Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Interpretations/IFAB

PASS BACK TO ‘KEEPER

Posted on by

Question:
In a soccer game a player deliberately used his knee to pass the ball to the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper then picked the ball up with his hands. Does this count as a pass-back to the keeper?

What part of the body can a player use to send the ball to his/her goalkeeper and have the keeper pick it up with his/her hands? Or maybe I should ask what part of the body can’t a player use to pass the ball to the keeper if the keeper intends to pick it up?

USSF answer (November 12, 2010):
The Law is pretty clear. See the back of the Law book 2010/2011, Interpretations, Cautions for unsporting behavior:

• uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick

Even with that information, we would be remiss if we did not point out that, subject to the terms of Law 12, a player MAY pass the ball to his (or her) own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc., if he does NOT use trickery. Furthermore, just to lock it down tightly, for the misconduct offense to be called the referee must decide that the action was done to circumvent the Law.  Merely observing that the ball was played from foot to head is not enough, even if the ball subsequently goes to or toward the GK.  Because we are dealing with misconduct here (the “trickery”) and not the foul commonly referred to as “pass back to the ‘keeper,” we are required to evaluate the intentions of the defender.

In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12.…

Coach

INDOOR PLAYER/COACH EXPELLED

Posted on by

Question:
During a game I argued a call to the referee (no foul language)….I asked him what game was he watching? He came over to the bench (I was acting as a coach) and pointed to the door and said leave. So I left. He later took my player card and said that he is giving me a red card.

Can he give me a red card after the fact? He asked me to leave….no warning. Can he just decide that that is a red card offense after the fact? Plus we were not sent down a man (indoor) indicating an offense has taken place.

Is this a traditional banning then?

USSF answer (November 10, 2010):
In point of fact, the referee should not show a coach a card of any color in any form of soccer, indoor or outdoor; it is against the Laws. However, there may be some facility rule regarding this. Many indoor facilities have their own rules that take no notice of the Laws of the Game.

In your role as a player/coach, the referee could legally send you off and even show you the red card, because you were dressed as a player. In our opinion, the send-off as a player is extremely questionable if the situation was as you describe it, because your behavior does not seem to have gone beyond dissent (a cautionable offense). In our experience the red “after the fact” is not out of the realm of normalcy for indoor soccer — and the referee does not have to warn a player (or coach) at all, no matter whether indoor or outdoor. If you were expelled as a coach, there would have been no time penalty.

Under the Laws of the Game the only reason to send off a coach is for irresponsible behavior, and what you describe could fit that category, depending on your tone of voice and what else had been happening in the game. It would appear that the referee decided “that’s enough” and expelled you for exceeding the acceptable bounds of competitive enthusiasm.…

"Inventive Coaches"

GOALKEEPER SAFETY/POSSESSION

Posted on by

Question:
In a B14 match attacking Red player A takes a shot from 25 yards away that strikes the crossbar, and ricochets to the ground, and bounces up about waist high, about 3-5 feet in front of the Blue goalkeeper. Attacking Red player B is only 2 feet from the ball, and he swings his leg sideways to kick the ball back into the net just as the Blue goalkeeper swoops in to scoop up the ball. The blue goalkeeper never gets his hands on the ball but just as he is about to, Red player B’s foot strikes the ball and Blue keepers face simultaneously. The ball goes into the net. The keeper goes down but recovers and finishes the match. All parties…. the center referee, his assistant referee, the coach of both the Red and Blue teams agrees there was no intent by Red B to strike or injure the keeper.
However, the coach of Blue team argues that since player safety is a referee’s paramount concern that the center ref should have either: (1) blown his whistle to stop the play before the injury; or (2) stopped play, disallowed the goal and awarded an indirect free kick to Blue for dangerous play. The coach of the Blue team argues that the interpretation of “in the possession of the goalkeeper” be expanded to include those situations where in the opinion of the center referee, the keeper is in imminent possession of the ball, and due to the proximity of an attacking player, stop play with his whistle to protect the keeper, and restart the plate as if the attacking player had interfered with the keeper or fouled him. What is the proper decision for the center referee in these circumstances and if the coach is correct, what is the authority in the LOTG or ATR for his position?

USSF answer (November 5, 2010):
Let’s break this down into smaller parts to help make the entire problem understandable for referees, coaches, and players alike.

1. THE GOALKEEPER POSITION AND DANGER
Yes, safety is the referee’s first concern under the Laws. However, referees — and coaches and players — need to remember that the position of goalkeeper is inherently dangerous and the goalkeeper is allowed a bit more leeway than other players in placing him- or herself in danger and thus affecting how the opponents can act. Everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. Why? Because it is the ‘keeper’s job to stop the ball from going into the goal, no matter at what height above the ground it may travel. Unless the ‘keeper did something that was careless or violent or reckless, and you said that he did not, then there was no foul, but simply bad luck. This is one of the lessons referees, players, and coaches need to learn.

Would we allow this for the opposing attackers? Not if it places the goalkeeper in danger that he cannot avoid. Is this inconsistent? Yes, but it is the way the game has always been played.

2. GOALKEEPER POSSESSION
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e. g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. And the “hand” in this case can consist of as few as one finger of the ‘keeper’s hand.

The Laws do not grant the referee the power to extend the definition of goalkeeper possession, nor to legislate new meanings on the field of play.

3. PLAYERS’ RIGHTS AND FAIR CHALLENGES
The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the fairness is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

Any time a player (either a field player or a goalkeeper) raises his/her leg above knee level there is the likelihood that someone will be hurt. As age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more conservatively. Something an adult player might be allowed to do is not always the same as something a youth player (U14 for example) would be allowed to do.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PARAMETERS OF THE FAIR SHOULDER CHARGE

Posted on by

Question:
Please help me understand the parameters of a fair shoulder charge — especially when it comes to skilled players in U16 matches and above.

I believe that when a player approaches another, especially from a near 90 degree angle, with enough force to blast a player off the ball with the shoulder (all other parameters of legal charge are used; feet on ground, contact at shoulder area, in playing distance, no use of elbow/arm) that the charge becomes careless if not reckless. I was taught that “playing the player” prior to playing the ball is a violation of the LOTG. A friend and very respected and talented referee has chastised me for calling charges made with what I believe to be “freight train” force fouls. He states that nothing in the ATR or LOTG supports my belief that aggressive charges are fouls. Here is an exchange we had via e-mail:

Me:
What exactly would constitute a careless or reckless charging foul other than one not directed to the shoulder?? And if a charging foul could be committed with excessive force, what would that look like?

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
• trips or attempts to trip an opponent
• jumps at an opponent
• charges an opponent
• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
• pushes an opponent
• tackles an opponent

Him:
I personally do not believe that it is possible to execute an otherwise fair shoulder charge (feet on the ground, contact with the shoulder to the opponent’s shoulder area [due to size difference it may not be possible to be exactly shoulder-to-shoulder and as the ATR notes this is NOT required], and while within playing distance of the ball) in a careless or reckless manner or to use excessive force. The object of such a charge is to knock the opponent away from the ball. In these instances the stronger player is legally allowed to use his body and strength to displace the opponent from his desired position AND THEN go collect the ball. There is certainly no requirement within the LOTG to “play the ball” under such circumstances.
Soccer is a tough game which can often be quite physical. As long as the contact is done in a legal manner, I am never going to deem the charge to be a foul.

I would really appreciate and answer regarding this matter as [my state] has no SRA or DRI and I have nowhere else to turn on this matter.

USSF answer (October 20, 2010):
We applaud your correspondent, who has an excellent grasp of the fair charge.

There is no other sort of charge than a “shoulder charge”; no hips, no hands, no holds or pushes. A fair charge is shoulder to shoulder, elbows (on the contact side) against the body, with each player having at least one foot on the ground and both attempting to gain control of the ball. The amount of force allowed is relative to the age and experience of the players, but should never be excessive. This is as defined by the referee on the game, not some book definition, adjusted as necessary for the age and experience of the players and what has happened or is happening in this particular game on this particular day at this particular moment. It all boils down to what is best for the referee’s management and the players’ full enjoyment of the game.

Although often overlooked by spectators, it is important to remember that a player’s natural endowments (speed, strength, height, heft, etc.) may be superior to that of the opponent who is competing with that player for the ball. As a completely natural result, the opponent may not only be bested in the challenge but may in fact wind up on the ground — with no foul having been committed. The mere fact that a player fails in a challenge and falls or is knocked down is what the game is all about (and why coaches must choose carefully in determining which player marks which opponent). Referees do not handicap players by saddling them with artificial responsibilities to be easy on an opponent simply because they are better physically endowed in some way.

Fair charges include actions which do not strictly meet the “shoulder-to-shoulder” requirement when this is not possible because of disparities in height or body type (a common occurrence in youth matches in the early teenage range where growth spurts differ greatly on an individual level within the age group). Additionally, a fair charge can be directed toward the back of the shoulder if the opponent is shielding the ball, provided it is not done dangerously and never to the spinal area.

The arms may not be used at all, other than for balance—which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent.

“Momentum” should not be a factor in the referee’s judgment of a charge. Beyond the definition given above, there are only two criteria for judging the charge: (1) Was it fair or unfair? (2) If unfair, was the charge (a) careless, (b) reckless, or (c) using excessive force? After these two questions have been asked and answered, the referee makes a decision.

If the player’s momentum is too great, it is likely that the player is using excessive force; however, please remember that a player can be knocked over by a fair charge and the charging player should not be punished for that. If the charge described in your example was either reckless or done with excessive force, the player should have been either cautioned for unsporting behavior or sent off for serious foul play.

We must add that a player may be off balance and fall more easily because of a “fair” shoulder charge. Charges from behind when a player is shielding a ball that is within playing distance are often deemed to be fouls if the player shielding the ball falls forward. Again the referee is the judge what constitutes fair of foul. But simply causing an opponent to fall does not automatically mean that a foul has been committed.

In addition, some well-meaning but ill-informed leagues make a “no-charge” rule part of their rules of competition. These are the same misguided people who say that younger players should not be sent off for offenses that would merit a send-off and lengthy suspension in advanced youth and adult soccer. How will kids learn to cope with adversity as adults if they are spoon fed only sweetness and light as youths?…

Disciplinary Matters

MAY THE PLAYER BE REPLACED?

Posted on by

Question:
A player on Team A asks the ref repeatedly why a foul was called. He didn’t respond. The same player for Team A was substituted and asked the ref why a foul was called in passing, again the ref ignored his request. The player while exiting the field said “you’re an idiot” not directly to the ref. The ref said “what did you say”. Team A player continued off the field and one of the players from Team B said to the referee he said “You are a ‘Effing’ idiot”.

Player 2 from (the sub) from Team A went on to the field. Referee Red carded the player that said “you’re an idiot”. My question is does Team A have to play a man short?

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
Because the referee waited until the substitute entered the field and became a player, the former player’s dismissal for using offensive, insulting or abusive language does not result in Team A having to play short. If the referee had acted before allowing the new player to enter, then Team A would have to play short.

The harder question is this: suppose the referee is 100% sure that the second player who provided the answer embellished on the first player’s remark. Should the referee ignore the embellishment (“Effing idiot” vs just “idiot”)? It is probably best to let it go but let the player know that you know. …

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

HEADING THE BALL TO THE ‘KEEPER; TRICKERY?

Posted on by

Question:
This question arose this weekend during a regional game event.

Team A defender #1 receives the ball, he then plays the ball in the air (operative word here) to Team A defender #2, who then decides to head it back to his keeper. Thus circumventing the pass-back to the keeper. First of all, does this constitute a pass-back to the keeper?

And then does this fall into the ‘trickery’ clause as defined in Law 12, and you caution defender #1 for initiating the trickery? Or do you caution defender #2 for knowingly deceiving the other team.

I have gone through a series of links online to which it’s only addressed a single player flicking it up to his own head, and the other talking about a throw in to a teammate’s head who consequently heads it back to the keeper.

USSF answer (October 19, 2010):
When calling “trickery” on passes to the goalkeeper we look for contrived and unusual plays. Heading the ball to the goalkeeper is part of the game; we see it every weekend at all levels of play. This play appears to have been entirely normal and involved two players who were simply trying to keep the ball away from their opponents. That is not trickery.…

"Inventive" Refs

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
I play for a U19 girls soccer team, and we played a game today that many of our fans, coach, and players felt that it was an unfairly reffed game. The team we played for had a referee that additionally works at that teams club. I’m not positive because I was pretty sure that you can not ref a game for a club you work for…that would be an unfair bias. He additionally called about 11 obstruction calls on our team whenever we got within the 18 yrd box of the opposing team(the club he works for team) If I am mistaken again but I thought obstruction would be typically called on the defending team.

We also got called for an obstruction call on the goalie when a teammate of mine stood in front of the goalie on a corner(not even touching her) We got called for another on a girl who did not have the ball yet and then once on our own 8 yrd line our defending player got called for obstruction for playing typical defense on a corner….what exactly is this obstruction rule and why is it being used, I have never heard this rule in my life but once? Lastly I would like to know if there is a way to report a referee somehow, because I think he should not be allowed to ref for a club team for the club he works for.

USSF answer (October 17, 2010):
If you have problems with a referee, then the best thing to do is to submit a report to the competition authority (the league, cup, tournament, etc.) that is responsible for the game. You will also want to send a copy of that report to the state referee authorities in your state.

In general, refereeing a game in which you have a vested interest in a team (such as working for that team or club) is considered to be a conflict of interest. In such a case, you can also file a complaint with the state soccer association responsible for that particular competition. Look on the U. S.Soccer website for Federation Policies, in particular Policy 531-10 — Misconduct of Game Officials, Section 2, Procedures. You can find the Federation’s Bylaws and Policies (and Amendments to the Policies) at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer.com/About/Governance/Bylaws.aspx .

There is no such foul as “obstruction,” although there was such a foul until the major editing of the Laws in 1997. It would appear that the “referee” for your game has not read the Laws of the Game since 1996. Either that or he (a) paid no attention in training classes or (b) is not a referee at all.

“Obstruction” became “impeding the progress of an opponent” in 1997. impeding the progress of an opponent is defined in the Laws of the Game: “Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.” It is punished by an indirect free kick for the opposing team. In addition, “It is an offense to restrict the movement of the goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him, e. g. at the taking of a corner kick.” In either case, if contact is initiated by the impeding player, this is considered to be the direct free kick foul of holding.…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREE MISLEADS DEFENDING TEAM AT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
During one of our U-14 games one of our defensive players and opposing team members were shoulder to shoulder heading towards our goal. Our defensive player then reached his foot out to try and kick the ball away towards the side and instead he toe tipped it out in front towards the center of the goal and our goalie picked it up.

This maneuver also landed the opposing teams player on the ground and our kids catching his balance in sprint. The Ref then called an indirect kick for the opposing team on the “pass back rule” I am under the understanding that it only applies if it is intentionally kicked back to our goalie. Obviously two players sprinting shoulder to shoulder and the defense trying to get it out of there can not be taken as intentionally can it? This IDK lead to another messy situation where the Ref then told our players they could not make a wall stating they must be 10 yds from the goal line (ball was 8 yds from goal line) then when our players looked confused and moved away he tried to save himself and say 10 yds from the ball. Yelling at them.

Our Goalie was trying to get our people back on the goal line when the ref proceeded with game play (no whistle, or asking goalie if ready).

Our Goalie was not ready and well tap tap ball in. I want to contest this however I want to make sure I have the right answer before doing so.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
Let’s start with the good things the referee did (or may have done):
• The call for the “pass back rule” was correct if your player deliberately kicked the ball to the goalkeeper or to a place where the ‘keeper could play the ball. The emphasis on “deliberately” means that the player did not miskick or deflect the ball, but knew essentially where it was going to go.
• No whistle is necessary at a free kick unless the referee has had to move the opposing back the minimum ten yards from the ball; a whistle is necessary if the opponents had to be moved.

Now we move to the bad things the referee did:
• The defending team has no right to form a wall at free kick. In fact, they have only one right to anything at a free kick, and that right is not to be confused by the referee. By giving them bad directions on where they could be, the referee misled your players. At an indirect free kick near goal, all opponents must be at least 10 yds from the ball until it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts.
• Referees should never yell at players.

Your game is not protestable. Even though the referee misled your team through his poor mechanics, that does not mean that he “set aside a Law of the Game.”…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TRICKERY? YES!

Posted on by

Question:
We were playing a high school soccer match in Illinois and a player on my team flicked the ball up to his head and headed it back to the goalie so he could pick it up and would not be in violation of the pass back to the goalie rule. The ref did not know the rule but the linesman did and called it trickery and gave the player that passed the goalie the ball a yellow card.

I was wondering what the real rule would be.

USSF answer (October 15, 2010):
The assistant referee was correct; the practice of flicking the ball to one’s head and then heading the ball to the goalkeeper is trickery, punished with a caution of the heading player for unsporting behavior and an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the misconduct occurred. Here is an article on the matter that appeared in the USSF referee magazine Fair Play five years ago. It should answer your question.

Trickery
FIFA has demanded that referees deal quickly and firmly with timewasting tactics. One of the least understood forms of time wasting is trickery in passing the ball to the goalkeeper. This article describes trickery and how the referee can combat it.

Law 12 was rewritten in 1997 to reduce the number of options available to players for wasting time. Playing the ball to one’s goalkeeper was traditionally used as a way of “consuming” time. By the time the Law was rewritten, the practice had become synonymous with time wasting.

Normal interplay of the ball among teammates is not a matter of concern to any referee; however, the referee must be concerned with obvious deliberate attempts to circumvent the requirements of the Law. Players may pass the ball to their goalkeeper in any legal way and not infringe on the requirements of Law 12. It is when a player uses trickery that the referee must act. Trickery is any contrived scheme or unnatural way of playing the ball in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of Law 12 when passing the ball to the goalkeeper. Examples of trickery include a player who deliberately flicks the ball with the foot up to the head, so as to head the ball to the goalkeeper, or a player who kneels down and deliberately pushes the ball to the goalkeeper with the knee or head.

If the ball was already in play, an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator touched—not merely “kicked”—the ball is appropriate. If the ball was out of play, the restart for a violation depends upon how the circumvention began. If the action began from a free kick or goal kick that was properly taken, the restart will again be an indirect free kick from the spot where the initiator of the trickery played it, no matter where the kick was taken or when it occurred in the sequence of play. If the goal kick or free kick was not properly taken, then the restart must be that goal kick or free kick. This could lead to a situation where the offending team has a player cautioned (or sent off for a second cautionable offense), but still retains the ball on the restart.

If more than one player was involved in the trickery, the question as to which defender to punish can be answered only by the referee. The referee must be sure that the sequence of play was meant to circumvent the Law and to prevent opponents from having a fair chance to compete for the ball rather than have it unfairly handled by the goalkeeper. If, in the referee’s opinion, there was trickery, then it is the teammate who played the ball immediately prior to it going to the goalkeeper who would be cautioned.

The punishment for trickery is a caution for unsporting behavior, with the restart to be taken at the place where the trickery was initiated, not where the goalkeeper handled the ball. The referee does not have to wait until the ‘keeper handles the ball to make the call. The referee must only be convinced that trickery was the player’s motive for the act.

However, this is a high school match and the action becomes cautionable to the defender playing the ball to his goalkeeper only if the goalkeeper actually handles the ball. Rule 12-7-4 (Note). The Laws of the Game do not care if the keeper handles the ball or not, it is misconduct by the defender either way.…

"Inventive Assessors"

THE GOALKEEPER AND THE PENALTY AREA LINE

Posted on by

Question:
I’ve looked through LOTG and searched the archives and cannot find a definitive answer to the following:

Keeper Punting the Ball – Enforcement of the PA in the taking of the punt. There is differing Veteran Referee opinions / judgements: A) PA is enforced from where the ball meets the foot; B) PA is enforced from where the ball left the hand(s) of the keeper in starting the punt toss.

Example: the keeper tosses the ball into the air from inside the PA but strikes the ball 2-3 feet outside of the area. Legal?

USSF answer (October 12, 2010):
Let’s look at it in increments. If any part of the ball is on the line, the ball is within the penalty area. The fact that part of the ball might be outside the penalty area is irrelevant. The BALL on the line is still in the penalty area and, accordingly, it can still be handled by the goalkeeper, and that includes ANY PART of the ball. The BALL is a whole thing and either is or is not in the penalty area. If it is, it can be handled by the goalkeeper. If it is not, it cannot be handled by the ‘keeper.

If the goalkeeper releases the ball from his (or her) hands while within the penalty area, but does not kick the ball until it is outside the penalty area, no offense has occurred. That is entirely legal.

While recognizing that the offense by the goalkeeper of crossing the penalty area line completely with the ball still in hand is often debatable, and that it is usually trifling, we must also recognize that it is certainly an infringement of the Law and must always be treated as such by the referee. The referee will usually warn the goalkeeper about honoring the penalty area line but allow the first such act to go unpunished; however the referee must then clearly warn the goalkeeper to observe and honor the line and the Law. If it occurs again, the referee should call the foul and, if the offense is repeated yet again, caution the goalkeeper for persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game.

We have heard, but cannot believe, that any referee instructor in any state would tell referees to punish this offense with an indirect free kick. The correct restart is a direct free kick for the opposing team from the place where the offense occurred. That means the point just outside the penalty area where the goalkeeper still had the ball in hand.

One unfortunate thing is that in many cases assistant referees do not do their job correctly in this respect. Instead of judging the place where the ball is released from the goalkeeper’s hands, they concentrate on the place where the goalkeeper’s foot meets the ball, which could be well outside the area with no offense having occurred.

[This answer repeats materials used in answers from 2003-2009, all in the archives of this site.]…