Question:
On a free kick, a request comes from the coach to enforce the minimum 10 yard rule. Is this sufficient to bring the kick from the state of a QFK to a ceremonial free kick?
In the document “Free Kick and Restart Management” from the 2009 Referee Program Directives, there is a clause that a ceremonial free kick is to take place if the “attacking team” requests a CFK by asking the ref for enforcement of the minimum 10 yds.
This brings up a more interesting question: Is the coach, according to the rules, a member of the team?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
We realize this will come as a surprise to many coaches, but they have absolutely no authority in a game and cannot make requests of the referee, the assistant referees, or the fourth official (if there is one). They are not members of the team, but are either paid or unpaid advisers.
A free kick becomes ceremonial on any occasion when the referee believes that the kicking team is not interested in taking a quick free kick and wants the required distance to be established. Full details can be found under Law 13 in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.”…
Question:
Consider the following setup.
An attacker is in an offside position on (or close to) the goal line.
A team mate takes a shot from around 14 yards while the goalkeeper went out of the goal to challenge him. All defenders are behind the line of the attacker who has the ball.
1. The offside attacker (which has no defenders around him and is not interfering with or disturbing the goalkeeper) gets hit by the ball and the ball enters the goal. Even if the ball had not touched him, it is obvious that the ball would have still ended up in the goal.
Question: Should the offside position be called or should the goal be allowed? (By the book: call the offside – interfering with play because he touched the ball)
2. The offside attacker deliberately steps inside the goal to avoid the offside possition (no matter if he gets hit by the ball there). In this case the goal should be disallowed and the offside player cautioned for deliberately getting off the field without permission, right?
3. The offside player stumbles and falls beyond the goal line inside the goal (being hit otherwise by the ball), avoiding this way the offside position. What should be the call in this case? What if the player fakes (not so obviously maybe) a stumble and falls inside the goal avoiding this way the offside (supposing that this would be the only way to avoid being hit by the ball)?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
1. Offside. No one could say for certain that the ball would have entered the goal without the player’s touch, no matter how much it would have appeared so.
2. No offside. Unless the referee believes otherwise, the player who enters the goal to avoid being involved in the play and does not touch the ball before it fully crosses the goal line and does not in any way prevent the goalkeeper from saving the shot has not interfered with play and should not be punished.
Furthermore, when an attacker leaves the field in order to demonstrate noninvolvement in active play for purposes of avoiding being declared offside, the Laws of the Game have traditionally recognized that this attacker has left the field “in the normal course of play” and should accordingly not be cautioned for this reason.
3. This decision can be made only by the referee on the game, taking into consideration what the referee has seen of play and the player thus far in the game.
In any event, whatever the attacker’s motivation or method of entering the area of the goal, the fact is that this attacker did not make contact with the ball, did not interfere with play, and thus should not be declared offside.…
Question:
I had a strange situation come up this winter in indoor, but I suppose I could have seen it just as easily in outdoor, and couldn’t find any written information.
Here’s the situation: A ball is kicked to another player and the ball wedges itself between her legs, just above the knees. Everyone freezes for a second, and the player begins to hop down the field with the ball still trapped between her legs. After 4 or 5 hops, she let it fall and resumed dribbling as usual. I let it go, because I could think of no infraction that would include that occurrence. Did I make the correct no-call, or should I have made a call in this situation, perhaps Playing in a Dangerous Manner? What would you have done?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
This player has both played in a dangerous manner and committed unsporting behavior. Players are not allowed to “carry” the ball with any part of their body, neither the head not the shoulders nor their legs. Other than when the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball, at which time he or she cannot be interfered with, the ball must always be available for others to play fairly.
By keeping the ball between her legs, this player has placed both herself and others in danger; herself, because another player might decide to take a kick at the ball to dislodge it, and others, because they cannot play the ball fairly and might injure either her or themselves by trying to do so. She has also committed unsporting behavior by unfairly withholding the ball from play.…
Question:
A game with older teenage boys. There is a breakaway of two attackers, running at full speed. At the 18 yard line the striker gives a glancing kick. The keeper kneels on the six and easily collects the ball. The other striker continues running at top speed, leaps into the air & lunges at the keeper, who is still kneeling & still holding the ball. The attacker’s leg is extended, his cleats are up, and he is aimed at the keeper’s head. The keeper ducks, & the attacker misses. In the opinion of the referee, if full contact had been made, as the referee believes was the attacker’s intention, it would have excited the interest of the E-911 emergency ambulance, and indeed possibly the Grand Jury.
The referee is aware that the IFAB writes that any lunge at an opponent that endangers the opponent’s safety should be sanctioned as serious foul play, but until now these examples have always been for cases where the tackle or lunge did in fact make contact.
As the attempt to endanger an opponent missed, and no contact was made, the referee is unclear how the Laws should be applied. In particular, do the Laws regard this instance as Serious Foul Play?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
Nowhere does the Law (including the Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees you refer to) say that there must be contact in the situation you describe. Look at the four violations of the Law that embody this view:
– kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
– trips or attempts to trip an opponent
– jumps at an opponent
– strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
In such a case the referee should have no doubt, no fear, no hesitance. Players who behave like the striker you describe MUST be sent off immediately for serious foul play. No debate, no dithering. Just do it!…
Question:
Is it right to conclude that if I call or indicate an advantage, I MUST (regardless of the result or outcome) punish the defense and/or reward a free kick to the offense, provided that the advantage is within reasonable time?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
No, you would not be correct to conclude this. You will find all you need on this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:
5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.
The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.
The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again. Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)
NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.
The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.
The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct . Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage. As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play). For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players. Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).
Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.
A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.
Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.
In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.
Question:
The following two clips are generating a lot of discussion among some referee groups. The two clips are very similar and seem to have the same issues.
You indicate that these games are being played at college level. We could not possibly comment on how the game is officiated under NCAA rules, but, if these games were being played under the Laws of the Game, we could say several things about the acts of the throwers and the opponents and the officiating itself.
First, players at this level know the tactics of their opponents, especially of the throw-in specialists, and in these two games they were seeking to negate the thrower’s skills by placing a player at a spot to interfere with the thrower’s ability to gain distance. In addition, there is the added element of coaching: In the game (Situation 1) in which the White player throws the ball at the Blue player, one can clearly hear the coach telling the Blue player to “Move up, move up!” The coach is obviously asking his player to distract and impede the thrower.
Nevertheless, we cannot condone the tactics of the throwers in either situation. In both cases, the throwers have committed violent conduct and must be sent off. Note in Situation 1 that in the second throw-in the thrower elevates his throw so as to miss the Blue opponent, as well as a coach or other person advising the Blue player to cover his face.
Second, although it is not required at a throw-in, the referee and the AR could have been proactive and moved the player who was attempting to unfairly impede the thrower back the required two meters from the point of the throw-in. (The referee could, in addition to sending-off the throwers, have cautioned the opponents for unsporting behavior, but that would depend on factors not in evidence in these clips.)
We are puzzled by several aspects of officiating in the first situation: Play is stopped following the ball in the face. For what? If the whistle was blown for a “serious injury” to the opponent but the throw was deemed good and legal, then (a) the opponent should have been required to leave the field and the restart should have been a dropped ball. If play was stopped because the throw was deemed legal but striking occurred, then the restart (after a red card for the thrower) should have been a direct free kick. If play was stopped because the opponent failed to respect the required distance, only then could the throw-in be retaken but again the opponent should have been cautioned. (And it is likely that the opponent would have been struck in the face even if he had been the required distance away.)
in both cases, the matter should have handled in accordance with 15.8 of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:
15.8 THROW-IN STRIKES AN OPPONENT
A throw-in taken in such a way that the ball strikes an opponent is not by itself a violation of the Law. The act must be evaluated separately as a form of striking and dealt with appropriately if judged to be unsporting behavior (caution) or violent conduct (send off from the field). In either event, if deemed a violation, the restart is located at the place where the throw-in struck the opponent. If the throw-in is deemed to have been taken incorrectly, the correct restart is a throw-in.
Question:
On a throw in by the blue team, a blue teammate, with an opponent right behind him/her, in anticipation of the ball’s receipt, turns just as the ball is thrown to a place behind and to the side, making contact with the opponent and “pushes off” the opponent with his/her body then runs onto the ball. The player does a “quick turn” with the clear intention of pushing off the opponent with the shoulder or body to seemingly gain an advantage. Comments? Is it all fair in love and soccer or is there a more nefarious
element?
I asked my husband’s niece who uses this play and she said that she is coached to do this. They want someone right behind them so they can use this tactic to their advantage.
USSF answer (April 17, 2009):
Turn about is NOT fair play in this case. If this happens before the ball is released, the throw-in, if subsequently completed, is taken again and the thrower’s teammate should be warned not to repeat this action. If he or she persists in this behavior, the correct remedy is to caution the player for unsporting behavior and retake the throw-in. If this happens after the ball is released, stop play and restart with a direct free kick for the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.…
Question:
I am a coach and in my teams last game, an opponent took a shot on goal. The shot was a slow roller on the ground and my keeper went to pick up the ball. As he was about to pick up the ball, another player on the opposing team came crashing into my keeper knocking him to the ground. Another player ran up and kicked the ball in the goal.
The referee counted the goal. When I argued the call the referee explained to me that as long as my goalie doesn’t have possesion of the ball that the play was legal, no matter if another player ran over my goalie. Is there a rule I don’t know about? I have been playing, coaching, and watching soccer for many many years and it seemed to me like the worst call I had ever seen.
USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
We didn’t see the incident, so cannot comment specifically on it; however, we can say with full certainty that the goalkeeper’s role is, by the very requirements of the job, inherently dangerous. Goalkeepers know this going in and most operate accordingly.
The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the “fairly” is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) 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.
Finally, a reminder that, as age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more liberally.…
Question:
In a men’s division 2 game AR 1 is watching a group of attacking and defending players challenging for the ball about ten yards directly in front of the net. The ball is kicked out of the group to an attacking player in an offside position on the far side of the field. The AR’s view of exactly who kicked the ball is blocked.
The referee looks to the AR for a call but in the pregame the referee instructed the AR’s that they had the offside call. The referee allows play to continue. Can the AR signal for offside if he did not see that an attacking player kicked the ball to the player in an offside position?
USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
The rule for the assistant referee in possible offside situations: When in doubt, leave the flag down.
The problem suggests poor pregame instruction, with no donut for the referee. This is typical of the bad habits referees get into when they don’t THINK about their pregame instructions — the referee ALWAYS has the call, based on information provided by the AR. The WEIGHT the referee gives to the information depends on (a) the issue (i. e., position or involvement) and (b) the AR’s distance to the event. The referee might defer to the AR in the case of clear information from the AR and doubt on the part of the referee, but the referee cannot simply turn over to the AR all responsibility for making a potentially game critical decision if the referee has no doubt about what he has seen.…
Question:
A recent email from a league for which I referee contained the following: “A player in an offside position may be judged to have violated the offside law by three criteria, but two of these (interfering with play and gaining an advantage) REQUIRE that the player touch the ball. If the player does not touch the ball, the only way he can infringe the law is by interfering with an opponent.”
I don’t believe that this is correct. It is my understanding that if the ball is passed to a player in an offside position and there is really no chance that another attacking player who is onside would come onto the ball, then the offside should be called even before the offside player touches the ball. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this. I also believe that if the ball is passed to a player in an offside position but there is a chance that an onside attacker could get to the ball first, then the AR should wait to see who gets to the ball first–as long as the offside player doesn’t otherwise interfere with play.
Thanks for any guidance you can give here.
USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
We direct your attention to the Laws of the Game 2008/2009, Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees:
LAW 11 – OFFSIDE
Definitions
In the context of Law 11 — Offside, the following definitions apply:
* “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
* “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate
* “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
* “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position
The current international interpretation is that the player in the offside position must touch the ball to be considered to have interfered with play.
So, you ask, what happens if that player simply follows the ball? In that case, he or she is likely to draw the attention of one of the opponents, who will move with him or her. Now the player in the offside position has interfered with an opponent and need not touch or play the ball to be considered offside.…