Law 6 - Other Officials

AR POSITION AT CORNER KICK ON REF’S SIDE OF FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Early on in my referee training in the mid 1980’s, I was instructed as an AR positioning for a corner kick from the oppositte side of the field, that I was to take 1 step inside of the corner flag, so that I would have a clear view and wouldn’t have a problem with my flag banging with the corner flag. I have had assessors advise me to stay off the field and behind the flag. What is the preferred positioning?

USSF answer (January 19, 2009):
Let us consult the oracle, the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees, and Fourth Officials” (2008-09), which tells us that for a corner kick from the referee’s side of the field:

Assistant Referee
• Provides confirming flag signal (45 degrees downward toward near corner) after referee indicates a corner kick when ball crosses referee’s side of goal
• If referee makes obvious eye contact to ask for assistance on correct restart, signals for corner kick and maintains the signal as referee indicates decision
• If the ball passes out of play and immediately returns to the field, signals with a vertical flag until acknowledged by the referee, then gives the corner kick flag signal
• Steps upfield from goal line to avoid pointing the flag off the field
• Moves to the near corner and takes position on the goal line behind the flag
• Following the kick, recovers to the offside position as quickly as possible

…
"Inventive" Refs

REFEREE DECISION MAKING

Posted on by

Question:
I have become frustrated on many occasions when an opposition player, after going down feeling he was fouled, has place his arms around the ball to stop it from moving. It often seems to be the case that before this happens, the referee allows play to continue, but when the player handles the ball, gives the free kick in that players favour.

Recently in a game I was watching, the opposite of this happened, and when the player handled it, a free kick was given the other way. The only obvious reason for this would be hand ball. In this case, why was a yellow, or even red card not given, since it was a deliberate hand ball?

The only other reason that a free kick was given was because of simulation, and in that case, what could be the reason for a yellow card not to be given?

USSF answer (January 18, 2009):
Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees. It would appear that there is a vast difference between what you see happening on the field and what the referees see.

In the first case you cite, it would seem that the referee him- or herself was not certain what was happening and allowed the player to determine the call. We do not like this.

In the second case, it would seem that the referee made a partially correct decision. Several possibilities exist for solutions to this situation: (a) The referee decides it was deliberate handling, pure and simple, and awards the direct free kick. (b) The referee decides it was deliberate handling and dissent, and cautions the player and then restarts with the direct free kick. (c) The referee decides it was dissent and cautions the player and restarts with an indirect free kick.

As to simulation, there is no reason not to give a caution, unless the referee decides that he or she knows better than the Law Givers and flouts their instructions in the Laws of the Game.

Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees.…

Law 11 - Offside

AR WAITING TO JUDGE OFFSIDE PARTICIPATION

Posted on by

Question:
I too am sometimes confused by the AR Procedure. Let’s find out.

Should the AR hold his/her position with flag lowered waiting to judge whether the OSP attacker becomes OS, while the ball advances, and then run to catch up to the ball or NTLD if the OS does not develop, or

Run to stay with the ball or NTLD letting play develop, and if then judging the OSP attacker to be OS due to delayed participation, flag it, get Refs attention and then run back to mark the OS position for the IFK?

My personal mechanic has been to hold the position and rush to catch up if the Offside does not develop. Reason being that 95% of the time I will be in the right position when the OSP attacker becomes OS. Or be pretty close and have more time if the Defense takes possession or the ball goes into touch. The other 5% ??? Of those few instances when I see the possibility of an on side attacker coming thru to play the ball, I try to stay with the ball and then only rush back to the original OSP if I judge the OSP attacker to be OS.

Can you provide any references on this.

USSF answer (January 7, 2009):
If your mechanic works for you, that is fine. However, we recommend REMEMBERING where the player was when the ball was played by his or her teammate — a few yards are not going to mean the world falls apart — and staying with play until it is clear that the offside has materialized.

The AR runs down the touch line, maintaining proper position with either the ball or second-last defender, and then raises the flag when the attacker has become actively involved and is thus offside (subject to the decision of the referee). When the referee sees the raised flag and blows the whistle, the AR makes eye contact with the referee and points the flag to the far, middle or near side, whichever is correct. The AR then moves back down the touch line to a point in line with the correct spot for the restart.

Note: There is no specific advice on the matter because it is left to the discretion of the referee to cover the issue in the pregame.  The issue, simply put, is that the AR must continue to maintain proper position during the period of time between when an offside position is noted and when the offside violation is clear enough to be flagged.  The AR’s position must be maintained in this scenario because of the possibility that an offside violation may not occur.  The issue outcome hinges on identifying the correct location of the restart.…

"Inventive Instructors"

RESTARTS AFTER INFRINGEMENTS OF LAW 14

Posted on by

Question:
We are having problems with instructor interpretations again and responses to referees in clinics. A thought-when the new laws/interpretations come out, could the federation send out “Official Interpretations” to the instructors/assessors to be used for the standardization of teaching throughout the country. I know these problems happen other areas besides ours.

Question:
Kick taken on a penalty kick and the offensive team encroaches. GK makes the save and controls the ball. What is proper re-start?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
We cannot see this item needs any special “official interpretation”; the answer is clearly spelled out in the Laws of the Game and officially interpreted in the Advice to Referees (14.9).  Any instructors who are providing interpretations other than this answer would not likely be helped by some new statement from USSF.

If the referee chooses to recognize that the infringement of Law 14 occurred, then the Law spells out the procedure completely:

a team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
• the referee allows the kick to be taken
• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred

However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the infringement was trifling, the referee may allow the goalkeeper to retain the ball and release it into play for everyone within the six-second period allowed after the goalkeeper has established possession.…

"Inventive" Refs

MINE!

Posted on by

Question:
My players have recently been getting technical fouls called on them for saying “I go” or “Mine”. The referee was very unclear as to what can be said instead of “I go”. So my question is : What can be said? Is there a website where I can go to see official FIFA rules regarding proper and improper word usage?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
It is not clear why any referee would caution your players if they are indeed saying what they are saying and then following through. The only matter of concern here would be verbalizations intended to deceive the other team into misidentifying the miscreant as one of their teammates instead of a player on the opposing team. The reason “Mine” would be unobjectionable (unless screamed in the ear as a means of distracting rather than misidentifying) is because it is “team-neutral” — anyone who, upon hearing this, decides to back of from taking the ball deserves whatever happens next.

And referees do not — or certainly should not — call “technical fouls” in soccer. Those are reserved for basketball referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

YOU MUST CALL FOULS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ON THE FIELD!!

Posted on by

Question:
Do indirect free kicks in the penalty box still exist? So often penalties are awarded for fouls in the area that do not deny goal-scoring opportunities (players going away from goal etc), this leaves the ref in a catch 22 as if it is either/or as the punishment will not fit the crime. It seems that in taking subjective judgement away from the ref the laws tie the hands of the official, who sometimes even yellow-card an attacker for simulation when they were in truth fouled, but rather than give a soft pen the ref cards the striker for diving. Using the indirect free-kick in the box would empower refs to deal with the pushing etc from set-pieces, instead of forcing them to turn a blind eye on defensive cheating unless it is really flagrant and can justify a near-certain goal.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Wherever did you get the idea that the award of a penalty kick is limited to situations in which an obvious goalscoring opportunity is involved?!?!?! That is completely wrong!

The Laws of the Game have not changed in this regard for over one hundred years. There is no such thing as a “soft penalty.” If a direct free kick foul, in other words a “penal” foul, is committed on the field, it should be treated exactly the same in the penalty area as it would be at midfield. There is no “either / or,” there is only the correct call.

You will find a similar question and answer on the website now, dated December 17. The answer states:

“We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

“You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.”

Why is it so difficult for referees to understand that a penalty kick does not have to be “earned”? it is sufficient that a penal foul is committed in the penalty area against the attacking team.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DELIBERATE PASS BACK?

Posted on by

Question:
‘Deliberate pass-back’

I was watching the EPL Arsenal v Aston Villa game recently and saw what I thought was a questionable non-call. Arsenal defender Sagna cleared a ball off the goal-line that was headed into net had he not intervened. He cleared by doing a ‘semi-bicycle’ kick and just managed to keep it out. However, the clearance went straight to his beaten keeper, Almunia, who was positioned at about 6-8 yards off his line. Almunia caught it and then punted it out.

According to USSF memo, this is to be considered a deliberate kick to him, as it was most certainly deliberate intervention but not necessarily played directly to keeper. The sanction would therefore be an IDK.

Is USSF differing in their interpretation of ‘to him’ from FIFA in this regard or did the referee perhaps somehow consider this a misdirection, which IMO would be questionable, or even perhaps a trifling offense, which seems even less so? The keeper in this instance would have clearly been under pressure from attackers had he not caught it. Seems like ref let this one slide a bit too easily.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Aha! While watching the game we knew we would get a question on this. We cannot read the referee’s mind, no more than we can read the player’s mind. However, the ball was clearly not meant for the goalkeeper and the referee applied Law 18, Common Sense, to this situation. The offense, if any, was extremely doubtful.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

COLOR OF REFEREE SHOES

Posted on by

Question:
Regarding shoes: Is black shoe with black logo the only permitted style or is a black shoe with white stripe/logo permitted?

USSF answer: December 27, 2008):
Page 36 of the Referee Administrative Handbook 2008/2009 specifies shoe color: BLACK SHOES: (may have white manufacturers design) with black laces.…

Law 1 - The Field

SIZE OF PENALTY MARK AND CENTER MARK

Posted on by

Question:
what is the radius of the PENALTY SPOT and the CENTER SPOT?

USSF answer (December 27, 2008):
The prescribed size of the penalty mark for games played under the Laws of the Game is nine inches (0.22 m) in diameter — although you will no longer find it in the Laws of the Game.

Between 1975 and 1996-1997 (the orange book), the body of the Law contained no mandated dimension for the penalty mark. It said only that a “suitable mark” would be present. Going at least as far back as 1984, however, the accompanying field diagram labeled the mark as a 9-inch (0.22 m) diameter circle. In 1997 this was dropped from the diagram.

Just to be sure, we checked this with Stanley Lover, one of the acknowledged world experts on the Laws and their history, on the matter:

Agree, the 9 inch dimension has never been specified in the laws but there is a clue to its origin.

Way back in the 1956 FA Referees’ Chart the Preface refers to the inclusion of “interpretations of the laws, made from time to time by the Referees’ Committee of FIFA…and published for the first time as ‘International Board Decisions’ ”
These included a table of metric equivalents of Imperial measurements.
The field diagram was as before – Imperial only – and remained unchanged, I believe, until the 1997 fiasco.

However, my first FIFA  laws book of 1973 shows a 9 inch dia. penalty ‘spot’, although, strangely, the metric equivalent (0.22m) was not added to the table until 1974. The FA Chart 74-5 also added the 0.22m figure.

This suggests to me that, before 1956, the FIFA Referees’ Committee published various interpretations of the laws – to guide non-UK countries – including its version of the field diagram. At some time up to 1956 it was decided to put a size to the penalty mark, which equated to the diameter of the ball (logical), but without proposing it to the IFAB to be in formal law.

Although ‘Penalty mark’ is the formal law description it has left the door open to the use of a short line, as you mention in some USA soccer associations. As you know the original penalty-kick reference was a line so there is logic in that too. However, for donkeys years it was a ‘Penalty spot’ in FA charts and accepted as such.

Just to confuse the issue a bit more – the FIFA 1973 law book diagram labels the ‘mark’ as a ‘spot’, but in the 1974 issue it’s a ‘mark’ !

We can find no information on an actual specified size for the center mark or center spot. One sees different sized center marks all over the world. It is simply a convenience for the placement of the kick-off and its size makes absolutely no difference.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

DISSENT? VIOLENT CONDUCT? NOTHING?

Posted on by

Question:
Situation is this: Team A has a free kick in good goal 20 meters from team B’s goal. Free kick taker in Team A wants the referee to move the wall further from the ball. The referee says the distance is ok. The free kick taker in team A then shoots the ball with full power deliberately into the wall of team B players to demonstrate he considers the players are standing to close. Decision? Restart of play?

USSF answer (December 27, 2008):
Referees are not capable nor trained in reading the minds of the players. It is hard to accept the notion that a player who kicks the ball at full force at goal — with opponents happening to be standing in the way (regardless of the distance) — could be considered guilty of committing violent conduct or any other infringement of the Law. Asking the referee to decide that there has been an infringement, e. g., violent conduct, has meaning only if there is a possibility of it being true. Kicking the ball hard at goal, hopefully THROUGH the wall, is an understandable and acceptable tactic. The kicker may hope that the force of the kick will power the ball through the wall or that, in anticipation of the ball being kicked forcefully, an opponent in the wall may duck and allow the ball to go through. We see no reason for any stoppage in play, nor for any action against the kicker.…