Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

BALL DELIBERATELY KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER

Posted on by

Question:
I have a clarification question regarding the goalie pass back rule. I’ve always understood the rule to be based on intent.

Which would imply that a goalie is permitted to handle a ball that was unintentionally passed back to him/her.

To be an intentional pass back, does the intent have to be a pass back to the goalie, or simply the act of passing back.

Specifically, in a recent game the goalie was inside the goal box. A midfielder passed the ball back from near midfield to a defender at the top corner of the penalty box. The defender never touched the ball, but followed it along the inside outer edge of the penalty box.

The goalie then ran out of the goal box to call off the defender and picked up the ball.

The intent of the midfielder was not to pass back to the goalie, but it was an intentional backwards pass. Does this qualify as a pass back infraction?

USSF answer (May 24, 2010):
Your perception of the concept of punishment for the ball kicked to the goalkeeper is flawed but certainly understandable for anyone other than a referee — many of whom also seem to remain unaware.

The Law tells us that the goalkeeper may not pick up or otherwise play with the hands any ball deliberately kicked — as opposed to miskicked in an attempt to clear the ball — by a teammate. It makes no difference that this particular ball ran all the way from near midfield to the goalkeeper, it’s still a foul for him or her to pick it up.…

"Inventive Coaches"

“I GOT THE BALL, REF!” “ALL BALL, REF!”

Posted on by

Question:
A defender slides towards an opponent running with the ball. The defender’s tackling foot pushes the ball away from the opponent but the force of the defender’s momentum causes him to collide heavily with the opponent below the knees. The opponent tumbles to the ground. I adjudge the defender to have used excessive force and to have been reckless with regard to injury, and to have tripped the opponent (or attempted a trip) because the opponent’s feet were impeded in such a way that he fell heavily. I award a direct free kick.

I have been told by many players, fans, and coaches that this could not be a foul because the defender didn’t trip the player – he “got the ball”. I have heard commentators on TV say that a referee is wrong in calling a foul when a player “gets the ball”. I have never seen it written down in the Laws of the Game that if a player “gets the ball” he cannot at the same time be guilty of tripping or using excessive force. Am I missing some directive about the interpretation of Law 12?

USSF answer (May 18, 2010):
Saying that a player “got the ball” is meaningless in a tackle. What the referee must be concerned about is what happens during and after the tackle.

DURING
• If the tackler uses excessive force, he or she is sent off immediately for serious foul play and the game is restarted with a direct free kick or a penalty kick, if the foul and misconduct were committed in the tackler’s penalty area).
• If the tackler is reckless, he or she is cautioned and the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackler is careless, the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackle is committed fairly and there is incidental contact, there is no foul.

AFTER
If, after the tackle is fairly made, the tackler uses the foot or body in a careless or reckless way or with excessive force, see DURING.

Coaches will always protest an act that disadvantages their team, no matter that it was done legally. As for commentators on television, many of them actually know little or nothing of the game and how it should be played or refereed, no matter what their accent or “credentials.”

Only the referee on the game can make that decision, applying The Seven Magic Words, “If in the opinion of the referee, . . ..”…

Handling

GOALKEEPER HANDLES TO PREVENT GOAL?

Posted on by

Question:
A referee brought up this question at our association meeting tonight. It started quite a debate and we would like to know the correct answer to put this to rest:
A shot on goal is made by an attacker. The goalkeeper is too short to stop the ball from entering the goal with his hands so he pulls on the back of the net thus preventing the ball from completely crossing over the goal line.
What should the referee do in this case? If he stops play, what action should he take and what is the restart?

USSF answer (May 6, 2010):
In using the net as an artificial aid (and extension of his hands), the goalkeeper has theoretically denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. However, as we know from Law 12, the goalkeeper is expressly excluded from the requirement for a send-off in this case, “(this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area).” Solution? After the caution is given for unsporting behavior, award an indirect free kick for the opposing team on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred.…

"Inventive" Refs

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE DISTANCE REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
In the April 16 question about failure to respect the distance, my question is how do we call this at the lower levels when it is not called at the higher levels? I don’t think I’ve ever seen failure to respect the distance enforced in a professional match in spite of it occurring on nearly every foul called.

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
The argument given by those who are reluctant to enforce the distance at a free kick is that the players do not expect the rule to be enforced and are willing to put up with it. It is clear that this is not true and the Federation has launched a campaign on this problem. Ask your State Director of Referee Instruction to let you know when there will be a clinic on the “Managing the Free Kick” module.

In addition, please note that this is an important consideration at the professional level and is certainly called at every level of the professional game. However, we acknowledge that referees at all levels are sometimes a bit lax and need to be more forceful in enforcing the law.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INTERFERING WITH THE GOALKEEPER’S RELEASE OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I have been looking for clarification on how referees should consider a ball released by the goalkeeper. The Laws of the Game Guide states “It is an offence for a player to prevent a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands.” My situation: attacker within yards of keeper leaps at the punted/thrown ball in hopes of intercepting it at the beginning of its trajectory. The ball has been physically “released,” but is it considered released under the Law? At what point in the above situation is the act of releasing completed?

USSF answer (April 26, 2010(:
There has been considerable interest in this topic since Jaime Moreno of D. C. United violated the Law by cavorting and gesturing to interfere with the goalkeeper’s release of the ball into general play. This memorandum on the matter was issued by USSF on April 14, 2010:

Subject: Interfering with the Goalkeeper’s Release of the Ball
Date: April 14, 2010

Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) includes the words “prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands” as an offense punishable by an indirect free kick. By tradition and interpretation, this violation is described more generally as any action by a player which interferes with the opposing goalkeeper’s ability to get the ball back into active play freely and quickly.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in the process of “releasing the ball” from the first moment when he or she has clearly taken hand control of the ball until the moment when the ball has been clearly released into play. This includes any time when the goalkeeper is:
· bouncing the ball
· running with the ball
· in the process of dropping the ball in preparation for kicking it
· throwing the ball.

During the time the goalkeeper has control of the ball and is preparing to release it into active play, an opponent may not stand or move so close as to restrict the direction or distance of the goalkeeper’s release.

In the 70th minute of a match between D.C. United at Philadelphia Union on April 10, 2010 (clip found here), D.C. forward Moreno followed, moved in closer to, waved arms at, and made various head and body “movements” toward Philadelphia goalkeeper Seitz while Seitz was holding the ball and preparing to distribute it. During the course of this interference, Seitz dropped the ball and Moreno shot the ball into the net. These actions by Moreno constituted a violation of Law 12. The goal should not have been allowed and an indirect free kick should have been given where Moreno interfered. Moreno’s behavior additionally could have been cautioned as unsporting behavior.

Whenever a goalkeeper has taken possession of the ball and an opponent is either nearby or begins moving toward the goalkeeper, referees and assistant referees must recognize the possibility of interference and allow their attention to continue to focus on the goalkeeper. More proactively, a quick word to the opponent might well prevent this sort of offense.

The most important part of the memorandum is the final paragraph, reminding referees to be proactive in controlling the movement of opposing players near the goalkeeper. That brings us to the final sentence of our answer of April 12, 2010, on this topic and the answer to your question: “The referee should have blown the whistle immediately and awarded the indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team.”

A few words on how to judge interference with the goalkeeper: The key question is whether “in the opinion of the referee”  the goalkeeper, who is in the process of releasing the ball, has been influenced by the opposing player. The referee can only judge by the ACTIONS of the opposing player in question and the DISTANCE of the player to the keeper.  If the player jumps in the air to intercept the ball while being 10 yards away, that should not constitute interference.  On the other hand, a player who is as much as four yards away and jumps in the air to reach the ball would most certainly be considered to interfere.  The referee is the final judge. …

"Inventive" Refs

DELAYING THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
I am currently being told by higher level referees and the referee advisor for our area that I should not issue yellow cards for delaying the restart even though the laws say this is a yellow card offense. I tell the captains of both teams that I will issue a card if a player does not give 10 yards, or an attempt at 10, when i point to the spot for the kick. The players involved are all u-15 and above so they know the law but are being coached to delay the kicks so that their team can get into position. It is hard to enforce this rule when you see the upper division referees as well as the FIFA referees repeatedly telling players to move back and then marching off 10 instead of issuing a card for a player blocking a quick restart. What is the official position on this?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Well, right or wrong and based only on the information you provided, the official position in your area seems to be not to referee in accordance with the Laws of the Game. However, that is not the official position of the U. S. Soccer Federation.

The Federation encourages referees, ARs, and fourth officials to first ask the players to get into position and take the restart correctly. If the players do not respond to this verbal encouragement, then the referee must take action in accordance with the Law. You will find the procedure outlined in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees under Law 12:

Delaying the restart of play
Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by tactics such as:
* taking a free kick from the wrong position with the sole intention of forcing the referee to order a retake
* appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to one of his teammates to take
* kicking the ball away or carrying it away with the hands after the referee has stopped play
* excessively delaying the taking of a throw-in or free kick
* delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
* provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play

Referees who fail to follow this procedure do the game and the players a disservice.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INTIMIDATION OF OFFICIAL IS A SEND-OFF OFFENSE

Posted on by

Question:
The following occurred in a U15 elite boys match.

3 minutes into a match two players challenged for a ball on the touchline 3 yards up from where I was the AR. The player in white, slid in and was the last to touch the ball (in my opinion) before it went out of touch. I signaled a throw in for red. The white player who last touched the ball was on the ground about 2-3 yards from me.

He stood up and stepped forward a little. Clearly invading my personal body space his face was now about 10 inches from mine and he was about as tall as me. He looked me right in the eye in a clear intimidating fashion. I should have told him to immediately back off, but I was just shocked a player would do this 3 minutes into a game. He stood there 3-4 seconds, turned away and said, “Why don’t you watch the f***ing game”.

This was clearly a straight red card for vulgar language and I called the center over and told him what happened and he issued a yellow card.

My question is specifically this. If the player had done nothing more than standing up and stepping forward in an act of intimidation as I described, should this be a red card?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Yes — with some hesitation. We would really like to have been there to see the player’s manner — to see, for example, whether the player could argue that the act of getting up naturally put him in such close proximity to the AR, to see whether, having gotten up, the player moved closer, etc. A red card is a fairly stiff penalty for intimidation via occupying personal space with no touching, no language, etc., but only the referee or AR on the game would know which was most appropriate for this particular moment of truth. An immediate clear and concise verbal report to the referee would be most beneficial. In this case the referee chose the caution, an action he will have to live with.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CAUTIONING A SUBSTITUTE FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY

Posted on by

Question:
Is it true that there are only three cautions that can be given to a player on the bench? If that is true, is it true that entering the playing field without permission is not one of the three?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Yes, it is true (see below). The substitute who enters the field without the permission of the referee is cautioned for unsporting behavior.

Disciplinary Sanctions
The yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.
//deleted//
A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offenses:
* unsporting behavior
* dissent by word or action
* delaying the restart of play

You will find the notice about cautioning a substitute for entering illegally in the 2008 supplemental memorandum on law changes:

Law 12
The International Board has reconfirmed this year, by making no change in the list of reasons for which a substitute or substituted player may be cautioned, that a substitute or substituted player who illegally enters the field is to be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Law 12 The International Board has reconfirmed this year, by making no change in the list of reasons for which a substitute or substituted player may be cautioned, that a substitute or substituted player who illegally enters the field is to be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

. . . and in the Advice to Referees, Advice 12.28.1.…

"Inventive Assessors"

DANGEROUS PLAY VS. PHYSICAL CONTACT — OR NO FOUL AT ALL

Posted on by

Question:
is it possible to call dangerous play instead of direct kick foul when physical contact is made? ie: ball is rolling toward and near goal line, defender is 1 step ahead of attacker, both runner toward goal line, defender reaches around the ball to clear it back toward halfway line and kicks attacker in the process. not kicks toward attacker but makes physical contact, kicking the attacker on his follow through. my ar’s argued the defender didn’t see attacker gaining ground and didn’t intend to kick him, dangerous play. i believe as soon as physical contact is made, dangerous play is no longer an issue, it must be straight forward direct free kick for “kicking an opponent”. is it possible to call “dangerous play”?

USSF answer (April 17, 2010):
No, it is not possible to call playing dangerously when there is contact. In this situation we see no foul at all, simply incidental contact. No kicking or attempting to kick, no playing dangerously. It is simply a trifling contact that is not a foul, unless the referee believes in his or her heart of hearts that the act was premeditated — and your description of the situation does not suggest that.

Referees should not always be looking to call fouls in 50-50 or trifling situations. Furthermore, this is NOT what the “dangerous play” offense is all about! A referee CANNOT convert a player’s act to dangerous play simply because there was no intent.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE REQUIRED DISTANCE

Posted on by

Question:
The following occurred in a U15 boys recreational match.

I was the AR on the side of the field where this occurred. Ball was traveling on the ground towards the goal, outside the penalty area about 23-25 yrds from goal. The keeper got confused, thought he was still in the box and ran out and picked it up. The Center Referee called the handling violation. At this point the keeper was clearly out of position. An offensive player realized the situation and ran up to the ball and was going to attempt to kick it into the open goal.

Another defender ran up 2 yards from the ball to stop the play from occurring. The offensive player gestured to the defensive player, then quickly passed to the right and play continued, not resulting in a goal.

Two questions
1. At the next stoppage, would it be appropriate for the Referee to issue a yellow card for failing to respect the required distance to the defender?

2. If the offensive player had kicked the ball towards goal, and it had deflected off the defender, and in the opinion of the referee it would have gone into the net, would this be a red card for DOGSO?

Thank you.

USSF answer (April 16, 2010):
1. What the referee should have done was to stop play immediately and caution the defender for failure to respect the required distance.
2. Such foolishness would be unnecessary if the referee followed the advice in 1.…