HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — CAUTION?

June 11, 2009June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
With reference to your recent answer regarding deliberate handling and offside:

A long forward pass is attempted from attacker A1 to attacker A2, who is in an offside position. Defender D1 deliberately handles the ball to prevent it from reaching A2. Defender D2 is near A2, with no other attacker in the vicinity. D2 would have easily controlled the ball, assuming that A2 does not interfere, but for D1’s handling. Should we really caution D1 for a tactical foul, since the handling did not break up an attack? In deciding on whether to caution D1, doesn’t the referee need to determine whether a legitimate attack is possible?

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The referee must do what is best for the game in any situation like this. However, if a player gets away with a blatant deliberate handling offense once, he or she will do it again. The intelligent referee will be able to figure out what will happen to their game if that goes on.

In addition, you have introduced a potentially significant element tin your scenario that was not present in the original situation — the caution for a tactical foul presumes that the foul was tactical and this is what the referee has to decide. The issue you are raising — which must also be taken into account — is whether the foul was intended to be tactical even if, in fact, it turned out not to be tactical. In other words, the defender may not have taken his teammate into account (didn’t know his teammate was so close, knew his teammate was close but was a klutz, whatever) and thus, in his mind, he was indeed attempting to stop the opponents’ attacking play. After all, the misconduct is based as much on the clear intentions of the perpetrator as it is on the actual outcome.…

Handling

DELIBERATE HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — NEW INTERPRETATION

June 9, 2009June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
A pass from a teammate goes to an attacker in an offside position. Only this attacker is in the area of the pass and it is clear that the pass was intended for this attacker. While the ball is in the air, a defender reaches up and handles the ball to prevent it reaching this attacker. Should we call the handling foul even though we know that we will call this attacker for an offside violation if the ball reaches him?

USSF answer (June 9 2009):
ATTENTION!!! All referees please note that this answer involves a change in prior guidance due to the evolving interpretation of the offside offense by the International Football Association (the people who make the Laws).

Back in “the good old days,” pre-2008, it would have been simple: Punish the offside (interfering with play) and award the indirect free kick to the defender’s team, but caution the defender for unsporting behavior for the deliberate handling of the ball. This was based on the argument that the offside offense occurred first and, since it was going to be called because the pass was clearly “going to” the attacker, the referee’s decision to accept the AR’s flag for the offside stopped play and the handling therefore occurred during a stoppage. The caution was for unsporting behavior since it was the defender’s intention to “interfere with attacking play.”

Now, however, in the modern, post-2008 era, we are unable to do this because the offside offense has become somewhat more complicated. Under current guidance for deciding if an attacker in an offside position has interfered with play, we look to whether or not the attacker makes contact with the ball (not counting the possibility that the attacker’s actions might be considered to have interfered with an opponent). We must remember that, despite the intentions of the teammate and despite how clearly the ball is “going to” the attacker, that attacker could still decide not to interfere with play by avoiding all contact with the ball. That “pass to the attacker” by itself does not constitute interfering with play. Consequently, based solely on that “pass to the attacker,” the AR should not raise the flag for an offside violation, so we are left with the handling offense — direct free kick (or penalty kick if the handling occurred in the defender’s penalty area). The referee should still caution the defender for the tactical foul. If the AR does mistakenly raise the flag based solely on the pass, the referee should wave it down and proceed as indicated to deal with the handling.…

Advantage

GOALKEEPER HANDLING VS. ADVANTAGE

March 21, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a goalkeeper is in possession of the ball with his hands and is fouled by means of “pushing” and the push sends him out of the penalty area (still holding the ball), but the keeper very quickly throws the ball up to midfield to a wide open attacker who can move towards goal, can advantage be applied and play be allowed to continue under these circumstances?

Law 5 states: the referee is to allow play to continue when the team against which an offense has been committed will benefit from such an advantage.

Since there is no way you would ever call the deliberate handling infraction, wouldn’t requiring the goal keeper to put the ball to the ground for a free kick take away the advantage? And since Handling must be deliberate it could be argued that the keeper never INTENTIONALLY handled the ball as he was forced from the penalty area against his will.

USSF answer (March 21, 2009):
No, no matter how much the situation may invite it, the referee cannot invoke the advantage clause in this case. The original foul must be called and the opponent at least admonished for the infringement. Of course, if the force of the push was excessive — and if it actually resulted in the goalkeeper being moved a yard or so outside the penalty area, that would seem to be the only conclusion possible — the opponent would also be sent off for using excessive force. The reason for not invoking the advantage clause is that the referee would have to use it twice, first for the foul by the opponent and then again for the infringement by the goalkeeper, no matter that it was caused by the original foul. Call the original foul (and likely serious misconduct) and send off the opponent. Restart with a direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team from within the penalty area.…

Ball in Play

THROW-IN OFF OPPONENT’S BACK

November 5, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
On a throw in, the player taking the throw in near the halfway line dose a correct throw but throws at an opponent that is the required distance away or more( 8′). This throw is not a slip or a tactical off the opponent redirect, as the opponent is facing the thrower. This throw was at the player body and not the head. The ball rebounded off the opponent and went out of play back to the thrower.

The thrower was being unsporting at the opinion of the referee and close AR, play stopped Thrower cautioned and play restarted with throw in by the player cautioned (thrower). Question is with the restart.

First we have a player “off the field”, with a stoppage in play,dose this player that commits a misconduct at this time = a restart based on the original stoppage or is the the restart base on the ball being in play, and the ball being an object of striking which = DFK to the opponent at the spot of the contact, or is it a dropped ball as the thrower was off field? My main problem here, is the thrower committing a misconduct or a foul and a misconduct.

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
If the thrower had released the ball, as it would seem from your question, then the ball was in play and the restart, after the caution for unsporting behavior (or more, if the referee thinks it was done using excessive force), is a direct free kick for the opposing team from the place where the ball struck the opponent. Why? you ask. Because the ball is an extension of the thrower’s arm and the contact with the opponent took place on the field of play.…

"Inventive Instructors"

GOALKEEPER LEAVES PENALTY AREA BALL IN HAND

November 3, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
A goalie comes out of the his area with ball still in hand. Direct or Indirect Kick?

I have asked 5 referees and get different answers. The classes I have gone to claim a goalie can not cause a direct free kick is this right.

USSF answer (November 3, 2008):
You are the 250th person to have asked this question this year. We cannot believe that any referee instructor in any state would tell referees to punish this offense with an indirect free kick. Does no one ever read the previous answers or the Laws of the Game? You have only told us of two answers you received. What are the others?

While recognizing that the offense by the goalkeeper of crossing the penalty area line completely with the ball still in hand is never doubtful, but often trifling, we must also recognize that it is certainly an infringement of the Law and must always be treated as such by the referee. The referee will usually warn the goalkeeper about honoring the penalty area line but allow the first such act to go unpunished; however the referee must then clearly warn the goalkeeper to observe and honor the line and the Law. If it occurs again, the referee should call the foul and, if the offense is repeated, caution the goalkeeper for persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game.

The correct restart is a direct free kick for the opposing team from the place where the offense occurred. That means the point just outside the penalty area where the goalkeeper still had the ball in hand.

We might also add that in many cases assistant referees do not do their job correctly in this respect. Instead of judging the place where the ball is released from the goalkeeper’s hands, they concentrate on the place where the goalkeeper’s foot meet the ball, which could be well outside the area with no offense having occurred.…

Handling

GOALKEEPER STEPS OUT OF PENALTY AREA WITH BALL IN HAND

November 3, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I recently refereed a playoff game and the following situation arose:
The defending goalkeeper stepped out the 18 yard box prior to punting the ball. I called for an indirect free kick for the attacking team as I thought that it was unintentional. Was this the right call? none of the coaches caught it but myslaf and the AR’s had a discussion that it could have been a direct kick with a possibility of a sending off for deliberate hand ball.
Please advise as if i made a mistake, I do not want to make the same one again.
Thank you

USSF answer (November 3, 2008):
It makes no difference where the goalkeeper’s feet were when the ball was kicked. What is important is when the goalkeeper released the ball to kick it. If that occurred when the ‘keeper’s hands were inside or on the penalty area line, then no infringement occurred and no verbal announcement of any sort is necessary.

If the ball was not released until after the goalkeeper’s hands were outside the penalty area, then the proper restart is a direct free kick, not an indirect free kick.

And, just for clarification’s sake, there is no such thing as “a possibility of a sending off for deliberate hand ball” unless the goalkeeper handled the ball outside his penalty area to prevent it from going into the net.…

Handling

RE: GOALKEEPER CROSSES PENALTY AREA LINE, BALL IN HAND

October 20, 2008 by Jim Allen

Reader Comment:
No question but a comment pertaining to the Q&A about goalkeeper being out of the PA when punting.

I have seen six AR’s flag for this in the past year or so. On five of the six, the GK was clearly NOT over the line when there was still ball-hand contact. As you know, goalkeepers when punting usually release the ball from their hands well before their left leg extends forward and plants in the act of punting. I am convinced that most AR’s who flag for this (and they are always either the most inexperienced or the most anal) only do so because they see the left leg over the line in the act of punting – which of course is totally irrelevant as to whether the GK handled the ball out of the PA.

It would be nice to see this point emphasized in referee training.

Also wouldn’t hurt to emphasize it in an answer in Ask a Referee.

Editor’s comment: And here it is as an unofficial comment.

…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE AS APPLIED TO DELIBERATE HANDLING

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Wondering if advantage can be applied to handling. In a recent Adult game, team ‘A’ has the ball just outside the penalty area and takes a shot on goal when a team ‘B’ defender comes running in front with ‘open arms’ in an unnatural position. The ball contacted the defender’s hands and still headed towards goal, but the hit on the ball from handling action sends the ball up over the crossbar. I delay the whistle for the handling for 2-3 seconds until after I determine that the shot is not going to enter the goal due to the handling (comment: DOGOSOH did not apply in this circumstance since there was an additional defender in the penalty area between the attacker and the keeper, who I believe could have blocked the shot had it not been deflected up). In effect, I apply advantage and since the advantage had not been realized, I call the original foul and award a DFK.

I was told after the game by our Referee Development Coordinator (a state level referee) who was at the game that you cannot apply advantage to handling. Handling either happens or it doesn’t, and I should have whistled the ball immediately or not at all. From what I have always understood, handling is an offense in law 12 and so advantage to the fouled team may be applied – also, I did not see anything on Advice to Referees on LOTG addressing this. Would you please clarify?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
Let’s start by correcting two false premises in your scenario:
(1) The 4 Ds apply only to infringements under sending-off offense 5 (denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick), but NOT to infringements of sending-off offense 4 [denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)].

(2) Your state-level referee colleague is dead wrong and you are correct. Deliberately handling the ball is an infringement of Law 12. The advantage may be applied to any infringement of Law 12, provided the referee believes it to be in the best interest of good game management.

And the answer to your question: You were correct to apply the advantage, but you should have sent off the defender if his action actually did meet the requirements for sending-off offense 4. The USSF publication Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game provides all the information you need:

12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
(a) Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball
The send-off offense for deliberate handling, number 4 under the seven send-off offenses, “denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area),” does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball would apply to any player (or substitute) other than the goalkeeper in his or her own penalty area who handles a ball to prevent it from entering the goal, even if the ball was last played by a member of the defending team. A red card for denying a goal by handling cannot be given if the attempt is unsuccessful; in other words, if the ball goes into the goal despite the illegal contact. However, the referee may caution the player for unsporting behavior before restarting with the kick-off.

The referee must remember that many fouls, including deliberately handling the ball, occur in the penalty area and could result in a penalty kick but not a sending-off.

[Note there is nothing in this section on the 4 Ds. They are covered in the next subsection, 12.37(b), which deals with sending-off offense 5.]…

Handling

GOALKEEPER DROPS BALL, PICKS IT UP

September 2, 2008September 8, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Today’s question involves the goalkeeper releasing the ball from their possession.

Situation is U15Gs, travel, but really just above recreational in skill. Early morning game, grass is wet, ball is wet. Goalkeeper is wearing gloves and long sleeve jersey.

Goalkeeper picks up a ball, is moving towards edge of penalty area to release. In some combination of fumbling, squeezing, and the ball being slippery, the ball slips out of her possession and onto the ground. Goalkeeper picks the ball back up immediately.

Does this constitute a second touch by the goalkeeper?

My first thought is I’m asking a question with an obvious answer — yes, this is a second touch. Accidental or deliberate, the ball was released, and picked back up again without an intervening touch by another player.

If so, can you then explain the rationale that allows the goalie to toss the ball into the air and catch it, or bounce it and catch it, and not count as a second touch? I certainly understand why we dont allow the opponent to challenge in those conditions, being potentially dangerous. But why cant we expect the goalkeeper to just put the ball back into play without any intervening tosses or bounces?

And does this not then put us referees in the position of judging a deliberate, allowable “second touch” vs. an accidental release and recovery, which is not allowed? Why cant it just be a release is a release is a release?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
Of course there was a foul, but read on. There is no analogy with tossing the ball up in the air and catching it, because that action has ALWAYS excluded the ball hitting the ground (which is what happened here). All the offense takes is deciding that the goalkeeper had possession in the first place.

The entire refereeing system puts referees in the position of judging whether or not an offense has occurred. We make thousands of decisions of this nature during a game, even those involving “Under-tinies.” In this particular situation, the referee must make the judgment based on the skill level of the players, the conditions on the field, and any other considerations that occur during the game.

Of course, the referee could always decide that there wasn’t any initial possession (i.e., control) and so there wouldn’t be an offense, but the scenario says that the ball “slips out of her possession” so, again, obviously there was a “second touch” offense.

But deciding there was an offense is only the first (though necessary) step in deciding if the offense should be called by stopping play and punishing the foul with an indirect free kick. For that, the referee must decide that the offense was not trifling — in other words, wasn’t important, didn’t affect the course of the game, didn’t unfairly prevent an opponent from challenging for the ball by taking possession a second time. Given the description in the scenario, this seems very likely.…

Handling

THROWING OBJECTS AT THE BALL

September 1, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
hi hope you can help.
1, a goalkeeper in his area is beaten, the ball is heading towards the goals, he takes his boot of and throws it a the ball taking it away from goals, what do i do ?
2, what happens if he does the same thing outside his area?
3,what happens if a player other than the goalkeeper does it, inside and outside the penalty area?
i do hope it’s not to much to ask and i do appreciate your time.
regards matt.

USSF answer (September 1, 2008):
1. The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behavior and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick to be taken from the place where the ball was when it was struck by the boot or similar object (see Law 13 for position of free kick).

2. We are unclear on your meaning in the second question, whether you mean (a) that the ‘keeper throws his boot at the ball while HE is outside the penalty area but the ball is struck by the boot inside the penalty area or whether you mean (b) that the ‘keeper is inside the penalty area and throws the boot outside to hit the ball.

The correct action for the referee depends on where contact with the ball occurred, not where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was inside the penalty area, caution for unsporting behavior and indirect free kick where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was outside the penalty area, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity and direct free kick where contact with the ball was made. If it was a defender other than the ‘keeper, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity regardless of where contact was made and a direct free kick if that location was outside but a penalty kick if inside.

3. The boot or similar object is considered as an extension of the player’s arm. Play would be stopped. If the boot struck the ball inside the penalty area, a penalty kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball. If the boot struck the ball outside the penalty area, a direct free kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball (see Law 13 for position of free kick).…