OFFSIDE OR IMPEDING?

March 12, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
This occurred in a U13B game today.

Forward is lined up, even with the 18, but outside of the penalty area, a step offside, with a defender next to him. Through ball is passed beyond both of them. They both run for the ball. As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first.

Defender establishes position between the forward and the ball, and attempts to shield the ball over the goal line for a goal kick.

As they both move toward the goal line, following the ball, the center decides the defender is not within playing distance of the ball, whistles, and calls obstruction, awarding an indirect to the attacking team.

But doesn’t awarding obstruction imply the forward would have played the ball, or at a minimum interfered with play, which means he was offside?

USSF answer (March 12, 2011):
Unless we are misreading your question, the referee’s decision would seem to have been incorrect. We recommend for your (and the referee’s) reading this excerpt from the Advice to Referees (2010/2011):

11.4 INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT
“Interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.

A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.

Referees are reminded that the reference to “playing or touching the ball” (see Advice 11.5 below) does not mean that an offside infringement cannot be called until an attacker in an offside position actually touches the ball. Please note: Here and elsewhere in the guidance for offside, “play,” “touch,” and “make contact with” are used interchangeably (as they are in the Laws of the Game and its Instructions). However, these terms are interchangeable only for the attackers. For the defenders, merely touching the ball is not sufficient in the context of an offside decision — they must actually play (possess and control) the ball, meaning that for them there is indeed a meaningful distinction between “touch” and “play.”

“Touching the ball” is not a requirement for calling an offside infringement if the attacker is interfering with an opponent by making a movement or gesture which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts that opponent.

According to the IFAB Circular of August 17, 2005: “A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.” Further, “If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalized for interfering with an opponent.” In addition, referees must remember that the indirect free kick restart for an offside offense is taken “from the initial place where the player was adjudged to be in an offside position.

Therefore, the referee should have called the player in the offside position offside at the moment the defender was distracted by his movement and moved to protect the ball. The indirect free kick would be taken from the place where the forward was when the ball was played by his teammate.

In addition, we must also point out that your reaction—”As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first”—was the entirely wrong action to take. In these circumstances, it doesn’t matter who gets to the ball first; that reasoning would be used only when the race is between an offside position attacker and another attacker who started from an onside position. The very fact that the attacker’s action caused a defender to race with him to the ball is sufficient to stop, square, and raise the flag for what would eventually be an offside signal. What happened afterward (the alleged “obstruction”) was not the offense.…

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO-F, DOGSO-H, DOGSO IN GENERAL

March 2, 2011March 2, 2011 by Jim Allen

Clarification of why certain situations do not meet the requirements (March 2, 2011):
Several questions have come in recently dealing with obvious goalscoring opportunities (OGSO) and we have replied based on the specific wording of each question. See entries of January 19, 2011 (DOGSO: THE DEBATE ON DG-F IS OVER!), and February 22, 2011 (DOGSO-F). It appears that some readers may have been confused by our replies (and in some cases, thought our answers were incorrect in any event). These scenarios have been discussed extensively and the following represents the single, condensed, and official response.

Scenario 1: Red takes a free kick from outside his own penalty area and inadvertently plays the ball toward the goal. The Red goalkeeper, to prevent a goal, stops it with his hands.

This cannot be an obvious goalscoring opportunity because a goal cannot be scored directly against the kicker’s own team on any free kick. The goalkeeper has committed an indirect free kick foul but there cannot be a red card send-off for the goalkeeper’s action based on this scenario.

Scenario 2: The Red goalkeeper punts the ball but the ball deflects from the referee and is heading back into the Red goal. To prevent this, the goalkeeper stops the ball with his hands.

Although a goal could be scored directly from the punt and the goalkeeper’s action did prevent a goal, it is again the case that a red card cannot be given in the scenario. First of all, the goalkeeper’s action involved handling — but not a handling offense — and handling by the goalkeeper is specifically exempted if it occurs within his team’s penalty area. Second, what about the argument that the “second touch” offense by the goalkeeper is punishable by a free kick? Doesn’t this come under the fifth send-off offense? The clear and unequivocal answer is, no. Denying a goal or goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick requires that the offense be committed against an attacker (in the language of the Laws of the Game: “an opponent moving towards the player’s goal ….”) Go back to the 4 Ds which we use to evaluate an OGSO: do any of them apply? The only one that could be considered relevant is “number of defenders” but the other three cannot be applied.

Distance to the ball? Whose distance? The attacker who was fouled … but there was no attacker who was fouled. Distance to the goal? Not applicable because there was no foul. What was the “direction of play” (not the direction of the ball)? Was the opponent who was fouled moving towards the goal? There was no opponent who was fouled.

In short, there can be no OGSO for either DG-F or DG-H if (a) the offense in question directly follows a restart performed by a player on the team which committed the offense or if (b) the offense was not committed against an opponent. The offense may result in a red card for other reasons but not for denying or interfering with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.…

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO-F

February 22, 2011February 23, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have a question about some wording in the ATR guide. We have a local facebook group where one of the guys posted this scenario:

A defender is taking a free kick outside of the penalty area and passes the ball back to where he thinks the goalkeeper is. The goalkeeper, in actuality isn’t there and now the ball is rolling towards an empty net. The defender realizes an attacker is charging at the ball with intent to score. Just before the attacker reaches the ball to shoot it in, the defender slides in a taps the ball away with his foot. The second touch by the defender is an infringement resulting in an IFK — Should it also be DOGSO-F? Should the defender be sent off?

In the ATR 12:37, it says a DOGSO when a player or substitute “(b) denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick”.

Is a second touch considered an offence or infringement? If it’s not a DOGSO, then perhaps the wording needs to be changed in the ATR so that this statement can’t be taken out of context.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
Please remember that the acronym DOGSO-F does not exist in the Laws of the Game. It is simply a device to aid the referee’s memory. In accordance with Law 12, sending-off offense 5, a player, substitute or substituted player may be sent off if he commits any offense “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.” The F in the acronym stands for “free kick or penalty kick,” not “foul.”

Is the second touch an infringement punishable by an indirect free kick for the opposing team? Yes, it is. May the defender be sent off for this infringement in the scenario you present? No, because there is no obvious goalscoring opportunity (as the ball going into the goal directly would result in a corner kick for the opposing team) and thus no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied.

There is no need to revise the Advice in this regard.

Further clarification:
Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the express language of Law 12 requires that the offense be committed against an opponent who is moving toward the offender’s goal at the time of the offense. The offense which is central to this scenario was not committed against any opponent, much less one moving toward the player’s goal at the time. The language of Law 12 is very clear—we assume purposely—about separating out two different reasons for sending a defender off for a so-called tactical or “professional” foul: one is handling, which is not committed against any opponent but against the Spirit of the Game, and the second is any other kind of foul which IS committed against a specific opponent. One cannot help but conclude from this that a foul or misconduct, regardless of the circumstances, which is not committed against an opponent and which is not handling is therefore not a sending-off offense under Law 12 (at least not under reasons #4 or #5. If it was a tactical foul (which this was not) and was the offender’s second caution, then there would be a send-off, just not under sending-off reasons #4 or #5.

Nor is sending-off reason #4 at issue, because it is limited solely to a handling offense, not just touching the ball (which might include a second touch offense).…

"Inventive" Refs

MISUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE

February 22, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
situation: a forward was supposedly fouled outside the box but the ref played the advantage & allowed the forward to play on.

the fouled player maintained the ball & took an unimpeded shot on goal. he missed. the ref then called the ball back to where he said the foul occurred for a direct free kick. should the ref have called it back after he let the team play on til he shot on goal? the ref only made the call to bring the ball back after the player missed his shot.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
The referee cannot guarantee that a goal will be scored when he or she invokes the advantage. If this player had an unimpeded shot on goal, then the advantage has been fulfilled and the referee MUST NOT go back to the foul. Life is hard; shoot better next time.…

"Inventive Coaches"

RETAKE OF A FREE KICK?

February 1, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a match this past weekend, our team committed a foul resulting in a direct free for the opposing team (about 30 yards from goal). The winds were roughly 20-30 miles per hour that day. In this case, the wind was at the kicker’s back. Our boys set up a wall and the opposing player kicked the ball harmlessly over the crossbar. The referee blew his whistle and showed the kicker a yellow (I’m presuming for kicking when directed to wait, but that was not clarified). The referee had him kick it again. It did not score, but was a much more exciting and potentially costly attempt. My question is even though he was cautioned, should he be given another attempt or should we have been given a goal kick? If it is a “do over”, it may be a strategy to teach since it is only a yellow and the player reaps the benefit of judging the weight and reaction of the ball in the types of winds we were experiencing. Thanks for your advice!

USSF answer (February 1, 2011):
Coach, you don’t give us enough information to give a quick answer, leaving us to go three ways, although it appears alternative 1 was operative in this situation.
1. If the referee had told the kicking team to wait for his whistle (generally done by holding the whistle up and pointing to it) before taking the kick, then his action in cautioning the kicker and ordering a retake was correct.
2. If the referee had not instructed the kicking team to wait for the whistle, then the caution and the retake were not in order.
3. If the caution was for something NOT directly related to the taking of the kick, then alternative 2 may be misleading. It is also possible that the caution might have been for something else entirely unrelated (e. g., maybe the kicker committed dissent or used unsporting language — short of a red card), though we cannot imagine what it could be along these lines that it would have made it necessary to order the kick retaken. (For example, if the kicker had dissented, the referee could have given the card at the next stoppage.)

If you start coaching this, most referees will figure it out and simply go with the first kick (provided it misses the goal).…

"Inventive" Refs

DELIBERATELY HANDING THE BALL TO STOP A GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

January 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
What is the difference between denying a goal and denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity in the deliberate handling sending off offence.

Where a player including the goalkeeper deliberately handles the ball which denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity outside the penalty area is that player sent off for DOGSO H or for DOGSO F.

The reason I ask is that the USSF opinion is that the 4Ds does not apply to DOGSO H and the ball must be destined for the goal for DOGSO H to apply suggests to some that deliberate handling is not a sending off offence unless it stops a ball entering the goal, which is plainly not the case. Perhaps that might be explained more clearly.

USSF answer (January 19, 2011):
First, a clear policy statement: The U. S. Soccer Federation cannot and does not presume to speak for other national associations when providing guidelines on how various statements in the Laws are to be interpreted and implemented. That said, the Federation does follow to the letter what the Laws say regarding matters bearing on obvious goalscoring opportunities (OGSO) and also follows the guidance provided by the IFAB and FIFA on that topic.

Just to keep it straight, here is what Law 12 says about the OGSO offenses:

Sending-off offenses
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:
//deleted//
• denying 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)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
//deleted//

Second, a cautionary note regarding acronyms, which are mere conveniences and not always entirely descriptive of what is being discussed. The acronyms DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H are used primarily as shorthand when filling out the referee’s match report. DOGSO-H means just that, “denying 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).” However, DOGSO-F is somewhat more complicated, as it includes not merely denying an OGSO by a foul, but also by ANY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FREE KICK OR A PENALTY KICK. That includes misconduct.

The reason the Federation says (and has always said, from the very first introduction of the OGSO concept when the two new reasons for a send-off were created by the International Board) that the “4 Ds” do not apply to send-off offense #5 (DG-H) is because (a) USSF created the 4 Ds specifically for DG-F, (b) the requirement that all four Ds had to be present before a red card for DG-F could be given simply cannot be applied to a handling offense, and (c) the “D” represented by “Distance to ball” was completely inapplicable.

In attempting to decide if it were highly probable that a ball would have gone into the net if the handling had not interfered with the movement of the ball, the referee must juggle, weigh, and balance a number of factors, including SOME of the Ds, but not in so absolute a way as they are used in evaluating a DG-F situation. For example, one D involves the number of defenders and, for a DG-F situation, the Federation has said that this D cannot be rated as a “yes” if there is more than one defender between the foul and the goal (not counting the defender who committed the offense). In a DG-H situation, it is not so ironclad. In a DG-F situation, the D involving direction of play is only one of four factors but, in a DG-H situation, the direction, force, and speed of the ball are arguably the most important of the factors to be considered. For example, a ball played forward by several yards might lead to a decision that the D for direction of play (and distance to the ball) is present, but this would not be the case in a handling situation where, if, in the opinion of the referee, the handled ball either was already or would have stopped far short of the goal, a DG-H red card cannot be given.

We are concerned about how you arrived at your statement “that deliberate handling is not a sending off offence unless it stops a ball entering the goal, which is plainly not the case.” We would argue that it is in fact plainly the case. Handling the ball is not a direct sending-off offense unless, in the opinion of the referee, but for the handling the ball would have gone into the net. This is clearly a judgment, but it is a judgment grounded on analyzing a number of variables — which happen to include such matters as how close to the goal the handling occurred, how many defenders there were between the site of the handling and the goal, and the direction/speed/force the ball was taking at the time the handling occurred. The fact that these variables resemble three of the four “Ds” involved in DG-F (denying an OGSO by foul/misconduct) is not accidental. The judgment to be reached here does not have to be one of “certainty” but, rather, one of “high probability” based on the referee’s experience and reading of the variables.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.…

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO: THE DEBATE ON DG-F IS OVER!

January 19, 2011January 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A DOGSO question that has been subject to some vigorous debate: “[O]ffence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” in the context of DOGSO-F clearly includes both IFK and DFK offences listed in Law 12 (except for the goalkeeper IFK handling offences).

Does it also include “infringements” of Laws other than Law 12? For example, if a defender takes a free kick outside of the penalty area passes the ball back to where he thinks his goalkeeper is, but the goalkeeper is not there and the ball is rolling towards an empty net;

The defender realizes an attacker is charging towards the ball; just before the attacker reaches the ball to shoot it into the empty net, the defender taps the ball away with his foot. The second touch by the defender is an infringement of Law 13 resulting in an indirect free kick — can it also be DOGSO?

USSF answer (January 19, 2011):
Law 12 is clear on the matter. A player, [etc.], is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:

//clipped//
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
//rest clipped//

And Law 13 tells us:

Free kick taken by a player other than the goalkeeper
If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again (except with his hands) before it has touched another player:
• an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick)

In the scenario you present, an offense punishable by a free kick, which may or may not have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity (OGSO), has been committed by the defender. To be certain that the offense has denied the OGSO, the referee must apply the 4 Ds, as spelled out in the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
In order for a player or substitute to be sent off for denying an “obvious goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” (number 5 under the seven send-off offenses), four elements must be present:
* Number of Defenders-not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul
* Distance to goal-the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity
* Distance to ball-the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to continue playing the ball
* Direction of play-the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed
If any element is missing, there can be no send off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Further, the presence of each of these elements must be “obvious” in order for the send-off to be appropriate under this provision of Law 12

Just to make it absolutely clear, and to put an end to any further debate: If, in the opinion of the referee, all four of the “Ds” are present, then an obvious goalscoring opportunity has been interfered with and the defender who has committed a second-touch violation should be sent off for DG-F. The real question is, why would he NOT be sent off? What he did was an offense, punishable by a free-kick restart, and all four Ds were determined to be present by the referee. All free kicks are created equal as far as DG-F is concerned.…

"Inventive" Refs

FIELD OWNERS RULE!

December 13, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
A local school district recently installed artificial turf fields and they are used on weekends by the youth league. There are signs at the fields that say that metal cleats may not be worn on these fields.

Since well maintained metal cleats are not a danger to the players and are therefore permitted under the LOTG, several referees have asked if they are required to enforce the ban or if it is up to the home club to take care of it.

If a player shows up with safe metal cleats can the referee prevent him from playing?

Thanks for your help.

USSF answer (December 13, 2010):
This is one situation in which the referee has no choice about enforcement: If the field owner says no metal cleats, then the referee must enforce this requirement, which carries the same weight and authority as a rule of the competition. Otherwise the league might lose the use of these fields, and whose fault would that be if not the referee’s?…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE “AFTER” A GOAL IS SCORED?

November 20, 2010November 20, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
Offside “after” a goal is scored? I know, strange title. Here is the scenario. Player A takes a shot on goal while Player B is in an offside position. The ball is on frame and appears to enter the goal and completely cross the goal-line when Player B heads the ball the rest of the way into the back of the net.

Goalkeeper nor any defenders reacted in any way to Player B so it appears that he did not affect the play. Since a goal was already scored when player B played the ball, is offside called?

In this case, Player A and B have names: Christiano Ronaldo and Nani.
You can see a clip of the play here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvzPFEIJyoY

USSF answer (November 20 2010):
We cannot debate the results of a referee’s decision-making process at this level. That is a matter to be resolved between the referee and his/her match inspector.

No matter how it may look to us or the players, a goal is not scored until the referee says it is scored. There was a similar occurrence earlier this year at the World Cup, when the ball kicked by Frank Lampard of England clearly bounced well inside the goal and was then swept out by the German goalkeeper. We all know it was a goal, but if the referee disagrees, life is hard.

With those conditions stipulated, we can say with a high degree of assurance that, if the contact with the ball is not made until after the ball has entirely crossed the goal line into the net and if there is no issue of interfering with an opponent prior to the ball entering the net, there cannot be an offside violation. In short, there is no offside violation after a goal is scored.…

"Inventive Instructors"

CONFLICTING VERBIAGE IN DIRECTIVE AND ADVICE ON DELIBERATE HANDLING?

November 19, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
I am concerned about teaching referees correctly, in accordance with the USSF’s current thinking, about Law 12 “Handles the ball Deliberately”. We have taught in the past that “gaining an advantage” from a ball that has hit the hand or arm makes no difference if the referee judged it wasn’t deliberate. And in fact the 2010 ATR (12.9) states that “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement…. NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.”

The Directives that came out in 2009 list as #3 Did the Player Benefit? I have taken this to refer for the first two points (1) “Making yourself Bigger” and (2) “Is the Arm or hand in an unnatural position”, and if the referee’s opinion was that it was not deliberate it did not matter if the player gained and advantage or benefit from the ball hitting his hand.

At a State Cup game the SYRA and I got into a discussion after a coach was told that advantage had no part in determining a handling call, he stated that now because of the 2009 Directive The player gaining a benefit should be whistled for handling. He has been in conferences and meetings that I have not so I wanted to be sure of the correct instructions (interpretations) that need to be taught to the referees.

USSF answer (November 19, 2010):
Despite superficial appearances to the contrary, we see no actual conflict between what is stated in the directive and what is said in the Advice to Referees. The third criterion in the Directive of February 2, 2009, Handling the Ball, is actually clear. However, the mention in that directive of “advantage” has absolutely nothing to do with the advantage we are familiar with from Law 5.

Criterion 3:

3. Did the player “benefit”?
In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offence has been committed.

The directive is speaking of a tactical advantage for the handling player, not the advantage invoked by the referee. It is similar in that way to the “gaining an advantage” referred to in Law 11 (Offside). In this sense, the directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The criterion at issue here is a way of coming to terms with the word “deliberate” as applied to the handling foul. All other things being equal, we are far less likely to consider an act to be deliberate if we cannot divine any reason for it happening. If the hand makes contact with the ball and there does not appear to be any purpose served by the contact, it is more likely accidental than deliberate — even if it drops kindly. The absence of a purpose, of course, doesn’t mean there wasn’t one — only that we cannot discern it. Where there is a discernible reason, and the contact achieves that reason, then we should be far more likely to suspect its innocence.

The directive does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled deliberately or not. The directive states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling-the-ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence of criterion 3 is key: “In considering all the ‘signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball, the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence that the handling of the ball was deliberate. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria, then additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.…