlooked by spectators, it is important to remember that a player’s natural endowments (speed, strength, height, heft, etc.) may be superior to that of the opponent who is competing with that player for the ball. As a completely natural result, the opponent may not only be bested in the challenge but may in fact wind up on the ground — with no foul having been committed. The mere fact that a player fails in a challenge and falls or is knocked down is what the game is all about (and why coaches must choose carefully in determining which player marks which opponent). Referees do not handicap players by saddling them with artificial responsibilities to be easy on an opponent simply because they are better physically endowed in some way.

Fair charges include actions which do not strictly meet the “shoulder-to-shoulder” requirement when this is not possible because of disparities in height or body type (a common occurrence in youth matches in the early teenage range where growth spurts differ greatly on an individual level within the age group). Additionally, a fair charge can be directed toward the back of the shoulder if the opponent is shielding the ball, provided it is not done dangerously and never to the spinal area.

The arms may not be used at all, other than for balance—which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent.

“Momentum” should not be a factor in the referee’s judgment of a charge. Beyond the definition given above, there are only two criteria for judging the charge: (1) Was it fair or unfair? (2) If unfair, was the charge (a) careless, (b) reckless, or (c) using excessive force? After these two questions have been asked and answered, the referee makes a decision.

If the player’s momentum is too great, it is likely that the player is using excessive force; however, please remember that a player can be knocked over by a fair charge and the charging player should not be punished for that. If the charge described in your example was either reckless or done with excessive force, the player should have been either cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play.

We must add that a player may be off balance and fall more easily because of a “fair” shoulder charge. Charges from behind when a player is shielding a ball that is within playing distance are often deemed to be fouls if the player shielding the ball falls forward. Again the referee is the judge what constitutes fair of foul. But simply causing an opponent to fall does not automatically mean that a foul has been committed.

In addition, some well-meaning but ill-informed leagues make a “no-charge” rule part of their rules of competition. These are the same misguided people who say that younger players should not be sent off for offenses that would merit a send-off and lengthy suspension in advanced youth and adult soccer. How will kids learn to cope with adversity as adults if they are spoon fed only sweetness and light as youths?…

Disciplinary Matters

MAY THE PLAYER BE REPLACED?

Posted on by

Question:
A player on Team A asks the ref repeatedly why a foul was called. He didn’t respond. The same player for Team A was substituted and asked the ref why a foul was called in passing, again the ref ignored his request. The player while exiting the field said “you’re an idiot” not directly to the ref. The ref said “what did you say”. Team A player continued off the field and one of the players from Team B said to the referee he said “You are a ‘Effing’ idiot”.

Player 2 from (the sub) from Team A went on to the field. Referee Red carded the player that said “you’re an idiot”. My question is does Team A have to play a man short?

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
Because the referee waited until the substitute entered the field and became a player, the former player’s dismissal for using offensive, insulting or abusive language does not result in Team A having to play short. If the referee had acted before allowing the new player to enter, then Team A would have to play short.

The harder question is this: suppose the referee is 100% sure that the second player who provided the answer embellished on the first player’s remark. Should the referee ignore the embellishment (“Effing idiot” vs just “idiot”)? It is probably best to let it go but let the player know that you know. …

Advice to Referees

GOALIE GLOVES; USE OF STICKUM

Posted on by

Question:
Quick question about stickum: Is it allowed or an infringement for a Goalie to use stickum on their Goalie Gloves.

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
This answer from back in 2001 is still applicable. The citation from the Advice to Referees has been updated to the current version.

USSF answer (September 6, 2001):
Artificial aids such as “stickum” are not part of the basic compulsory equipment of the player, which is comprised of a jersey or shirt, shorts, stockings, shinguards, and footwear. With the minor exception of the goalkeeper, players are not permitted to use any “tool” other than their natural ability to participate in play.

As to equipment for the goalkeeper, here is an excerpt from [2010/2011 edition of] the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

4.4 GOALKEEPER UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
Under Law 4, goalkeepers must wear a jersey color distinct from the players of both teams and the referee and assistant referees. In addition, goalkeepers traditionally wear items of clothing besides those prescribed under Law 4. These items include soft hats or caps, gloves, training suit bottoms, pants with special hip or thigh pads, jerseys with pads along the elbows and arms, and separate pads for knees or elbows. There is no problem as long as these items of clothing do not present a danger to any players, are of a color distinct from the uniforms of players of either team and are, in the opinion of the referee, clearly related to the goalkeeper’s function. The referee should prevent any player other than the goalkeeper from wearing an item of clothing or equipment that is permitted to the goalkeeper under these criteria.

Please notice that the exceptions for the goalkeeper are designed strictly for protection of the goalkeeper, who is often expected to dive quickly to the ground. Law 4 is meant to ensure player safety, not player superiority through artificial means. There is no provision for the goalkeeper or any other player to wear artificial aids to enhance their ability to play. Therefore tacky substances on the hands or “sticky” gloves are illegal equipment and, if used, constitute unsporting behavior for which a caution should be given.

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

HEADING THE BALL TO THE ‘KEEPER; TRICKERY?

Posted on by

Question:
This question arose this weekend during a regional game event.

Team A defender #1 receives the ball, he then plays the ball in the air (operative word here) to Team A defender #2, who then decides to head it back to his keeper. Thus circumventing the pass-back to the keeper. First of all, does this constitute a pass-back to the keeper?

And then does this fall into the ‘trickery’ clause as defined in Law 12, and you caution defender #1 for initiating the trickery? Or do you caution defender #2 for knowingly deceiving the other team.

I have gone through a series of links online to which it’s only addressed a single player flicking it up to his own head, and the other talking about a throw in to a teammate’s head who consequently heads it back to the keeper.

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
When calling “trickery” on passes to the goalkeeper we look for contrived and unusual plays. Heading the ball to the goalkeeper is part of the game; we see it every weekend at all levels of play. This play appears to have been entirely normal and involved two players who were simply trying to keep the ball away from their opponents. That is not trickery.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

PENALTY KICK PROBLEM

Posted on by

Question:
In the context of a protest which R&D will have to decide, we have a Law 14 question to resolve. The ref called a PK. The kicker was identified, etc. He blew the whistle for the kick to be taken. Before the ball was struck, a teammate of the kicker ran into the box. The kicker struck the ball. Seeing the teammate streaming in, the ref blew the whistle. The keeper hearing the whistle made no play on the ball and it went into the net, having only been kicked by the kicker. The ref awarded an IFK to the defending team.

Law 14 doesn’t exactly cover a dead ball that goes into the net from a PK. Had the ref not blown the whistle, it would be either a retake if it went in the net , etc. One school of thought that has emerged is under advice to referees it tells us the ref determines when the PK is complete, and having done so by his whistle, the restart is governed by the team that committed the violation, thus the IFK was correct. The other is the kick was not complete at the time of the whistle, so retake. While not stated, some refs have earlier whistles in youth games if for no other reason to reduce likelihood of injury. With the infringing player coming on strong, a decision to shut it down sometimes occurs.

Thoughts? Thanks.

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
The whistle was blown but the ball was not yet in play when the teammate of the kicker entered the penalty area. No goal was scored because of the infringement by the teammate of the kicker. Warn the teammate (if it was his first infringement of Law 14, or caution if it was a second offense) and retake the penalty kick.…

"Inventive" Refs

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
I play for a U19 girls soccer team, and we played a game today that many of our fans, coach, and players felt that it was an unfairly reffed game. The team we played for had a referee that additionally works at that teams club. I’m not positive because I was pretty sure that you can not ref a game for a club you work for…that would be an unfair bias. He additionally called about 11 obstruction calls on our team whenever we got within the 18 yrd box of the opposing team(the club he works for team) If I am mistaken again but I thought obstruction would be typically called on the defending team.

We also got called for an obstruction call on the goalie when a teammate of mine stood in front of the goalie on a corner(not even touching her) We got called for another on a girl who did not have the ball yet and then once on our own 8 yrd line our defending player got called for obstruction for playing typical defense on a corner….what exactly is this obstruction rule and why is it being used, I have never heard this rule in my life but once? Lastly I would like to know if there is a way to report a referee somehow, because I think he should not be allowed to ref for a club team for the club he works for.

USSF answer (October 17, 2010):
If you have problems with a referee, then the best thing to do is to submit a report to the competition authority (the league, cup, tournament, etc.) that is responsible for the game. You will also want to send a copy of that report to the state referee authorities in your state.

In general, refereeing a game in which you have a vested interest in a team (such as working for that team or club) is considered to be a conflict of interest. In such a case, you can also file a complaint with the state soccer association responsible for that particular competition. Look on the U. S.Soccer website for Federation Policies, in particular Policy 531-10 — Misconduct of Game Officials, Section 2, Procedures. You can find the Federation’s Bylaws and Policies (and Amendments to the Policies) at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Governance/Bylaws.aspx .

There is no such foul as “obstruction,” although there was such a foul until the major editing of the Laws in 1997. It would appear that the “referee” for your game has not read the Laws of the Game since 1996. Either that or he (a) paid no attention in training classes or (b) is not a referee at all.

“Obstruction” became “impeding the progress of an opponent” in 1997. impeding the progress of an opponent is defined in the Laws of the Game: “Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.” It is punished by an indirect free kick for the opposing team. In addition, “It is an offense to restrict the movement of the goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him, e. g. at the taking of a corner kick.” In either case, if contact is initiated by the impeding player, this is considered to be the direct free kick foul of holding.…

"Inventive" Refs

RAISING THE FLAG FOR OFFSIDE WITH NO TOUCH OR PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
I would like clarification on when an AR should raise the flag for an offside offense.

Seminars I attend and some more experienced center referees state not to raise the flag until the player in the offside position plays/touches the ball. However, I have also been asked to raise the flag, and have noticed that during MLS games, that the AR’s are raising their flags the moment the ball is played toward a player in an offside position prior to the player in the offside position playing/touching the ball.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
Your answer lies in the second bullet point in this position paper issued August 24, 2005.

From the U.S. Soccer Communications Center:

To: State Referee Administrators
State Directors of Referee Instruction
State Directors of Referee Assessment
Chair, State Referee Committee
National Referees, Assessors and Instructors

From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education

Re: Law 11 – Offside
IFAB advice on the application of Law 11, Decision 2

Date:  August 24, 2005

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) revised Law 11 (Offside) effective 1 July 2005 by, among other things, incorporating definitions of what it means to “interfere with play,” “interfere with an opponent,” and “gain an advantage by being in an offside position.” The USSF Advice to Referees section of Memorandum 2005 ended its discussion of the addition of these three definitions by noting:

Referees are reminded that the reference to “playing or touching the ball” does not mean that an offside infraction cannot be called until an attacker in an offside position actually touches the ball.

Because of recent developments which appear to focus on “touching the ball,” there has been some confusion about the above statement. “Touching the ball” is not a requirement for calling an offside violation if the attacker is interfering with an opponent by making a movement or gesture which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts that opponent. What the International Board has recently emphasized is that, in the unlikely event an attacker in an offside position is not challenged by any opponent, the attacker should not be ruled offside unless and until the attacker physically touches the ball.

This emphasis is both simple and easily implemented:

• An attacker in an offside position who is not challenged by any opponent and not competing for the ball with a teammate coming from an onside position who could, in the opinion of the officiating team, get to the ball first should not be ruled offside for interfering with play or gaining an advantage unless that attacker actually touches the ball. In a close race between an onside and an offside attacker, it would be necessary to see which player touches the ball before deciding if an offside offense has occurred.
• 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.

The International Board issued a Circular on August 17, 2005, which reaffirmed the above approach. As the Board stated (emphasis added): “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.” Further, “If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalized for interfering with an opponent.” Finally, the Board confirmed the requirement that the indirect free kick restart for an offside offense is taken “from the initial place where the player was adjudged to be in an offside position.”

All referees, instructors, and assessors should review these guidelines carefully. It is important that officials understand and handle the offside offense in a correct, consistent, and realistic manner. Personal interpretations which differ from the approach outlined here can only cause confusion and hard feelings on the part of players, team officials, and spectators.

USSF will shortly distribute to the state associations and place on its website a PowerPoint presentation incorporating this clarification.

The PowerPoint presentation noted above is still on the USSF website.)…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREE MISLEADS DEFENDING TEAM AT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
During one of our U-14 games one of our defensive players and opposing team members were shoulder to shoulder heading towards our goal. Our defensive player then reached his foot out to try and kick the ball away towards the side and instead he toe tipped it out in front towards the center of the goal and our goalie picked it up.

This maneuver also landed the opposing teams player on the ground and our kids catching his balance in sprint. The Ref then called an indirect kick for the opposing team on the “pass back rule” I am under the understanding that it only applies if it is intentionally kicked back to our goalie. Obviously two players sprinting shoulder to shoulder and the defense trying to get it out of there can not be taken as intentionally can it? This IDK lead to another messy situation where the Ref then told our players they could not make a wall stating they must be 10 yds from the goal line (ball was 8 yds from goal line) then when our players looked confused and moved away he tried to save himself and say 10 yds from the ball. Yelling at them.

Our Goalie was trying to get our people back on the goal line when the ref proceeded with game play (no whistle, or asking goalie if ready).

Our Goalie was not ready and well tap tap ball in. I want to contest this however I want to make sure I have the right answer before doing so.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
Let’s start with the good things the referee did (or may have done):
• The call for the “pass back rule” was correct if your player deliberately kicked the ball to the goalkeeper or to a place where the ‘keeper could play the ball. The emphasis on “deliberately” means that the player did not miskick or deflect the ball, but knew essentially where it was going to go.
• No whistle is necessary at a free kick unless the referee has had to move the opposing back the minimum ten yards from the ball; a whistle is necessary if the opponents had to be moved.

Now we move to the bad things the referee did:
• The defending team has no right to form a wall at free kick. In fact, they have only one right to anything at a free kick, and that right is not to be confused by the referee. By giving them bad directions on where they could be, the referee misled your players. At an indirect free kick near goal, all opponents must be at least 10 yds from the ball until it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts.
• Referees should never yell at players.

Your game is not protestable. Even though the referee misled your team through his poor mechanics, that does not mean that he “set aside a Law of the Game.”…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TRICKERY? YES!

Posted on by

Question:
We were playing a high school soccer match in Illinois and a player on my team flicked the ball up to his head and headed it back to the goalie so he could pick it up and would not be in violation of the pass back to the goalie rule. The ref did not know the rule but the linesman did and called it trickery and gave the player that passed the goalie the ball a yellow card.

I was wondering what the real rule would be.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
The assistant referee was correct; the practice of flicking the ball to one’s head and then heading the ball to the goalkeeper is trickery, punished with a caution of the heading player for unsporting behavior and an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the misconduct occurred. Here is an article on the matter that appeared in the USSF referee magazine Fair Play five years ago. It should answer your question.

Trickery
FIFA has demanded that referees deal quickly and firmly with timewasting tactics. One of the least understood forms of time wasting is trickery in passing the ball to the goalkeeper. This article describes trickery and how the referee can combat it.

Law 12 was rewritten in 1997 to reduce the number of options available to players for wasting time. Playing the ball to one’s goalkeeper was traditionally used as a way of “consuming” time. By the time the Law was rewritten, the practice had become synonymous with time wasting.

Normal interplay of the ball among teammates is not a matter of concern to any referee; however, the referee must be concerned with obvious deliberate attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law. Players may pass the ball to their goalkeeper in any legal way and not infringe on the requirements of Law 12. It is when a player uses trickery that the referee must act. Trickery is any contrived scheme or unnatural way of playing the ball in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of Law 12 when passing the ball to the goalkeeper. Examples of trickery include a player who deliberately flicks the ball with the foot up to the head, so as to head the ball to the goalkeeper, or a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with the knee or head.

If the ball was already in play, an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator touched—not merely “kicked”—the ball is appropriate. If the ball was out of play, the restart for a violation depends upon how the circumvention began. If the action began from a free kick or goal kick that was properly taken, the restart will again be an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator of the trickery played it, no matter where the kick was taken or when it occurred in the sequence of play. If the goal kick or free kick was not properly taken, then the restart must be that goal kick or free kick. This could lead to a situation where the offending team has a player cautioned (or sent off for a second cautionable offense), but still retains the ball on the restart.

If more than one player was involved in the trickery, the question as to which defender to punish can be answered only by the referee. The referee must be sure that the sequence of play was meant to circumvent the Law and to prevent opponents from having a fair chance to compete for the ball rather than have it unfairly handled by the goalkeeper. If, in the referee’s opinion, there was trickery, then it is the teammate who played the ball immediately prior to it going to the goalkeeper who would be cautioned.

The punishment for trickery is a caution for unsporting behavior, with the restart to be taken at the place where the trickery was initiated, not where the goalkeeper handled the ball. The referee does not have to wait until the ‘keeper handles the ball to make the call. The referee must only be convinced that trickery was the player’s motive for the act.

However, this is a high school match and the action becomes cautionable to the defender playing the ball to his goalkeeper only if the goalkeeper actually handles the ball. Rule 12-7-4 (Note). The Laws of the Game do not care if the keeper handles the ball or not, it is misconduct by the defender either way.…