PLAYER KICKS PK BEFORE REFEREE’S WHISTLE

October 13, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
The following scenario was told to me by a fellow referee at his game this past week.

The play unfolds as follows:

The referee calls a foul in the penalty area and indicates a PK to be taken. Players line-up outside the PA and the kick is to follow.

The ball is placed at the PK spot, while the referee is walking back to check with the keeper (to see if he is ready), the player taking the PK kicks the ball without the referee indicating so… The keeper makes the save.

The referee decides that the kick was an infringement, and awards the defensive team an indirect kick coming out at the spot of the infringement (PK spot).

My concern is as follows:

Did the ref make the right decision? Should he have had the kick retaken since he did not signal with a whistle. Does he have to blow the whistle for the kick to be taken or not? Should the PK have been retaken, and the ref just admonish the player on proper procedure?

How would you handle such an event and what is the appropriate action to be taken?

USSF answer (October 13, 2009):
Because the referee had not given the required whistle for the kick to be taken, it must be retaken in accordance with the Law, regardless of the outcome of the original kick.…

"Inventive Instructors"

WHAT CONSTITUTES A DEFENDER “PLAYING” THE BALL?

October 6, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
HS Referee’s meeting tonight this spirited debate occurred.

Offensive Player A shot on goal, Offense Player B is in the offside position (not in the play), The shot is saved by the Goalkeeper who attempts to deflect the ball over the bar, the goalkeeper deflects the ball but the ball rebounds off the crossbar to you guessed it Player B in the offside position, who puts it in the goal.

Is the player offside or does the goal stand? The debate surrounded DEFLECTION OR POSSESSION? THAT IS THE QUESTION referring to a similar scenario response date (October 29, 2007). Those who stated they thought the goal should stand believe the goalkeeper was Playing the ball” in these circumstances means that the defender (in this case the goalkeeper) possessed and controlled the ball the others thought it should fall under not being possessed and controlled (in other words a deflection). Thanks, we all appreciate your assistance with this matter.

USSF answer (October 6, 2009):
The U. S. Soccer Federation sees no reason to change its answer of October 29, 2007:

“Deflections by any opposing player do not affect the status of a player in an offside position; the attacking team’s player must be called offside if he or she becomes involved in play (as defined in Law 11). Unsuccessfully ‘making a play’ for the ball does not establish possession. Nor, for that matter, does successfully ‘making a play’ for the ball if it then deflects to the player in the offside position who becomes involved in play.

“Note that there are differences here between ‘being involved in play,’ ‘playing the ball,’ and ‘making a play’ for the ball. (As noted above, see Law 11 for involvement in play.) ‘Playing the ball’ in these circumstances means that the defender (in this case the goalkeeper) possessed and controlled the ball. However, if the defender possessed and controlled the ball badly, it’s still ‘making a play,’ but if it wasn’t possessed and controlled, it wasn’t played in the sense you suggested in your scenario.

“A rule: Being able to use the ball subsequent to contact equals possession; deflection is not possession.”

To this we might add only that it takes seeing the action to make the call correctly, because, as you discovered, the very words used to describe the event are biased toward one or the other possibility…

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY VS. SCORING SITUATION

October 6, 2009October 7, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Situation: Tournament play, U-11 girls. An IFK is awarded due to the keeper picking up a passback (questionable in the first place as it was a mis-kick in the U-11 age group that went spiraling backwards off a weird bounce, and did not appear deliberate IMHO).

Anyway…as a result, the IFK is about 7 yds out and directly in front of the goal. The CR makes it a ceremonial (of his own accord, but in this age group, ok)and puts the defensive team on the goal line before allowing restart. Meanwhile the kicking team has one player standing with her foot on top of the ball, clearly planning to do a “touch restart” (which is no longer legal of course).

The CR blows the whistle for play, the offensive player does indeed simply touch the ball with the bottom of her foot, and then the second offensive player strikes the ball. The keeper comes up with the ball and saves the goal.

Now, just after the keeper catches the ball the CR blows the whistle.

He correctly asserts that the IFK cannot be restarted with a top touch ubt must instead be “kicked and move”. Therefore – he allows the offensive team a second opportunity at the IFK (one assumes out of thinking that the ball was not put in play). This time they restart correctly, and they score.

Happily this was not a game deciding goal, but it remains on my mind.

The result of allowing the re-take seems wholly outside of the Spirit of the Game, the offense should not receive a second opportunity from 4 yds out because they botched the restart by not obeying the LOTG.

However…the LOTG do say that the ball must be “kicked and move” in order to be in play.

Could one allow that the first player’s light touch did not put the ball in play since it never moved, but that the striking player did then put the ball in play? (becoming the first touch in considering IFK goal scoring) Seems a bit of a stretch and could be unsporting if done intentionally to confuse the defense.

If I were in the CR spot I should hope I would have noticed the obvious intent to do a touch restart and caught this before it developed and became problematic. IMHO the CR blew a second opportunity to avoid this by not whistling hard and immediately when the tap was made. His whistle was late, not coming until the ball was struck and actually in the keeper’s possession…only a second since the kick was so close…but well after the error.

Per the LOTG it seems to me that the CR did what he must by allowing the re-take. At the same time, it seems at odds with the Spirit of the Game. Is this one that could go either way based on the opinion of the CR?

I think if I had made all those errors and got stuck in this spot I would have been inclined to allow the defensive team the possession.

The offense had fair opporunity. If another IFK came up I would have been diligent in informing the team of the correct mode of restart.

Would I be wrong?

In your esteemed opinions…what would be the proper response if one was caught in a situation like this?

USSF answer (October 6, 2009):
In our esteemed opinions, the correct referee action would have been to allow play to continue. Both you and the referee have jumped to the wrong conclusion, confusing putting the ball into play and a situation in which a goal can be scored. The Law requires, as you state, only that a ball is kicked and moved to be in play. That happened. The ball was tapped, which means nothing in a restart, but it was then kicked by a player directly to the goalkeeper. A second touch of the ball — by any player on either team — is required for a goal to be scored, but not for the ball to be in play.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLAYER SENT OFF AT HALF = PLAY SHORT IN SECOND HALF

October 5, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
3:00 minutes before the end of the first half a player gets a yellow card. The referee blows his whistle ending the first half. The player that got the yellow card a few minutes earlier starts to argue with the referee and uses foul language. The referee shows him a second yellow card and then the red card. The player is ejected from the game. At the start of the second half the team from the ejected player starts the second half with 11 players and not short. The referees all agreed that the game period had ended and that he was not a field player at the time of the ejection.

Was that the correct call?

USSF answer (October 5, 2009):
Coach, we recommend that referees, coaches, players, and parents all read the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” The 2009/2010 edition is available for download from the USSF website. It contains the following information directly applicable to your question — and establishes clearly that the player who receives a second caution during a break in the game must be sent off for that second caution and may not be replaced:

5.17 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE GAME
Misconduct committed by a player or a substitute prior to the start of the match, during the match, and during breaks between playing periods is subject to a formal caution or a send-off, as appropriate. Yellow and red cards, which are now mandatory indications of cautions and send-offs, may be shown only for misconduct committed by players, substitutes, or substituted players during a match. “During a match” includes:
(a) the period of time immediately prior to the start of play during which players and substitutes are physically on the field warming up, stretching, or otherwise preparing for the match;
(b) any periods in which play is temporarily stopped;
(c) half time or similar breaks in play;
(d) required overtime periods;
(e) kicks from the penalty mark if this procedure is used in case a winner must be determined.
(f) the period of time immediately following the end of play during which the players and substitutes are physically on the field but in the process of exiting.

Cautions issued prior to the start of the game or during breaks between periods are recorded and they are counted for purposes of sending a player from the field for receiving a second caution during the match. To prevent misunderstandings, the referee should inform officials of both teams before the first period of play begins of any cautions or send-offs occurring prior to the start of the match.

If a player or substitute is cautioned or dismissed for misconduct which has occurred during a break or suspension of play, the card must be shown on the field before play resumes.

If a player is dismissed before the match begins, the player may be replaced by a named substitute, but the team is not allowed to add any names to its roster and its number of permissible substitutions is not reduced.

The referee may send off and show the red card for violent conduct to a player, substitute, or substituted player after the game has been restarted if the assistant referee had signaled the offense before the restart.

Players or substitutes who have been sent off may not remain in the team area, but must be removed from the environs of the field. If this is not practical because of the age or condition of the player, the team officials are responsible for the behavior of the player or substitute.

There can be no “temporary expulsion” of players who have been cautioned, nor may teams be forced to substitute for a player who has been cautioned.

Postgame: Any misconduct committed by players or substitutes after the field has been cleared must be described in the game report and reported to the competition authority. The referee may display cards as long as he or she remains on the field of play after the game is over. Referees are advised to avoid remaining in the area of the field unnecessarily. (However, see Advice 5.13.)

What your question does not include is the statement in the scenario that the player used foul language. In that case the referee’s action should have been a DIRECT red card, not a second yellow. What is not stated directly in the quotation from the Advice, but is still relevant to the question, is that any player who was a “player,” i. e., recognized by the referee as being on the field as a player, at the end of the first half is still a player of record until officially substituted (assuming Law 3 substitution rules) which means among other things that the referee must be notified, must give permission, and the player must step onto the field with that permission. Absent any of these steps in the substitution process, a coach cannot declare someone no longer a player.…

"Inventive" Refs

VIOLENT CONDUCT

October 5, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Situation: Goalkeeper on ground. Offensive Player on ground on goal line, attempts to kick ball, kicks goalkeeper in face. Continues to kick and kicks ball into goal.

Goal or Foul?

U9 game, the AR said he did not see goalkeeper get kicked in face. She was crying (u9) and had a mark and was removed from game due to injury. Referee counted goal.

My interpretation of Law 12 – Foul and Direct Free Kick –
if a player commits any of the following offenses in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless..etc.
– Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

USSF answer (October 5, 2009):
As you have reasoned, this player has committed the foul of kicking an opponent. While players are permitted to play the ball while on the ground, they may not place any participant (including themselves) in danger and may certainly not foul an opponent without facing punishment.

Correct referee action: Send-off for violent conduct, followed by a direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team. This applies even for U9s.

What complicates the decision is that apparently neither the referee (or so it seems) nor the AR saw the incident. What were they doing? Clearly not watching the game very carefully. This issue essentially resolves itself into the extent to which a referee can visit a penalty (direct free kick/penalty kick, yellow/red card) upon a player for something that the referee has not seen but may suspect.

Moral of the story: Pay full attention to what is happening on the field, even at the U9 level.…

"Inventive" Refs

INTERFERING WITH PLAY VS. INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT

September 29, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
More Law 11 Interpretation Craziness?! I was the AR on a U16 Boys Division 1 game this weekend where I made an offside call against the attacking team. I did not get any complaints from the coaches or players but another more seasoned referee with many years under his belt told me after the game that I made the call premature.

The Setup: The Attacker started off in an offside position on the opponent’s half of the field before the ball is passed.

The Action: The ball is passed up over the head of both the defender and the offside attacker. The attacker slows his run marginally to let the ball drop over his head and as he does so the defender catches up to him. They are now shoulder to shoulder racing for the ball.

The ball is now about four yards away from the two shoulder bumping opponents who are racing for the ball. The attacker appears to me to have the advantage in position to obtain the ball and there are no other attacking players within 30 feet of the ball. So I figure it is a no brainer and I throw up the flag and do not bother to wait for the attacker to touch the ball. I justify this by saying to myself that the offside attacker made a play for the ball and at the same time interfered with play by jostling for position with the defender. I am sure I made the right call when I did and that there was no reason to wait for the attacker to touch the ball.

The other more seasoned referee told me that I should still wait until the attacker actually touches the ball before I throw up the flag. I don’t think it matters as the attacker was clearly offside and interfering with play.

What are your thoughts?

USSF answer (September 29, 2009):
The attacker is interfering with the opponents — both by drawing the opponent into a competition for the ball and by actively challenging the opponent while both are racing for the ball. Our thoughts? Pop that flag upon the very first indication that the attacker was acting to distract or deceive the opponent while in an offside position.…

"Inventive" Refs

SUB ENTERS FIELD, PLAYS BALL

September 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
How should the following matter be addressed?

Our game involved experienced upper teen-aged players. During the game, a defender attempted to kick the ball into touch/out of play to stop the attack. The ball struck a waiting substitute (in this instance, a substitute for the defending team) at the midfield line who was standing too close to the touch line; thus, the ball never completely crossed the touch line but rebounded and remained on the pitch.

In our game, the referee stopped play, verbally admonished the substitute, and restarted using a drop ball near the intersection of the touch and midfield lines. This remedy just doesn’t feel right to me. The substitute had control of where they were and, by being too close to the touch line, committed an act that interfered with play.

In conversation with other referees, several other alternatives to the above procedure have been discussed:

· Caution (yellow card) to the substitute for unsporting behavior (UB), restart with an indirect kick by the non-offending team at the point where the ball struck the substitute. This is my preference as it recognizes the substitute has been improperly involved in the play.

· Play on, as the substitute has the same status as any part of the field – overhanging tree limb, corner flag, referees, etc. I am uncomfortable with this as I do not see the substitute as being something either incidental or necessary to the field or maintenance of the game.

· Treat the ball as if it had completely crossed the touch line (ignoring the contact) and allow the attacking team a throw-in. While this fulfills the nature of how the play should have developed, it certainly lacks honesty and impinges on the integrity of the game and its referees.

Depending upon the proper remedy, what would be the restart if the struck substitute were on the attacking, rather than defending, team?

USSF answer (September 16, 2009):
If a substitute has entered the field without the permission of the referee — which this substitute has done by being too close to the line, no matter how inadvertently, and playing the ball — the Law prescribes the correct punishment and restart. (See the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees at the “back” of the book, Law 3.)…

"Inventive" Refs

MISCONDUCT DOES _NOT_ CHANGE THE RESTART!!!

September 9, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There is free kick outside the penalty area. defensive wall set inside the box. While defense setting their wall, defender push down an opponent into the ground inside the box at near wall. Referee changes the free kick call to the PK call. Is this a correct procedure?

If not what would you do?

USSF answer (September 9, 2009):
It is certainly not correct (or allowed under the Laws of the Game) to change the restart because of something that occurs when the ball is out of play. The defender should have been cautioned or sent off, depending on the nature of the push to the ground, and the restart should have been the original free kick.…

"Inventive" Refs

FLIP THROW-IN

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have been told that the flip throw in is illegal. The only documentation I have found to support this is on page 128 of the 2009-2010 Laws of the Game of the fifa website. This is what it says:

“If the ball touches the ground before entering the field of play, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position provided that it was taken in line with the correct procedure. If the throw-in is not taken in line with the correct procedure, it is retaken by the opposing team.”

If a player tries the flip throw and the ball touches the ground in the process of delivering the ball, they simply retake with a “normal” throw. Is this correct?

USSF answer (September 8 2009):
No, none of the above applies in this case. Whoever told you the flip throw-in is illegal has likely been abusing illegal substances.

The text you refer to, part of the 2009/2010 Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, means that the throw-in is retaken by the opposing team if the ball, after being released by the thrower, touches the ground before entering the field of play. It has nothing to do with the flip throw-in, referred to by the IFAB and FIFA as the “acrobatic throw-in,” which is perfectly legal if performed in accordance with the requirements of Law 15.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY AREA

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.…