Question:
Just read your response about opponents in the penalty area during a goal kick.

Follow up question: if the last thing you said is true: “if the ball leaves the penalty area, is therefore in play, and then goes to an opponent who, at the time the goal kick was taken, was in the penalty area, play should continue (no matter where the opponent has moved to by that time)” then why is their a requirement for all opponents to be outside the penalty area until the ball has actually left the area?

From time to time I have told fellow refs to look out for this so that an opponent does not (to borrow a phrase from Law XI) gain an unfair advantage from being in an “illegal” position.

The only question for the referee to ask himself is at what point does this infringement go from being unfair to trifling, i.e. the greater amount of time between the taking of the goal kick (or defensive free kick) to the time that the “illegally” positioned player becomes involved in play, the more likely that it becomes trifling and the referee should let play continue.

Does that make sense to you, or am I all wet?

USSF answer (January 21, 2010):
The reason there is a requirement for opponents to be out of the penalty area at the taking of a goal kick (and to stay out until the ball is in play) is exactly the same reason there is a requirement that opponents be at least ten yards away from a free kick (and stay ten yards away until the ball is in play). However, we routinely and properly allow the team with the ball to take a free kick if there are opponents closer than ten yards so why should we not also allow the team with the ball to take a goal kick if there are opponents within their penalty area? And, having allowed it in either case, why would we not — once the ball is in play — require the team with the restart to live by their decision to take the restart quickly even if this results in a disadvantage since it was their decision in the first place?

At all times, it is the responsibility of the referee to prevent or punish play which is contrary to the Law if such play in fact is unfair or unsporting because it had a non-trifling impact on the game. But is also the responsibility of the referee to avoid stopping play for admitted breaches of the Law where such a stoppage is unnecessary based on the needs of the game.…

Question:
Can a player in the game be standing out of bounds then run over jump up and head a ball that is in the air but over the side line, with out stepping in before making contact with the ball.

USSF answer (August 11, 2009):
Assuming the ball had not left the field by crossing entirely over the touch line when the player headed the ball and that the player in question was not off the field with the permission or at the order of the referee, it doesn’t matter if that player at the time was partially or even entirely off the field.  While players are expected to be on and to remain on the field during play, the Law allows a player to leave the field briefly if this is done “in the course of play.”

If the ball left the field of play before being headed by the player, then the continued play must be ignored because play is considered stopped whenever the ball leaves the field.  If the player who headed the ball was off the field with the permission or at the order of the referee, then the player must be considered to have re-entered the field illegally (i. e., without permission) — play is stopped, the player is cautioned, and the match restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped.  These responses would be the case whether the player headed the ball or played it in any other way.…

Question:
I am really confused by a call that was made on this game, and was hoping maybe you could shed some light on it for me. About 12 minutes into the game, Chicago was awarded a corner kick. Prior to the kick being taken a Chivas player body slammed a Chicago player inside the penalty box (the defender swung the offensive player around by the neck and then picked him up with both hands and laid him on the ground). The referee did not call a foul, and the AR called the corner kick back for a re-kick. Did I miss something? Shouldn’t that have been at least a yellow card to the Chivas player, if not a red since the ball was not yet in play? And shouldn’t there have been a PK for Chicago?

USSF answer (June 1, 2009):
Careful evaluation of the corner will show that the contact occurred before the corner kick was taken. Hence, given the fact that the ball was not in play, you must restart with the original corner kick.

Nowhere in the law does it state that a yellow card or red card needs to be issued because the ball is not in play. As you are aware, I’m sure, there is lots of holding taking place during corner kicks. Referees have been instructed to take a proactive role in dealing with this holding. This is the case in this situation.

The referee team takes a proactive role by stopping the play and retaking the kick. The referee’s whistle is a bit delayed because he is attempting to judge whether the offended team would benefit by allowing play to continue instead of retaking the corner kick. The assistant referee does help the referee by telling him that the ball was not in play at the time of the hold. As a result, the referee makes the correct decision to retake the corner kick.

In terms of misconduct, the referee decided that the holding was merely “careless” and not “reckless” and, thus, that is was not unsporting behavior. Consequently, he did not issue a caution to the defender. The referee could have been stronger in dealing with the holding defender by having a word with him and this may have assisted in proactively sending a message to prevent further holding. If you watch the entire game, you will see that the referee stopped the game on several other occasions prior to a corner kick being taken due to holding and jostling in the penalty area.…