Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Advice to Referees

GOALKEEPER CONTROL OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I was centering an Academy game and the away team was deep into their offensive penalty box with an attack. They took a shot at the goal which the keeper stop but did not gain immediate control of the ball with his hands. The keeper fell to the ground (on his back) and managed to trap the ball under his legs. For the that instant the ball was fully in control by the keeper with his legs. The attacker was kicking at the ball and managed to get it out from under his legs and shot and the goal and it went in. I did not allow the goal and felt I had 2 rational reasons. My first thought was the keeper did have “control” of the ball with his legs and therefore the attack should have been stopped. The second thought was that it was dangerous play to try and kick the ball out from his legs (especially considering it was lodged under them) and an indirect free kick should have been awarded.

My question is this, does a keeper have to control the ball with his hands for it to be considered under control or if he or she has definite control with other parts of his body (legs, stomach) is that considered control?

USSF answer (April 16, 2010)
While we agree with your notion that the referee should have stopped play immediately, it would not have been because the goalkeeper had possession of the ball. Possession by the goalkeeper requires “hands-on” control of the ball, something he did not have. Here is an excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” that spells out goalkeeper possession:

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control 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. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

We see no offense by the goalkeeper. If, as it appears, the goalkeeper had the ball between his legs and did not delay unduly in attempting to extricate himself from this predicament, he did not play dangerously and the opponent was wholly at fault for taking unfair advantage of his situation. Merely making kicking motions would constitute the dangerous play offense, but actually making contact with the kicking motion turns it into a direct free kick offense plus a card (the referee would normally think red — due to “kicking,” but this could possibly be downgraded to a yellow if there were mitigating circumstances.)…

Advice to Referees

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY VS. CRIEF VS. ACCIDENTAL

Posted on by

Question:
The April 13 question about a possible foul committed by the keeper after failing to block a shot revealed a common confusion among inexperienced referees distinguishing dangerous play, careless play, reckless play, and serious foul play. Maybe you can help clarify this matter.

As I understand the rules, dangerous play is a separate offense defined in the laws. This foul is called if a player plays in a dangerous way that denies an opponent a fair chance to participate in play, but NO CONTACT has occurred. Examples could be high kicks,low headers, playing on the ground, or playing with the cleats up provided these actions do not make contact but cause an opponent to refrain from a legal challenge for the ball because of perceived danger to themselves or the opponent. Dangerous play is always an IFK because no contact is involved. What is dangerous for young inexperienced players may not be dangerous of advanced players – hence “high kicks” or “playing on the ground” is not automatically dangerous play.

Careless, reckless, and serious fouls refer to the degree a contact foul is committed. Careless contact fouls (a routine foul) are always a DFK (or PK). If the foul was also reckless (or tactical/deliberate) then a yellow card is required. If the foul was also serious (endangered opponent) then a red card is required.

The same contact distinction separates impeding (no contact – IFK) from holding (contact – DFK).

Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks.

USSF answer (April 15, 2010):
Far be it from us to pass up an opportunity for education and clarification. Thank you for asking.

Your concept of “dangerous play” is close, but not totally accurate. You will find the following in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” available for download from http://www.ussoccer.com:

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.

You have the difference between impeding and holding (or pushing) down just right. And just so others will know the distinction between careless, reckless, and involving the use of excessive force, here is the appropriate information from the Advice on CRIEF:

12.3 CARELESS, RECKLESS, INVOLVING EXCESSIVE FORCE
“Careless” indicates that the player has not exercised due caution in making a play.

“Reckless” means that the player has made unnatural movements designed to intimidate an opponent or to gain an unfair advantage.

“Involving excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the use of force necessary to make a fair play for the ball and has placed the opponent in considerable danger of bodily harm.

If the foul was careless, simply a miscalculation of strength or a stretch of judgment by the player who committed it, then it is a normal foul, requiring only a direct free kick (and possibly a stern talking-to). If the foul was reckless, clearly outside the norm for fair play, then the referee must award the direct free kick and also caution the player for unsporting behavior, showing the yellow card. If the foul involved the use of excessive force, totally beyond the bounds of normal play, then the referee must send off the player for serious foul play or violent conduct, show the red card, and award the direct free kick to the opposing team.

And it is worth repeating — yet again — that the occurrence of contact between players does not necessarily mean that a foul was committed. Contact occurs and it is accepted and welcomed, as long as it is accomplished legally — and that includes most accidental contact.…

"Inventive" Refs

MANAGEMENT OF “STATUES” AND CAUTIONS

Posted on by

Question:
I note that your answers regarding whether a “statue” standing in front of a free kick is “sporting” refers individuals to the directives to determine whether the referee should caution the player. Yet in one of the questions regarding a wall being moved back at which time the kicking team took a quick kick and scored, you unequivocally state that one of the players in the wall should have been cautioned for unsporting behavior and that this is the coaching of illegal tactics.

I completely agree with your conclusion but can find no substantiating concept in the directives.

I also find the “statue” situation to be commonly disregarded by virtually all referees and ask the question, “How did the statue conveniently happen to be standing right where the kicking team placed the ball for the free kick?” Immediately followed by, “Is the kicking team really silly enough to have intentionally placed the ball directly between an opponent’s feet?

I believe we both are aware that the “statue” has usually taken at least one step and therefore should meet the test of “deliberately” and therefore needs to be cautioned, at least verbally if not with a YC.

Your interpretation?

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
For the enlightenment of those referees and other readers who did not see the two references to the directive on Managing Free Kicks in the earlier answers, we repeat them here:

June 11, 2009:

Finally, as the directive implores officials, preventative measures should be utilized. Upon seeing players who act as a “statue” in front of the ball or who are less than 10 yards, referees should use presence to move the defender back and prevent further occurrences.

October 20, 2009:

A situation that may result in a caution for intercepting is the “statue” that is mentioned in the Directive. A player may move within several feet of the ball/restart and NOT “deliberately prevent” because he does not lunge at the ball with his foot but the referee judges his actions are cautionable because the player’s actions were, in general terms, preventing the ball from being put into play quickly. For example, a player who has been warned on prior occasions from running directly in front of the ball (thereby becoming a “statue”) to slow the restart. These involve situations in which the referee has, most likely, tried preventative measures and the player(s) have not responded because they are using it as an unfair “tactic.”

Opposing players who move to the ball and thus attempt to delay or otherwise interfere with the kick have been a problem for many years. Why? Because referees have failed to deal with them as the Laws require.

The directives are meant to give referees guidance on how to deal with the various topics they cover. If, as you point out, referees choose to not recognize the occasions for properly managing and educating players, that is poor refereeing and failure to enforce the Laws of the Game.

A final cautionary note to all referees:
“Should have been cautioned” does not equal “must be cautioned.” No caution is mandatory, all are discretionary, although some are less discretionary than others. The referee MUST recognize that this is misconduct — that is the first portal. The referee must also recognize that this form of misconduct has consequences that can be serious if the misconduct is not dealt with.

The referee must recognize that some misconduct is performed so obviously and blatantly that it would be foolish in the extreme to fail to caution.

The referee must recognize that the failure to give a caution for such an instance of misconduct is going to draw the attention of the assessor who will likely downgrade the referee’s performance evaluation in the absence of a really compelling argument from the referee who put serious thought into the matter and made a reasoned decision.…

"Inventive" Refs

FOUL? PENALTY KICK? INDIRECT FREE KICK? NO FOUL!

Posted on by

Question:
Your site is a wonderful resource. Thanks for helping all of us become better referees.

I am the center ref at a U-18 USSF game. An attacker on a breakaway enters the box. The keeper hesitates, unsure whether to charge out or wait for the shot. Keeper decides to come out. Attacker gets the shot off and it slides under the keeper’s lunging body but goes wide of the goal. However, the keeper’s frantic attempt to stop or deflect the ball results in contact with the attacker, who goes down. I am in a very good position to see all this, and I note that at the time of contact the ball hasn’t crossed the goal-line. The keeper’s action, I decide is neither careless nor reckless vis-a-vis the attacker, but is dangerous (actually, to the keeper more than to the attacker). So I blow the whistle, show the keeper a yellow card and indicate an IFK within the box, where the foul was committed. The attacking team fails to score. At half-time, I am told by one of A/Rs, an experienced ref who I respect, that a PK should have been called because “you can’t have a contact IFK against the defence in the penalty box”. I maintain that, since the attacker got the shot off, and missed, awarding a PK against the keeper would provide the attacking team with two bites of the cherry(and might require sending-off the keeper as well) while, given the fact that the keeper was trying to get the ball rather than the player, albeit by playing in a dangerous manner, an IFK was appropriate. Was I wrong?

USSF answer (April 13, 2010):
We would suggest that you are operating under a slightly “iffy” premise, that the goalkeeper’s action constituted playing dangerously. All referees need to remember that the job of the goalkeeper is inherently dangerous; everything he or she does when attempting to clear a ball or take it away from an onrushing attacker is dangerous. 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 we need to learn. There was no foul in this situation, at least not as you describe it. Not a penalty kick, not an indirect free kick.

No need to discuss the advice you were given by others in this case; just disregard it.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

INTERFERING WITH THE GOALKEEPER’S RELEASE OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
Week 3 in the MLS, Philadelphia Union vs. D.C. United had a very strange goal for D.C. United. An attacking player, to the right of the goal keeper (3 yards away) in the penalty area, made direct movement towards the goalie as the goalie made progress towards taking a punt. (in replay- it is very clear that attacking player waited until the goalie started his kicking movement and then took forward movement towards the kicking foot)

This movement startled the goal tender, who dropped the ball on the top of the penalty area line. The attacking player kicked the ball into the net and the goal was awarded.

What constitutes a violation in this situation?

USSF answer (April 12, 2010):
Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct), which governs this matter, tells us:
“An indirect free kick is . . . awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands.” This interference can be either physical (not applicable in this incident) or psychological (which it was in this incident).

The referee should have blown the whistle immediately and awarded the indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team.…

Handling

INRTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
I was watching a professional game on television and saw an interesting sequence of calls and no calls. The play started with a offensive player who was very deep attempting a pass that is intercepted by a defender using his arm.The referee comes to award the free kick and give the card for the tactical foul when he sees the AR’s flag is up for offsides.There was a player in the offside position but the ball did not get to him. The card was given and the kick for offside was given.the defense got the free kick. My question is does the hand ball committed before involvement can be established by the offside player make the hand ball which happened first the foul that should be punished?Does the player in the offside position negate the hand ball foul when it can not be determined who was to receive the pass? I know the card is valid no matter what the answer to my question is?

USSF answer (April 12, 2010):
Many of us watched the incident and, based on what happened there and the guidance given in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game (see below) and discussed in our answer of June 9, 2009, we believe that the decision, and the restart, should be for the deliberate handling.

LAW 11 – OFFSIDE
Definitions
In the context of Law 11 — Offside, the following definitions apply:
* “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
* “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate
* “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
* “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

There was no interfering with play, no interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by Ronaldo. There WAS deliberate handling by Pique.

Our answer of June 9, 2009:

ATTENTION!!! All referees please note that this answer involves a change in prior guidance due to the evolving interpretation of the offside offense by the International Football Association (the people who make the Laws).

Back in “the good old days,” pre-2008, it would have been simple: Punish the offside (interfering with play) and award the indirect free kick to the defender’s team, but caution the defender for unsporting behavior for the deliberate handling of the ball. This was based on the argument that the offside offense occurred first and, since it was going to be called because the pass was clearly “going to” the attacker, the referee’s decision to accept the AR’s flag for the offside stopped play and the handling therefore occurred during a stoppage.  The caution was for unsporting behavior since it was the defender’s intention to “interfere with attacking play.”

Now, however, in the modern, post-2008 era, we are unable to do this because the offside offense has become somewhat more complicated. Under current guidance for deciding if an attacker in an offside position has interfered with play, we look to whether or not the attacker makes contact with the ball (not counting the possibility that the attacker’s actions might be considered to have interfered with an opponent).  We must remember that, despite the intentions of the teammate and despite how clearly the ball is “going to” the attacker, that attacker could still decide not to interfere with play by avoiding all contact with the ball.  That “pass to the attacker” by itself does not constitute interfering with play.  Consequently, based solely on that “pass to the attacker,” the AR should not raise the flag for an offside violation, so we are left with the handling offense — direct free kick (or penalty kick if the handling occurred in the defender’s penalty area).  The referee should still caution the defender for the tactical foul.  If the AR does mistakenly raise the flag based solely on the pass, the referee should wave it down and proceed as indicated to deal with the handling.

…
Interpretations/IFAB

STOP, SUSPEND, ABANDON OR TERMINATE?

Posted on by

Question:
On what grounds can a referee stop and abandon a soccer match

USSF answer (March 31, 2010):
An interesting question, one that requires a good bit of space to answer completely.

Under the Laws of the Game (or, as they are called in Great Britain, the Laws of Association Football), the referee has the power to stop, suspend or abandon the match, at his discretion for any infringements of the Laws or for outside interference of any kind. A referee (or where applicable, an assistant referee or fourth official) is not held liable for a decision to abandon a match for whatever reason.

We need first to differentiate between “abandon” and “terminate” a match. The difference between terminating a match and abandoning a match is a subtle one, but it is historically correct and supported by traditional practice. (Research into the history of the Laws will reveal this clearly; the IFAB now uses “abandon” almost exclusively, most likely just to confuse us all.) The referee may abandon a match if there is an insufficient number of players to meet the requirements of the Law or the competition, if a team does not appear or leaves before completion of the game, or if the field or any of its equipment do not meet the requirements of the Laws or are otherwise unsafe; i. e., for technical (Law 1) or physical (Law 4) safety. An abandoned match is replayed unless the competition rules provide otherwise. The referee may terminate a match for reasons of non-physical safety (bad weather or darkness), for any serious infringement of the Laws, or because of interference by spectators. Only the competition authority, not the referee, has the authority to declare a winner, a forfeit, or a replay of the match in its entirety. The referee must report fully on the events. “Suspended” means that a match was stopped temporarily for any of various reasons. After that the match is either resumed, abandoned, or terminated and the competition rules take over.

CONDITION OF THE FIELD (AND APPURTENANCES)
• Law 1 states that if the crossbar becomes displaced or broken, play is stopped until it has been repaired or replaced in position. If it is not possible to repair the crossbar, the match must be abandoned. In addition, if the referee declares that one spot on the field is not playable, then the entire field must be declared unplayable and the game abandoned.

• A careful inspection of the field before the start of the game might lead the referee to abandon the game before it was started. If, once the match has begun, the referee discovers a problem that is not correctable, then the referee’s decision must be to abandon the game and report the matter to the competition authority.

• Under Law 5, the referee is authorized to stop play if, in his opinion, the floodlights are inadequate.

INTERFERENCE BY PLAYERS, OTHER PARTICIPANTS, OR SPECTATORS
If an object thrown by a spectator hits the referee or one of the assistant referees or a player or team official, the referee may allow the match to continue, suspend play or abandon the match depending on
the severity of the incident. He must, in all cases, report the incident(s) to the appropriate authorities. Using the powers given him by Law 5, the referee may stop, suspend or terminate the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws or for grave disorder (see below). If he decides to terminate the match, he must provide the appropriate authorities with a match report which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players, and/or team officials and any other incidents which occurred before, during or after the match. In no event may the referee determine the winner of any match, terminated or not. Nor may the referee decide whether or not a match must be replayed. Both of those decisions are up to the competition authority, i. e., the league, cup, tournament, etc.

“Grave disorder” would be any sort of dustup involving the players and/or spectators and/or team officials which puts the officials in immediate or likely subsequent jeopardy — fights which metastasize beyond just 2 or 3, masses of spectators invading the pitch, throwing dangerous objects (e. g., firecrackers, butane lighters, etc.) onto the field, and so forth.

THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS
• The referee has no authority to force a team to play if they do not wish to continue a game nor to terminate the match in such a case. The referee will simply abandon the game and include all pertinent details in the match report.

• In the opinion of the International F.A. Board, a match should not be considered valid if there are fewer than seven players in either of the teams. If a team with only seven players is penalized by the award of a penalty-kick and as a consequence one of their players is sent off, leaving only six in the team, the game must be abandoned without allowing the penalty-kick to be taken unless the national association has decided otherwise with regard to the minimum number of players.

• The referee must not abandon the game if a team loses a kicker after kicks from the mark begin. The kicks must be completed.

• If a player has been seriously injured and cannot leave the field without risking further injury, the referee must stop the game and have the player removed. If, for whatever reason, there is no competent person available to oversee removal of the seriously injured player from the field for treatment, then the match must be abandoned.

• If player fraud is alleged prior to the game and the player will admit that he is not the person on the pass he has presented and the game has already begun, the referee will have to deal with the matter of an outside agent on the field. If the fraud were not discovered until after the game had been restarted, the only solution would be to abandon the match. If there is no goal issue, the fraudulent player is removed and the game is restarted with a dropped ball.

• If a player, from a team with only seven players, leaves the field of play to receive medical attention, the match will stop until this player has received treatment and returns to the field of play. If he is unable to return, the match is abandoned, unless the member association has decided otherwise with regard to the minimum number of players.

In all cases, the referee must submit a full report to the appropriate authorities.

AMOUNT OF TIME PLAYED
If the referee discovers that a period of play was ended prematurely but a subsequent period of play has started, the match must be abandoned and the full details of the error included in the game report.

TEAM OFFICIALS
The Laws make the point that the coach and other team officials must BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY and thus may not shout, curse, interfere, or otherwise make a nuisance of themselves The coach’s presence, or the presence of any other team official, is generally irrelevant to the game — under the Laws of the Game, but it may have some importance under the rules of youth competitions. If the coach or other team official is removed, known in the Law as “expelled,” that person must leave the field and its environs. If it is a youth game and the coach and all other team officials have been expelled, then the referee should consider abandoning the game. A full report must be filed with the competition authority. The referee has no authority to determine who has won or lost the game, whether by forfeit or any other process; that is the responsibility of the competition authority. The referee must file a report on all events associated with the abandonment.

RESULT OF THE MATCH
Once the game begins, only the referee has the right to decide whether the game continues, is suspended temporarily, terminated or abandoned. If a game is abandoned or terminated before it is completed, the determination of the result is up to the competition authority (league, cup, tournament). In most cases, competitions declare that if a full half has been played, the result stands, but that does not apply to all competitions. The referee does not have the authority to declare what the score is or who has won the game. The referee’s only recourse is to include in his game report full details of what caused the match to be abandoned or terminated. The status of an abandoned is determined by the rules of the competition or the competition authority itself. There is no set amount of time, but many rules of competition will call a game complete if a full half has been played.…

Indoor

MISCONDUCT IN INDOOR SOCCER

Posted on by

Question:
I was reffing a U-13/U-14 girls match and these girls kept going at it and i kept calling the fouls. Then about the fourth time the girl persistently infringed the laws of the game and the indoor rules so i issued a Blue card (2 minute warning with no subbing) and the coach got all upset and said “that’s not how soccer is played you are wrong and its not a 2 minute and i should be able to sub” and i told him that, that’s how the rules are here. He then kept going about and i gave him one last warning and about a few minutes later he was all upset about a tripping call, so i then stopped the match and ejected him from the field of play. Was this a right call??

Second.. The next week i refed his team again and the game was fine all but the last 10 minutes of the game. I issued one of his players a Blue Card and he got all upset that i gave a card. Then a few minutes later i gave both the “white” player and “Blue” player a yellow for checking into the boards and the Blue coach was still worked up about the call but i didn’t eject him because there was only about 3 minutes left in the game so i just issued another warning and kept the game going. Was this the right call or should i have ejected him again??

USSF answer (March 18, 2010):
Your scenario presents some difficulties You say these girls “kept going at it.” Does that mean both teams were playing the same way? Were they just playing physical soccer and can you look at what you’re saying are infringements of the law as “trivial” and not needing to be called because that’s the way both teams want to play? When it comes to game management, indoor is no different than the other games in soccer, if the players are playing hard, they all accept the contact and are not complaining, then the referee might want to adjust to how tightly the game is called. Always consider other “options” before you resort to using cards. In your first situation, if a player is truly blatantly and persistently infringing the indoor playing rules, the 2-minute blue card is an appropriate option. It sounds as if the coach needs to read the local indoor rules. From the sound of it, unless the coach is using foul or abusive language or directly affecting the game with his outbursts, you might want to ignore him or tolerate his lack of understanding of the local rules. Absent that, the appropriate way to give him a warning in indoor is a “bench warning.” That’s when, at a stoppage, you formally hold your arm up in the air with a closed fist, point to his bench, and say something like, “That’s a bench warning” loudly enough for all to hear. Also inform them that further unacceptable outbursts will result in a Team Time Penalty. Now you have the option of giving a 2-minute Team Time Penalty against his team for his outbursts. You’ll also want to take a few seconds to write it down on your match report before you proceed.

Next, before the next week’s games, you should have notified your indoor assignor of the situation and tried to avoid working that same team again for a while. The blue card is probably correct, but remember to use your options and manage the game without cards where possible. If you gave the players from both teams the yellow cards during play, that was in error; you should have given blue cards to them instead of yellow. In indoor Yellow cards are issued for misconduct when the ball is not in play, or for things like Dissent, Encroachment or Delay of Game. Yellow cards are hard 5-minute penalties where the team doesn’t play short-handed. The player in the penalty box can’t leave after his 5 minutes until a guaranteed substitution occurs, and then he can only go to the bench, not directly to the field.

It sounds as if you handled the coach correctly the second week. Again, unless the coach is using foul or abusive language, or directly affecting the game, find a way to ignore his comments. It also sounds as if you’re doing the games one man. If you’re working a 2-man system, change sides with your partner so the coach can be managed by your partner since you saw him just the week before.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION FOR GOALKEEPER

Posted on by

Question:
What would you do if a goalkeeper ran off the field and another player took his place without the referee knowing it during play. Also, the other team shoots and the new goalkeeper blocks it over the goal. Then you realize the keeper change. What do you do?

USSF answer (March 10, 2010):
We have a problem here with the description of the situation. Was this a “player” who was already on the field in another position or was it one of the substitutes from the bench?

The decision would be easy if it had been a player on the field who exchanged places — without informing the referee — with the ‘keeper (who then remained on the field): Allow play to continue and then caution both at the next stoppage.

However, based on your description, it seems that a substitute (loosely called a “player”) came on the field and replaced the former goalkeeper. The presents the referee with a totally different set of circumstances:
1. The referee’s acquiescence was not requested nor given for any substitution or exchange.
2. The goalkeeper deliberately left the field of play without the referee’s permission, so he must be cautioned.
3. The new goalkeeper entered the field without the referee’s permission and is thus still a substitute who has entered the field without permission and then denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

That places the incident squarely under the sending-off offenses in Law 12:

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:
//deleted//
* denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Therefore, because the substitute is not a player and certainly not a goalkeeper, he must be sent off in accordance with the Law.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FAILURE TO RESPECT THE REQUIRED DISTANCE

Posted on by

Question:
Last week I was officiating a game when an indirect free kick was issued. While the wall was being set by the official, an attacking player stood with a foot on the ball. The referee then got into position and blew his whistle while the attacking player’s foot was still on the ball. The player removed his foot from the ball and the wall immediately charged before the ball was kicked by the attacking team. By the time the attacking team kicked the ball the wall had charged to within 1 yard.

I immediately signaled for an infraction as, by my interpretation, the wall delayed the restart by moving inside the 10 yard zone before the kick.

Needless to say the defending team was livid as they felt that the ball had been played by the attacking team and so they charged.

I stand behind my call because I do not feel the ball was “kicked” or “moved” by the attacking team (as well I believe the official was in the wrong by blowing the whistle while the player was still in contact with the ball, making this muddy situation happen).

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks!

USSF answer (March 1, 2010):
The kicking team is allowed to use deceptive tactics when taking the free kick, but they are not required to kick the ball into play immediately. The defending team is required to remain at least ten yards away until the ball has been kicked and moved, unless the kicking team decides to take the free kick quickly without waiting for a signal from the referee. To be put into play, the ball must be kicked from “here” to “there.” In other words, it must clearly move from one spot to another spot (which need be more than a trivial distance away).

The kicker (or putative kicker) may place and rest his or her foot on the ball. That is not an infringement of any of the Laws and there is no need for the referee on this game to be displeased with this portion of the restart. The kicker may then remove his foot from the ball and walk away, possibly to be replaced as kicker by a teammate or to immediately return and kick the ball. That is the right of the kicking team. The defending team should know that they have NO RIGHTS in this situation other than the right not to be confused by the referee — and that did not happen. They confused themselves and failed to follow the requirements of the Law.

Accordingly, the opposing team crashed in and, therefore, the free kick should have been halted immediately by the referee, at least one or more of the crashers cautioned for failing to respect the required distance, and play resumed with the original free kick.…