Author: Jim Allen

"Only in America!"

THROW-INS AND LINES

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question that I’m hoping that you can answer on both a practical basis, and a historical basis.

If the lines are part of the area that they surround, and the ball is out of play when the whole ball crosses the whole line, then why is it that a player can stand on the line while taking a throw-in? It doesn’t seem to make any sense. I would think that if the ball is out of play over the touch line, that the thrower would have to stand completely off the field, and then throw the ball back onto the field.

I’m sure that there is a practical and historical reason for this, I just don’t know what it could be.

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
We, too, are intrigued to know the answer, but we were unable to find anything in writing. However, a noted historian of the Laws of the Game suggests that a practical reason for requiring the thrower to stand on or outside the touch line is to help localize the point where the ball left the field. It is intended to discourage a throw from several yards away from the line and the ball entering the field far from the correct entry point.

As a further contribution to the historical side, the two-handed throw-in from the touchline developed after a compromise settlement between varying sets of rules, some of which allowed single-handed throws. This occurred at the first IFAB meeting in December 1882, and resulted in a two-handed throw in any direction. In 1895 throwing distance was restricted by a rule compelling the thrower to stand with part of both feet on the touchline. The rule was changed so that the thrower’s foot had to be outside the touchline (1925) or on or outside the touchline (1932), which is the rule today.

For further information on the throw-in and other items related to the Laws and customs of the game, see “Ward’s Soccerpedia,” a history of The Lore and Laws of the Beautiful Game, by Andrew Ward.…

"Inventive" Refs

“NOT A FOUL”

Posted on by

Question:
I’ve been seen more professional referees making a gesture (and probably saying something too) to indicate that while a player may have expected a call, the referee wants to say/indicate that it was “not a foul.”

The gesture is usually a pointing with an outstretched arm to the spot or person. Sometimes there seems to be a motion with the hand to perhaps indicate “get up” to the “non-fouled” player.
Occasionally a more emphatic “baseball-ump-safe” signal is used.

Since I’m seeing these on TV and not hearing what’s being said, I’d like to know what verbalization is suggested for “not a foul.” I’ve used “play on” in these instances especially with younger players, but know that phrase should more be reserved to indicate “advantage.” I’m aware that the upswept arms and “play on” or “advantage” should be only used to indicate the application of “advantage” relative to what would have been actually a foul. I’m looking for clarification on the best way to indicate a true “non foul” situation.

I also believe and have been instructed that “purists” would rather never say anything nor gesture for a “non-call.” But at many levels of the game, both teams may almost stop expecting a call that is not made, so it seems that the referee needs to somehow indicate to “keep playing; I’m not calling anything there!” And, it does seem that more referees are providing some sort of verbal and/or gesture.

What can you recommend for these situations?

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
The referee should constantly interact with the players to let them know that he or she is in touch with the game and what is going on. This interaction can take the form of speaking, gesturing, always making the correct call or simply “being there” for all the action. (Position is almost everything in refereeing.) How this is accomplished is part of the referee’s personality. Some referees speak with the players all the time, praising them for sporting or good athletic play, or mildly admonishing them for borderline behavior. Some referees will use gestures such as you describe, asking the players to get up when it is clear they are not seriously injured or telling them that no foul has been committed.

When no foul has been committed, the referee should use every reasonable means to inform the players that there was nothing illegal there. This can range from saying “No foul” or “Go on!” or “Nothing there!” or, as you suggest, “Keep playing!” or something similar to get the message across. What a referee should NEVER do in this situation is make the mistake of suggesting that there is an advantage either by saying “Play on” or giving the upswept arms signal for the advantage. The referee who does this dilutes the importance of the advantage signal and confuses the players as to what is a foul (or misconduct) and what is fair play. That makes it harder for the rest of us in managing the match in the next game these teams play.

We are not sure who these “purists” are, who would not keep the players informed of the state of the game, but they do not belong in the refereeing corps.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

REGARDING OVER-THE-TOP TACKLES

Posted on by

Question:
I’m a Grade 8 referee in Colorado, and have a question about a tackle in the Chivas/ Rapids MLS match on March 21. At the end of the first half, there was an over-the-ball tackle on Kisuke Kimura of the Rapids that I thought warranted a sending off. It seemed not only reckless but excessive as the player came over the ball with quite a bit of extra force. Referee Terry Vaughn didn’t call it, and the second half deteriorated into a 4 caution scrappy battle. Firstly, and I’m not looking to discredit mr Vaughn, but what would’ve been the correct decision for this tackle, and secondly, how should a referee deal with over-the-ball tackles? I’ve always felt they are dangerous, reckless, and on occasion, executed with excessive force, thus always warranting a card of some sort. Mistakes happen, but lifting your leg 10″ off the ground for a tackle requires extra effort! It seems malicious, and almost always follows some kind of frustrating incident earlier in the match.

Anyways, that’s just my $0.02. I look forward to your response.

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
Here is the Federation’s evaluation of the incident you asked about:
Just as half is approaching, Chivas player Sacha Kljestan goes in for a strong tackle in front of the Colorado bench. In this case, the tackle is reckless and a foul should be called as well as a yellow card issued for unsporting behavior. Referees need to distinguish this hard, reckless tackle from those that are committed with excessive force. Having the ability to distinguish the seriousness of the foul from the reaction of the team bench is a critical success factor in making the correct decision. Keys to interpreting this tackle as reckless are: (1) the shorter distance from which the tackle is initiated which means more control; (2) the position of the foot – closer to the ground and not over the ball; and (3) the fact that contact is made with the ball and not the player’s leg.

This is a hard and overly aggressive tackle that is reckless because of the position of the feet and the fact that contact is made with the ball. The tackle is not initiated from distance, thereby offering more control by the tackler. The leg is down toward the ground and not aimed over the top of the ball. If the cleats were to go over the ball and direct contact made with the opponent’s leg, the tackle could be considered serious foul play.…

Law 11 - Offside

OFFSIDE: INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
Memorandum — 3/25/2009
Offside– Interfering with Play

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

Scenario:

Attacker is in an offside position near the halfway line and ball is played through near him/her. “Offside” attacker then pursues the ball all the way to the corner flag and is trailed by a teammate who eventually beats him/her to the ball. Defensive line breaks late as they wait for the flag to rise for an offside call.

In this scenario and according to the memo, the AR should chase the ball to the corner flag and will not signal an offside until the player (who was in an offside position prior) actually touches the ball.

Correct or Incorrect? What am I missing?

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
Nothing.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

USING THE ARMS WHEN SHIELDING

Posted on by

Question:
How much can a player in possession of the ball use his arms to keep defending players from getting to the ball? Can they have their arms partially out to the side to “make themselves bigger”; can they have their arms straight out to the side to make a sort of wall; can they have an arm or hand in contact with a defender who is behind him and pushing forward against that arm? Clearly if the attacker gets to the point that he is applying enough backward or sideways pressure with his arm to physically move the defender away, it becomes a push, but I am not sure if any of the other described tactics constitute impeding or holding.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide.

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
“Making oneself big” is not a good thing in situations involving deliberately handling the ball, nor is it a legitimate tactic in shielding the ball. No player shielding the ball from another is allowed to use the arms or any other part of the body for other than maintaining balance — which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent. If the player is simply maintaining balance — in the opinion of the referee — then an opponent who initiates contact with the player who has the ball is guilty of charging illegally.  If the player with the ball is holding out his or her arms or a leg not to maintain balance but to obstruct the opponent, the player has committed an indirect free kick offense, provided no contact occurred.  However, if the player with the ball initiates any contact, then he or she has charged, held, or pushed (all direct free kick fouls) and must be punished accordingly.…

"Inventive" Refs

USING TIME

Posted on by

Question:
Under what circumstances would a goalkeeper’s delaying picking up the ball until seriously pressured by an opponent be classified as “taunting?”

My son was verbally warned by the AR to pick up the ball lest he be cautioned. (This was a high-school game where taunting is stressed more than in normal FIFA-governed situations.) My son made no overt gestures and said nothing to the opponent. He was trying to (legally) waste a few seconds since we were ahead. An opponent approach and my son reached down as if to pick up the ball. When the opponent retreated, my son just stood up until the opponent approached again -much closer this time!

In the event that nothing other than standing over the ball occurred, could this be classified as taunting? How would this be different from taking the ball into the corner or passing the ball around without pressing any attack?

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
We are not aware of any reason why a player who is clearly “using” time, rather than wasting time, should be harassed by an assistant referee. We cannot speak to what might be called in a high school game, but your son has not committed any infringement of the Laws of the Game.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

KICKER TAKES THE PENALTY KICK EARLY

Posted on by

Question:
My question is about a penalty kick which changed the outcome of the game. A player on our team fouled a player on the other team inside of our penalty box. Everyone was lined up and ready. The player taking the penalty kick took the shot before the goalie blew the whistle, and out goalkeeper stopped the shot. Play started, but the referee blew the whistle and awarded the penalty kick over and a goal was scored. Is this the correct action by the referee? My understanding from reading the website is that the shooter violated Law 14 and our team should of been awarded an indirect kick from the spot of the foul. Please help. Thanks.

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
If the penalty kick is taken before the referee signals, the kicker should be warned and, upon repetition, cautioned for unsporting behavior. The kick must be retaken, regardless of the outcome of the first kick.…

Advice to Referees

RETURN OF PLAYER OFF FIELD FOR BLEEDING

Posted on by

Question:
What is the proper procedure for a player who is bleeding or is seen with blood on his/her uniform? I know the player has to leave the field of play and can not return until the Referee or A.R. has inspected the player ensuring that the bleeding has stopped or blood removed but what about the stoppage of play and substitution? I’ve seen referees stop play, send the player off, allow substitutions then restart with a drop ball. I’ve seen other referees send the player off, allow play to continue and no substitution.

Thanks.

USSF answer (March 24, 2009):
See the Advice to Referees, Advice 3.13 and 5.8

3.13 RETURN OF A PLAYER TEMPORARILY OFF THE FIELD
//snipped//
If a player has been instructed to leave the field to correct bleeding, blood on the uniform, or illegal equipment, the procedure for permitting that player to return to the field is described in Advice 5.8.

5.8 RETURN AFTER BLEEDING OR EQUIPMENT REMEDY
If a player is bleeding or the uniform is blood-soaked, the player must leave the field immediately to have the bleeding stopped and his or her skin and uniform cleaned as thoroughly as possible (replacing the uniform may be necessary to meet this requirement). Before the player can return to the field, the correction of the situation must be confirmed by an official-the referee or, if delegated by the referee in the pregame conference, the fourth official or, if there is no fourth official, an assistant referee. Once the correction has been confirmed, the player can be permitted to return to the field if beckoned by the referee, even if play is continuing. The objective is to bring the team back to its authorized strength as soon as possible.

To the extent that your question deals with substitutions, the only answer we can offer is that you review the rules of the competitions in which you are working.  For example, if the match is using the so-called “youth substitution rules,” then certainly the team will want to put a substitute in for one of its players who is off the field dealing with a bleeding/blood on the uniform problem.  If the match uses full Law 3 substitution rules, then more likely than not the team will NOT want to substitute (thus using one of its limited substitutions) for a player who might otherwise be ready to play in a few minutes.

It also depends on whether the player in question was ordered off at a stoppage (which might then also be a substitution opportunity under the rules of competition) or whether the player was ordered off during play with no stoppage.…

Guide to Procedures

REFEREE SIGNAL VS. ASSISTANT REFEREE SIGNAL (REVISED)

Posted on by

Question:
In the July 2008 edition of the Guide to Procedures, page 18 includes (under the heading “Throw in – Assistant Referee’s End Of Touch Line”) the following guidance for the referee:
o Points in direction of throw-in only if assistant referee signal needs to be corrected due to unseen contact with the ball

I was under the impression that Law 5, in stating that the referee “indicates the restart of the match after it has been stopped,” requires that the referee signal EVERY restart of play. While only seeing one signal (from the AR) is greatly preferred to seeing conflicting signals from the AR and referee, it has still been my habit to echo throw-in signals by the AR when it is “his/her call”, as well as that my arm often seems to be more in the players’ field of view than the AR’s flag. I have also found it a very useful dictum, when instructing new referees, that they are required to signal every restart.

Am I missing something here?

USSF answer (March 24, 2009):
The Guide to Procedures, in various locations, calls upon the referee to signal only “when necessary” because often the signal by the assistant referee and its acceptance by the referee are sufficient.  When it is necessary, for example, to confirm an AR signal that is being disputed by the players or to change an AR signal due to the referee having additional critical information, the referee may need to signal as well.  It is also important to remember that the requirement in Law 5 that the referee “indicates the restart” clearly supports the proposition that the throw-in can be taken — unless the referee has a further reason to delay the restart, in which case the restart is ceremonial and requires a whistle.

Furthermore, the soccer community, both internationally and here in the US, has increasingly emphasized the role of the assistant referee as a fully functioning member of the officiating team. Just to make it doubly clear: This means that when the AR has signaled in accordance with the guidelines discussed in the pregame and the referee has no reason to do anything other than what the AR advises, no further action is needed by the referee (unless the restart must be held up for a substitution, card, injury, etc., in which case the referee must whistle to restart play).…