Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“PICKS” AND IMPEDING

Posted on by

Question:
X has the ball. Teammate Y provides square support. Defender is containing X only. There’s a lot of open space in front of Y.

Situation 1: X cuts toward Y, winds up to pass to Y, defender runs toward the passing lane, Z cuts in front of defender. = Clearly impeding the progress.

Situation 2: change the order of events.

Teammate Z runs forward and stops, about 3-4 feet from defender, between defender and that open space. Z then passes, and Y runs to, the open space in question. Y receives the pass, and carriers, shoots, whatever – and has an extra second or so to play the ball.

Defender has to run around Z to get to either the pass or Y – – there is enough room to do this but the extra second or two it takes is all that Y is looking for.

By the time defender chose what direction to go in and began to progress in that direction, Z, stationary, was already an obstacle is there an obligation to move?

To be clear, yes, the reason Z chose that spot to occupy was that it was in between the defender and a passing lane. Z didn’t just happen to be standing there and X wasn’t just being opportunistic.

But at the time, it wasn’t a passing lane being used and defender was not moving toward it, and had not decided to move toward it.

I’ve had my youth players do this countless times, and it’s been effective – usually the defender is so agitated at falling a step behind the play that he or she races after the pass, leaving Z uncovered.

They’ve never been called for impeding the progress when they’ve done this.

Last week in an adult pick-up game I was the Z – – it was a hot day and toward the end of the game, the defender just kind of stumbled into me, which I didn’t expect, as I’d been a good 3-4 feet away definitely not trying to invite contact or positioned closely enough that contact would have been the likely result.

The defender thought I’d committed a foul.

By the letter of the rule, when Z chose the spot to occupy, that spot didn’t obstruct or impede the defender’s progress – the defender wasn’t running to what would a few seconds later become the passing lane, thus Z’s going to that spot can’t be impeding the progress.

Thus it can only be impeding the progress if there’s an affirmative obligation, if you’re stationary, to move out of a player’s way.

Also, there are 9 other defenders – Z doesn’t know for a fact that defender would choose that path, defender could retreat or stay and cover Z, trusting another defender to come over. But Z knows that that defender would have the best chance of intercepting the pass.

I’m thinking that the fact that I’ve never seen that called in a refereed game means there’s no such obligation to move – that if you’re standing already in a spot that becomes tactically advantageous, not offsides, on the field, etc….., you can keep standing there.

Can you confirm that?

USSF answer (July 21, 2008):
Simple answer covering all eventualities: A player is allowed to occupy space but is not allowed to move into space that an opponent is actively using with the result that the opponent is forced to stop, swerve, or slow down to avoid contact. Under normal circumstances, “impeding” does not involve physical contact (which is why it is a “lesser” offense) — if contact occurs, the impeding player is now guilty of a direct rather than an indirect free kick offense.…

Advantage

“DELIBERATE” MATTERS

Posted on by

Question:
I have an issue concerning the 12th law. In this law (2007/08) it states, “A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offenses… handles the ball deliberately” (Law 12 Page 25). There are a few reasons I have an issue concerning this law.

First of all, let us consider Law 11. Concerning offside positions it is an offense intentional or not; the same should apply to handling. It is not an offense to be in an offsides position if no advantage is gained; therefore, it should not be an offense to handle the ball if no advantage is gained. If an advantage is gained from being in an offsides position, deliberately or not, it is an offense; therefore, if an advantage is gained from handling the ball, deliberately or not, it should be an offense.

Secondly, this change in the law makes it much less ambiguous. This means there is less reason to argue with the official; it is much easier to argue intent then it is to argue if advantage was gained.

Thirdly, this law makes it much easier for the official to make a decision. It is much harder for the official to decide if the handling was deliberate than it is to tell if an advantage was gained.

Finally, on a side note. I believe law 12 (2007/08) should be left alone in the “Sending-Off Offenses” portion where it states, “A player, substitute, or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offenses… 4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball” (Law 12 Page 26). I don’t believe a red card should be given for unintentionally handling the ball preventing an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, but it should still be a foul and a direct free kick (or a penalty kick) should be awarded to the opposing team.

In conclusion, I think that the current law should be changed because it isn’t fare, it is easily arguable, and it is difficult to know when to call.

USSF answer (July 17, 2008):
You seem to have missed the crux of the matter: Handling is an offense ONLY and punished ONLY IF IT IS DELIBERATE. There are many occasions on which a player may handle the ball accidentally,. Some examples: When it is kicked at the player from short range and there is no time to react, when the player turns around (we will assume no guile here) and finds the ball coming at him and there is no time to react, or when the player is protecting him- or herself while in the wall. This is not only soccer law, but soccer tradition.

We have covered the topic in our publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which states:

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as “handling the ball” involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player’s hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). “Deliberate contact” means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player’s arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).

In comparing the concept of “advantage” under Law 12 with the same concept in Law 11, you are comparing peanuts and watermelons: Both are essentially the same shape, but their constituent parts function differently.

A further point to ponder is that there is no element of intent or deliberation or even advantage when it comes to an offense under Law 11.…

Law 1 - The Field

PORTABLE GOAL WITH WHEELS ON GOAL LINE

Posted on by

Question:
This is a field equipment and out-of-play question. The field where I was AR at had portable goals with retractable wheels attached outside bottom side bar. During the course of the game, an on-the-ground shot was taken that hit the front of the wheel and rebounded back into play. I was well positioned to observe that the entire ball did not pass over the goal line, so I not raise my flag.

At half time, the center and I, both agreed that the wheel had prevented the ball from going out of play but neither of us were sure if the correct decision was for play to have continued. Comments?

USSF answer (July 17, 2008):
The answer is that the referee should not have allowed the goal to be used in the first place. However, once accepted by the referee, the wheel becomes part of the goal post and thus is part of the field, a pre-existing condition that does not benefit one team over the other. This makes it different from the football crossbar, which is easily seen as not part of the soccer goal structure. Therefore, because the wheel was part of the goal structure and the referee and the players were all aware that the wheel was there (and thus aware of the possible problems that might occur), then it was correct to allow play to continue.…

Law 1 - The Field

FOUL ON THE PENALTY AREA LINE

Posted on by

Question:
A defender has fallen on the ground in the “D”, the area just above the penalty area inside the penalty arc. The ball rests nearby in the D, just touching the penalty area line. As an attacker fast approaches, the defender, in a panic, uses his hand to deliberately knock the ball back to his goalkeeper. His hand contacts the ball outside the box and never reaches the penalty area line.

Should a direct kick or a penalty kick be awarded to the opposing team? That is, is the handling considered to be “in the penalty area” because the ball is “in the penalty area”, even if the actual contact occurs outside the penalty area?

USSF answer (July 14, 2008):
If by “just touching” you mean that the ball was overlapping the penalty area (PA) line, that placed the ball WITHIN the PA, so it makes no difference that the hand contacted the portion that was outside the PA. The correct restart would be a penalty kick — after the player was been properly punished.

The correct punishment depends on the position of other players during the event in question. If the deliberate handling did not deny the attacking team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, then the punishment is a caution for unsporting behavior.…

Law 6 - Other Officials

CARRYING AND DISPLAYING THE FLAG

Posted on by

Question:
When an AR begins to side step to stay close to the play and prepare for a potential offside call, what hand should the flag be in? The outside, left hand? Or the far side right hand? I ask because I was initially taught that the flag should be in the left hand, on the outside so that the referee can see it, but then I was watching the Euro 2008 semi-final between Russia and Spain and one of the ARs was holding the flag in his right hand when he would side step and then he would hold it in both hands in between his feet if he was anticipating an offside call was going to have to be made soon. Is it a personal preference thing? Do different countries teach different things?

Also, when flagging for offside and for a goal kick, should the flag always be in the right hand (far side, so as to open up your entire body to the referee’s sight) or the left hand? I thought right, but I heard from another referee it needs to be in the left and he said a state assessor told him so. I’m confused and hope to practice only the correct mechanics.

USSF answer (July 14, 2008):
This response is based on the referee and the ARs running a standard diagonal, based on a theoretical line from one goalkeeper’s righthand corner to other goalkeeper’s righthand corner. (In practice, of course, the referee covers more of the field than that — or certainly should!) The IFAB’s guidance, followed by UEFA, is based on that diagonal, and they instruct their referees to carry the flag in the left hand (the one nearer to the field and the referee and, if the restart is to be in the other direction, to the right, to switch the flag from the left hand to the right hand.  The flag needs to be easily seen by the referee (referee/field side, carried straight down, not swung back and forth while running).  Since 2007 IFAB guidance has been that the flag be raised in the right hand when the AR gives the signal for offside and goal kick. This has the advantage of providing the AR with a better view of what is going on between him/her and the referee.

USSF guidance is that the AR carry the flag in the hand nearer to the referee. When the signal is to be made the AR stops, lifts the flag in the hand that will show the direction (if that is necessary), and then shows the direction. (If the direction is opposite to that in which the AR has been running and the flag must be switched over, this must be done before the flag is raised.)

If the referee determines that, based on field conditions or the need for closer management of players, he/she and the ARs should run the lefthand diagonal, then the procedure would be reversed.…

Law 4 - Equipment

PLAYER NUMBERS

Posted on by

Question:
At a recent AYSO tournament I noticed that on a number of teams, there would be two players with the same number. When I asked the referee officials about this, I was told that there was nothing in the Laws to preclude this. However, in other answers you have cited “ancient and well-established tradition” (my wording, actually) for common sense rules that are not explicitly spelled out. It seems to me that this would be such a rule, as the referee uses player numbers to record misconduct and, in AYSO, playing time. I would appreciate an official answer to cite for when, not if, this issue reappears.

USSF answer (July 14, 2008):
The Laws of the Game do not require player numbers; that is a function of the rules of the competition ()league, cup, tournament, or whatever else). It is indeed traditional and simple good sense that players wear individual numbers to distinguish themselves from one another; however, some competitions may not require either rosters or even the numbers to tie them to that roster. If the competition does require rosters, that suggests it also requires numbers. If that is the case, then the problem will die away if the referee enforces the requirement.  If either or both of these is not required, then the referee’s only practical recourse is to ensure that he or she obtains a name from any carded player (and affixes in his/her consciousness some player features to assist in tracking the person).…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

MANAGING A FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
This subject probably has been beaten into the ground before but in my referee association interpretations are all over the map. In Advice to Referees, Law 13 – Free Kicks, 13.3 says “The referee should move quickly out of the way after indicating the approximate area of the restart and should do nothing to interfere with the kicking team’s right to an immediate free kick .  At competitive levels of play, referee should not automatically “manage the wall”, but should allow the ball to be put back into play as quickly as possile, unless the kicking team requests help in dealing with opponents infringing on the minimum distance .”  13.5  (first paragraph) says “If the referee decides to delay the restart and to enforce the required minimum distance…”  Second paragraph  says “If one or more opponents fail to respect the required distance before the ball is properly put into play, the referee should stop the restart to deal with this infringement.”  The italics are mine.

So here is how I would manage a free kick:  A) Indicate spot where kick is to be taken.  B) Move away to observe kick.  C)  If attacking team asks for ten yards, move defense (wall) ten yards from ball and tell attackers not to play ball until signal is given (I also read Law 13 to say that a whistle is not required, only a “clear signal”).  D)  Give signal for restart. E)  If a defender intrudes upon the required distance on the restart, I could whistle a retake, and give a caution, if the defender’s action interferes with the restart (I would play advantage if not).  F)  If ten yards is not asked for, and a defender purposely interferes with the restart I may whistle a retake and issue a caution depending upon the outcome of the restart.  On any restart I would not call for a retake if the defenders interfered with the play but the attackers maintained advantage.  I know things vary slightly with different levels of soccer, but I am talking about competitive level.

Some referees will always tell defenders to back off and or/manage the entire restart without a “ten yards” request from the attackers.  Am I erring in some way?  Should I back off defenders? Or is the way I now manage a free kick OK?  I would appreciate an answer from an authority, USSF, so I can argue the correct points.

USSF answer (July 10, 2008):
Whatever works for you, //name deleted//, but there are some other things to consider.

The sequence you describe works fairly well with a couple of minor exceptions. First, regarding “step” (C), be aware that not every time the ten yards is asked for does it actually need to be enforced. Make a quick judgment as to whether in fact the opponents are far enough away and, if they are, order the attackers to proceed with the restart. Second, also regarding step (C), you may not have intended it but the actions in this step are reversed — if requested to enforce the minimum distance, the first action you need to take is to state clearly (by word and/or commonly understood gesture) that the restart cannot occur except by your signal and then back the opponents up the necessary distance. Third, in situations where an opponent attempts to interfere from within ten yards but is unsuccessful (and therefore you choose not to caution), don’t ever forget the value of talking to or warning the player about his or her behavior. Finally, vary the procedure as needed so long as you honor the basic underlying principle — namely, the opponents have no rights in a free kick situation, their actions are already suspect and they must generally be on the best behavior, so your job is to intrude as little as possible and let the attackers control the situation. That is, after all, why we call it a FREE kick.…

"Inventive" Refs

DUTIES OF THE AR

Posted on by

Question:
a friend of mine is a State 1 from MA, and told me the following scenario that occurred to him in a recent match:

Ball is in attacking third for ‘keeper’s team, so AR is watching play, while maintaining position regarding senond-last defender. As the AR turns his head, he becomes aware of the attacking team’s ‘keeper standing in his own goal, with his back to the play, relieving himself.

When my friend relayed this to me, my initial thought was a caution for leaving w/out permission. However, the AR brought up the viable position of an ejection for Abusive Language and/or Gestures.

What do you think? For what it’s worth, he did not inform the referee of the situation at any time.

USSF answer (July 9, 2008):
A referee of any grade level should know better than to withhold information from the referee in charge of the match. While we appreciate the goalkeeper’s obvious wish to both irrigate and fertilize the grass in the goal, this is unsporting behavior — bringing the game into disrepute — and the goalkeeper must be cautioned and shown the yellow card.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DISSENT OR FOUL/ABUSIVE LANGUAGE? REF’S DECISION!

Posted on by

Question:
What does a player have to say to be sent off and shown a straight red card for the “use of offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures”?

I watched the New York at Colorado game on MLSLive.tv and in the 81st minute Colorado defender (and USA National Team player) Pablo Mastroeni felt AR1 Bill Dittmar missed a clear offside call and began screaming at Dittmar from across the field, and clearly saying (from the replay) “F#@# You!” directed right at Dittmar. Dittmar does nothing. Only after the next minute or so when Mastroeni continued to scream at him for the “missed call” did Dittmar finally get Weyland’s attention and indicate to him that Mastroeni needs to be cautioned for dissent. Caution? So what does a player have to say to actually be sent off for the language they use toward officials?

Is USSF reviewing this and punishing Mastroeni further? And how could the CO coach protest and give the 4th official an earful after Mastroeni was cautioned? My question is why wasn’t Mastroeni sent off?

Do players cuss on the field? Of course. But directed toward an official!? That shouldn’t be. I’m reading a book by former English Premier League Referee David Elleray and I know by the things he’s said in his book that Mastroeni would have been sent off right away.

Have things changed that much since the early to mid 90s when Elleray was around?

USSF answer (July 8, 2008):
One of the things we need to remember when watching professional and international games is that the game is called differently at every level of play, whether it is the pros, top senior amateur, other amateur, top-level youth play, lower-level youth play, etc. The pro players are more experienced and are willing to put up with and dish out more than the referee will allow at the senior amateur level of play (and so on down the line) and a lot more than referees should or will allow for younger, less experienced and conditioned players. In any event, the MLS looks at all instances of this nature and deals with them through its disciplinary process.

The matter of dissent and how the professional-level referee should judge it was covered in the “Referee Week in Review 14,” under Dissent, which you can find at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_14_2008.htm

When deciding whether a player’s actions are cautionable for dissent (by word or action) or can be red carded for offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures apply the following criteria:
〈        Public
Are the player’s actions public in nature? From a visual perspective, can others see it and, if so, what message is the player sending? Verbally, who can hear the comments (other players, spectators, television) – consider the volume of the comments? Are the actions or comments meant to “show the referee up?” Consider whether the actions/comments create a negative impression/attitude towards the referee in general.

〈        Personal
Are the comments directed at the referee or just said as a reasonable emotional reaction to a poor play? Consider the tone of voice and the derogatory content of what was said. Are the actions of the player aimed at the referee or merely personal frustration?

〈        Provocative
Are the comments or actions intended to incite further misconduct or heighten the tension level? Do the comments elicit anger and potentially provoke further conflict on the field? Consider the ramifications of racial or gender based comments.

Overall, are the comments and actions disrespectful to “any referee” – not just to the referee to whom they were addressed? Officials must be aware of actions/comments that undermine the position of the referee and must take the appropriate action that matches the actions of the player.

As to Mr. Elleray’s book, we do not comment on the works of retired referees from other countries.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR MISCONDUCT?

Posted on by

Question:
Under the rules for “Unsporting Behavior”, are there any restrictions on what players may/may not say?

For example, is it a foul to say “mine” or “let go” to signal to a team mate that he should leave the ball for me?

I read under “Unsporting Behavior” that one cannot say things to distract an opponent – are these considered fouls then?

USSF answer (July 7, 2008):
No, this would not be a foul, but it might possibly be misconduct. A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed (1) by a player (2) against an opponent or the opposing team, (3) on the field of play, (4) while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct. Unsporting behavior is one form of misconduct.

A defending player is generally allowed to call to his or her teammates that he or she will play the ball. However, if the defending player calls to distract an opponent, rather than to give information to a teammate, that is unsporting behavior. On the other hand, the team with the ball is allowed to use “false” calls to deceive their opponents.…