Author: Jim Allen

Handling

GOALKEEPER DROPS BALL, PICKS IT UP

Posted on by

Question:
Today’s question involves the goalkeeper releasing the ball from their possession.

Situation is U15Gs, travel, but really just above recreational in skill. Early morning game, grass is wet, ball is wet. Goalkeeper is wearing gloves and long sleeve jersey.

Goalkeeper picks up a ball, is moving towards edge of penalty area to release. In some combination of fumbling, squeezing, and the ball being slippery, the ball slips out of her possession and onto the ground. Goalkeeper picks the ball back up immediately.

Does this constitute a second touch by the goalkeeper?

My first thought is I’m asking a question with an obvious answer — yes, this is a second touch. Accidental or deliberate, the ball was released, and picked back up again without an intervening touch by another player.

If so, can you then explain the rationale that allows the goalie to toss the ball into the air and catch it, or bounce it and catch it, and not count as a second touch? I certainly understand why we dont allow the opponent to challenge in those conditions, being potentially dangerous. But why cant we expect the goalkeeper to just put the ball back into play without any intervening tosses or bounces?

And does this not then put us referees in the position of judging a deliberate, allowable “second touch” vs. an accidental release and recovery, which is not allowed? Why cant it just be a release is a release is a release?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
Of course there was a foul, but read on. There is no analogy with tossing the ball up in the air and catching it, because that action has ALWAYS excluded the ball hitting the ground (which is what happened here). All the offense takes is deciding that the goalkeeper had possession in the first place.

The entire refereeing system puts referees in the position of judging whether or not an offense has occurred. We make thousands of decisions of this nature during a game, even those involving “Under-tinies.” In this particular situation, the referee must make the judgment based on the skill level of the players, the conditions on the field, and any other considerations that occur during the game.

Of course, the referee could always decide that there wasn’t any initial possession (i.e., control) and so there wouldn’t be an offense, but the scenario says that the ball “slips out of her possession” so, again, obviously there was a “second touch” offense.

But deciding there was an offense is only the first (though necessary) step in deciding if the offense should be called by stopping play and punishing the foul with an indirect free kick. For that, the referee must decide that the offense was not trifling — in other words, wasn’t important, didn’t affect the course of the game, didn’t unfairly prevent an opponent from challenging for the ball by taking possession a second time. Given the description in the scenario, this seems very likely.…

Handling

THROWING OBJECTS AT THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
hi hope you can help.
1, a goalkeeper in his area is beaten, the ball is heading towards the goals, he takes his boot of and throws it a the ball taking it away from goals, what do i do ?
2, what happens if he does the same thing outside his area?
3,what happens if a player other than the goalkeeper does it, inside and outside the penalty area?
i do hope it’s not to much to ask and i do appreciate your time.
regards matt.

USSF answer (September 1, 2008):
1. The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behavior and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick to be taken from the place where the ball was when it was struck by the boot or similar object (see Law 13 for position of free kick).

2. We are unclear on your meaning in the second question, whether you mean (a) that the ‘keeper throws his boot at the ball while HE is outside the penalty area but the ball is struck by the boot inside the penalty area or whether you mean (b) that the ‘keeper is inside the penalty area and throws the boot outside to hit the ball.

The correct action for the referee depends on where contact with the ball occurred, not where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was inside the penalty area, caution for unsporting behavior and indirect free kick where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was outside the penalty area, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity and direct free kick where contact with the ball was made. If it was a defender other than the ‘keeper, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity regardless of where contact was made and a direct free kick if that location was outside but a penalty kick if inside.

3. The boot or similar object is considered as an extension of the player’s arm. Play would be stopped. If the boot struck the ball inside the penalty area, a penalty kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball. If the boot struck the ball outside the penalty area, a direct free kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball (see Law 13 for position of free kick).…

Advice to Referees

IMPEDING THE OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
Apologies if this has been asked and answered on the site already, but I could not find an answer to this question on impeding or interference.

An attacking player is chasing a “through ball” that has been kicked past the last defender, and towards the goal. That last defender is also chasing the ball, and is actually closer to it than the attacker, but not close enough to it to be considered “playing the ball” at the time that I suspect a foul was committed.

With the ball still 7 or 8 yards from the defender, with the attacker following right behind, the defender sees that her goalie is coming out of the box to make a play with their feet to clear the ball. To ensure the attacker has less of a chance to get to the ball first, she slows and appears to deliberately block the attacker from getting a clear run at the lose ball, giving the goalie more time to get to the ball first.

Lots of spectators commented on what a heads up play it was, but I was of the opinion that since the defender was not playing the ball at the point she made contact with the attacker deny her a run at the ball that a foul had been committed.

What do the laws say about this please?

USSF answer (August 27, 2008):
It would appear from your description that the defending player impeded her opponent. The correct restart for this would be an indirect free kick from the place of the infringement. However, please read these excerpts from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
“Impeding the progress of an opponent” means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.

The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

…
Rules of Competition

COACH EXPELLED, BACK IN VERY NEXT GAME!

Posted on by

Question:
In a competitive tournament, The referee was intimidated by a coach at the end of the game, (end of regular playing time but all players were still on the field waiting for the sportsmanship greeting between two teams the referees and the coaches and then he (referee) gave that coach a red card, took his membership card away so that he would be removed from the field. Later in the same day, the tournament organizers put his card back to allow him in the field and unfortunately the same ref administered the game with this coach’s team, he complained to the officers at the referee’s center and he was told to do away from that game. It was really intimidating to the ref.

What should he does to get a satisfied explanation? Your response is greatly appreciated.

USSF answer (August 27, 2008):
Once the referee has expelled a coach in accordance with the Laws of the Game, his or her job is complete. If, in its infinite wisdom, the competition authority undermines the referee’s authority by disregarding the normal suspension the coach for at least one game, that is their problem. The referee who has accepted the assignment to the subsequent game has no alternative but to accept the will of the competition authority or ask to be relieved of the assignment.

Of more importance to us is the act of showing a red card to the coach or any other nonparticipant. That is forbidden by the Laws of the Game. If the competition authority, again in its infinite wisdom, chooses to require that such nonparticipants are shown the red card, then the referee must once again follow the rules of the competition.

The referee is not entitled to any explanation for the foolishness of the competition authority, nor is he or she obliged to continue a relationship with that competition.…

Law 11 - Offside

CONFUSED REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
1) if there is a hand ball is it a direct or indirect free kick? how do you know when to call a indirect or direct kick?  2) if the goalie comes out of his area, and advances the ball to the opposite goal, and loses the ball, the defending team has the ball, how would you call that play as a linesman, would the last defender be consider a goalie? would the the forward be offside if he is in front of the last defender but the goalie is way on the other side of the field. this happened to me 2 weeks ago, i counted the goal but should i have?

USSF answer (August 26, 2008):
1) Let’s get some terminology straight here. A “hand ball” means nothing in soccer. If you mean that a player deliberately handled the ball, that is a direct free kick foul. If the handling was not deliberate, then there was no foul, no matter that the player whose hand the ball hit may have “gained an advantage.”

2) Only the goalkeeper can be considered the goalkeeper. Neither of the last two opponents between an attacking player and the opponents’ goal must be the goalkeeper. No, you should not have counted the goal if there was only one opponent between the player and the goal line and the ball was played to that player. That player would have been in an offside position and thus offside (interfering with play) when his teammate played the ball to him.…

Law 3 - Players

MAY A TEAM PLAY WITH THE ‘KEEPER OFF THE FIELD?

Posted on by

Question:
Fully understand we must have a keeper but when is a keeper a keeper? Situation, keeper has mild injury and is being treated off the field momentarily. His team wishes to continue play stating they have a keeper, he is just temporarily off the field and they wish to play short until he returns.

Must a keeper be on the field and capable of participation to be considered the team’s keeper?

note team has no more subs left per the rules of competition.

USSF answer (August 24, 2008):
There is no written requirement that the goalkeeper must be on the field of play at all times during the game. In fact, the IFAB Q&A of 2006 states:

20. During a match, the goalkeeper sprints from the goal to stop an opponent. He kicks the ball out of the field of play and a throw-in is awarded to the opposing team. The momentum of the goalkeeper takes him off the field of play and before he can return, the throw-in is taken and a goal is scored. What action, if any, should the referee take?
A goal is awarded since no offence has been committed.

However, it would be unusual for a goalkeeper to be treated for injury off the field of play, principally because the Laws provide specifically that the goalkeeper need not leave the field for treatment. One solution might have been for the referee to remind the team that one of the field players could temporarily act as goalkeeper — after donning appropriate equipment.

As to rules of a competition, any referee who accepts an assignment to a tournament (or any other competition) also accepts the rules of that competition, no matter how alien they may be.…

Law 5 - Referee

REFEREE HEADGEAR

Posted on by

Question:
The wearing of headgear by referees has been limited to ‘special conditions’ for a long time now. I see female referees and assistant referees wearing headbands and head scarves at the Olympic games. Has anything changed in this context recently?

USSF answer (August 22, 2008):
No matter what we see referees wear at international tournaments, that is not necessarily what referees should wear when working games in the United States. Our standard has been clear for many years now,

As to caps or other hats, Federation policy on hats was published in the October 1999 issue of Fair Play and has been reiterated several times in this venue:

Q. May referees wear caps and sunglasses?
A. With regard to caps, the policy of the United States Soccer Federation was stated in the Spring 1994 issue of Fair Play magazine: “Under normal circumstances, it is not acceptable for a game official to wear headgear, and it would never be seen on a high level regional, national or international competition. However, there may be rare circumstances in local competitions where head protection or sun visors might sensibly be tolerated for the good of the game, e.g. early morning or late afternoon games with sun in the officials’ line of sight causing vision difficulties; understaffed situations where an official with sensitive skin might be pressed into service for multiple games under strong sunlight or a referee who wears glasses needing shielding from rain.” Sunglasses would be subject to the same considerations. In addition, we ask referees to remember that sunglasses have the unfortunate side effect of suggesting that the referee or assistant referee is severely visually impaired and should not be working the game. They also limit communication between the officials and the players by providing a barrier against eye-to-eye contact. Sunglasses, if worn, should be removed prior to any verbal communication with players.

We know from Law 4 and “Law 18” (Common Sense) what equipment the players may wear. We also know that the intelligent referee will try to make an exception for players due to severe weather conditions, such as knit caps or gloves on very cold days. This would even extend to tracksuit pants, provided everyone on the team wears the same color — which need not be the same as the color of the shorts. The same is true of the officiating crew.

There should be no need for a written statement regarding referee attire. Referees are expected to look professional for every game they do, regardless of the level of play. Referees should exercise good sense in choosing what to wear — and what not to wear. Indeed, they should be certain to take care to protect themselves from severe weather conditions just as the players do. However, the intelligent referee will ensure that the officiating crew is not dressed differently, i. e., more comfortably, than the players for whom they are officiating the game. The conditions you cite at the current Olympic games are indeed special, with very high temperatures and high humidity.

Any further decision on referee headgear must be made by the USSF Referee Committee.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

BLATANT CHEATING ALLOWED BY REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
The grass on the field is “tall” at the start of the game. At halftime the socre is tied 0-0. Out of the parking lot mowers appear and cut the grass only on one half of the field. This half turned out to be their team’s attacking half of the field. The opposing team files a protest with the referees and league officials that this is not fair. They play the second half but under protest. The team whose offensive side of the field was mowed wins the game. What is your opinion? Should the game have been satrted at all? Was it fair that the grass was cut on only one half of the field? Did the team prostesting gave up their right because they played anyway?

USSF answer (August 22, 2008):
The first response that comes to mind is to wonder why the referee allowed the mowers on the field at all until after the game was over. If they were to be allowed, which is certainly up for debate, both halves of the field should have been mowed. The Spirit of the Game requires that conditions be equal for both teams throughout the match, not simply in the first half.

The referee should be ashamed for having allowed this travesty to take place. The competition authority should require that the game should be replayed in full.…

Handling

DELIBERATE HANDLING?

Posted on by

Question:
Defensive player in a wall. Free kick taken and strikes player in the arm. Deliberate handball or not? Player is on the end of the wall, arms at sides, does not move arm. Is he extending his body width by using his arms?

USSF answer (August 22, 2008):
If the arms were in a natural position and the player did not move them to play the ball, then there has been no offense.…

"Inventive" Refs

IDENTIFYING THE EXTRA PLAYER

Posted on by

Question:
I was in a recent over-30 game I was in had the referee stop play when he noticed there were too many men on the field. A correct call. However, in this particularly league there is no 4th official and there were no AR’s. No one from either team knew who or when the extra player entered the field but all parties thought it happened during a recent substitution several minutes prior when several players came onto the field and several came off. Since the referee did not know who the extra player was that entered illegally, he gave the caution to the player that was closest to him. However, this player had a previous caution and thus just earned a red card for his second yellow and was sent off. Was the referee correct in this situation?  He claims that it’s the player who is closest to him who gets the caution.  I am a referee as well and I think it’s up to the captain of the team to pick the player to receive the yellow card. The referee is not the one to make this call.

USSF answer (August 19, 2008):
No, the referee was not (and would not be) correct in automatically cautioning the player nearest to him. Another case of inventive — and really silly — refereeing. The entire problem was the referee’s fault for not paying attention to how many came out and how many entered the field. Referees cannot caution willy nilly, as this would likely destroy what little remained of their credibility after the initial error of failing to pay attention. There was no need for a second caution to an apparently innocent party, which could and should have been avoided. The referee’s third lapse was in not considering what possible good a caution would serve, regardless of who got it.

There is at least one thing that might be done, such as asking of the captain (or even the coach) who the last substitutes coming in were and which players were supposed to have left. That will usually find the player who was also not paying enough attention.…