Question:
What is the rules for talking to a referee? Does a player have a right to ask a referee what he was penalized for or is there a strict ‘no talking to the referee’ policy?

My main question is about two incidents I was involved in the following two incidents at a recent game and I disagree with both of the refs decisions. In the first half while I was in an offside position, the oppositions defender turned to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper without realizing I was behind him. I intercepted his pass and scored but the referee said I was offside, surely I’m not offside if I didn’t receive the ball from a team mate?

The second incident happened with ten minutes left and the game all but over as we were leading 4-0. A team mate played the ball up the line too far ahead of me and left the oppositions defender with plenty of time to deal with it. He controlled the ball, took 3 small touches and brought the ball to the sideline where he deliberately hit the ball with force into a group of spectators on the sideline who were having a picnic and drinking from glasses. It was lucky nobody was hurt. He stood about 5 meters away from me as I took the throw in and I directed the ball straight at his face. The red sent me off for this. Should I have received a red throwing the ball at his face (I threw the ball correctly) and should he have been punished for almost injuring spectators?

USSF answer (August 23, 2011):
A player is certainly permitted to ask about the reason for an infringement being called, but the referee is under no obligation to respond with more than a general comment. Some competitions do have a no-talking-to-the-referee policy, simply to prevent problems on the field.

1. No, the referee should not have called you offside in this situation — if all is as you describe it.

2. in the first instance the opposing player should have been sent off for violent conduct for kicking the ball at the spectators. However that does not give you the right to take revenge on him for his act. Yes, you should have been sent off for violent conduct for throwing the ball in your opponent’s face.…

Question:
I have a question about how to decide whether a red card should be issued for denying a direct goal-scoring opportunity. I have done some research on the “4 D’s” after having a disagreement with another referee, but I am still not 100% certain about how to apply the rule.

The aspect of the rule that causes our disagreement is the requirement that the attacking player must be “moving toward goal” at the time of the defender’s foul. I interpret these three words to imply intent and general direction regarding the attacking player’s run, but I’ve been told it simply means exact body position. He says that an easy way to understand the rule is to extend an imaginary laser beam from the attacker’s chest, and see whether the laser beam ends up in the goal. He says that if the “laser beam” does not point straight into the goal, the defender has NOT denied a direct goal-scoring opportunity. I disagree and think that a player can still be running toward goal even if the angle is technically to the side, or if he momentarily shifts body position to shake off a defender or to get into a better spot to shoot.

For example, here are a few situations that we have discussed. I myself would send off the defender in each situation, whereas my friend disagrees and thinks yellow is the correct decision.

1. A player has beaten all the defenders, except the goalie, and is about to be 1-on-1 with the keeper. As the keeper comes out to make a challenge, the attacker pushes the ball diagonally past the keeper in order to go around him. The keeper has no chance of reaching the ball first, and the attacker is about to shoot into an open net, so the keeper reaches out and trips the forward as the forward strides past him. Or, if a chasing defender trips the attacker, rather than the keeper.

I would send off the keeper for tripping the attacking player when he is about to score, but my friend would only give a yellow card because the attacking player’s body is still pointed diagonally toward the goal line, rather than straight at the goal. I argue that the forward is making an even better chance to score, merely shifting his body position as he continues a constant run toward goal, but my friend thinks the attacking player is no longer “moving toward goal” at all. Of course, I disagree.

2. Again, the attacking player has beaten the defenders and is running at pace for a 1-on-1 with the keeper. The attacking player starts off at a point slightly to the left of the exact center of the field, therefore causing him to run at a slight diagonal toward goal. As he nears the penalty area, a chasing defender reaches out in desperation and trips the forward from behind. Technically, the attacking player’s body would align 6 inches to the right of the right post, because his run is slightly diagonal, if you applied my friend’s “laser beam” analogy. There is no shift in body position, and the attacking player clearly intends his run toward goal the whole time, there are no more defenders but the goalie….so I would send off the defender for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity, whereas my friend would give a yellow card because the attacker’s body points just right of the goal instead of directly at the goal. He says the attacker is not “moving toward goal,” but rather to the side of the goal, which I think is much too strict of an interpretation.

3. Similar idea to #2. The attacking player runs onto a ball past the defenders, straight down the field a little off center, but this time NOT diagonally. The defenders are trying to catch up to him, thinking they might be able to cut him off from the inside if he shifts his run toward the middle. So the forward stays a couple feet to the left of the goal, enters the penalty area, before the chasing defender lunges at the attacker and trips him from behind. The attacking player intended his run to be in the general direction of the goal, and he had a clear shot before being tripped. It’s just that his his torso pointed a couple feet to the left of the goal instead of straight at the goal, so my friend would give a yellow. I would give red because I still think the attacker is essentially moving toward goal with his run, even if he keeps his run slightly to the left, and he has a clear shooting chance when he is fouled.

So I guess what it all boils down to is whether the “laser-beam” concept is the only way a goal-scoring opportunity has been denied, in reference to the quote “moving toward goal.” I think “moving toward goal” is a fairly general phrase that could be interpreted “in the general direction of the goal” or a run that is aimed “toward” scoring on the opposing goal….rather than the strict meaning of “lined up directly with the goal.” I would very much appreciate if you could tell me how this rule should be interpreted and enforced.

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
The “D” involving direction of play was never intended to be applied according to a “laser beam” analogy. In other words, we do not ask that referees use a surveyor’s transit theodolite to judge a player’s direction. The IFAB’s intent was that the general direction of play be toward the goal. An attacker who was moving toward the goal but has had to take a momentary change in direction to avoid an opponent at the precise time he was fouled is still moving in the direction of the goal for purposes of the “4 Ds.” Any greater effort to “slice the baloney” thinner is neither necessary nor likely to be fruitful because, at heart, the decision remains with the referee who sees the precise event and determines what should be done for the good of the game. Moreover, it is not the orientation of the player’s body that determines the 4th D, it is the direction of “play” — however that may be defined by the referee.

In Situations 1 and 2 the defending player (whether goalkeeper or field player) should be sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the defender’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

Situation 3 might or might not be DOGSO: Player intent means nothing.. We judge the result of the actions by both victim and perpetrator. There can be no DOGSO here, no matter what the “intent,” if the attacking player deliberately deviates from the direction to goal and is then fouled by an opponent while running in that new direction. Nor is there a caution to accompany the penalty kick in that case.…

Question:
This situation occurred in an Over 30 match involving my club. The referee blew the halftime whistle at 38 minutes, according to my watch. When my captain asked the referee about the shortened half, the referee insisted that it had been 45 minutes. OK, that’s that, you can’t win an argument like that, so you move on. When the teams were ready to take the field to begin the second half, the referee announced that he had inadvertently shortened the first half by five minutes. He said that he would make up the lost time as follows:

1.He instructed the teams to set up for a kickoff as they did to start the match.

2.They would play five minutes.

3.He would blow the whistle at five minutes and the teams would change ends and play 45 minutes in the second half.

Everyone involved was confused, but nobody knew enough to dispute his remedy. None of this sounds like the correct protocol for this situation. Any help would be appreciated.

USSF answer (August 3, 2011):
According to the Laws of the Game, the referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during the first half by increasing or reducing the length of the second half. So far, so good. Unfortunately, your referee handled the situation incorrectly. The amount of time remaining the first half should have been played, as the referee finally came to realize, but the correct restart would have been for the reason the ball was out of play when the referee stopped the game short. If the ball was off the field, then the game should have been restarted for the reason the ball had left the field. If it was in play, then the correct restart would be a dropped ball at the place where it was when the referee stopped play. If any time is lost during the remaining amount of time, then the referee must also add that time.…

Question:
Some folks were having a discussion on exactly what is required for a player to meet the requirement of being “outside of the penalty area” at the moment a PK is taken. Could you please address the following situations in terms of whether they are technical violations of the law and also as to whether they might well be deemed to be trivial by a referee:

1. As the PK is taken, an attacker has a foot on (but not over) the 18-yard line. Other foot is OK.

2. As the shot is taken, an attacker has one foot touching the line and partly over it. Other foot is OK.

3. As the shot is taken, an attacker has one foot behind the line and one foot significantly over it (i.e. closer to the goal line).

4. As the shot is taken, a player has both feet behind the line but is leaning forward so that the upper part of her torso is over the line.

Thanks for your help.

USSF answer (July 15, 2011):
Technical response: The lines are part of the areas they delineate. Ergo, the lines marking the penalty area are part of the penalty area and thus any particle of a foot on or over the line constitutes a breach of the procedure for penalty kicks.

Practical response: Use common sense and punish only that which needs to be punished for the good of the game.…