| Dave, a U13-U19 referee, asks:
I have been searching for an answer to my question and I can’t find one anywhere that addresses what I’m asking. I have read that “It is not a foul if a sliding tackle is successful and the player whose ball was tackled away then falls over the tackler’s foot.” What if the slide tackle is successful and the player doesn’t fall over the tackler’s foot, but instead, falls over the tackler’s upper leg or body that has slid in front of the player’s path after the successful tackle? Is it a foul if a player falls over some body part other than the tackler’s foot after a successful tackle? Answer: The criteria for a foul which is associated with a sliding tackle is pretty straightforward. Three major initial issues are (a) what was the direction of the slide, (b) what is the speed of the slide, and (c) what did the slider follow up doing immediately after the slider’s contact with the ball. Regarding the first item (direction of slide), there is basically a “sliding scale” (no pun intended) regarding the degree of potential Law violation. In short, all other things equal, the farther away from coming in directly in front of the slider’s target of the slider, the more likely the slide is potentially dangerous and thus at least a foul if not both a foul and misconduct. The most common element generally is the degree to which the action of the slider is known or knowable by the target. This means that the slide tackle from behind is the most likely to result in a foul and a misconduct (though it can be done legally if it is done perfectly). One of the critical elements here is the degree to which the target can see or be aware of the slide. On the other hand, all other things equal, the slide from the front of the target and assuming the target is also looking at a forward direction, the less likely the action would involve a violation. Regarding the second element (speed of the slide), the issue is generally fairly simple – the fster the slide, the more likely it will result in a violation and an assessment of danger. Again, note that any slide necessarily carries an element of danger by itself if for no other reason that a slide on the ground generally involves less control by the slider … but adding speed increases this danger. Finally, regarding the completion of a slide, what happens after the slide has contacted the ball and/or the body of the opponent carries its own set of criteria. For example, the slider comes from the front and not at a high speed, and doesn’t makes contact with the ball or the opponent in any way, it is almost certain that there is no likelihood of a violation. But, change any one or more of these three elements (slow speed, frontal direction relative to the opponent, and contact only with the ball over the duration of the slide) and you have a series of issues which individually will likely involve at minimum a foul and potentially misconduct also. For example, making contact with the ball is, by itself, nothing more than the objective of the slide tackle but, add any (much less more than one) of the following and there is almost certainly a foul and/or in addition a misconduct – the misconduct element is already primed to be an element because sliding on the ground is almost inherently dangerous to begin with. Perhaps the slider makes contact with the ball and then the slider’s foot continues over the top or from the side of the ball to the opponent’s foot. Perhaps one foot clearly and otherwise legally makes contact with the ball but the other foot is placed higher and makes contact with the opponent. Not surprisingly, the single most dangerous sliding tackle (foul plus misconduct, with the latter being usually at the red card level) is from behind, at high speed, with one or both feet making contact with one or both legs (or higher) and with studs up. |
Category: Law 5 – Referee
Law 5 – Referee
Mel, an adult-pro fan, asks:
| If a referee cautions a player on the field of play, does he have to show a yellow card – or can it be verbal? If the answer is yes, they have to show a yellow card, and if that player then receives a second caution, must a second yellow card be shown before the subsequent red card is shown? |
Your question is not easily answered but we will try to clear up some issues. The cards (yellow and red) are not the issue, they are a form of communication. If a player does something that comes under the category of misconduct, the showing of the card (yellow or red) is merely the public statement that a misconduct has occurred. Red cards are rarely the issue because, if a player commits a red card offense, the player has to leave the field and the card itself is merely the official statement. Yellow cards are a different matter because in the large majority of cases, the player’s action is dealt with and, with few exceptions (mostly limited to the commission of a second yellow card offense in the same game), the failure to show the card does not by itself change the fact that an offense has been committed.
Keep in mind that the use of cards in soccer is actually a fairly modern event – they were created by Ken Aston (a British referee) and were first used in 1970. They were almost immediately accepted as a means to “announce” that an offense had occurred which was serious (yellow) but the player is not sent off the field or was serious enough to warrant the removal of a player from the field for the remainder of the game (red). In other words, they were a signal used to warn (yellow) or remove (red) a player for serious misconduct. Aimed initially at a player who had committed an offense, it additionally became a public statement to all the players plus their teammates on the bench and their coaches and persons attending the game. Ultimately, the use of these cards was incorporated into the Laws of the Game (followed, in the US, by high school and colleges/universities). Their use was for publicly advising everyone that a player had been warned (yellow) or kicked off the field (red). Not too long ago, the use of these cards was extended to a team’s coaches!
The point of all this is that the cards themselves don’t do anything but announce to a player (and everyone else) that he/she has been warned (yellow) or is being permanently sent off the field for misconduct (red). The point, however, is that the real issue is not the cards but what they have announced. Failing to publicly announce the relevant behavior doesn’t change the fact that the behavior has been committed. If a player has committed an offense that would otherwise have warranted a yellow card, doesn’t change the fact that the offense has been committed. This is one of the reasons that red cards are very rarely forgotten to be shown because they specifically involve a player being sent from the field for the rest of the game with no replacement. Most problems with cards involve the failure to display a yellow card because a player who has committed a yellow card offense has still committed the offense – the problems arise when the player, who was whistled for a cautionable offense, may not realize that the offense was, indeed, cautionable and thus a warning that, if repeated during the same game, would lead to dismissal from the field. Unfortunately, very often the failure to show the signal for a caution may result in the referee forgetting about the first misconduct which could then lead to the failure to remove the player from the game if the previously uncautioned player commits a second cautionable offense.
So, coming back to your specific question, the failure to show a yellow card (forgetting to show a red card still results in the player being sent from the field) is serious but usually not fatal. One of the jobs of both assistant referees is, as quickly as possible, to remind the referee to show the appropriate card before play restarts. The failure to show a red card is rare and usually “fixes” itself but failing to show a card (or failing to record the giving of a card) can lead to problems. Unfortunately, the problems fall on the referee. Remember, soccer existed and was played for more than a hundred years without the display of any cards – we survived – but the card system made the referee’s job (and that of the players) easier. The major problem for a referee is not whether he/she forgot to show the card for the first cautionable offense but whether he/she forgot the offense in the first place!…
The item below is our first Q&A since the system encountered problems and had effectively been shut down until the problems were fixed. We invite referees, assistant referees, players, coaches, and fans to pass the word that we are now open to questions. After the system had been largely repaired, several earlier messages involving a question or issue were handled privately without converting the matter into a formal Q&A posted to the public website. We will continue with our commitment to send short responses directly to questioners and to publish Q&As which are more complex. By the time of the next Q&A appears, this message will no longer matter and will be removed permanently (we hope).…
Ritchell, a fan, asks:
I’ve been watching the Premier League and the Champions League. I’m a little confused as to when the assistant referee raises his flag to indicate offside. More often then not, they wait an exceptionally long time before they raise the flag. When should the AR signal offside?
Answer
Well, you are wording the question in a way that presumes that there ARE “exceptionally long” delays in flagging an offside . The problem is that being “offside” is not an offense and does not violate the Law! The offense only occurs if the player in an offside position acts to interfere with play or an opponent (which IS an offense). Depending on the circumstances, the AR should not flag an offside offense unless and until an attacker actually commits (not merely “might commit” or “could could” or “looks likely to commit”) any of the specific circumstances that turn an offside position into an offside offense.
Does it happen? Yes, of course. But is it common or endemic? No. We say this regarding the games we watch but we are more involved with matches in the US and/or involving US teams rather than elsewhere.
Here are several things to think about, though. If we were to see an offside offense on the field, we would rather that the AR signals after seeing it than signaling before it happens! And here lies something that watchers do not realize – the main reason for an apparent delay in signaling an offside offense is that ARs are trained throughout the world to withhold the flag until an otherwise valid offside offense is “worth” the flag. In other words, officials – both referees and ARs – are guided (in the great majority of cases) to wait until the offense has actually occurred and the offense is going to continue to the benefit of the offender. Raising the flag is NOT a race but a measured attempt to decide if the offense occurred and was not going to immediately disappear due to a seconds-later action which would benefit the non-offending opposing team.…
David, a U12 and Under coach, asks
Can a referee threaten a coach with a yellow card because a spectator yelled out they were offsides you need to call dad or they’re playing physical against our team and you’re not calling it you need to call it both ways?
Answer
First of all, it is against both training and protocol for a referee to “threaten” a card, regardless of color, to anyone – player, coach, spectator, etc. You either give it or you don’t. At most, the referee could advise someone that his/her behavior was not acceptable, which should be taken by any ordinarily intelligent person as a warning.
Second, there are standard procedures for dealing with the behavior of spectators. If any particular spectator or the spectators in general (and I am speaking here of situations that do not involve large arenas or spectators numbered in the thousands) are having an obvious adverse effect on the game – on players, coaches, bench personal, or the officials themselves – the standard procedure approved by US Soccer years ago is to stop play and advise either or both coaches that they must control their spectators. A reasonable amount of time is given to do so (by by the coach or coaches calming the misbehaving persons and/or by requiring them to leave the area of the field – often referred to as “out of sight, out of sound”), and then reporting back to the referee that the matter has been controlled. If the issue has not been resolved within a reasonable period of time (in the opinion of the referee); or if, having been advised that the coach or coaches are unable to regain acceptable behavior by the misbehaving spectators, the problem cannot be solved; or if, having achieved enough improvement that play might be restarted, the problem recurs, the match is terminated and the match report by the referee must include the steps taken and results achieved (or not).
Often, the competition authority has persons representing the league, tournament, or association at the field and willing to assist the referee in restoring order. The referee and the coaches should use them if that assistance is available.
The basic point in all this is that the officiating team is not responsible for the behavior of spectators nor does the referee have any direct authority over them nor can they interact directly with them at any time. All problems regarding spectators must be handled by the coach/coaches, the site officials, and/or the sponsoring organization present at the field. The only tool the referee has is to stop play, restart play after peace is achieved, or terminate the match if peace cannot be achieved or maintained.
As for being “harassed” by allegedly wrong offside decisions, or too much physicality in play, or by the ever-present “call it both ways” nonsense, none of these usually rise to the level of needing the “nuclear option” of stopping play, much less terminating the game. Referees are routinely advised in training to ignore such stuff. The defining moment justifying a stoppage is if the behavior becomes wide, broad, persistent, and is interfering with the ability of players and/or officials to handle their responsibilities on the field. When that is the case, however, don’t hesitate to push the button and then deal with the fallout later.…
B A, an adult amateur player, asks:
We were playing a pickup game tonight. Let’s say I was the keeper. Ball is misplayed (high) into the penalty area. The young lady playing as one of my defenders is facing me from about 10 feet away while I am on the line protecting the goal. I am the closest person to and facing her. She sets up to make a high kick clearance and an opposing player comes running up behind her and jams his head in a downward motion while she is already in the process of kicking the ball and the opponent nearly gets kicked in the head. Some people were chattering about it being a dangerous play on her. From my perspective, it was a dangerous play on him. Playing in a dangerous manner is, to me, any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone. Despite the level of his head only being ducked to a shorter player’s chest height, I believe he endangered himself.
Answer
Close, but not entirely correct. Historically, the rule of thumb for questions of safe play between two opponents requires balancing several criteria. First, with what body part is each player (we’re simplifying all this into two players, each from a different team, and each of approximately equal size – height, girth, and strength – note the absence of gender as a criterion) using to challenge the opponent? Second, where in the body area is the challenge occurring? And third, what is the relative degree of competence and experience held by the opponents (again, we’re simplifying this in terms of the overall experience and degree of capability of the two teams collectively). In other words, one of the two players engaged in the challenge may be clearly different as regards his or her opponent and/or the competence level of the players across the two teams, but how would the referee rate both teams as part of the larger competition, age, division level, etc.?
Now comes the “rule of thumb” applied to two teams or any two opposing players. The traditional practical line is the middle of the body versus the location of the ball. Assuming the opposing players are roughly comparable in overall competence, the game assumes that a ball higher than waist level is played with the head or upper body core (i.e., chest or shoulder or, as of 2020-2021, the upper arm above the bottom of the arm pit). A ball below the waist level is played with the foot/feet, knee, and leg portions above or below the knee. In such cases, and excluding clearly disparate levels in the use of strength, the challenge can be vigorous without being considered dangerous.
Change any element of what we described and play begins edging into being dangerous by this fact alone. The obvious pictures should immediately come to mind – head-to head (not inherently dangerous), head to foot (inherently dangerous), foot to foot (not inherently dangerous), foot to head (inherently dangerous). Now, there are various obvious holes here – even foot to foot can be dangerous (strength aside) if one player is kicking the ball and the other player is kicking the shin! At the same time, the point is “inherent danger” and a player who tries to match his head against the opponent’s foot – whether this is above the waist or not, depending on the location of the ball – is committing an inherently dangerous act. And here is where the third rule of thumb comes in (see the end of the first paragraph). Let’s take age as a simple (perhaps even simplistic) stand-in for degree of experience. The same combinations we described above, if undertaken by a pair of experienced players (e.g., say, u14 – u15 years and above) are inherently less dangerous than if the players were u10-u13s). Similarly two teams of u16s, one at division 1 and the other at division 4, have clearly disparate experience levels and, in fact probably shouldn’t even be playing one another! And while a team of U18 players opposed by a senior amateur team might be thought inherently disadvantaged, that might not be the case if the former was at the D-1 level and the senior amateur team, though older, may be considered disadvantaged if they were a recreational team.
So, a useful generalization (with all kinds of ifs, ands, and buts) is that attempting to play a ball below waist level is creating a dangerous play if the opponent is using his foot. And so on. Do you call it? Well, you should be prepared to call it while watching the whole thing closely and to make your decision based on such inherently dangerous elements as degree of distance above or below the waist, degree to which both players are actively attempting (or not attempting) to play the ball, etc. You understand, of course, that the “waistline” is not a real line (think generally of “midsection” instead of “line”). And you take into account the age/experience of the players. We can confidently suggest the exact same “high kick” at a ball above an opponent’s shoulders that would likely be whistled immediately and vigorously (and likely with a card of some color) at a U14 game might be totally ignored (not even worthy of a finger-shaking in a World Cup game.
By the way, none of what is offered above is part of the Laws of the Game. The Law simply refers to “dangerous play” in connection with play that could “threaten injury” to someone or “preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury.“ The above discussion, however, is a core concept in training referees and has been around literally for many decades.
We have spent 4 lengthy paragraphs (and a short one) trying to lay out what an experienced referee would have running through his or her mind upon seeing an apparently potentially dangerous play, but it boils down to this – what do those players in this game at this moment of play need to have called in order for the game to remain safe, fair, and enjoyable?…
Mark, a senior amateur player, asks:
When defending, can a referee ask me to move away from the ball during a free kick, only to have the attacking player perform a quick free kick? What if the referee moves me too far back? I was always under the impression that the attacking player needed to ask for 10 yards in order to have me physically moved but the referee instructed me otherwise.
Answer
CAN a referee do this? Yes. SHOULD a referee do this? No. It is contrary to standard management techniques for a quick restart. It gets a little complicated but here is the short version.
Scenario 1: When there is a quick free kick pending, the referee should intervene only if an opponent is so close to the restart location that is it obvious the kick cannot be taken without hindrance. In this case, the referee steps in and immediately states that the free kick is now a ceremonial free kick which cannot be taken until the referee specifically signals that it can be taken … and then the referee cautions the opponent for “delaying the restart of play” (in this case, the caution is not “fails to respect the required distance” but any caution given as part of Scenarios 2-4 would be given for this reason).
Scenario 2: When there is a free kick pending and one or more opponents are retreating the required distance but are not yet at the required distance when the attacking team takes the kick and one of those retreating opponents moves to and does in fact make contact with the ball, the referee halts play, cautions the opponent, and gives the attacking team a retake of the original free kick restart at the original location. Note: the referee can decide not to stop play if the opponent’s contact with the ball results nevertheless in the ball returning to the attacking team’s possession and in an advantageous position for the attackers.
Scenario 3: When there is a free kick pending and one or more opponent are retreating the required distance but are not yet at the required distance when the attacking team takes the kick and the ball makes contact with one of those retreating opponents without that opponent making any move to the ball, the referee allows the contact (i.e., doesn’t punish it) and play proceeds without any stoppage. The contact with the ball by the opponent who is closer than he/she should be was not the result of any effort by that opponent and is due solely to the attacking team’s wish to kick the ball despite the closenesss (except for Scenario 1) of the opponent. In other words, the contact was not made as a result of any movement other than continuing to retreat by the opponent.
Scenario 4: When there is a free kick pending and an attacker requests that the referee enforce the minimum distance, this immediately leads the referee to convert the quick free kick to a ceremonial free kick which cannot be taken except upon a signal by the referee which is not given until all opponents are at/beyond the minimum distance. The restart now can only occur by a signal from the referee. If, following this signal but before the kick is taken, an opponent moves inside the minimum distance and makes contact with the ball, the referee stops play, cautions that opponent who moved inside the minimum distance before the kick is actually taken, and then orders the kick to be retaken (ceremonially) once all opponents are at/beyond the minimum distance. Repeat as and if needed.
Two notes about Scenario 4. First, the referee can decide to deny the request if, in the referee’s opinion, all opponents are already at or beyond the minimum distance and the attacking team’s request is a delaying tactic. Second, an attacking team’s request for a ceremonial restart is not the only reason for doing so. For example, the referee can declare a ceremonial restart on his/her own initiative if, for example, there has been an injury, a card needs to be given related to the reason for the stoppage in the first place (e.g., a foul), or a substitution is being requested by the attacking team.
By the way, your “always under the impression” is incorrect. In the absence of a specific request by the attacking team (other than in Scenario 1 conditions) to enforce the minimum distance, the Law assumes and expects that all opponents are retreating or already have retreated to the required minimum distance. Each opponent is expected to retreat without any request by the attackers or the referee: their failure to do so could lead to a caution.
Referees step into this on their own initiative only in the case of a Scenario 1 – and this is true the older and/or more experienced are the players involved. The only time we have ever stepped in on our own initiative (i.e., without a request by the attacking team) is if the players are young and/or inexperienced and clearly do not know what to do (and/or the attackers are equally young/inexperienced and do not know of their essential right to take the kick without any signal by the referee if that is what they choose to do).…
H. Gillan, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:
Foul or no foul?
Game: U14 boys, Division 2.
Scenario: a red defender makes a sliding tackle almost from behind (roughly thirty degrees angle from behind) outside the reds’ penalty box (between the touch line and the box). The red defender clearly gets the ball first. But immediately after getting the ball, he also gets the legs of the blue striker (who, at the time, is moving with the ball towards the reds’ left corner area). The blue striker collapses (not very seriously), and the ball goes out for a throw in.
My question is: did the red defender commit a foul? (He got the ball first, but he also got the legs).
Answer
We can’t tell you how many times over the years we have been forced to clarify once again the following principle. It’s been a while and, even though everything that follows has been said many times on this website, perhaps it is time to go through it again.
It doesn’t make any difference whether a player “got the ball” if, thereafter, the player trips, kicks, tackles, runs into, runs over, or otherwise commits mayhem on an opponent. “Getting the ball first” is irrelevant. The decision you have to make in these instances is, did the player trip, kick, tackle, run into, run over, or otherwise commit mayhem on the opponent deliberately/intentionally? If so, DFK and a caution if it was done recklessly or a red card if done with excessive force. If the subsequent action is judged not to be deliberate or intentional, it is nonetheless unsafe play and merits an IFK for playing in a dangerous manner. In making this decision, you need to take into account the age and experience level of the players as well as what has been going on in the game up to that point.
What you described is always a foul (DFK or IFK) but what you do about it is where the real decision-making occurs and demonstrates the art of refereeing. You can, for example, decide that, though the action is a foul (particularly if the decision is that it was an IFK offense), circumstances are such that you feel it was doubtful or trifling, as a result of which you might only chew out the defender with varying degrees of growling, frowning, or forcefulness.
A long time ago and for a period of only two years, the Laws of the Game talked about tackling for the ball and making contact with the opponent’s leg(s) in a manner which might have given the impression (particularly for Americans who are not steeped in the traditions of the game) that making contact with an opponent’s leg(s) was ok so long as you got the ball first. That was, is, and always has been sheer nonsense and it only took the International Board a relatively short time (given the 150+ years the game has been around in its modern form) to drop that language entirely. Despite this, there remain referees who got their entry level training during that short period and then failed thereafter to realize that the Law on this matter had been modified. Or they continued to listen to the out-of-date ramblings of referees who “learned” this untruth and passed it along to their referee friends like a cold or the flu.…
JM, a High School and College referee, asks:
What is a misplay?
What is the difference between deliberate play and deflection?
Answer
This is one of those apparently short and straightforward inquiries that turn out to be more complicated than expected, hence this answer which is many times longer and more detailed than the question. Here goes.
We don’t understand your reference to “misplay” – the term doesn’t exist in the Laws of the Game (or any NFHS/NCAA Rules). In general conversation, it could be used for what might be called an “oopsie.” (Sorry for this technical term.) A player swung the leg to kick the ball and missed entirely. A player was defending the net and attempting to head away a shot on goal but slipped on wet grass or artificial turf and fell down. You were intending to challenge an opponent by a charge on his right shoulder because you guessed he would zig right but the opponent zagged left instead and you missed contact entirely. Etc.
As for deliberate play versus deflection, it depends on the opinion of the referee. A deliberate play is intentional (although that is little help because it simply replaces “deliberate” with “intentional”) because the player consciously intended/chose to do something. It is applicable across all actions on the field – play of the ball, play of an opponent, direction of movement, etc. Some things happen on the field on purpose and sometimes what happens is due solely to chance. It is a broad concept relevant to lots of actions. If a player runs down the field because she doesn’t want to be “here” but, instead, wants to be “there,” then that action by itself is a deliberate play. From that simple, basic event, deliberate play becomes increasingly complex where the “play” includes a teammate, an opponent, the ball, or any combination thereof.
In soccer, however, “deflection” has a rather more limited meaning and context which almost always focuses on the ball. A deflection can occur when the ball strikes any part of the goal frame – we call it a deflection because the resulting movement of the ball is from an inanimate object which causes the path of the ball to change resulting solely from the purely physical contact between two inanimate objects (e.g., the ball and, say, a goalpost), i.e., the subsequent path of the ball is determined solely by physics. “Deflection” is therefore a value-based word – it is, in effect, a conclusion about a set of circumstances. We all understand the kind of deflection associated with the ball bouncing off the crossbar. The point, though, is that “deflection” can also apply meaningfully to the ball making contact with a person – attacker, defender, or even the referee. The referee element is easy – long history basically defines any referee contact with the ball as a deflection … even if, in response to contact, the referee knocks the ball away as a conscious though unplanned action. In effect, we count the referee as an equivalent of the goalpost when it comes to ball contact.
On the other hand, if a player makes hand contact with the ball entirely accidentally (i.e., not deliberately), the player may well be judged not to have committed an accidental handling offense depending on the specific behavior of the player but it is not ever considered a deflection if the hand/arm is above the head even if the player clearly made no deliberate, conscious move. In short, in such an instance, holding a hand/arm above the body is taking a risk because any ball contact in such a scenario, accidental or not, is treated as though it was deliberate.
In between these polar opposite scenarios stands the referee who has to judge the context of any contact between the ball and the body of a player. More often than not, it doesn’t make any difference to the game because, with the exception of hands/arms, any such contact presents no issues of Law. There are exceptions, however. One such exception is body contact with the ball by a defender who is between an opponent who last played the ball and a teammate of that opponent who is in an offside position. If the ball contact with the defender is judged to be a deflection and the ball’s rebound takes it to the attacker who was in an offside position, then the Law says that the offside-position attacker is still in an offside position (with all that this entails). If the ball contact with the defender is followed by what the referee judges to be a deliberate play rather than a deflection, then the offside-position attacker is (with some exceptions) deemed to no longer be in an offside position.
Also somewhat ironically is the fact that an attacker can play the ball intentionally (and legally) to strike the opponent in such a way that the ball is deflected off the field of play, thus resulting in the attacker’s team regaining possession of the ball. For example, an attacker dribbling the ball down along the touchline who is faced by one or more opponents who appear likely to be capable of blocking the attacker’s path could deliberately kick the ball directly at the legs of one of those opponents such that the ball would be deflected off the field (the same ploy could be attempted to gain a corner kick). Risky but effective.…
David, an adult amateur players, asks:
Why do refs allow players to gain 20 yards with a throw in but insist on free kicks being taken from the place of the foul? Surely more of an advantage is gained with throw ins not taken from where the ball went out of play because the ball can’t be thrown as far as it can be kicked?
Answer
There are several ways to respond to your questions:
- Generally referees do not routinely allow a variance of 20 yards on any regular basis. Some referees do it for shorter distances, some referees do it occasionally, some referees are comfortable with leeways of, say, 5 yards or so, and some referees allow no leeway at all (ever).
- The giving of more than the allowed variance of about a yard is more common the farther away the throw-in is from the goal. The closer the goal being attacked, the more likely the referee will be stricter in enforcing the one yard maximum.
- As for restarts on the field (free kicks), we would say the two above points pertaining to throw-ins are often applied to free kicks and for roughly the same reason – some variance beyond what the Law demands, depending on the location, the conduct (flow) of the game, the acceptance of the players, etc. rarely matters.
- One of the most fundamental underlying principles of the Laws of the Game (commonly and readily accepted) is summed up in some language which used to be directly in the Laws of the Game but was dropped a long time ago because (as the Brits would say) the statement is or should be so fundamentally understood as to be not worth the effort to keep it in written form – “The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators.” (From International Board Decision 8, under Law 5, commonly thought of as one of the most fundamental principles of “the Spirit of the Game” – my emphasis)
- In short, if it doesn’t matter, keep your whistle down.