CORRECT RESTART?

October 26, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Attacking player shoots the balls and defending goalie makes save. Goalie prepares to punt ball but referee stops clock (high school game) because of an injured attacking player near the defending goalie. There was no foul called.

What is the proper restart? A punt, drop ball or an Indirect Free Kick?

USSF answer (October 26, 2009):
Under the Laws of the Game the correct restart would be a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when the referee stopped play. Under high school rules, the correct restart is an indirect free kick for the defending team (the one in clear possession of the ball) from the place where the ball was when the referee stopped play.…

Advice to Referees

GOALKEEPER POSSESSION

October 26, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
My research has located two previous answers on this site that are relevant to my question, which is about kicking the ball and GK possession:
1. Sept 20, 2006
2. Feb 12, 2004

Your 2004 answer regarding GK control talked of control by pinning the ball “to the ground or some other surface.” You listed a few “other surfaces”, but did not include the body of an opponent who is lying on the ground.

1.If an attacker has slid or fallen near the goal, and the ball is resting on the back of his thighs or the small of his back, can the GK pin (one hand) and control the ball in that situation?
2.If the attacker attempts to “donkey kick” the ball into the goal, what would your response or action be?
3.Would it differ based on if you thought the attacker was aware or unaware of the GK’s hand on the ball?

4.In an unrelated case where the GK obtains possession by pinning the ball with a hand (let’s say to the ground),is GK possession “instantaneous”? If the GK reaches out a hand and successfully pins the ball while an attacker’s foot is already swinging forward, would you still go with possession? From your answer in 2006, I gather the answer is yes.

USSF answer (October 26, 2009):
Rather than speculate on some possibly dubious situations, let us simply give you the Federation’s guidance, as expressed in the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game (2009):

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

With that as guidance, you can determine for yourself what the correct answers would be. We must emphasize that the final sentence of the quote is the single most important consideration to follow.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELIBERATE HANDLING?

October 26, 2009October 26, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was watching a U13 (I think) girls game prior to my sons game. I am a grade 8 referee myself, but not on this night.

The center blew a whistle for a hand ball in which a girl was blocking her chest ares with her arms tight to her body. In my opinion, if her arms were not there, her body would have blocked the ball anyway. I thought it was a questionable call that I would not have made myself. This, however, has nothing to do with my question.

Since the hand ball was within the penalty area, a penalty kick ensued. A diving keeper blocked the ball, but she got it in control just prior to a rushing defender kicking it. Mind you that the game was in it’s final minutes when this happened and the save preserved three points. When the keeper picked up the ball, one of her teammates came over and gave her a hug. The center immediately blew the whistle and pointed at the spot. He called the teammate for a hand ball. This time the kick was good and the game ended in a tie.

Was the hug of a keeper who has control of the ball a handball?

USSF answer (October 26, 2009):
We can only say that the referee on the night would appear not to have been ON his game. Both calls may have been in error. Please review the following material and then, if there were clear errors by the referee, you may judge for yourself.

Protecting oneself and deliberate handling are covered in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” In the current (2009) edition you will find the following, which is applicable to both the situations you described:

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as “handling the ball” involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player’s hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). “Deliberate contact” means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player’s arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).

NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.

12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR “HANDLING”
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within the ‘keeper’s own penalty area) strikes or propels the ball with the hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).

If it turns out that the decisions you saw were likely in violation of the Laws and of the guidance given in the Advice to Referees, you should consider reporting the matter to the State Director of Instruction, so that the referee can be counseled. This would mean including date, place, and time of the game in which they occurred.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

MANAGEMENT OF FREE KICKS

October 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Question:
As a spectator, coach, player and referee, one of my pet peeves is what I see as poor management of free kicks in the so-called “Danger Zone”, where referees in the competitions where I operate seem to immediately make all such free kicks ceremonial, denying dangerous quick free kick attacking opportunities for the offended team.

As a referee, I strive to be the absolutely best that I can be, so I spend hours each week studying all the official and unofficial material I can get my hands on. But looking at the February 10, 2009 directive on Free Kick and Restart Management, I walk away confused on this subject. The directive accurately quotes FIFA on this subject: “If a player decides to take a free kick and an opponent who is less than 10 yards from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue”, and offers the clarifying point “If the kick is taken, it has not been prevented from being taken and play must be allowed to continue.”

But later it states “Intercepts the QFK after the kick is taken: The referee may exercise discretion depending upon whether he/she felt the defender deliberately prevented the ball from being put into play.”

The only way I have come up with to reconcile this in my mind apparent inconsistency within the directive is to say that, in the event of an intercepted kick, an infraction has been committed if the defender, previous to the actual kick, prevented the kick from being taken in some even slightly other direction, pace, angle, etc., at some point beforehand, and that the fact of the interception may rightly lead the referee to draw that conclusion (in particular based on the skill level of the players involved).

Does it sound as though I have this right?

USSF answer (October 20 2009):
We hope this response from Brian Hall, the USSF Manager of Assessment and Training, will help you.

Thank you for “striving to be the absolutely best that you can be” and for being a student of the game. Your dedication is very much appreciated.

Now, in terms of your question, there are two important terms:
“Deliberately prevents” and “intercepts.” Both are used in the Laws of the Game and have been used in the 2009 Directive “Free Kick and Restart Management” for this purpose.

“Deliberately prevents” is an action that must result in a caution. This is “moving/lunging/advancing toward the ball.”

“Intercepts” is a situation in which the attacking team knows the defender is in the area and still puts the ball into play (attacker assumes the risk of putting the ball into play). The defender does NOT move/lunge/advance toward the ball.

A situation that may result in a caution for intercepting is the “statue” that is mentioned in the Directive. A player may move within several feet of the ball/restart and NOT “deliberately prevent” because he does not lunge at the ball with his foot but the referee judges his actions are cautionable because the player’s actions were, in general terms, preventing the ball from being put into play quickly. For example, a player who has been warned on prior occasions from running directly in front of the ball (thereby becoming a “statue”) to slow the restart. These involve situations in which the referee has, most likely, tried preventative measures and the player(s) have not responded because they are using it as an unfair “tactic.”

The Directive also uses the example of a player running from behind the ball and makes contact thus denying the attacking team the chance to put the ball into play appropriately. This is not moving/lunging/advancing toward the ball but, nevertheless, cautionable.…

"Inventive Coaches"

FOUL WEATHER PLAY

October 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
When does the jurisdiction of the referee end?

A U13 game held in the snow/freezing rain. Coach believes game should not be played due to the age of the players/weather/field conditions. First half gets completed when the referee decides to call the game. Final whistle has blown, players are leaving/have left the field. The coach decides to let the referee know that he felt it was inappropriate to even start the game. Referee red cards the coach for his dissent. Is this allowed?

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
Only the referee may decide whether a field is playable and whether the game should go on — see Law 5 (The Referee). The coach has no say in the matter. In addition, only the referee knows when the game is over — see Law 7 (Duration of the Game). However, any coach has the option of deciding that, in HIS opinion, the game should not be played and withholding his players from any start or restart. As a result, the referee would have no option but to abandon the match due to one or both teams having an insufficient number of players on the field. The coach, of course, runs the risk of the competition authority deciding that he was wrong and awarding a forfeit to the opposing team.

Coaches are never punished for dissent. If coaches perform what would be considered as dissent in a player, they are expelled for behaving irresponsibly. That is, unless the rules of the competition provide for showing the card to a team official.…

"Inventive Coaches"

SILLY OFFSIDE TACTIC

October 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a game recent the opponents other than the goal keeper crossed onto our side of the field. One of our players than moved forward to thier side of the field from our side. Since our player could not be offsides while on our side, and the defenders are not on thier side, is our player than offside because the defense has vacated thier side of the field? If he is offside, then that means that a defense merely needs to move all the way into the opponent area, play thier fastest players and everyone who goes pass them must then be offside?

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
Of course your red player was in an offside position, but not necessarily offside. For your player to be considered offside, he or she would have to have become involved in play. In any case, the red attacker is absolutely prevented from becoming involved in active play, but every other red player is free to make any play possible for the ball, and any particularly fast red player would have a field day.

Believe us, if the strategy you propose actually worked, teams would use it all the time. Do you ever see it used? No, because it does not work. And there is no such thing as “offsides.”…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DOGSO?

October 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Understanding that “you would have to be there,” as referee I was somewhat surprised on a particular DOGSO. U-19 girls, D-4.

The attacker was on a breakaway with the defender stride for stride next to her… the Center Ref was following the play by about 10 yards with no one between the Ref and the play. There were no other defenders in the play or between the play and the goal.

As the two continued stride for stride, with the defender making some moves to retreive the ball, about 5 yards outside of the penalty arc, both girls fell to the ground and the ball rolled forward into the penalty area where the goalie was standing.

The Ref whistled a foul, set the ball for the direct kick but as the girls began to set their wall, AR-1 called the CR to the line. The CR returned to the field, called over the defender and ejected her for the obvious goal scoring opportunity.

My issue was two-fold. One, the distance seemed too far particulary given that both girls were side by side, stride for stride and working toward the ball. At 20+ yards to the goal, if for a U-19 it seems far to deserve an injection. Second, it would seem that the Center Ref was in the best position to make the call and had already set the ball for the direct kick prior to the AR calling him to the side.

Was the ejection appropriate, given the facts above? As a ref, I saw two girls going for the ball and agreed with the direct kick assuming that there was contact between the defender and the attacker – versus the ball.

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
Unless there is something you have not revealed to us, we see no reason for any call here, much less a sending-off for denying the opponent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Soccer is a contact sport. Unless the contact is illegal, there is no infringement of the Law.

Furthermore, aside from the issue of whether there was even a foul, we have no idea what the AR said to the referee and could only speculate as to how this added information may have affected the referee’s decisions. Finally, you have provided no information as to any of the other “D” elements in OGSO (distance to ball, direction of play) but it is clear that the “number of defenders” element was present and the “distance to the goal” element is the one you are arguing about. “Distance to goal” is a judgment of the referee and we cannot second guess the decision (short of the play perhaps being near the opposing team’s goal line!).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL AGAINST THE GOALKEEPER?

October 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In the Manchester United v. Sunderland game on Oct. 3 2009 a Sunderland striker made contact with United keeper Ben Foster in the process of striking a header into goal. Many arguments have ensued as to the legality of the contact; although it did appear IMHO that the striker did touch the ball first. Are the rules for physical contact different when the keeper is concerned? If the contact had been made in the same manner with a defensive player (not the keeper) would the call have been different?

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
With the exception of certain circumstances — such as no interference when the ‘keeper is releasing the ball back into play — the goalkeeper should be treated precisely the same as any other player. All such cases are decided in the opinion of the referee who is on the game, based on the conditions of the game and what he or she sees happening on the field.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

BEACH BALL BOUNCES

October 19, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In Saturday’s Sunderland-Liverpool game a spectator hurled a large, weighty red ball onto the field during play (I suspect that you are getting a lot of questions about this incident). You’ve recently said that a number of balloons in front of a goal did not necessarily constitute an outside agent to cause a defender to kick a balloon and not the ball going into the net. In the Saturday game the big, red, heavy ball deflected the soccer ball away from the goalkeeper and into the goal, which was accepted as a goal by the referee.

I understand that an annoying bee,a camera’s flash, an explosive sound, a swirl of snow, some balloons, long paper streamers and the like must be accepted as part of the game but in these cases it affects many of the players on both teams. A big red ball with enough mass to deflect a shot on goal from close range seems to be an outside agent affecting just the striker and goalie, so the question is this: How is an outside agent defined that would make it different from a dog running on the field and deflecting the ball into the net?

USSF answer (October 19, 2009):
Your reference to the balloons was dated November 2008, almost a year ago. A big red beach ball rolling directly in front of the goalkeeper is considerably different from some small balloons. The moment the beach ball interfered with and changed the path of the game ball was the moment the beach ball became an outside agent, directly affecting play and the referee decision must be outside interference.

Clearly the referee erred in not stopping play for the interference by the big red beach ball. The correct restart should have been a dropped ball at the place where the two balls collided. If that was within the goal area, then the referee must drop the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.…

"Inventive" Refs

SHOULD ARs “SNAP” THE FLAG?

October 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
As a grade 8 referee, I referee both youth and adult matches. I have worked with referees who are doing their first game up to the 30+ year veteran. There always seems to be some discussion and disagreement about whether an AR’s flag should be “snapped” up or raised quietly. I could not find anything specifically in the Laws, Guide to Procedures, or Advice to Referees (maybe I missed it), but I believe that the flag should be raised quietly. The reason for this is that that if the AR snaps the flag up, now everyone turns their attention to the AR. We referees are supposed to be involved in a game as little as possible, but, to me, this clearly does not meet this guideline. Another way I think of it is that the AR’s flag is for the referee and not the players, coaches, spectators, substitutes, etc. The referee should be glancing over to the AR every time there is potential for offside. What are your thoughts?

USSF answer (October 16, 2009):
Although “snapping” the flag was once fashionable, there is no longer any reason to do so. You have outlined quite succinctly the principal reasons for not snapping the flag.…