Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

"Inventive" Refs

NUMBER OF DEFENDERS AT AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

Posted on by

Question:
I am a new referee and worked as center in a tournament. One of my ARs is very experienced and was giving me an informal evaluation. As luck would have it there was a difficult decision to be made in the 3rd minute of the game.

Blue player dribbled into the box where red goalkeeper fouled him when diving for the ball. The ball continued to roll towards the goal and blue attacking player, trying to keep his feet, stumbled for a few steps before falling. I signaled for a penalty. There was another defender on the far corner of the goal, trying to race into position.

This was a U14 game. I did not card the gk, as I interpreted his play as a foul, nothing reckless or more.

After the game the experienced AR told me I should have sent off the GK because any DOGSO-F by a GK is a red card. I didn’t interpret it as a DOGSO-F because of the defender by the corner of the goal. He did because there was no defending player was between the ball and goal.

I interpreted it as he was still “between” the ball/player and the goal because he was still affecting play. By the way, during the stumbling of the attacker, the ball bounced off the goal post and stayed in play. Was I wrong? Thanks for your time.

USSF answer (December 10, 2011):
The AR’s apparent suggestion, as stated in your question, that a foul by the goalkeeper is automatically a send-off for DOGSO-F is not correct (see below). Your interpretation of the 4 Ds in denial of a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity could also use some review. The first D, number of defenders, states that there not be more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul. That was the case in your situation (again see below).

The goalkeeper could have been sent off and shown the red card for 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.

Not only was the AR wrong about the alleged automatic red card nature of the situation, he was also wrong about there not being any defending player between the ball and the goal — there was, the defender whom you describe as “on the far corner of the goal, trying to race into position.” The AR was wrong about interpreting this D as requiring that the defender(s) be on some sort of geometric line drawn from the foul to the center of the goal. The only requirement is that there be no more than one defender “between the site of the foul and the goal who is able to defend”. This defender WAS … the only problem is that there was only one of him. In other words, he clearly “counted” but there were just were enough of them, one.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DOGSO QUESTIONS (SOME UNLIKELY)

Posted on by

Question:
I am embattled in a debate with some fellow referees about the following (albeit, unlikely) scenarios concerning the special privileges of keepers.
Care to referee?

1) Defenders hanging on the crossbar
1a) Outfield player hangs from the crossbar and prevents a ball entering the goal with his leg.
DOGSO-F
1b) Keeper hangs from the crossbar and prevents a ball entering the goal with his leg.
DOGSO-F
1c) Outfield player hangs from the crossbar and prevents a ball entering the goal with his arm.
DOGSO-H
1d) Keeper hangs from the crossbar and prevents a ball entering the goal with his arm.
IFK

On a free kick taken from 25 yds in front of his own goal, a field player (red) passes the ball towards his own, unguarded net.
An attacker (blue) chases after the ball. The player who took the free kick chases after him.
The ball and both players arrive at the top of the six at approximately the same time.

2a) Red fouls blue and clears the ball
DOGSO-F
2b) Red gets a second touch with his foot, clearing the ball a fraction of a second before blue can score
DOGSO-F

3) same as #2, except the red player is the red keeper
3a) Red fouls blue and clears the ball a fraction of a second before blue can score
DOGSO-F
3b) Red gets a second touch with his foot, clearing the ball a fraction of a second before blue can score
DOGSO-F
3c) Red gets a second touch with his hands, clearing the ball a fraction of a second before blue can score
IFK

USSF answer (December 6, 2011):
You and other referees need to understand that the DOGSO-F acronym includes DOGSO for misconduct as well. The player can be sent off for denying the OGSO through any act punishable by a free kick, not necessarily a direct free kick or penalty kick, but also an indirect free kick. All of these denials are DOGSO-F.

1. Players (goalkeepers are also “players”) hanging on the crossbar
(a) DOGSO-F, indirect free kick (IFK)
(b) DOGDSO-F, IFK
(c) DOGSO-H, penalty kick (PK); the misconduct became a continuing offense during which the defender committed a PK offense, which takes precedence over the IFK. Apply advantage to the misconduct and nail him on the deli ng behavior in hanging from the goal)
(d) Send-off DOGSO-F; IFK (unsporting behavior in hanging from the goal)

2. Following free kick 25 yards from goal by field defender
(a) DOGSO-F, PK
(b) DOGSO-F, IFK

3. Following free kick 25 yards from goal by goalkeeper — but do you really mean that the goalkeeper pass the ball back toward his own goal? Highly unlikely
(a) DOGSO-F, PK
(b) DOGSO-F, IFK
(c) DOGSO-F, IFK…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

LACK OF CARDS DOES NOT EQUAL NO BOOKINGS!

Posted on by

Question:
The referee forgets to bring red & yellow cards and notebook to match. advises team managers who say it’s not a problem.

during the course of the match 1 player gets a “yellow card” booking and another gets 2 “yellow cards” and therefore a “red”.

However, due the the lack of the appropriate equipment, should these “bookings” stand and should the players still receive fines (we’re talking and under 15’s sunday match here.)

Should the referee offer to ignore the offences in his match report and could the teams involved ASK him to ignore the bookings on the basis that he forgot his match official’s equipment.?

USSF answer (November 29, 2010):
Yes, despite the referee’s own carelessness in forgetting his cards, the bookings stand, as does the dismissal for the second caution in a match. No, the referee cannot ignore the bookings, and any attempt by the two teams to ask him to do so should also be includ…

Advice to Referees

DENIAL OF AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

Posted on by

Question:
This is a question for clarification of the Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity offense, particularly in reporting it. I am aware that for the DOGSO-H variety to be applied, in the U.S.A. we have the direction, “but for the handling, the ball would have entered the net” as a requirement. But, I am confused about 2 scenarios which by all rights should be DOGSO, but may not be, leading to massive game control issues. The scenarios:

Scenario A: An attacker is on a breakaway with no defenders around for 15 yards. Just outside the penalty area, within the arc, directly heading towards goal (all D’s met) the GK jumps down on top of the ball grabbing it away from the attacker’s feet outside of the penalty area. The attacker had not taken the “shot”, but if not for the illegal handling, an obvious goal scoring opportunity existed.

Send-off? DOGSO-F or DOGSO-H?

Scenario B: An attacker is on a breakaway. The GK is out of the area (pick a reason, i.e. whole team pushed up for corner kick, and he’s not very fast.) The attacker is outside or inside the penalty area, (which side of the 18 yard line only necessary in determining restart.) He has the ball at his feet, directly in between the goal posts and is heading straight towards goal. One defender manages to match his speed, but no other defenders within 15 yards. The defender dives, reaches out, and grabs the ball with his hands just before the attacker takes his shot. Now, the shot had not been taken, so it wasn’t headed into the goal.

However, all other aspects of the Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity are present. The attacking team expects the send off, the defending team expects the send off, but according to the Guidance, “the ball was not headed into the goal but for the handling.” So, send-off? How would this be written up?

DOGSO-H? DOGSO-F?

Your response and clarification would be most helpful, as some other referees and I can’t seem to meet agreement here.

USSF answer (November 19, 2011):
In Advice to Referees 12.37 the Federation has said that a red card for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity requires that a goal be prevented: “applies to any player (or substitute) other than the goalkeeper in his own penalty area who handles a ball to prevent it from entering the goal … . 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.” Accordingly, the ball on its way into the net is the sine qua non of denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity — if it is prevented from going into the goal, it is a red card; if the ball goes into the goal anyway, it is not; and if the ball wasn’t going into the goal but was interrupted by a handling violation under conditions that meet the 4 Ds, it is a red card for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by an act punished by a free kick..…

"Inventive" Refs

NO GOALKEEPER SEND-OFF FOR HANDLING IN OWN PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
In a game i played in today the referee sent off the opposition goalkeeper for picking up a back pass and i was just wondering if there are any examples of this happening before and if the referee was right to do so? The situation the ball was kicked long the defender misread the ball and turned at full stretch he tackled the striker the ball rolled to the keeper who under pressure from another striker shutting him down picked up the ball. The referee then decided to send the goalkeeper off for denying a goal scoring opportunity and gave a indirect free kick was he right to do so? thanks harry.

USSF answer (November 28, 2011):
The referee was wrong to send off the goalkeeper in at least two ways: (1) by kicking the ball away from the opposing player, the defender was not kicking the ball to the goalkeeper, he was simply clearing it and it happened to go to the goalkeeper; (2) the goalkeeper may not and cannot be sent off for denying a goal or a goalscoring opportunity by handling the ball in his penalty; that is stated specifically in Law 12.…

"Inventive" Refs

RETRIEVING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I dont ref all that often, but when I do ….

Attacking team kicks the ball out over the goal line. Player from the attacking team goes off the field, is right next to the ball, but does not retrieve the ball. I actually did think about carding this young lady for Unsporting behavior?

To paint the picture, she was right there, but, in the opinion of this referee, deliberately did not make any effort to gather the ball back for the defending team to take the goal kick.

Also, got me thinking about this case, which DID NOT actually happen today, but …

Defending team kicks ball out over the goal line. Player from the defending team retrieves the ball, sends it to the corner. Attacking team takes the kick before said defending player – oh lets say it is the goal keeper – is back in position. Unsporting behavior?

By the way, when I coached, I did tell my players to never retrieve a ball for the other team ….

USSF answer (November 24, 2011):
As we all know from experience, no coach will ever tell his or her players to provide any sort of aid to the opposing team’s players.

It is certainly common courtesy for a player to retrieve the ball if he or she is near it, but there is no requirement that the team that put the ball out of play must retrieve it. Just as in the case of the referee waiting until a substitute reaches his or her proper playing position for the restart, it is also traditional that the team with the restart wait until the opponent who retrieved the ball has returned to a proper playing position. The referee must be proactive and stop the restart if the team is unsporting enough not to wait for that player. However, it is not illegal if the player takes the corner kick before the goalkeeper returns to the field — provided that the goalkeeper was not the player who retrieved the ball.…

"Inventive" Refs

LOST BOOT; BALL KICKED “TO GOALKEEPER”

Posted on by

Question:
The first I cannot figure out after reviewing the LOTG etc. and asking fellow referees their opinions. It has to do with equipment. Team A was at the 18 yrd line with the ball. Defender from team B won the ball and passed it 10 yrds forward to another teammate. A player from team A ran toward him and in the process his boot came off. The team A player caught the team B player gaining control of the ball. I whistled for a foul and awarded the B team an indirect kick as Player A was not in uniform. I read something about a dropped ball being called but I would guess that would be rewarding the A team. Anyway, I am not sure what to do and seek your guidance.

The second has to do with kicking the ball back to the GK. I was told by one of our senior referees that we cannot read the field players mind when the ball is kicked to the GK, intentional or not and should award an IFK when if occurs unless it is so obvious that there was no intent. For example, the player kicks the ball into the wind and it blows back to the GK who grabs it. I was the center at a u14 game.

The ball was in the middle of the penalty area.

the defender ran and took a mighty kick at the ball which glanced off the foot and rolled towad the GK who picked it up. I did not award an IFK causing dismay in one of the opposing players who questioned me about it. What is the proper interpretation of the pass back rule regarding intent?

USSF answer (November 24, 2011):
1. A player is expected to replace his footwear as quickly as possible if it comes off during play, but that does not mean that he has to do it immediately. You would have been wrong to caution this player for misconduct; there was no foul committed in the scenario you present, so no kick was necessary. You should have started with a dropped ball (for stopping play incorrectly) and apologized to all concerned

2. The referee should not be looking for fouls to call when none occurs. You would have been mistaken in punishing the goalkeeper for his teammate’s misplayed ball. The ball was truly deliberately kicked, part of the foul, but it was not sent to any place where the goalkeeper could play it; that was pure happenstance, not a foul. Furthermore, the teammate kicking the ball in this sort of scenario is NEVER the one who commits the foul. The foul — if it exists at all — is committed by the goalkeeper if he chooses to use his hands instead of some other part of his body.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELAYS THE RESTART OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
Having a debate here about definition of ‘delay of game’.

On a kick-off from the half line, after a goal, or starting a game, if a team does an improper kick-off (i.e. ball does not move forward, and cross over the half line) several times, is this delay of game? I have seen teams do this in the past. I would allow this twice, then give an IDFK to the opposite team. I was recently told by a senior official that this is not a delay of game and not IDFK. Well, if so, what do you do about it?

USSF answer (November 17, 2011):
The tactic you describe could be considered to be delaying the restart of play. A number of examples are given in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.28.4 DELAYS THE RESTART OF PLAY
The following are specific examples of this form of misconduct (some of which may also be committed by substitutes):

• Kicks or throws the ball away or holds the ball to prevent or delay a free kick, throw-in, or corner kick restart by an opponent

• Fails to restart play after being so instructed by the referee

• Excessively celebrates a goal

• Fails to return to the field from a midgame break, fails to perform a kick-off when signaled by the referee, or fails to be in a correct position for a kick-off

• Performing a throw-in improperly with the apparent intention of being required to perform the throw-in again, thus wasting time

• Unnecessarily moving a ball which has already been properly placed on the ground for a goal kick

• Provokes a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play

Because the ball was out of play at the delay, the restart after any caution in this case would still be the kick-off.…

"Inventive Coaches"

UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR RESTART AND “END OF HALF”

Posted on by

Question 1:
In the first 10 minutes of a U-12 Girls D-1 game, Orange Attacker collides with Blue Keeper. The Orange attacker gets up, but Blue Keeper stays face-down and motionless. The ball spins out of the penalty area toward the touchline when Orange Attacker 2 gathers the ball — completely unopposed. Both teams call for Orange Attacker 2 to kick it out because Blue Keeper is down. Orange Attacker 2 does kick it out.

When the ball is officially out of play, the “injured” blue keeper pops up – smiling. She was “hobbling” a little, but she was perfectly fine after she rubbed her leg a little.

In reflection of this incident, I SHOULD have cautioned Blue Keeper (unsporting behavior) for faking an injury to gain an advantage. I did not give her a YELLOW since I wanted to give her the “benefit of the doubt.”

If the card is issued, What is the re-start? Throw-in for the Blue Keeper’s team or Indirect Free kick (inside the penalty area) for Orange Attacker 1’s team?

Question #2:
At the end of the half in a different U-12 Girls D-1 game, there was a large melee in from of the goal. Time expired in the half PRIOR to the ball entering the goal, but before I could blow the whistle due to it slipping out of my hand at the crucial moment it should have been blown. I disallowed the goal as it was after I was aware the half had ended.

Obviously, the attacking coach told me that play continued until I actually blew the whistle and the goal should count. I told him, the half is over when the center referee is AWARE that time has expired, even if the whistle is NOT blown at all! I also told him the whistle has no official meaning under the laws of the game, but is simply a device officials use to get the attention of the players.

Should the goal have been awarded?

USSF answer (November 17, 2011):
Answer 1: The restart is governed by the reason the ball was out of play (if not stopped by the referee for some other reason). In this case, the correct reason is (apparently) a throw-in, after the referee has issued the caution for unsporting behavior to the goalkeeper (if it is deserved). If the referee did not feel that the goalkeeper’s injury was serious, then there was no reason for the teams to take action on their own to stop play. The referee should instruct the players to leave decision of this nature up to the referee and not take the law into their own feet.

Answer 2: Your decision was correct: no goal. As we constantly remind people, coaches will always attempt to influence your calls. Pay them no mind and call the game as you have been taught to call it.

In addition, your statement about the whistle is not strictly true and could even be confusing. A whistle is required for every ceremonial restart; without it, the restart is not authorized and must be retaken. In such cases, it is NOT merely to gain the attention of players.…

Law 11 - Offside

FOUL OR OFFSIDE?

Posted on by

Question:
I had a situation last weekend in a local Div. 1 men’s league game. An attacker, in the offside position was fouled by a defender before he was ruled as “offside” by my AR. At the moment of the foul I blew the whistle and indicated an offside offense had occurred. Naturally, the attacking team was unhappy that their player had been fouled and the defensive team received the free kick. Does being fouled while in an offside position indicate “involvement” in the play?

USSF answer (November 15, 2011):
We are confused. The problem in answering is that so much depends on whether you or any referee realize(s) that the description of the sequence of events controls the answer..

In the scenario as described, the attacker in the offside position was fouled “before he was ruled offside by my AR,” but does that mean the AR didn’t see any touch of the ball until after the foul occurred? If so, then the foul clearly occurred first, It takes precedence, it determines the restart, and there was no offside offense because the attacker’s touch of the ball (“interfere with play” happened after play was stopped. If the description means that the AR was about to raise the flag for an offside offense that hadn’t happened yet (because the attacker hadn’t yet interfered with play) — an all too likely possibility — then again the result should be that there was no offside offense and only the foul is relevant here.

The only way we can see the offside being called and taking precedence over whatever the defender did is if the ball was passed to the attacker, the attacker made contact with the ball (interfered with play and hence committed an offside violation), and THEN was “fouled” by the defender; but of course it wasn’t really a foul because play stopped with the offside offense (if the referee accepts the AR’s flag) and so the defender can, at most, only be punished for misconduct.…