Law 1 - The Field

OFFSIDE?

Posted on by

Question:
Assume the head and torso are behind his feet in all situations (and the ball and the next to the last defender is in Players A’s half of the field).

Player A is on his half of the field with:
A. His feet not touching the mid-field strip.
B. One foot on the mid-field stripe and one foot in his half of the field.
C. One both feet on the mid-field stripe with toes in the opponent’s side of the field.

In A. he is clearly on-side.

Is he on-side in B or C?

Could you direct me to the Law, Rule, Advice or Q&A where this is written?

USSF answer (July 30, 2008):
Part of your answer lies in Law 1, which tells us that the lines belong to the areas which they demarcate. Ergo, the halfway line belongs to both the player’s half of the field and to the opponent’s half of the field.

Another part lies in the words of Law 11, which tell us that only those parts of a player’s body which can legally play the ball are considered when determining offside position. Therefore, hands are not included in the calculation; only head, legs, and torso are considered.

Player A is in the opponent’s end of the field in B and C for purposes of determining offside position. The source for this is Memorandum 2005 (the annual Law change memorandum from USSF) which stated: USSF Advice to Referees: Although it is not specifically stated, this same concept of “nearer to” should be used in determining if an attacker is in his opponents’ end of the field (i. e., if any part of his head, body or feet is past the midfield line.)

As explained, the player is “past the midfield line” in B and C because a part of the body that can legally play the ball is on or beyond the midfield line.

The third and final part lies in a paragraph no longer included in the Laws; not included simply because it is something that every person involved in the game should know intuitively: “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.”

That paragraph was called the “V8” clause because it was formerly International Football Association Board Decision 8 to Law 5 (then called “Law V”).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
i did a veteran game and a few players of a team is not satisfied with a two decisions against them within minutes.

a while later, i feel that particular player defender is trying to test me. a long ball is send towards him from the opponent, and when he clear the ball, an opponent was trying to block the clearance. i saw no contact or late tackle, so there is no foul. at the same time, he shouted for pain and holding his ankle. i knew that it is fake.

after a second or so, he shouted “good call, referee”, which definitely not a praise.

is this unsporting behavior? what should i do if i encounter such acting again? i know that simulation in the penalty area appealling for penalty is a caution, but this is different situation.

USSF answer (July 30, 2008):
No matter how hard we try, not all players will be satisfied with our decisions. What the player did was to express his dissatisfaction openly. The first act, simulating a foul, with a slight hint of feigning injury by crying out in pain, is a cautionable offense (unsporting behavior). The second act, “Good call, referee,” was dissent, also a cautionable offense. How you deal with these situations is a measure of your ability to manage players.

Much of it depends on how confident you are in dealing with such situations. You will find that this varies from game to game, from team to team and from player to player. Caution this player if need be, but if the rest of the players seem satisfied with what you are doing, then simply have a quiet word with the dissenting player. Remind him that he has committed two cautionable offenses and could already have been sent off. Then warn him that further acts like these will not go unpunished. Finally, do not forget to follow through if these or similar acts occur again.

Finally, just to make it clear to other readers, it is not only simulation in the penalty area, but simulation anywhere in the field in an attempt to influence any decision by the referee (is or is not a foul, is or is not misconduct, is or is not a red card instead of a yellow card) is itself misconduct.…

Interpretations/IFAB

TACKLES (AND CHARGES)

Posted on by

Question:
The word TACKLE is used variously in soccer coaching material, in general speaking and in referee laws and instructions.

It’s used by TV commentators to describe a player sliding to kick a ball out of bounds without an opponent being in close proximity.

Coaches teach a ‘block tackle’ which is often no more than a front-to-front confrontation that doesn’t touch the ball. Referees say a kick of the ball made by reaching between the legs of an opponent from behind, without touching the opponent, is a ‘poke’ while a reach in front of a player to drive the ball away is a ‘tackle.’ In relaxed conversation a tackle has to touch the ball – or not.

It’s all a bit confusing. Is there a standard description for the word TACKLE that applies to the Laws of the Game?

(I’m still unsatisfied with the MAKER of a throw-in being the TAKER of the throw-in and not the one taking it on foot, head or chest.)

USSF answer (July 29, 2008):
In the less-complicated world of the Laws of the Game and refereeing — in contrast to the complicated and overly-esoteric scientific world of the coach — a tackle is any play with the foot for a ball under the control of the opponent, whether the player contacts the ball with the foot or not. This includes “pokes,” “block tackles” or whatever other term the coach(es) may use. In all events, a “tackle” is not limited to “sliding”; a sliding tackle is simply a tackle performed in a particular way.

In addition, there is something in the Laws for 2008/2009 that applies to both “tackle” and “charge” (Law 12). Both terms refer to actions that occur many times during the game without violating the Law — they only become an offense if either is performed carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force.…

Kicks from the Mark

WHEN IS A PENALTY KICK (OR KICK FROM THE MARK) COMPLETED?

Posted on by

Question:
The final match of an international Girls U17 tournament ends in a 0-0 tie and goes to a shootout to determine the winner. The tournament is governed by U.E.F.A. rules.

One of the kicks taken hits the post and rebounding forward, hits the keeper a foot in front of the goal line and is deflected back into the net.

The referee ruled that once the ball had started moving forward off the post the play was dead and a goal could not be scored.

I believe the rules state that a referee is the final judge of when a play is ended, but I also believe he is supposed to let play continue until it finishes of its own accord. I’m not certain if the rules of play governing a shootout differ from a regular penalty kick.

Did the referee make the correct call? Should the deflection (and resulting goal) have been allowed? My daughter’s team was declared the winner of the game, but we’re curious whether it was handled properly.

USSF answer (July 28, 2008):
UEFA rules? Most likely you mean what we normally call “FIFA rules,” known to the rest of the world as “The Laws of the Game.”

Under the Laws of the Game a penalty kick — including a kick from the penalty mark to determine a winner — is completed only when the referee declares it so, and the referee should not declare the kick to be completed if there is any possibility that the ball is still in play. In other words: So long as the ball is in motion and contacting any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

“RIGHTS” AT A FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
What rights do the kicking team have in the wall during free kicks?
If the defending team sets the wall and a member of the attacking team wants in the wall too, where can he go?
This is usually done to duck under or jump over the free kick.
Must they set up on the ends? Are they allowed to get between the defenders?
I see them pushing for position and am not sure what their rights are since it is their team that is being penalized.
thanks

USSF answer (July 25, 2008):
The defending team has only two rights at a free kick:
(1) The right to retire immediately a minimum of ten yards away until the ball is in play, i. e., is kicked and moves. Any player who fails to do so runs the risk of being cautioned and shown the yellow card for failure to respect the required distance at a free kick, no matter what they may see in professional games.
(2) The right not to be diverted by the referee interfering with the action in other than a ceremonial free kick situation. This is what the referee is doing when he or she starts talking with the opponents — even if saying nothing more than to back away — or, worse, when the referee is actively engaged in being “the first brick in the wall” while still allowing the kicking team to kick whenever it wishes. The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” lays out a fairly simple set of rules for the referee — keep your mouth shut unless you have to or are asked to step in — in which case the free kick automatically becomes a ceremonial restart and the first thing out of the referee’s mouth had better be an admonition to everyone that the free kick cannot now be taken without a signal by the referee.

The kicking team has rights too: the right to a “free” kick, free of interference from the opponents and, if they wish to take the kick quickly, free from the interference of the referee. The referee cannot abdicate the responsibility to ensure that the free kick is indeed “free.”

No member of the kicking team may force his or her way into the wall set by the defending team. If there is a hole in the wall, the player may go there, but may not then interfere with the ability of the defending team to play the ball. Such players may go to the ends of the wall or set up in front of the wall, paying heed to the caveat in the first sentence — no interference with the wall once the ball is kicked.…

Advice to Referees

TACKLING FOR THE BALL IN THE ‘KEEPER’S HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
if an attacker slides feet first at a keeper (not trying to injure, but trying to get a piece of the ball) keeper is on the ground making an attack and the play is boom boom yet keeper has connection with the ball and attackers feet(cleats) hit keeper, what is the appropriate call if any??????????
Thanks for your help
Mike Hall

USSF answer (July 24, 2008):
If we understand your question correctly, the player attempts to slide tackle the ball away from the goalkeeper who is holding the ball with his hands. If that is the case, the player has committed a direct free kick foul. The following excerpts from the 2008 edition of the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful in determining the correct punishment, if any is necessary.

12.7 TACKLING
The referee must judge whether the tackle of an opponent is fair or whether it is careless, reckless, or involves the use of excessive force. Making contact with the opponent before the ball when making a tackle is unfair and should be penalized. However, the fact that contact with the ball was made first does not automatically mean that the tackle is fair.  The declaration by a player that he or she has “got the ball first” is irrelevant if, while tackling for the ball, the player carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force commits any of the prohibited actions.

A foul committed while tackling an opponent with little or no concern for the safety of the opponent shall be cause for the player to be sent from the field and shown the red card for serious foul play.

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control 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. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

…
Advantage

ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
At an advanced referee clinic recently the following scenario was discussed, and there was uncertainly regarding the proper ruling. The scenario was as follows:

A defender, from a throw-in in her own half, throws the ball to her keeper who stands in her own penalty area. The keeper accidentally deflects the ball into her own goal with her hands.

Question: is this a goal or must we punish the offense by the GK of touching the ball with her hands from a throw-in by her own teammate?

If ‘goal’ the proper call (which seemed to be the majority opinion), what is the basis, in the LOTG, for ignoring the GK’s offense? Was it “trifling” or “doubtful,” or is “advantage” to be applied here, or is it something else?

USSF answer (July 24, 2008):
As the goalkeeper has committed an infringement of Law 12 (as well as of Law 15), the referee may invoke the advantage and award the goal.…

"Inventive" Refs

UNAUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAWS

Posted on by

Question:
A neighboring state has instituted a modification for youth games and I am uncomfortable having to enforce should I elect to officiate there. (I live nearby and could work games there.)

Here is their modification:
If play is stopped for a reason without a prescribed restart (e.g., injury stoppage) they award an indirect free-kick to the team that was in possession of the ball at the time instead of a drop ball. (NFHS influence at work here, I suspect.)

It caused some issues here at a tournament where I was assigning referees when those neighboring referees attempted to use that restart in our games.

I don’t see this as fitting into any of the five listed items on page 3 of the Laws of the game, “Notes on The Laws of the Game.”

USSF answer (July 24, 2008):
The restart described is not authorized under the Modifications described in the Introduction to the Laws of the Game 2008/2009. The correct restart for a non-foul/misconduct stoppage not described elsewhere in the Laws is a dropped ball — see Law 8. As we do not know — i. e., have not been able to determine — whether or not the state association involved has applied this ruling across the board, we cannot give a more complete answer.

The indirect free kick restart described is taken from high school rules, which are not applicable to games played under the aegis of U. S. Soccer or U. S. Youth Soccer. It is true that an indirect free kick restart is authorized if a player commits any other offense, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player, but that would not be the case in the situation you put forth.

The only further advice we can give is that the Federation has no direct control over such modifications, but a referee who accepts a game operating under rules of competition that mandate unauthorized modifications must officiate the game under those rules. In other words, know the rules before accepting the assignment.

On the other hand, referees who come from a state where such modifications are used must not seek to apply them in another jurisdiction playing under different rules of competition.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

RECOVERING FROM ACCIDENTAL ENTANGLEMENTS

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent U14 boys game, an attacker and a defender were “tangling” one-on-one, with the attacker bringing the ball down the left side of the field and into the penalty area while the defender ran on his inside, contesting for the ball.  As they arrived just outside the corner of the goal area, their forward motion stopped abruptly and in the process the players became entangled and both fell to the field, with the attacker outside of the defender in relation to the goal area. In the referee’s opinion, there has been no foul.

Still in a one-on-one situation (the goalie had stayed on his line and neither player’s teammates had arrived on the scene), the attacker scrambles to get to his feet, ostensibly planning to step or jump over the defender on the ground and shoot the ball, which is now just inside the corner of the goal area. As he attempts to stand up, the defender rolls back and forth a little, perhaps in an attempt to get up himself, or perhaps in an attempt to delay the attacker until help can arrive.

The attacker manages to get on his feet and as he steps over the body of the defender, he ends up slightly stepping on and pinching the side of the defender between his foot and the turf, leaving the defender in some pain. He manages to get to the ball, but by now the goalie has come out to defend and his shot goes wide for a goal kick.

My question is to what degree the attacker must take care not to step on his opponent in this situation?  In the opinion of the referee, the attacker did not intentionally injure his opponent; however could it be dangerous play on the attacker?  How much responsibility does the attacker have to not step on his rolling-around opponent as he attempts to get up and put the ball in the goal, especially given that in the opinion of the referee it was reasonably likely that the defender was rolling in a way that would help prevent his opponent from getting up (although certainly not definite enough to call a foul on the defender and award a penalty)? Is this an outcome based situation, that since the defender was injured that by definition the attacker’s lack of care resulted in a dangerous play? If so, could one also argue that the player on the ground was also at fault for dangerous play or impeding by rolling around a little and making it difficult for his opponent to get up (even if he was not intending to delay his opponent, just like the attacker wasn’t intending to step on the defender)?

USSF answer (July 23, 2008):
Of course the attacker should exercise due caution in getting up from the original accidental spill, and the opponent must exercise precisely the same due caution. If the opponent — whether deliberately or through simple lack of awareness — interferes with the attacker’s ability to play the ball afterwards, the possibility exists for the fouls of tripping (unlikely unless the referee deems the act to be deliberate), impeding the progress of an opponent, or playing dangerously. It is also possible that there is no foul at all.. Only the referee on the spot can make this decision.…

"Inventive" Refs

RESCINDING A MISTAKEN CAUTION OR SEND-OFF

Posted on by

Question:
I have heard a story or two of referees who have mistakenly cautioned a player, and before the play is restarted, realized their mistake. It is clear to everyone that the mistake may be corrected as long as the play has not been restarted properly, but I have heard of a few different mechanics for doing so. What is the mechanic for communicating to the players and spectators that the player who initially received the caution or was sent-off is not the correct player and that he or she is not being punished? I have been told to show the card again in front of the player, then bring it down in a vertical wavy line (instead of straight down), then give the card to the correct player; I have also seen the card issued again, then then the referee point to the player and move his arms as an umpire in baseball would signal, “Safe.” A third way I have witnessed is the referee displays the card to the player again, and uses his/her free hand to lower the hand holding the card. I may n ot be good at searching, but I cannot find the proper mechanic for correcting this mistake.

USSF answer (July 23, 2008):
There is no standard method for announcing that the referee has rescinded a card before the restart. The methods you describe would seem to be too demonstrative and confusing for the player, the teams and their officials, and the spectators. We might suggest simply notifying the player concerned that the caution or send-off has been rescinded. Then the referee should deal with the proper player and inform both team captains what has happened. To remove all confusion, the referee might also inform team management. The referee should ensure that the assistant referees — and the fourth official, if appointed — are also aware of the change.

Most of all, we recommend taking the time to get the facts straight in the first place, so that such mistakes do not occur.…