OFFSIDE AT THE HALFWAY LINE

June 24, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
While reading through the Law 1 section of the website, I seem to have found a contradiction that I was hoping you could sort out for me.

PLAYER POSITIONING AT THE KICK-OFF
February 19, 2008

“Therefore, if the players stand on the halfway line they are in their own half of the field. If their heads or feet are slightly over the line, it makes no difference.”

Then:

OFFSIDE?
July 30, 2008

“Although it is not specifically stated, this same concept of “nearer to” should be used in determining if an attacker is in his opponents’ end of the field (i. e., if any part of his head, body or feet is past the midfield line.)

As explained, the player is “past the midfield line” in B and C because a part of the body that can legally play the ball is on or beyond the midfield line.”

I’ve had this question come up in a number of games with regards to offside calls (not positioning at kick-off) but the question of whether the midfield line is part of either or both halves still remains.

USSF answer (June 24, 2009):
You are talking apples and applesauce here; two different Laws covering entirely different situations. The halfway line belongs to BOTH halves. Foot position (or body position, for that matter) at the kick-off is treated similarly to the foot position for a throw-in: The foot may be on or behind or hanging over the line. For offside, the only thing that matters is where the parts that can legally play the ball are. However, in all cases, the offense, if any, is TRIFLING.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PROCEDURE AT SECOND CAUTION

June 24, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Question involves procedure for issuing a red card when 2 yellows are given. Incident as follows: a reckless tackle deserving of a caution. As the yellow card is shown, the culprit jumps up, gets in the face of the referee and will not stop criticizing the call. The referee decides this dissent warrants another caution and the subsequent red card. I believe it is USSF policy not to show the second yellow but to go straight to the red. Is this true or do we show the second yellow and then the red?

USSF answer (June 24, 2009):
Correct procedure is to show the second yellow card for the cautionable offense, immediately followed by the red card for the send-off for receiving a second caution in the same match.

A cautionary note: Because a second caution will result in the player being sent off, the second caution should be given when, in the opinion of the referee, it is truly a cautionable offense (in other words, you would have given a first caution for the misconduct) and the misconduct clearly continues a pattern of behavior of that player despite the prior notice of the first caution that a continuation would result in the player being sent from the field. In circumstances where the behavior of the player does not represent such a continuation, the referee should attempt to manage the player using other techniques short of a caution.…

Law 11 - Offside

USA VS. ITALY

June 23, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If you haven’t heard this question I’m sure you will. Does US Soccer agree with the decision in the us v italy game on the offsides decision? I say yes under the distracting clause b/c I believe the defender saw the attacker and would have played the ball differently had he not thought he was beat by the attacker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLIc6iMsmU4
2nd clip

USSF answer (June 23, 2009):
The operating rule for ARs in such cases is, “When in doubt, keep the flag down.” The decision was correct…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MOONING?

June 19, 2009June 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
So I saw an interesting situation at the DC United Sounders match today. The keeper mooned the fans. He did not show his bare butt but he did display his underwear. I immediately wondered whether that would be a send off or a cautionable offense. I can not imagine that there would be no punishment. This happened at the very very end of the match during the time wasting DC United was doing.

Is it serious enough to be considered an offensive gesture?

USSF answer (June 19, 2009):
The answer to your question can be determined only by the referee on the particular game, but it sounds like unsporting behavior at a minimum and possibly an offensive, insulting, or abusive gesture.

It would have been helpful to see the incident ourselves, but a run through the game video by the US Soccer referee staff did not turn up anything of this sort.

NOTE: If everyone who sends in questions regarding professional matches would give us the exact match time of the incident, it would make it easier to give more complete answers.

A READER COMMENTS:
Just a follow-up to the June 18 comment by a soccer fan that was accusing the D.C. United keeper of “mooning.” the fans in Seattle. The ESPN360.com replay of the game, shows Wicks at 89:45 stepping back to take a goal kick and seeming pulling his shorts down to re-tuck his jersey. Again, in stoppage time at 3:00, the camera show him again getting ready to take another goal kick and he is in the process of pulling his shorts up again (just before a beer bottle is flung at him). Maybe it’s just a nervous habit–forgets he’s in public–or perhaps a bit of gamesmanship with his tormentors.

…

"Inventive" Refs

NO ADVANTAGE BY THE ASSISTANT REFEREE

June 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
What is the proper way to apply advantage as an Assistant Referee? Or is advantage generally to be applied only by the Center?

Do I signal the foul and allow the center to determine advantage? Or may I, as the AR, keep my flag, run with the play to see what develops, and if no advantage materializes in 2-3 seconds then raise my flag and call the previous foul?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
In general, the AR should flag only for fouls or misconduct that the referee cannot see. However, that does not give the AR the right or privilege or power to invoke the advantage clause; that is reserved for the referee. In addition, a late flag by the AR for a foul in which the AR him- or herself might have “invoked” the advantage earlier is problematic. In the unlikely case that it might need to be done, this is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference. …

Law 11 - Offside

FOULING THE PLAYER IN THE OFFSIDE POSITION

June 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Thanks for a wonderful resource and for the recent elaboration on the interpretations applicable to deliberate handling vs. offside.

I was hoping you could provide some similar guidance with respect to offside (by interfering with an opponent) vs. a penal foul against the player in offside position (OSP).

For example,

(1) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross goes up alongside a defender to challenge for a header, and is carelessly pushed by the defender — offside for interfering with a player, or push on the defender?

(2) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross is running towards the far post, but the cross is to the near post, and the attacker is carelessly tripped from behind by a defender chasing to catch up -offside (interfering with the defender by movement that distracted), or tripping foul?

And on a more general note, should the OSP status at the time the ball was played have any influence on the determination of whether contact should be deemed trifling?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
(1) Offside for interfering with an opponent. There is always the possibility of a caution for the defending player who pushed, but that would depend on whether the referee needed it for game management purposes.

(2) Offside for interfering with an opponent.

As to trifling, the answer is pretty generally yes.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

KICKS BY ‘KEEPER IN U10/U12 SMALL-SIDED SOCCER

June 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a U-10 game in the USA, playing 6v6, a referee surprised me with what he described as a little known FIFA rule on goal kicks and goalkeeper punts. He would not let the goalkeepers kick or punt the ball on the fly over the center line (midfield line). I have coached U10 soccer for 5 years and never heard of a rule like that.

Apparently, it was OK if our goalkeeper punted or kicked the ball just short of the center line and had the ball bounce over it to one of either our players or the opposition’s players. What is the correct rule?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
The referee was correct. Such a rule exists in small-sided soccer (Under 10 and Under 12 only) played under the rules recommended by the U. S. Youth Soccer Association:

Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct: Conform to FIFA with the exception that an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team at the center spot on the halfway line if a goalkeeper punts or drop-kicks the ball in the air from his/her penalty area into the opponents penalty area.

The USYS modifies the recommendation with the following advice:
Law 12
The rule on the goalkeeper’s distribution still allows for the ball to be punted the entire length of the field, it just can not go directly into the opponents’ penalty area …

"Inventive" Refs

DIAGONAL SYSTEM OF CONTROL

June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
While using the diagonal system of control is there anything that prevents a referee from using a right diagonal instead of a left?

While working a tournament I was told by a referee that has been in USSF for a while that I can not choose to run a right unless there is a good reason such as deteriorated field conditions where the AR’s would run in a left diagonal. Supposedly there was a directive put out by USSF on this matter but with about an hour or 2 of reading and searching couldn’t find anything on it. I did find one question on here that mentioned an EPL game answered on July 22, 2006 but it didn’t really answer it.

I had been choosing to run a right number 1, because I feel more comfortable in that pattern. The other reason I do it is players arent used to me being there and it keeps them on their toes by me being there when they don’t expect it.

Is there any documentation to support my preference or am I doing something that is prohibited.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The “standard” diagonal for the referee is the one that runs from bottom right to upper left of the field, just as shown in the diagrams in the back of the Law book. However, there is no “rule” that says the referee cannot run the other direction instead. And that other diagonal may be the one best suited for either the personality of the referee and the conditions of the field, as you point out. If you wish to use the opposite diagonal, you are more than welcome to do so.

Referees should remember there is no actual fixed diagonal run. The “diagonal system of control” is simply a name for a way of ensuring proper coverage by the referee and the assistant referees for management of the game. According to the 2009-2010 edition of the Guide to Procedures, the referee’s positioning during play is flexible, using the diagonal system of control. The referee:
• Follows positioning diagram guidelines during play and at restarts but uses discretion to choose alternate positions when needed
• Able to observe active play and lead assistant referee
• Remains close enough to observe important aspects of play without interfering with player or ball movement
• Understands that attention may be needed elsewhere on the field to monitor behavior of specific players not actively involved with playing the ball

And, as you mentioned in your question, it is also practical to use the reverse diagonal due to the condition of the pitch (particularly the status of the AR’s patrol area) or, occasionally, to take an AR away from people (spectators or team).…

Coach

COACHES AND CELL PHONES

June 11, 2009June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Is there anything in the FIFA laws of the game that prohibit the use of a cell phone in the technical area by a coach to get or relay tactical or technical information to another on the opposite side of the field?

Is there a special ATR section that deals with such a possibility?

If that other person relaying information to the coach was a referee is he in violation of code of conduct?

I think there is a BAN for a dismissed coach from contacting the technical area.

If there are no competition by-laws that adequately deal with the two way radio communication via cellphone. If the OTHER person was NOT in the technical area but across the field and was yelling tactical/technical instructions to the players is he an extension of the coach outside the technical area?

I appreciate your thoughts on this. While USA might be different I need to know if there is an ethical or moral issue here?

USSF answer (June 11, 2006):
Under FIFA rules of competition, suspended coaches are neither forbidden nor allowed to communicate with their teams via mobile phones during FIFA matches. FIFA will not take any action. Nor is there anything in the Laws of the Game or Q&A to cover this. Accordingly, subject only to the requirement that the team official behaves in a responsible manner, mobile phones, headsets, walkie-talkies, and other similar communication devices may be used in the technical area.

To ensure better compliance from its teams, perhaps the league should provide more complete rules and guidance to the teams as to what constitutes “suspension” and what a coach or other team official who is under suspension may and may not do. It is not up to referees to police disciplinary rules of a competition. …

Handling

DELIBERATE HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE (REINFORCED)

June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
RE: DELIBERATE HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — NEW INTERPRETATION
I read with interest your discussion of deliberate handling by a defender that prevents a pass by an attacker from reaching another attacker in an offside position. You stated that, given new offside interpretations, this should be considered deliberate handling rather than offside. My question involves a slightly different situation that was discussed around 1997 in an issue of Fair Play, if I remember correctly: deliberate handling by a defender that deflects a pass by an attacker, redirecting it to another attacker in an offside position. Assuming that the deflection is not considered control for purposes of resetting the offside situation, should this still be considered offside if the attacker in the offside position plays the ball (but not if he refrains from doing so)? The difference between the new situation and the old one is that in the new situation the handling prevents the player in an offside position from interfering with play, while in the old situation the handling enables the player in an offside position to interfere with play. I believe that the USSF interpretation circa 1997 for the old situation was that when involvement by the player in the offside position eventually occurs, the offside offense is deemed to have occurred at the time of the pass, which predates the handling. In the old situation, however, the handling predates involvement by the player in the offside position.
Thanks, as always.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
We see no functional difference (under the current guidelines from the IFAB) between deliberate handling that prevents a ball from going to an attacker in an offside position and deliberate handling that results in the ball going to an attacker in an offside position (who, presumably, would not have been able to even consider playing the ball but for the handling). Either way, the handling must be called and, either way, the offside offense has not occurred — in the first situation because the ball was redirected and, in the second situation, because the attacker isn’t even given a chance to make contact with the ball because the handling occurred first (and the AR’s flag should not go up in either case for anything related to offside).

Now a simple redirection of the ball from an accidental deflection off the defender is a different matter and the offside would be called.…