Author: Jim Allen

Law 15 - Throw In

HUMAN PYRAMID?

Posted on by

Question:
When defending a free kick, is there a law that forbids a team from erecting a human pyramid on their goal line, i.e. standing on each other’s shoulders to obstruct the goal mouth. If there is no specific law, would it come under ‘bringing the game into disrepute”?

Answer (November 24, 2012):
No, there is no “Law” on this, but there is an old International Board Decision from the International Football Association Board, the people who make and change the Laws. It declares that using a teammate’s shoulders to boost one’s height in order to make a play for the ball was misconduct. It was originally IBD #4 under Law 12 but became IBD #2 in 1995. So, yes, there is at least an interpretation of the Law that remains valid guidance for such situations. In addition, there is tradition, which holds that other than when they are jumping into the air to play the ball, players are expected to remain earthbound, not stacked high like cheerleaders, circus acrobats, synchronized swimmers, or cans of soda. They may kneel (although not when taking throw-ins) or jump into the air, but definitely may not build a pyramid. Doing so would constitute the cautionable act of unsporting behavior and bringing the game into disrepute.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

"JUMPING AT," "CHARGING," AND "IMPEDING THE PROGRESS"

Posted on by

Question:
this question is about youth Ull-19
i am a fast learning referee who has learned alot in his two years of reffing,but there is one thing that bothers me the most.

i always fail to recognize a foul so here are some questions and please be clear/detailed what do the laws of the game mean when they say (under direct free kick fouls): jumps at an opponent, charges an opponent and what does impeding the progress of an opponent mean? Are there any other fouls that might not be mentioned in the laws?

Answer (November 15, 2012):
Both the “jumping at:” and “charging” fouls are punished with a direct free kick if they are done carelessly, recklessly (also a caution/yellow card), or with the use of excessive force (also a sending-off/red card). Together with “charging” and “impeding the progress of an opponent,” they are not described at any length in the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (the people who write the Laws) because, as with many other things in soccer, “everyone knows that.”

1. Jumps at
Here is an article I wrote in 2006 for “Referee” magazine.
What is “Jumping At an Opponent”?
By Jim Allen

It is a general principle underlying the Law that players are not permitted to “play” the opponent rather than the ball. That is enshrined in the concept of “jumping at an opponent.” “Jumping at” means precisely that: launching one’s body toward the opponent. It can be from a standing or “flying” position. It can be done in two ways: (1) to intimidate or (2) in a feigned (really meant to distract or intimidate the opponent) or genuine but unsuccessful attempt to gain the ball. It is most often seen under the pretext of heading the ball, but may also be seen when a player launches himself through the air, feet first, to “tackle” away the ball.
Example. A8 is running upfield with the ball. Defender B3 jumps at A8 to startle him, causing A8 to flinch and lose possession.
What to do? B3 has committed the foul of jumping at an opponent if he does it in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. If the foul was careless, the result would be a direct free kick (or penalty kick if committed within B’s penalty area) for team A. If the foul was reckless, the result would be a caution/yellow card to B3 for unsporting behavior and a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for team A. If the foul involved excessive force, the result would be a send-off/red card for B3 and a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for team A.
Normally contact is not required, as specified by the word “at” in the name of the foul. However, another form of “jumping at” an opponent is the two-footed tackle, which by definition has to be a jump — launching one’s body toward that of the opponent. If that two-footed tackle is for the ball, it is likely fair, but if the jumping player lands on the ball just as the opponent’s foot is kicking it, the referee should consider the tackle dangerous and punish it with an indirect free kick. If contact is made with the opponent, give a direct free kick. If it is reckless, caution it. If it is done with excessive force, send the player off.
Faking. Another form of “jumping at” is to make the foul appear to have been committed by the opponent when the player with the ball has actually committed it. That sort of foul is common in youth soccer, where some players jump into an opponent and, while doing so, turn their back. Since that essentially makes them an unguided missile, it highlights the danger of jumping at an opponent with the back turned. Direct free kick for the opponent’s team.
Where to punish? At the spot where the opponent was affected by the jump. If a player starts his jump outside the penalty area but completes it inside, the referee must give the direct free kick (or penalty kick, if applicable) inside the penalty area.
There are two things to remember about “jumping at” an opponent. First, contact is not required for the foul. The foul is in the intimidation or distraction of the opponent by the jump. Second, this is one of those fouls where the “rule of thumb” about “playing the player rather than the ball” is particularly apt as a shorthand way of viewing the offense — the foul is almost certain when the offending player is looking at the opponent rather than the ball.

“Jumping at” has nothing to do with the foul of charging. “Jumping at” implies carelessness on the part of the player, while charging can be done fairly. If a charge misses, it cannot be a foul at all, but the way in which it is committed could be considered to be unsporting behavior.

2.Charges an opponent
The act of charging an opponent can be performed without it being called as a foul. Although the fair charge is commonly defined as “shoulder to shoulder” and without the use of arms or elbows, this is not a requirement and, at certain age levels where heights may vary greatly, may not even be possible. Furthermore, under many circumstances, a charge may often result in the player against whom it is placed falling to the ground (a consequence, as before, of players differing in weight or strength). The Law does require that the charge be directed toward the area of the shoulder and not toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area): in such a case, the referee should recognize that such a charge is at minimum reckless and potentially even violent.

3. Impeding the progress of an opponent
Impeding the progress of an opponent means that a player moves into the path of an opponent to block that opponent’s ability to play the ball, but does not play the ball himself. That is an indirect free kick foul. As to the foul of charging that you emphasized, this is exactly what I told you it was. It is not described in the Law because, as with many other things in soccer, “everyone knows that.”…

Procedure-Ref

"PROTECTING" THE GOALKEEPER (AND OTHER PLAYERS)

Posted on by

Question:
I did a U-12 girls game today and had a tough call to make.

The keeper and the striker were both going for a 50/50 ball. As the keeper reached down to grab the ball, the striker kicked the ball into the net. The strikers follow through kicked the goalkeeper’s hand. The girl had to go to the hospital. I allowed the goal to score because the keeper didn’t have control of the ball. The coach came on to the field to help the keeper and then turn on me. He said that I needed to protect his players more. Did I make the right call by allowing the goal to score?

Answer (October 29, 2012):
In a word, yes! You did fine. The position of goalkeeper is the most dangerous on the field, as the goalkeeper is required to go up in the air and down to the ground in her effort to protect her goal and stop the ball. There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

Let’s break this down into smaller parts to help make the entire problem understandable for referees, coaches, and players alike.

1. THE GOALKEEPER POSITION AND DANGER
Yes, safety is the referee’s first concern under the Laws. However, referees — and coaches and players — need to remember that the position of goalkeeper is inherently dangerous and the goalkeeper is allowed a bit more leeway than other players in placing him- or herself in danger and thus affecting how the opponents can act. Everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. Why? Because it is the ‘keeper’s job to stop the ball from going into the goal, no matter at what height above the ground it may travel. Unless the ‘keeper or the opponent did something that was careless or violent or reckless, and you indicated that they did not, then there was no foul, but simply bad luck. This is one of the lessons referees, players, and coaches need to learn.

Would we allow this for the opposing attackers? Not if it places the goalkeeper in danger that he cannot avoid. Is this inconsistent? Yes, but it is the way the game has always been played.

2. GOALKEEPER POSSESSION
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) 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. And the “hand” in this case can consist of as few as one finger of the ‘keeper’s hand.

The Laws do not grant the referee (or, in this case, the coach) the power to extend the definition of goalkeeper possession, nor to legislate new meanings on the field of play.

3. PLAYERS’ RIGHTS AND FAIR CHALLENGES
The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the fairness is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

Any time a player (either a field player or a goalkeeper) raises his/her leg above knee level there is the likelihood that someone will be hurt. As age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more conservatively. Something an adult player might be allowed to do is not always the same as something a youth player (U14 for example) would be allowed to do.…

Shielding

SHIELDING VS. IMPEDING (THE BASICS)

Posted on by

Question:
My understanding is the “shielding” is special case of impeding, and is legal only when the ball is going to cross a touch or goal line. My questions: a) is shielding also legal anywhere on the field, to keep the opponent from playing the ball; b) can the shielding player use his rear-end, arms, or contort his body in ways not associated with a natural upright playing stance, to achieve the shielding?

Answer (October 20, 2012):
Your current understanding regarding impeding and shield is slightly flawed. Fortunately, we can fix that. Let’s start with a quote from this year’s Laws of the Game and go on from there.

From “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees” (back of the book):

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 within 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.

Shielding (a) is not “impeding” in any form and (b) it can occur at any spot on the field, not only when the ball is about to cross a boundary line.

If the player can legally play the ball and the ball is within playing distance, the player may shield as a tactic to prevent an opponent from getting to the ball (provided, of course, that the shielding does not involve holding). If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes “impeding the progress of an opponent” and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.

In response to your query part b (unnatural positioning), one way of attempted cheating during shielding is “making oneself bigger,” the same sort of action used in some cases of deliberately handling the ball. An example of this would be a player shielding the ball and extending his arms straight from the shoulders or moving them around, an unnatural thing to do. No player shielding the ball from another is allowed to use his (or her) arms or any other part of his 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 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.…

Procedure-Ref

FAILURE TO TRACK WHO IS ON THE FIELD CAN RUIN A GAME

Posted on by

Question:
Blue defender #6 fouls Red attacker #9 in the penalty area and the center referee whistles and signals for a penalty kick. Before the PK is taken, one of the assistant referees signals the center referee for a conference and informs him that the Red team has too many players on the field, and that Red #9 was supposed to have substituted out of the game at the last substitution break but came back onto the field.

1. What is the proper restart? What if any disciplinary action should
be taken?

2. What restart is proper if the extra Red player is not discovered by
the referees until after Red #14 had taken and scored on the penalty
kick but before the ensuing kickoff?

3. Same as #2, but the extra Red player is not discovered by the
referees until after the ensuing kickoff? What should the referee do
then?

Answer (October 17, 2012):
Law 3 (in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game in the back of the book) tells us:

Substitute or substituted player
If a substitute or a substituted player enters the field of play without permission:
• the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the player in question does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)
• the referee must caution him for unsporting behavior
• the player must leave the field of play
If the referee stops play, it must be restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the position of the ball when play was stopped (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

In question 1, the referee did not stop play for player #9’s entry without permission, but because he was “fouled” by defender #6. Because #9 was NOT a player, no foul could be called for #6’s “foul”; however, #6 may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Player #9 must also be cautioned for unsporting behavior (entering without permission) and removed from the field, and the game will be restarted with an indirect free kick for #6’s team from the position of the ball when play was stopped for the “foul” (see Law 13 — Position of free kick).

In question 2, the goal is disallowed and the indirect free kick (as in Q1) is the restart. There can be no penalty kick for a “foul” against a non-player, which is what a substituted player is.

In question 3, the goal is allowed to stand. The assistant referee ought to be removed from his/her duties for gross negligence in not bringing the matter to the referee’s attention immediately, but this will likely not happen. The referee must stand in shame, as he/she has also neglected his/her duties in keeping track of who should be on the field. Full details of the fiasco must go in the match report, with both officials sharing in the blame for poor performance of their duties.…

Outside Interference

DEALING WITH "EXEMPLARY" PARENTS

Posted on by

Question:
To what degree should a referee protect players on the field from harassment from their own parents? Or is this a coaches job as well as a referees job?

Example: This past Saturday, a 9 year old keeper missed a ball on the ground, resulting in a goal. Her father berated her from the sidelines. She was upset…I told my wife that she would miss the next ball that came to her. Sure enough she did, likely as a result from her tears blurring her vision. Her mother then berated her from the sidelines.

I played keeper growing up and realize the physical and psychological components of the position and part of my concern is one of empathy with the player. Is such an incident in the realm of the local youth club jurisdiction in so far as a parent conduct issue only or have the laws of the game been violated by a spectator interfering with the the game by harassing a player on the field?

Answer (October 10, 2012):
Unfortunately some soccer parents just do not know when enough is enough. In theory such people as this exemplary mother should be controlled by the coach and other team officials, as the referee has no jurisdiction or specific authority to deal with spectators’ behavior — unless it brings the game into disrepute or puts participants in danger. Unless leagues set rules of behavior for their spectators, such as making the coach and other team officials responsible, there is little that can be done other than to warn the coach about his spectators’ behavior. Most coaches are good about this, but some, eminently regrettably, are even worse than the mothers and fathers.

The Laws of the Game do do cover spectators to any particular extent. In fact, the referee cannot be faulted for a decision to stop or not to stop a match due to spectator interference or any problem in spectator areas — this is not defined to any degree whatsoever, but left to the referee’s discretion — or for a decision to abandon a match for whatever reason — again discretionary.

If the actions of the spectator(s) or team officials do bring the game into disrepute (a wonderful collective term for all sorts of irresponsible behavior), the referee can warn the team(s) that he or she will abandon the game if the actions continue, or may directly abandon the game. (The referee can also expel team officials for any act he or she deems to be irresponsible behavior.) If the actions do continue, the referee must then follow through.

I would recommend that you speak to the league regarding its rules of competition and how they may affect the behavior of the spectators.…

Management tools

SUB DENIES OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

Posted on by

Question:
What should the ref do when a player comes off the bench and denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

Answer (October 1, 2012):
Send him off for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity. It’s in the Law. Restart with an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the position of the ball when play was stopped (see Law 13 — Position of Free Kick). Indirect free kick is for the offense of unsporting behavior (sub enters without permission). The caution could be shown first, before the red card for denying the opportunity, but that might be overkill.…

Law 3 - Players

COLLEGE FIASCO? NOT QUITE CLEAR, BUT . . . (AMENDED)

Posted on by

Question:
At a Division III college women’s soccer game, a Red team player tried to keep the ball from going out of bounds. The line judge ruled that she had stepped out while touching the ball and put up his flag indicating that the Blue team should have the throw in. Play continued, however, and the center judge did not see the line judge’s flag, even after 10-15 seconds when the line judge was vigorously waving the flag. After about 20 seconds, he put his flag down as play continued on the field. About 25-30 seconds after the out of bounds was initially called, the Blue team scored a goal. The Red team coach protested that the goal should be disallowed because of the out of bounds call.

What is the correct call in this situation?

(In the game, the center judge did disallow the goal and gave the Blue team the throw in.)

Answer (September 25, 2012):
Nothing you have described about the woman who stepped outside the field is illegal. Nothing you have described about the woman who stepped outside the field was illegal. The “line judge,” actually called an assistant referee, was TOTALLY INCORRECT, even under college rules, and so was the”judge,” actually called the referee, provided the ball remained on the field during this action. It is not an offense to leave the field during the course of play to keep the ball in play inside the boundaries of the field. The correct call would have been no call at all, based on the scenario you gave me.

AMENDMENT: The questioner now informs me that the ball did indeed leave the field. In that case, the AR was correct in waving the flag and the referee was correct in disallowing the goal.…

Trickery

REFEREE ALERT: AN INTERESTING SITUATION–AND ITS POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

Posted on by

Question:
Should this (please see video…Newcastle v Tottenham on 18 Aug 2012) be considered trickery? [Note, it was not called in the EPL match]. Not too different from flicking the ball in the air in order to head it to keeper.


http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-best-back-pass-ever-steven-taylor-for-newcastle-v-tottenham/
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b88k1ZxDuQ&feature=youtube_gdata

I imagine we’ll see kids imitating this move. This has many tactical and skill implications for those of us who coach. I guess I will stop having players shield the ball while the keeper comes out for it, and instead teach them to bend one knee and use the other thigh to pass it back to the keeper and therefore alleviate pressure more easily.

Goal kicks are now easier. The keeper kicks to the side of the PA and a runs out to the line (or stands there while a back kicks it), a player stationed at the side gets down on the ground and heads it to the keeper just inside the area.

Innovation will abound. Not sure I like it, but, as they say, change is the only constant. The game could change a bit because of this, I can’t be the only one whose brain started to whirl when I watched the match.

Answer (August 23, 2012):
The play itself was perfectly legal. If, as sometimes happens, this link has disappeared from the original site, the situation was that Newcastle player Steve Taylor stopped with his foot a ball going over the goal line and, knowing his his ‘keeper could not play the ball with his hands if Taylor deliberately kicked the ball to him, Taylor dropped to the ground and headed it to his ‘keeper, who could then play the ball with his hands within both the letter and spirit of the Law. One cannot and must not call this perfectly legal act “trickery” or trying to circumvent the Law.…