THE DEAD HORSE REMAINS DEAD

October 3, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I hope a dead horse but here goes anyway:

The ball is loose just outside of top of the penalty area, say in the D. And suppose that the ball isn’t moving at all. An attacker is running onto the ball and the only defender, say the keeper runs out and picks up ball outside the penalty area. Can the referee send the keeper off if the referee deems that this action denied an obvious goal scoring OPPORTUNITY?

USSF answer (October 3, 2011):
In the scenario you present, the deliberate handling by the goalkeeper outside his own penalty area, no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied. There is no evidence that, but for the handling by the goalkeeper, the ball would have gone into the goal. The horse is dead. Long live the horse.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE REFEREE DID WHAT?!

September 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a high school varsity game played under USSF rules (as opposed to NHSF) the attacking team plays a ball that rolls into the penalty area and is picked up by the goalie. After the goalie has possession, a defender running with the attacker chasing the ball plays the body and bumps the attacker in a significant manner. The referee (I was the AR) gave the defender a caution for UB, and then allowed the goalie to punt to continue play.

We discussed after the game as to whether, after the caution, he should have awarded the attacking team a penalty kick, an indirect free kick from the spot of the contact, or whether letting the goalie punt was appropriate.

We’d appreciate your feedback.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
If there was no injury or immediate exhibition of ill-feeling and the referee invoked the advantage clause and then cautioned the defending player at the next stoppage, that would be legitimate and proper. However, in this case, the referee did not stop play and appears to have cautioned the attacker “on the fly,” not something that is in accordance with the Laws of the Game. This shows either ignorance of the Law or willful disregard of the Law by the referee.

The correct course of action would have been to play the advantage and then, at the next stoppage, to caution the defending player for unsporting behavior.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE REFEREE DID WHAT?! (CORRECTED)

September 20, 2011September 21, 2011 by Jim Allen

We’d appreciate your feedback.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
The correct course of action would have been to stop play for the foul by the defender, to caution the defender for unsporting behavior and restart with a penalty kick. However, in this case, the referee did not stop play and appears to have cautioned the defender “on the fly,” not something that is in accordance with the Laws of the Game. This shows either ignorance of the Law or willful disregard of the Law by the referee.…

"Inventive" Refs

DEFINITION OF “RELEASING THE BALL INTO PLAY”

September 20, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
The following event occurred in an under 17 boys classic game:
The keeper of Team A caught shot from team B and proceeded to jog to the top of the penalty area where he bounced the ball once before the impending punt. The bounce hit a sand spot and died in place, wherupon in a continuous motion the keeper scooped it up and punted it. The referee whistled and awarded and indirect free kick to Team B for “touching the ball a second time violation” which resulted in a goal being scored by Team B.

After the game, I questioned the referee about that call, and he stated that once the keeper lost possession of the ball, he could not pick it up again. I stated that the rule requires the keeper to release the ball from his possession which implies intent (except for dropping an air dribble), and that a bad bounce from a field defect does not end possession as long as the keeper’s play is continuous. I have seen the same with a mud spot or water puddle in the goal area and also a divot in the pitch that causes the ball to bounce badly.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
While the goalkeeper’s choice of a spot to bounce the ball was unfortunate, he did NOT relinquish possession of the ball by doing it and was perfectly within his rights to reclaim the ball in his hands. The goalkeeper is allowed to throw the ball in the air or bounce it on the ground and still retain possession of the ball. The referee was wrong to call the “second touch.” Naughty, naughty referee!…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE: INVOLVEMENT IN PLAY

September 14, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I served as an AR today. Striker repeatedly positioned himself offsides and then made a run directly at goalie when his right forward shot on goal. After 3 such occurrences by the same player, I signaled offsides, as I felt striker was interfering with goalie by attempting to distract him with his runs even though his runs did not directly block the line of sight between goalie and right forward. Was I wrong? I am aware of the Passive Offsides implementation, but this just felt wrong. The opposing coach looked at me like I had sprouted a second head! Thanks.

USSF answer (September 14, 2011):
There is no such thing as “passive offside” or “offsides,” no matter what some people may say. A player in an offside position either remains in an offside position or becomes offside when his teammate plays the ball, depending on what occurs next.

It is tempting to raise the flag when a player attempts to interfere with his opponent, but to do so could affect the play. The AR must remember where the player was when his teammate played the ball and wait until the player actually becomes actively involved in play. If the ‘keeper is easily able to gain the ball, then to flag would simply slow the game down and aid the opposing team’s efforts. That is not the referee’s job.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO LECTURES ON HOW TO PLAY!

September 14, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
This week in a U-10 girls’ match, the adult referee told the team before the match that it was, “okay to play with your elbows up as long as they did not go above your shoulder.” The end result was a match that mainly featured players keeping other players away from themselves (and the ball) with their arms bent / elbows up at shoulder height. It also featured players impeding other players’ progress with their arms bent / elbows up at shoulder height in order to maintain an advantageous position and not allow a player to get around them and make a play for the ball. My understanding has always been that the arms need to remain by the player’s side and cannot be used to shield or impede and that players can only be physical “shoulder to shoulder.” Your thoughts on this will be much appreciated.

USSF answer (September 14, 2011):
Coach, one of the things we tell both new and experienced referees is not to lecture players on how to play or on any other aspect of the game during the pregame activities. We referees have enough problems managing the game without also acting as coaches on the field. That is the job of the coach.

The arms should remain in a normal athletic position while playing soccer, used only to maintain balance or to aid in running faster. No elbows up, no pushing, no holding, no tripping.…

"Inventive" Refs

A PROPER SHOULDER CHARGE

September 8, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’ve read your comments on the shoulder tackle and they agree with what I was taught. However, I find that we have fouls called on us for what appear to be legal shoulder tackles about 75% of the time in youth soccer within our league and at tournaments. Most referees don’t call 75% of the trips or pushes. Reasons given are 1) excessive force (other player fell down), 2) arm was bent (and close to body), 3) arm was straight (and close to body), not playing the ball (but playing the player with the ball). Players on some teams we play flop on the ground as soon as anyone tries to shoulder tackle and that is rewarded with the foul call. Please help the referees come to some consensus on how to referee this type of tackle. I’ve given up teaching players to shoulder tackle. Too bad they won’t learn how to play soccer.

USSF answer (September 8, 2011):
Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees. It would appear that there is a vast difference between what you see happening on the field and what some of the referees who work your games have been taught.

Although you will have to search very hard to find it written anywhere, the world accepts a fair charge of the opponent if the players make contact shoulder to shoulder, with the charging player’s arms in at his side, while both players have at least one foot on the ground. The charging player may not charge carelessly, recklessly, or use excessive force. At the youth level, particularly in the early teenage brackets, where players of the same age may experience growth spurts differently, a “best effort” at a should-to-shoulder charge is accepted.

A player charging “for the ball” need not _play_ the ball at all, but he or she must be challenging for the ball. Referees must make the distinction necessary to apply the Law correctly. We must also admit the answer on the degree of force involved can vary, depending on player skill level. Players at higher skill levels will accept a bit more force than those at lower skill levels. (And the same applies to the referees who call these games.) However, anything that appears to done recklessly or with excessive force MUST be punished.

The Federation has defined the fair charge quite clearly in its publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.5 CHARGING
The act of charging an opponent can be performed without it being called as a foul. Although the fair charge is commonly defined as “shoulder to shoulder” and without the use of arms or elbows, this is not a requirement and, at certain age levels where heights may vary greatly, may not even be possible. Furthermore, under many circumstances, a charge may often result in the player against whom it is placed falling to the ground (a consequence, as before, of players differing in weight or strength). The Law does require that the charge be directed toward the area of the shoulder and not toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area): in such a case, the referee should recognize that such a charge is at minimum reckless and potentially even violent.

…

"Inventive Coaches"

THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS

September 8, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A team chooses to play a game with the minimum # of players, but have an injured player on the bench. The team then gets a red card putting them under the minimum requirement to play, however they elect to sub in the injured player to maintain the minimum requirements on the field because there is only a couple minutes left in the game–are they allowed to use that player to maintain the minimum and continue the game?

USSF answer (September 7, 2011):
Unless having had a player sent off actually created the situation, there is nothing in the Laws of the Game to forbid a team that has been playing under strength — for whatever strange reason — to augment its numbers to a greater (but still within the number established by Law 3 or the rules of the competition) by inserting a substitute already listed on the roster (if rosters are required in this competition), not as a replacement for the red carded player, but to augment an understrength team. The only problem in this scenario might be the ability of the “injured” substitute to play.…

"Inventive Coaches"

OFFSIDE? NO!

August 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
a free kick from 25 yards, all players onside just after ball is kicked defenders step out leaving 2 attackers inside keeper parries shot to one of them he slots home? goal or offside….?

USSF answer August 28, 2011):
Score the goal. The key to the answer lies in two words in your scenario, “just after.” Because the two attackers were not in an offside position when their teammate played the ball, they cannot possibly be called offside.…

"Inventive" Refs

QUESTIONS INVOLVING UNLIKELY SITUATIONS

August 28, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
1) The penalty taker slips while taking a penalty kicks the ball into the net with both feet.
a. if the kick with both feet is instantaneous, does the goal stand?
b. if the kick with both feet is perceivable seconds apart, does the
goal stand?
2) The player claims that a piece of jewelry he is wearing ( like a bracelet ) is important part of his religious belief. How can I as a referee decide whether that piece of jewelry is dangerous? What decision should I take as the player is protected by ‘ The race relations act’?
3) A striker a attempts ‘Hand of God’ and fails to connect but ends up distracting his marker and the goalkeeper. The ball hits the marker and rebounds of the striker (the wannabe maradona) past the distracted goal keeper into the goal. Should the goal stand?

USSF answer (August 28, 2011):
We hope this is not a question regarding high school rules, as we are not permitted to answer questions involving the rules of the NFSHSA.

1a. Yes, but only if the referee is certain that that the touch with both feet was indeed simultaneous.
1b. No, the player has committed a “double-touch” offense.
2. You make the decision on this piece of jewelry as you would with any other piece of equipment. Is it dangerous to the player or to any other participant? If it is dangerous and cannot be made safe, then the player cannot wear it. No ifs, ands, or buts.
3. Yes, the goal stands. There is no such infringement as “attempting to handle the ball.”…