MISCONDUCT DOES _NOT_ CHANGE THE RESTART!!!

September 9, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There is free kick outside the penalty area. defensive wall set inside the box. While defense setting their wall, defender push down an opponent into the ground inside the box at near wall. Referee changes the free kick call to the PK call. Is this a correct procedure?

If not what would you do?

USSF answer (September 9, 2009):
It is certainly not correct (or allowed under the Laws of the Game) to change the restart because of something that occurs when the ball is out of play. The defender should have been cautioned or sent off, depending on the nature of the push to the ground, and the restart should have been the original free kick.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SHIELDING VS. HOLDING

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a player is screening the ball and it is in playable distance, is it legal for the screening player to raise their arms to make it harder for the opposing player to get to the ball?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
Under normal circumstances, “screening” means that there was no physical contact. Here is a citation from the 2009/2010 Laws of the Game, Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (IGR), has to say on the matter:
“Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”

When physical contact occurs, which is what the IGR means when it refers holding off an opponent, the act has been converted into “holding” and is punished with a direct free kick. The shielding player is allowed to use a normal amount of arm and elbow room, but not to extend his/her arms beyond that range.…

"Only in America!"

CARDING COACHES

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
During an U-15 boys game that became a phsyical “pushing” game between both teams and the referee let the physical game continue. The parents from both teams began to “voice” their opinions regarding the lack of calls by the referee. The center referee was visibly showing signs of being very emotional (crying), and stopped the game with about 10 minutes remaining. She blew the whistle and said “I’m stopping the game, its a tie”. She then left the field with the 2 assist. referee. The next day I received a call from my league that I was suspended for 2 games and that the referee from the game reported she issued me a red card after the game. She never spoke to me after she stopped the game and she just walked off the field. Can a referee do this? I spoke with the coach of the other team and he was not aware or told of a red card being issued to me or anyone.

USSF answer (September 8, 2009:
Unless the rules of competition for your league (or other competition) specifically allow it, the referee is not permitted to show a card of any color to a coach or other team official. Under the Laws of the Game (the rules we play by), coaches or other team officials cannot be shown cards or sent off for any reason, but may be expelled from the field and its environs for irresponsible behavior.

Given the circumstances you describe in this case, we recommend that you gather all the information you can from impartial witnesses and submit a report of your own to the league and the state youth soccer association. You should also understand that the officiating crew may, as a result, do likewise. Its better not to start this process unless you are convinced that you did no wrong in all this “voicing of their opinions,” and that rules of your competition do not hold you responsible for what the parents of your team may have said.

Further, while the referee has the right to terminate play for general disorder (based on safety considerations), the referee cannot determine the outcome of the match. All the referee can do is report that a match was not played to its conclusion and to describe the circumstances (including any scores recorded prior to the termination). Anything after that is up to the competition authority based on its local rules.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PROPERLY INFLATED BALL

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Law 2 says that a properly inflated ball is between 8.5 and 15.6 psi at sea level. Lately I have been presented soccer balls which are labeled “inflate to 6-8 psi”. I have insisted that the ball be inflated to at least 8.5 psi. Am I right to assume that the Laws of The Game trump the manufacturer’s label?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
The specifications for the ball listed in Law 2 are intended primarily for play at the senior adult and international level. We do not know what sort of balls have been presented to you, but if they “feel” all right for play, we suggest you allow them to be used. Remember that the referee is the sole judge as to whether the ball meets the requirements of Law 2.…

Ball in Play

“PASS BACK”

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Defender has the ball, passes it back to the goalie, offense player, from opposing team, attempts to intercept the ball, can the goalie pick up the ball?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
No. In other words, if the goalkeeper picks up the ball in this situation, he or she is punished for handling the ball deliberately kicked to him or her by a teammate.…

"Inventive" Refs

FLIP THROW-IN

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have been told that the flip throw in is illegal. The only documentation I have found to support this is on page 128 of the 2009-2010 Laws of the Game of the fifa website. This is what it says:

“If the ball touches the ground before entering the field of play, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position provided that it was taken in line with the correct procedure. If the throw-in is not taken in line with the correct procedure, it is retaken by the opposing team.”

If a player tries the flip throw and the ball touches the ground in the process of delivering the ball, they simply retake with a “normal” throw. Is this correct?

USSF answer (September 8 2009):
No, none of the above applies in this case. Whoever told you the flip throw-in is illegal has likely been abusing illegal substances.

The text you refer to, part of the 2009/2010 Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, means that the throw-in is retaken by the opposing team if the ball, after being released by the thrower, touches the ground before entering the field of play. It has nothing to do with the flip throw-in, referred to by the IFAB and FIFA as the “acrobatic throw-in,” which is perfectly legal if performed in accordance with the requirements of Law 15.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY AREA

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.…

Advice to Referees

NON-REGULATION APPURTENANCES

September 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was posed this question that I didn’t honestly have the answer to. This is in regards to the portable goals with the tires on the sides to make moving the goal easy.

Everything has been set properly but during the course of play ball seems to go over the touchline close to the uprights, but hits the tire of the goal and bounces back in to play without the entire ball crossing the line.

The question is: Do we consider the tire part of the goal and let play continue or do we treat it simular to football field goal that hangs over the goal and if that is hit, the ball is out regardless if it bounces back into play?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
You are correct! Wheeled goals fall under the same category as 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.

…

Law 5 - Referee

SIMULATION AND THE UEFA RULING ON EDUARDO

September 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’m sure that you have gotten a number of these emails in recent weeks due to the Eduardo issue in the Champions League, and more particularly the ruling by the UEFA today. I would like to know what the rules are at the professional level on contact in the box by a keeper and what warrants a penalty and/or booking.

As I watch the limited replay views that I have of the Eduardo “Dive” I do understand that he went down exceptionally easy although at the same time I question whether the calf of his trailing leg was hit causing him to fall or at least causing him to have a warranted reason to attempt to dive. With that in mind I also notice that there was no Ball Contact by the keeper in the Eduardo case either. This makes me wonder does ball contact have anything to do with a ruling on whether or not a player should or should not be penalised?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
The following standard applies at all levels of the game: Simulation occurs when the player “attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled.” Whether the contact would or would not have caused the player to fall is relevant to a decision about a foul, but not to a decision about misconduct. In other words, the caution is for faking or exaggerating — where the faking is usually focused on whether a foul occurred whereas the exaggerating is often focused on whether a foul went beyond “careless” and should be carded. A player might well have been fouled (i. e., the contact did indeed unfairly cause him to fall), but if he then screams, moans, groans, rolls, etc. in an attempt to “sell” a card, then it is included as a cautionable offense. In all cases, we are punishing efforts to con the referee into a favorable decision — which could be to call a foul that wasn’t or to card for a true foul that didn’t involve misconduct. Of course no professional player would attempt to con the referee to gain a penalty kick from an opportunity that was clearly already lost, right?

The goalkeeper is liable to commit the same fouls as any other player on the field. If the goalkeeper trips or pushes or commits any other foul against an opponent, then he or she should be punished.

We could not possibly comment in any case on the UEFA ruling.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR NO FOUL? MISCONDUCT?

September 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was working a game over the weekend and an issue came up that we needed help on. I was one of the AR’s on this game and the attacking team was moving towards my side of the field. The ball had been kicked towards the goal. There was an attacker running towards the ball (she was onside) as was the goalie. As the goalie approached the ball she started to slide as they do. The attacking player also came in on a slide trying to kick the ball forward and missed, subsequently kicking the goalie in the stomach right above the groin area cleats up. The goalie had the ball in her hands when she was kicked. The game had to be stopped for about 4-5 minutes due to the injured goalie. Thank you very much. I can any questions you might have.

Actions?
Goalie free kick restart?
Yellow to the attacking player?
Red card for cleats up tackle?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Unless it was obvious that the attacker was playing the goalkeeper and not the ball, there is no clear reason to consider misconduct in this case. In your scenario the attacking player’s action was careless (hence the foul and direct free kick restart for the goalkeeper’s team), but it was neither reckless nor performed without regard for the safety of the opponent (hence no card). Direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team.…