“DIRECTION” AS A FACTOR OF DENIAL

August 18, 2011August 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

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.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

NO SEND-OFF HERE!

August 18, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A through ball puts a player on a clear break away. The opposing goal keeper comes out of the 18 yard box to play the ball and bobbles it as the attacking forward is less than 2 meters away. To avoid turning over the ball, the goaltender picks it up with his hands. The call on the field is a direct free kick from the spot where the goalie picked up the ball. Should the goal keeper be given a red card for taking away a goal scoring opportunity?

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
Yes, the goalkeeper has committed a direct-free-kick foul, but your scenario does not make a case for a send-off for denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. The dismissal for DG-H requires that, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would have gone into the net but for the handling. It sure doesn’t sound like that in your scenario. The referee should call the foul, award the direct free kick, and perhaps also a caution for unsporting behavior for the tactical foul.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MUTUAL (BUT NOT SIMULTANEOUS) FOULS PLUS MISCONDUCT

August 18, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Blue and Red player have been challenging pretty hard during the game….all fair, a little tugging on the jerseys in close. Referee has made a verbal to them both during play…ie hands down, etc. Nothing real major.

Second half, blue is a little upset as red starts to tug on the jersey a little excessive from behind. Referee is about to whistle for red holding, but blue player, before the referee can blow the whistle…sticks his arm out and with a backwards motion strikes the red player in anger for retaliation against the hold. Neither has had a foul called on them in the match.

My question is since the intent of the referee was to call a holding foul on red, and just the delay to bring the whistle to the mouth does not negate that…..the initial foul would be holding on red. Then the follow up misconduct would be the strike by blue as in this case it happened after the referee intended to stop play, so it can’t be a foul. Restart with DFK blue as it was the natural restart Or Just call the foul on both and as both are penal and one is not greater than the other, drop ball (hate having to do that)

Now, with that said What if the same scenario, but the strike was reckless but occurred as retaliation for the hold. Although you verbally admonish the hold, you enforce the strike as it was more severe, show the yellow, and DFK Red for the blue reckless strike.

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
Once the referee has determined that a non-trifling foul has been committed and the referee is about to blow the whistle to stop further action, play has already stopped as far as the restart goes. Any infringements that follow the foul to be called are thus treated as misconduct. Only the referee knows how it went down, at least until he or she writes the match report, so there is no need for explanation of the decision to anyone but the competition authorities and the assessor, if there is one (and only if he or she asks).

Given the situation as you present it, the referee should stop play as quickly as possible and get to the spot of the incidents. Deal with each of the two fouls and/or acts of misconduct as the Law prescribes. If the holding foul by Red was NOT blatant, award the direct free kick to Blue and do not caution the Red player. If the holding foul WAS blatant, caution the Red player. If the Blue player’s act of striking was not done with excessive force, it must, by definition, have been done recklessly, and thus the Blue player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the striking was done with excessive force, the Blue player must be sent off for violent conduct, not for serious foul play (because the ball was already out of play based on the referee’s decision to stop for the original holding foul by Red), as the two players were then not contesting for the ball (a requirement for SFP).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SERENDIPITY RULES

August 18, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
In the ManCity-Swansea match, around the 83rd minute, a ball is played off a City player and is heading toward his own goal line, in danger of giving a corner kick (the ball was not a pass played backward by City, only a deflection. Also, no Swansea player was in the near the goal line, and the ball was about 8 yards away from goal). The City goalkeeper, in an effort not to give up a corner kick, knocks the ball with his hands to keep it in play. The ball bounces but does not touch another plaeyr, and then the keeper picks it up in the penalty box. Is this an example of a parry and an illegal touch, because of the deliberate action of a touching the ball with the hand and then another deliberate touch?

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
No, it’s an example of a parry and a legal touch. If, in the opinion of the referee, the ‘keeper’s motivation was solely to keep the ball from leaving the field for a corner kick, it was a legal play. The fact that the goalkeeper gained a serendipitous advantage is irrelevant. There was no true control or possession, so there was no infringement of the Law.…

"Inventive" Refs

“I GOT THE BALL!”

August 15, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Recently the USSF released a position paper called “I got the ball” which stated that there can still be a foul even if the one committing the foul touched the ball first. I recently saw the 1999 Fouls and Misconducts Women World Cup instruction video from the USSF.

In the past, some of the “fouls” shown at the beginning 5 minutes might have been considered clean (they were clean judged by the referee), but with the release of this position paper and changes of the interpretations of the law, the video might be outdated since upon some examination, the fouls show what the position paper states: “Getting the ball first does not make a tackle legal.” and “Getting the ball first but following through with the rest of the body in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force does make the tackle illegal.” Please watch the video and offer me some opinion because these two things combined are confusing me. Upon further pondering, I think going with the most recent position paper would be the best bet.

USSF answer (August 15, 2011):
The Federation has been teaching the principles stated in the position paper for many years. The problem is that too many referees have chosen not to make the proper call. Rather than make that proper call, they have chosen — and many still choose — to listen to coaches, players, and spectators instead of following the Law.…

Advice to Referees

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY AGAINST A TEAMMATE? NO!

August 11, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
High kick foul- If a player raises his foot, and kicks a ball near the face of a player from his own team, wouldn’t that still be considered dangerous play? Is there a procedure to deal with that?

Would you just talk to the player after play is stopped?

USSF answer (August 11, 2011):
Such a rule exists in the U S. high school rules, to which we are not authorized to speak. On the other hand, under the Laws of the Game no offense has been committed; however, the referee might still have a word with the player about the need for safety. Here is what we tell referees, taken from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing “in a dangerous manner” can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground). Committing a dangerous act while an opponent is nearby is not, by itself, an offense. The act becomes an offense only when an opponent is adversely and unfairly affected, usually by the opponent ceasing to challenge for the ball in order to avoid receiving or causing injury as a direct result of the player’s act. Playing in a manner considered to be dangerous when only a teammate is nearby is not a foul. Remember that fouls may be committed only against opponents or the opposing team.

In judging a dangerous play offense, the referee must take into account the experience and skill level of the players. Opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through. Younger players have neither the experience nor skill to judge the danger adequately and, in such cases, the referee should intervene on behalf of their safety. For example, playing with cleats up in a threatening or intimidating manner is more likely to be judged a dangerous play offense in youth matches, without regard to the reaction of opponents.

…

Disciplinary Matters

MAJOR REFEREE ERROR

August 11, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
The game has finished, the players are on the sideline when the ref issues a player without their jersey on with a yellow for decent, the player blows up again so the ref issues another yellow to the same player resulting in a red, what is the outcome if the ref reports the wrong player in the paperwork since he had no jersey on how can he be sure he reports the correct player ? and if he does report the wrong player can the team challenge the result ?

USSF answer (August 11, 2011):
The final whistle has been blown, the game is over! Players may now remove their jerseys if they like, whether they are on the field or off. The referee committed an error in judgment and procedure by not determining the player’s name and number before issuing the caution for dissent and the subsequent caution and dismissal for receiving a second caution in the game. (Yes this period counts as part of the game if the referee has not left the area after the final whistle.)

The referee could have resolved the problem by informing the team captain and or a team official, such as the coach, that this player was being cautioned and then sent off and asking for the player’s name.

In answer to your final question, we cannot know what course the competition’s disciplinary committee will take in this matter, other than to remind the referee that procedure should be followed.…

"Inventive Assessors"

SPECIAL RULE FOR GOALKEEPERS AND ATTACKERS? NOT!

August 3, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I recently attended an ODP camp as a referee. I was told by a National Assessor at the camp that there was a rule concerning attackers and goalkeeper interactions inside the goal area. I don’t remember the specifics exactly and I don’t want to say that I was told something that I wasn’t. Could you please clarify if there are any laws/advice/interpretations on this subject?

USSF answer (August 3, 2011):
We have absolutely no idea what the assessor was talking about. There is nothing in writing that we are aware of.…

"Only in America!"

TWO INTERESTING QUESTIONS AND SOME RULES

July 23, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
This past weekend I was working a local youth tournament and I have two questions from two different games.

First, while I was on “stand-by” in the referee tent during my 3 hour break, my assignor showed up in a golf cart and took me to a field where we found a young upset female ref and the tournament director at a U-10 game. My assignor told me to finish the last 18 minutes of the game and took the previous ref. After talking to both coaches, I found that an assistant of one team (who’s club was hosting the tournament) had been sent-off after arguing numerous calls. I told the head coach of that team that the previous referee’s decision stands and the coach needs to leave. The tournament director then came on to the field and said that he had “overruled” the ref and had asked for a new one, which is what brought the other official to tears. I told him 1 you can’t replace a ref in the middle of a match and more importantly the referee has sole jurisdiction over the match and cannot be “overruled” after a long discussion which included us reading out of the laws of the game, the ejected coach was allowed to sit away from the players and fans but allowed to stay on site. My question is what should a referee do when a tournament director “overrules” you, even in the middle of the match as this one did? Even though referees know this can’t happen the director seemed to think he had the power to do so.

Secondly, in a u-15 Boys game, a “green” player was fouled carelessly about 4 yards from the top of the penalty area, I awarded the free kick, clearly spotted the foul and cautioned the player who fouled him. With time winding down, the “green” coach began to argue that the card should have been red since the offending player had done it “four or five times.” I told him that he was given a yellow for persistent infringement. I turned around, allowed the kicker to take the kick, and he scored. Next, my AR ran up to me and said the player had moved the ball 2 yards closer to the goal before taking the kick while my back was turned. While my AR should gave told me before the kick, what should I have done with the information? I cautioned the player for unsporting conduct and re-took the kick (was saved on re-take). Did I make the right call? Thanks.

USSF answer (July 23, 2011):
1. First, a rule of thumb known only to tournament directors and those of us who have been around for a very long time: If the tournament director says something is so, then he or she is surely right, even when he or she is blatantly and incredibly wrong. Second, always read and be aware of the competition’s rules when you accept an assignment; the director might actually have that power and, if you accepted the assignment, you acknowledge that you accept the rules of the competition. Third, yes, you were absolutely correct. Fourth, mark the tournament in your mind and alert your colleagues and local referee association that this particular event allows such travesties to occur and you cannot in good conscience recommend taking assignments to its games.

2. More rules: (a) Make a decision and stick to it, unless you recognize you truly were in error. (b) Do not allow yourself to be distracted by outside influences with no authority over any aspect of your game, also known as coaches, at a free kick or at any other time. (c) Always know where the ball is. (d) When you have been distracted by an outside influence, check with your assistant referees to be sure nothing has happened during the distraction. (e) Remember rules (a) and (b). Yes, you made the correct call.…

IFAB/FIFA Experiments

NO CAUTION FOR A TACTICAL FOUL?

July 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
Instruction was given at the Region II youth championships that a referee need no longer caution for a tactical foul if that foul was committed by the defending team, was penal, and was committed within their own penalty area, resulting in a penalty kick. Can you please confirm or deny this instruction/interpretation change. In the past this never mattered; a player who committed a foul which in the opinion of the referee was tactical, and did not meet the 4 D’s requirement of Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity, was cautioned and shown the yellow card, regardless of location of that foul or resultant restart.

USSF answer (July 19, 2011):
The instructions you were given at the Region 2 Youth Championships are part of a concept approved by FIFA and the IFAB. This concept does not yet have final approval, but a position paper will be issued in the near future.…