SEND-OFF AT HALFTIME UNDER UNLIMITED SUBSTITUTION RULES

January 14, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
A question has arisen regarding USSF soccer games which specifically use UNLIMITED substitutions.

Background:

FIFA LOTG allow for modifications to the substitution law for youth, all women’s games and veteran’s games. In MA all U19 town travel soccer, most if not all premiere youth soccer, all women’s soccer and all O-30 soccer use Unlimited Substitutions.

In those games, as the referee, I am Not informed of who is starting the game nor who is starting the second half. During the game, at specific times, I will allow awaiting substitutes to replace players on the field, but I never record who enters or who leaves. I do have a roster, that I checked prior to the game, for both teams which provides me a list of players and numbers who are allowed to participate in that game.

Therefore, not knowing who will be asked by their team to start the 2nd half of the game, I always assume that once I blow my whistle to end the first half, and thereby start the half time interval, Everyone is a Substitute.

Question: During the half time interval, I need to dismiss a person on one of the teams who is in uniform and is on the roster for that game. For the start of the second half, I would allow that team to have eleven players on the field, as the person I dismissed, is by my definition, a Substitute.

I can find no place in the USSF position papers, ATR, etc. that differs from my assumption: During the half time interval, all people on the roster are considered Substitutes if the game is using an Unlimited Substitution rule.

Comments?

{This is for Youth, Women’s games and Veterans games that specifically use Unlimited Subs.}

USSF answer (January 14, 2010):
This sort of situation is one of the reasons that the Laws of the Game forbid unlimited substitution. In point of fact, the modifications specified by the International F. A. Board permit modifications only for players through Under 16 (not Under 19), women, and “veteran” players, who are defined as over 35 (not Over 30). If the person sent off at halftime was a player at the end of the half — in other words, was on the field as a player and not on the bench in the role of substitute — the team plays short in the second half (or, in extra time, in the next period). If the person sent off was not a player at the end of the half, the team does not play short. If the officiating crew cannot determine that the person was in fact a player at the end of the period, then the team does not play short.

Your basic assumption, that during the halftime break every player/substitute on the team’s roster is considered to be a substitute, is clearly wrong. Every person who is officially a player at the end of the first half remains a player of record until officially substituted. And every referee, no matter in which competition he or she referees, should know what “officially substituted” means, because the process is described in Law 3 and is NOT subject to local rule variations (or a referee’s personal opinion). That includes permission of the referee AND entry onto the field of play. It is the referee’s JOB to know who was and was not a player of record (though this can be tricky in youth play with its standard exceptions to Law 3’s limited substitution rules). It is one of the reasons why we generally recommend knowing who was NOT a player at the end of the first half by identifying those persons in uniform who were on the bench, since this is usually a much smaller number.

This is not covered in the Laws because it would not be a problem in higher-level games. They KNOW who is in the game and who is not, because there is none of the constant shuttling of players in and out of the game that we see in competitions that permit it. We expect the referee and assistant referees (and fourth official, if there is one) to know who was in the game at the end of the half. Those who do not yet exercise due diligence in determining this fact ought to consider doing so.…

"Inventive" Refs

KICKS FROM THE MARK 2

December 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
You have probably seen the NCAA game that ended with KFTM, where a shot was saved by the GK and rebounded high in the air out near the 12 yard line and landed with backspin. The ball slowly rolled back into the goal as it was ignored by the GK. Neither the CR nor AR initially realized the goal should count, but the opposing GK (teammate of the shooter) vociferously pointed it out to the AR, and eventually the goal counted.

After hearing a lot of comments from referees on what they would do if this happened in a USSF game, I’d appreciate your comments. Some of these experienced referees have stated they would not count the goal (despite what seems to me to be clear in the Laws), stating things such as:
– “If there ever was a time when a referee should declare a penalty kick to be over before it technically must be declared over, this would be that time. Neither the goalkeeper nor the kicker entertained the possibility that a goal might still be scored.”
– “If this happened in most of our games, I suspect very few of us would award a goal. And I don’t think we SHOULD. . . If I’m the referee and a ball bounces off the crossbar and is 10 yards away from the goal line, in my opinion the kick has been completed.”
– “Besides being correct in what I feel is the spirit of the game or common sense, I believe a no-goal ruling also is correct by the letter of the law, as clarified by the ATR.”
– “That is very easy to defend: It is not a misapplication of the LOTG. It is a fact of play and the referee’s decision reigns supreme.”

I will go out on a limb and say that goal/no goal decisions are always in the category of “facts of play” (not protestable) and never “misapplications.”
– “You may want to re-read the relevant portion of the ATR again. The first time I read it, I missed the part about the ball needing to be in contact with post/bar/GK/ground AND still moving. Those criteria were NOT met on this particular kick. At least, at one point they were not and it seems completely valid for a referee to rule that the kick was completed — way before it came 10 yards back toward the goal line and crossed the line.”
– “Lets go directly to Law 5: The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. That is about as explicit as you can get. If the referee says it’s a goal then it’s a goal. If the referee says it’s not a goal then it’s not a goal. The decision is final. That means it cannot be protested.”

– – – – –

Based on the above statements by experienced referees, here are my questions, assuming this was a USSF game:

1. Under FIFA/USSF rules, should this goal count?

2. Assume the goal was not allowed and there was a protest.

Assuming the CR and AR accurately state that the ball spun back over the goal line but say that they believe the kick was over because it rebounded so far from the goal, would this be considered a misapplication of the LOTG (and thus protestable) or a factual situation that cannot be protested?

Thanks for your help. I think a lot of referees could use it in this situation.

USSF answer (December 8, 2009):
The first paragraph of Advice 14.13 is pretty clear; it also follows word for word the instructions from FIFA on when the kick has been completed. However, we might suggest that skeptics use their common sense and read the phrase “any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored” to mean in sequence or combination of those things. If the ball remains in motion after it has rebounded or deflected from any of those things and remains in the field, it is still in play. A referee would not stop play for such a thing during the game and there is no reason to stop it during penalty kicks or kicks from the penalty mark.

Answers: 1. Score the goal. 2. That situation would be counter to the Laws and tradition.

14.13 WHEN IS THE PENALTY KICK COMPLETED?
The penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark 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.

//rest deleted as non-pertinent//…

Advice to Referees

UP-TO-DATE MATERIALS ON THE LAWS AND REFEREEING

November 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
How can a referee determine what is the most current standard for a particular topic, given that there is a mound of reference material on the USSF website? Are we to rely on the most recent “Advice to Referees” as being the final word on every topic, or do we also need to search through historical memos, directives, etc?

The current USSF website has numerous memos that date back many years, some of which are duplicative (ie, 2004 Advice, 2005 Advice, etc).

For example, is it necessary to read the 2007 Law Changes Memorandum or are these law changes incorporated into the 09-10 Advice? Where there are conflicts, which document prevails?

Second but related topic, which is organization of the ussoccer.com webpages for referees. Why isn’t there one page that is kept current and represents the current definitive body of laws, directives, advices, etc. As of this date, the laws are on one page, along with a long list of documents, and the advice is on another page. This is confusing. It would be better to have a section called “Current Laws and Interpretations” which contains the FIFA LOTG, the Advice, and any of the historical memos which aren’t incorporated in the Advice that still apply. There should be another page titled “Historical Documents” that contain all other documents, with language that these have been supplanted by more current interpretations.

Thanks!

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
Your suggestion for improving the utility of the webpages has been passed along to the appropriate people. Thank you.

As to which document “trumps” the others, this excerpt from the Introduction to the Advice to Referees should prove helpful to you:

This book of Advice to Referees is specifically intended to give USSF referees, assistant referees and fourth officials a reliable compilation of those international and national guidelines remaining in force, as modified or updated. It is not a replacement for the Laws of the Game, nor is it a “how to” book on refereeing: It is an official statement of Federation interpretations of the Laws. However, the referee, coach, player, team official and spectator should remember that there are also other sources of information:

* the Laws of the Game, published annually by USSF from the text provided by the IFAB through FIFA;

* the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, which replace the former Questions and Answers;

* annual FIFA Circulars, as republished in designated USSF annual Memoranda;

* USSF Referee Program Directives, the Week in Review, and podcasts;

* the USSF Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials;

* entry-level referee clinics, in-service clinics and referee recertification clinics taught by USSF instructors;

* other official publications from the USSF instructional program, including articles in Fair Play and specific subject memoranda (position papers).

In general, one can say that the 2008/2009 and earlier editions of the Advice is nice for historical purposes, but are no longer applicable in many situations. The same is true of the older memoranda and Laws of the Game. They are all included in the collection because many referees, instructors, and assessors like to be able to follow the history and development of the Laws and their interpretation. In all cases, the most recent document (on the particular topic) in any of these series is the one with the current information. The Advice is kept as much up to date as possible, including all documents published in the period since the last revision, but any document is “outdated” the moment the ink hits the paper. This means that the reader should look to the Advice plus all recent memos (with the latter eventually to be incorporated into the next revision).…

Advice to Referees

TRIFLING INFRACTIONS

November 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’d like some guidance on what fouls or infractions should be considered trifling.

For example, in your July 9, 2009 question on the AR signal for a PK, you said how the AR was to determine and signal “if the goalkeeper has moved illegally AND IT MADE A DIFFERENCE.” (your ALL-CAPS). Does “MADE A DIFFERENCE” mean, for example, that if the keeper leaves the line early, but the shot misses the goal (no keeper save), that leaving early made no difference in helping a save, so no foul? Or did it mean that if a goal was scored anyway, leaving early “MADE no DIFFERENCE”, so no need to signal?

It seems that the first option makes sense as being trifling leaving early had no impact upon play since the shot missed the goal.

But the LOTG and ATR seem clear that it does not matter if the shot is saved or misses when calling this.

Similarly with trifling – players that enter the penalty area on a PK slightly before the kick seem to have “no significant impact upon play” [ATR 5.5] in almost all cases. Yet much of Law 14 addresses this infraction. If the ball enters the goal on a PK, how could an attacker’s pre-kick entry into the penalty area not be considered trifling?

There seems to be consensus that things like 6-second rule violations, and keeper handling slightly outside the area when punting are trifling offenses. Right? But why are foul throw-ins not almost always trifling?

Thanks for providing “the answer” to so many important questions.

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
1. Goalkeeper leaving the line early:
The original meaning was that the goalkeeper’s leaving the line early may be disregarded if the ball enters the goal. If the kick missed, then it COULD have made a difference and the kicking team gets another “shot” at it. The final decision here is made by the referee on the game, not those of us who are watching (and adding up the “mistakes” by the referee).

2. Trifling infringements
For those who have not yet downloaded this year’s edition of the Advice to Referees, here is the text referred to in the question, Advice 5.5:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“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.”

This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision 8) was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee’s fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to. Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players. However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. Further, the referee may wish to talk to or warn a player regarding infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

With regard to entering the penalty area early, we can say that if it had no effect on play, then it need not be punished, as this would disrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.

However, if, in the opinion of the referee, a kicking team player’s early entry into the penalty area had some effect on the play, it would not be trifling and would have to be punished in accordance with the Law.

Infringement of the six-second rule is sometimes misinterpreted. The count starts when the goalkeeper is preparing to release the ball, not when he or she actually gains possession. Why? Because very often the goalkeeper has to disentangle him-/herself from other players or move around fallen players, and it would be unfair to begin the count in such a case.

The goalkeeper’s handling of the ball “outside” the penalty area by crossing the line when punting the ball is clearly trifling, particularly if it occurs only once in a game and is only VERY slightly beyond the line. The referee should first have a word with the goalkeeper, warning him or her to watch the line in the future or risk consequences. No referee should rush into danger of losing control by punishing any trifling matters.

Foul throw-ins are generally trifling. What should be our primary concern is having the throw-in taken from the proper place, within one yard/meter of the point where the ball left the field. A throw-in is simply a way of putting the ball back into play quickly and efficiently.

Finally, please remember that such matters should be covered in the pregame conference between the referee and the other assigned officials.…

"Inventive" Refs

TOUCHING THE CORNER FLAG

November 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
At my daughter’s game a player on her team was setting up to take a corner kick. As she approached the ball she lost her balance. She made the kick but her momentum actually carried her sideways and she brushed into the flag as she was making the kick.

The referee stopped play and stated she was not allowed to touch the flag. He then awarded the other team an indirect kick from corner area. The only ruling I could find regarding touching flag deals with players adjusting a flag TO a vertical position or FROM a vertical position prior to the kick. The referee was extremely professional, had perfect mechanics, and was obviously extremely competent. I know I was wearing my parent hat for this game, not my badge, but the ruling on touching the flag puzzled me. Is there a law, or directive that I have overlooked?

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
The referee may have been “extremely professional,” but he was also EXTREMELY PETTY.

The corner flags are not to be moved, but not in the sense for which the referee punished the player on your daughter’s team. We instruct our referees (and anyone else who cares to read the document cited below) that this sort of movement of the flag is not against the Law; such movement must be corrected, but not punished.

This statement is included in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

1.6 NO PLAYER MODIFICATIONS TO THE FIELD
Goalkeepers or other players may not make unauthorized marks on the field of play. The player who makes such marks or alterations on the field to gain an unfair advantage may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Players may return bent or leaning corner flags to the upright position, but they may not bend or lean them away from the upright position to take a corner kick, nor may the corner flag be removed for any reason.

…

Advice to Referees

“BENEFITS” TO HANDLING THE BALL

November 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I guess I missed the Feb. 2009 Directive on “Handling the Ball”. I suppose that’s a good thing, because one section seems to directly contradict all my training as well as Section 12.9 of “Advice to Referees”.

In the Directive, one of the things the referee is supposed to consider in determining a handling offense is “Did the player ‘benefit’?”.

My understanding is that whether or not a player benefits from incidental arm/ball contact is irrelevant; it is either deliberate or not, and what happens afterwards is immaterial. “Advice” states unequivocally: “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.”

Can you please clarify? If I’m misunderstanding the directive (as others have too), what is it supposed to be conveying?

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You would seem to be misreading Advice 12.9 and confusing its text with that of the Directive, rather like confusing apples with applesauce. They speak of two different things.

Advice 12.9 addresses the “benefit” an attacking player might achieve in the sense of attack, while the Directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The Directive on “Handling the Ball” does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled intentionally or not. The “Directive” states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling the ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence is of (3) is key (quoting from the “Directive”): “In considering all the ‘signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence the the handling of the ball was intentional. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.

In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offense has been committed. …

"Inventive" Refs

TWO FALSE YELLOW CARDS

October 27, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a state sanctioned soccer match, a referee ejected a player after showing the player a yellow card for a tackle (yellow card was deserved), followed by a red card. The player attempted to ask the ref what the Red card was for, but the Ref would not talk to the player and just told the player to leave the field. The player was sent off and 9 minutes later when the ref was near the bench, the player again asked the ref why he was sent off when he never had a first yellow. The ref THEN looked into his book and realized he had made a mistake as the player never received the first yellow card. He apologized and allowed the player to return into the game.

What is the FIFA laws for this kind of mistake? Can the game be contested?

USSF answer (October 27, 2009):
This excerpt from the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game applies to your question (Advice 5.13):

If the referee discovers after play has restarted that the wrong player was cautioned (yellow card) or sent off (red card), the display of the card cannot be changed and must be reported. The referee must provide in the match report all details relevant to the mistake.

The failure of the referee to include in the match report accurately and fully all cards displayed during play and not timely rescinded is a serious breach of the referee’s responsibilities. In addition, the referee may not record cards as shown which have not been shown, although the facts of the player’s behavior may be included in the match report.

Referees may not decide to rescind a caution if the player who has already been charged with misconduct apologizes.

In your situation, the referee erred by allowing the player to return. Life is hard and the referee owes the player both an apology and appropriate remarks to that effect in the match report.…

Advice to Referees

GOALKEEPER POSSESSION

October 26, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
My research has located two previous answers on this site that are relevant to my question, which is about kicking the ball and GK possession:
1. Sept 20, 2006
2. Feb 12, 2004

Your 2004 answer regarding GK control talked of control by pinning the ball “to the ground or some other surface.” You listed a few “other surfaces”, but did not include the body of an opponent who is lying on the ground.

1.If an attacker has slid or fallen near the goal, and the ball is resting on the back of his thighs or the small of his back, can the GK pin (one hand) and control the ball in that situation?
2.If the attacker attempts to “donkey kick” the ball into the goal, what would your response or action be?
3.Would it differ based on if you thought the attacker was aware or unaware of the GK’s hand on the ball?

4.In an unrelated case where the GK obtains possession by pinning the ball with a hand (let’s say to the ground),is GK possession “instantaneous”? If the GK reaches out a hand and successfully pins the ball while an attacker’s foot is already swinging forward, would you still go with possession? From your answer in 2006, I gather the answer is yes.

USSF answer (October 26, 2009):
Rather than speculate on some possibly dubious situations, let us simply give you the Federation’s guidance, as expressed in the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game (2009):

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.

With that as guidance, you can determine for yourself what the correct answers would be. We must emphasize that the final sentence of the quote is the single most important consideration to follow.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELIBERATE HANDLING?

October 26, 2009October 26, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was watching a U13 (I think) girls game prior to my sons game. I am a grade 8 referee myself, but not on this night.

The center blew a whistle for a hand ball in which a girl was blocking her chest ares with her arms tight to her body. In my opinion, if her arms were not there, her body would have blocked the ball anyway. I thought it was a questionable call that I would not have made myself. This, however, has nothing to do with my question.

Since the hand ball was within the penalty area, a penalty kick ensued. A diving keeper blocked the ball, but she got it in control just prior to a rushing defender kicking it. Mind you that the game was in it’s final minutes when this happened and the save preserved three points. When the keeper picked up the ball, one of her teammates came over and gave her a hug. The center immediately blew the whistle and pointed at the spot. He called the teammate for a hand ball. This time the kick was good and the game ended in a tie.

Was the hug of a keeper who has control of the ball a handball?

USSF answer (October 26, 2009):
We can only say that the referee on the night would appear not to have been ON his game. Both calls may have been in error. Please review the following material and then, if there were clear errors by the referee, you may judge for yourself.

Protecting oneself and deliberate handling are covered in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” In the current (2009) edition you will find the following, which is applicable to both the situations you described:

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.).

NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.

12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR “HANDLING”
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within the ‘keeper’s own penalty area) strikes or propels the ball with the hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).

If it turns out that the decisions you saw were likely in violation of the Laws and of the guidance given in the Advice to Referees, you should consider reporting the matter to the State Director of Instruction, so that the referee can be counseled. This would mean including date, place, and time of the game in which they occurred.…

Advice to Referees

FOUL OR NOT?

October 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
My question is in regards to the keeper, when he punches the ball. During a high level game, the keeper came off his line on a corner kick to play the ball. He jumped to punch the ball out of danger, but instead of punching the ball, he hit the attaching player in the face. I was the AR2 while this happened in front of AR1 and the CR. The CR felt the play was not deliberate and said play on.

The coach of the attaching team felt there should have been a red card for striking and a PK.

Based upon the skill level, feel of the game, etc…. has this play been called striking by the keeper?

USSF answer (October 16, 2009):
We recommend for your reading pleasure this excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” 2009/2010, downloadable from the USSF website:

12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
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.

Except for a handling offense, it is not necessary for the player’s action to be considered “deliberate” in the sense that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul the opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player’s mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he or she sees a player actually do – the result of the player’s action – not upon what might be in the player’s mind.

…