Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

BALL DELIBERATE KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER (YET AGAIN)

Posted on by

Question:
Defender under pressure kicks the ball back to the keeper, it is a crappy rainy day, the keeper misplays the ball trying to kick it away but it bounces up an into the air only a short distance away where it bounces and as attackers and other defenders are now close at hand the keeper chooses to grab this ball with the hands.

Is this an INDFK offence?

Can it be ignored as the keeper tried to do the right thing the first time but failed?

Should it be ignored if a pursuing opponent was there to challenge but prevented because the keeper WAS able to use the hands?

Is the ONLY reason to make this call if time wasting was the reason?

Does the intention of the passer or the intention of the keeper matter?

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
There is no issue here at all if the scenario is to be given its face value meaning. A teammate kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper — no violation.

The goalkeeper kicks the ball (badly, but that doesn’t matter) — no violation. The goalkeeper subsequently handles the ball — since this occurred directly (no intervening play of the ball by anyone ELSE) — violation.

In short, there is no issue that a violation has occurred. The only question is whether it was trifling or should be whistled. This HAS to be decided by the referee based on the circumstances of play, taking risks, maintaining flow, etc. The only fact bearing on the matter is that the goalkeeper DID illegally take hand control of the ball under pressure from the opponents. In other words, he illegally withheld the ball from challenge, which is what this infringement is all about. Accordingly, although the decision must be up to the referee, the scenario tends to favor whistling this indirect free kick foul.

Referees often make the mistake of treating this as an issue involving time-wasting when, in fact, the central issue is unfairly withholding the ball from challenge.

And, no, the “intention” of the passer is not relevant to this decision because that was resolved when the action was determined to be a violation.…

Advice to Referees

“BENEFITS” TO HANDLING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I guess I missed the Feb. 2009 Directive on “Handling the Ball”. I suppose that’s a good thing, because one section seems to directly contradict all my training as well as Section 12.9 of “Advice to Referees”.

In the Directive, one of the things the referee is supposed to consider in determining a handling offense is “Did the player ‘benefit’?”.

My understanding is that whether or not a player benefits from incidental arm/ball contact is irrelevant; it is either deliberate or not, and what happens afterwards is immaterial. “Advice” states unequivocally: “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.”

Can you please clarify? If I’m misunderstanding the directive (as others have too), what is it supposed to be conveying?

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You would seem to be misreading Advice 12.9 and confusing its text with that of the Directive, rather like confusing apples with applesauce. They speak of two different things.

Advice 12.9 addresses the “benefit” an attacking player might achieve in the sense of attack, while the Directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The Directive on “Handling the Ball” does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled intentionally or not. The “Directive” states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling the ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence is of (3) is key (quoting from the “Directive”): “In considering all the ‘signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence the the handling of the ball was intentional. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.

In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offense has been committed. …

Handling

GOALKEEPER HANDLING

Posted on by

Question:
I read the question and answer in the FAQ area [of the US Soccer website], but would like some clarification. Can the goalie go outside the goal area to retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the area to pick it up? I see this the same as a team mate passing it to the goalie and the goalie picking it up. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
The goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i. e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.…

Injury

CHICAGO FIRE VS. CHIVAS (OCTOBER 23, 2009)

Posted on by

Question:
Chicago Fire v Chivas 10-23
In the 70th minute Terry Vaughn leaned towards a Fire player and asked him to play the ball out – to attend to a downed Patrick Nyarko. The Fire player had not noticed his teammate was down.
During the stoppage Vaughn issued a yellow card to Braun for unsporting behavior.

Couple questions/comments: the convention of asking player to stop play (by knocking the ball into touch) is a quirk of our game – last night’s example seemed to demonstrate the quirkier side. I cannot find the reference from last year but I thought the FA, prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 season, had asked referees to try to prevent players from knocking the ball out of play and for referees to control the stoppages themselves. I recall thinking, “We’ll see how this goes.” I really can’t say I’ve seen this tradition go away based on EPL games I’ve watched. And I’m not suggesting the US follow suit but I do feel this tradition is outdated. Law 5 gives latitude to CR to judge whether a player’s injury is such that play should be stopped or not. It’s when a referee actually tells a player to play the ball out (an assumption on my part, only having video evidence to make this assertion) that I wonder whether tradition should be maintained at the expense of the referee making a decision, on their own using their common sense.

The card during the stoppage is what really concerns me. Were the two events connected or just a coincidence? Was Braun’s card a separate matter from Nyarko’s injury? If they were related, why would Vaughn need to ask a player to stop play if he thought a foul occurred that was worthy of a caution? I didn’t see Vaughn consult with his AR so I’m left to guessing what transpired.

I’d like to know that actual sequence of events if that’s possible.


USSF answer (October 27, 2009):
1. KICKING THE BALL OUT OF PLAY
Terry Vaughn saw the incident a bit differently from you. He states:

“In this situation I did not tell the Fire player to kick the ball out. I saw the Chicago player get fouled in a reckless manner, but the ball popped out to one of his teammates who had numbers up going the other way. If he turns with it goes the other way. I had signaled advantage to the player and told him I was coming back to deal with the Chivas player. He decided on his own to play the ball out of play, so his teammate could get treatment and that is when the caution was given for the reckless foul. Part of the decision in allowing play to continue is that the player did not have a serous injury like a broken bone or injury to the head or neck. That is what took place in this situation.”

The information you recall regarding kicking the ball out of play appeared in both the 2008 and 2009 USSF memoranda on the changes in the Laws of the Game:

2008:

Dealing with injured players

In view of the differing practices applied in various competitions around the world by the team in possession when the ball remains in play after a player has been injured and the confusion that this can cause, the IFAB wishes to reiterate that Law 5 states that the referee has the power to stop the match if, in his opinion, a player is seriously injured, but he may allow play to continue if the player is, in his opinion, only slightly injured.

Furthermore, the IFAB calls for the football family to unite in denouncing simulation and working to eradicate this scourge from the game in order to assist the referee’s identification of serious injuries and, more generally, to uphold the fundamental principles of fair play and preserve the integrity of the game.

USSF Advice to Referees: The above guidelines clearly support the view of the International F.A. Board that the referee’s responsibility to distinguish between serious and slight injuries (taking into account the age, skill, and competitive level of the players) is hampered both by players simulating injuries and by the practice of some teams at some times to stop play on their own initiative by kicking the ball off the field. The Board has strongly emphasized the need for all elements of the soccer community to deal firmly with simulation, but the Board is also suggesting (without, it must be noted, changing any requirement of the Law) that the teams should leave the decision to stop play to the referee instead of exercising it themselves. Although referees should not discourage acts of sportsmanship in situations where a team has taken it upon themselves to stop play and the injury was truly serious, the above instructions also suggest that everyone should now see referees moving more quickly to evaluate injuries and to establish clearly whether play should or should not be stopped so that teams will be less likely to feel a need to take this decision upon themselves.

2009:

Reminder to referees

Referees are reminded that Law 5 states that the referee must stop the match if, in his opinion, a player is seriously injured.

USSF Advice to Referees: This statement is intended to reinforce a guideline issued earlier by both the International Board and USSF that the practice of a team kicking the ball off the field to stop play when there is an apparent injury on the field detracts from the responsibility of the referee under Law 5 to assess the injury and to stop play only if, in the opinion of the referee, the injury is serious. Referees are therefore advised to be seen quickly and publicly considering the status of any player seeming to be injured and clearly deciding whether or not the situation merits a stoppage of play. The referee must control this decision as much as possible.

2. THE CARD GIVEN DURING THE STOPPAGE
At exactly 69:00, Braun fouls Nyarko which leads to the injury. The referee clearly uses his arms to signal advantage and then follows it up with a confirmation of the player committing the foul. The “confirmation” ensures the referee does not forget the player who commits the misconduct because, as we know, it could take a long time for the next stoppage in play to occur and this “confirmation” helps cement the player’s number in the referee’s mind.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DOGSO?

Posted on by

Question:
Understanding that “you would have to be there,” as referee I was somewhat surprised on a particular DOGSO. U-19 girls, D-4.

The attacker was on a breakaway with the defender stride for stride next to her… the Center Ref was following the play by about 10 yards with no one between the Ref and the play. There were no other defenders in the play or between the play and the goal.

As the two continued stride for stride, with the defender making some moves to retreive the ball, about 5 yards outside of the penalty arc, both girls fell to the ground and the ball rolled forward into the penalty area where the goalie was standing.

The Ref whistled a foul, set the ball for the direct kick but as the girls began to set their wall, AR-1 called the CR to the line. The CR returned to the field, called over the defender and ejected her for the obvious goal scoring opportunity.

My issue was two-fold. One, the distance seemed too far particulary given that both girls were side by side, stride for stride and working toward the ball. At 20+ yards to the goal, if for a U-19 it seems far to deserve an injection. Second, it would seem that the Center Ref was in the best position to make the call and had already set the ball for the direct kick prior to the AR calling him to the side.

Was the ejection appropriate, given the facts above? As a ref, I saw two girls going for the ball and agreed with the direct kick assuming that there was contact between the defender and the attacker – versus the ball.

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
Unless there is something you have not revealed to us, we see no reason for any call here, much less a sending-off for denying the opponent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Soccer is a contact sport. Unless the contact is illegal, there is no infringement of the Law.

Furthermore, aside from the issue of whether there was even a foul, we have no idea what the AR said to the referee and could only speculate as to how this added information may have affected the referee’s decisions. Finally, you have provided no information as to any of the other “D” elements in OGSO (distance to ball, direction of play) but it is clear that the “number of defenders” element was present and the “distance to the goal” element is the one you are arguing about. “Distance to goal” is a judgment of the referee and we cannot second guess the decision (short of the play perhaps being near the opposing team’s goal line!).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL AGAINST THE GOALKEEPER?

Posted on by

Question:
In the Manchester United v. Sunderland game on Oct. 3 2009 a Sunderland striker made contact with United keeper Ben Foster in the process of striking a header into goal. Many arguments have ensued as to the legality of the contact; although it did appear IMHO that the striker did touch the ball first. Are the rules for physical contact different when the keeper is concerned? If the contact had been made in the same manner with a defensive player (not the keeper) would the call have been different?

USSF answer (October 20, 2009):
With the exception of certain circumstances — such as no interference when the ‘keeper is releasing the ball back into play — the goalkeeper should be treated precisely the same as any other player. All such cases are decided in the opinion of the referee who is on the game, based on the conditions of the game and what he or she sees happening on the field.…

Advice to Referees

FOUL OR NOT?

Posted on by

Question:
My question is in regards to the keeper, when he punches the ball. During a high level game, the keeper came off his line on a corner kick to play the ball. He jumped to punch the ball out of danger, but instead of punching the ball, he hit the attaching player in the face. I was the AR2 while this happened in front of AR1 and the CR. The CR felt the play was not deliberate and said play on.

The coach of the attaching team felt there should have been a red card for striking and a PK.

Based upon the skill level, feel of the game, etc…. has this play been called striking by the keeper?

USSF answer (October 16, 2009):
We recommend for your reading pleasure this excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” 2009/2010, downloadable from the USSF website:

12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL?
A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed (1) by a player (2) against an opponent or the opposing team, (3) on the field of play, (4) while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct.

Except for a handling offense, it is not necessary for the player’s action to be considered “deliberate” in the sense that the player intentionally set out to kick, push, trip, hold or otherwise foul the opponent. If that were so, the referee would have to be capable of reading a player’s mind. Under Law 12, the referee makes a decision based upon what he or she sees a player actually do – the result of the player’s action – not upon what might be in the player’s mind.

…
"Inventive Assessors"

BALL KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER

Posted on by

Question:
I believe it’s a little bit silly how many questions there are about the “pass back” violation, given how rarely these situations actually occur. That said, a potential “pass back” situation arose during a recent assessment, and I hope you don’t mind offering a little clarification.

An attacking player kicked a ball forward toward the penalty area. A defending player, under pressure from another attacker, controlled the ball with his upper leg/thigh toward his goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper caught the ball with his hands.

Given the skill of the players, I felt the defender’s action was deliberate, and he knew he was pushing the ball out of reach of the attacker and to a place where his keeper could easily collect the ball. However, the ball never touched the defender’s foot, which I considered a requirement (part of the “iron triangle” described in the 21 May 2008 Memorandum).

After the game, the assessor said that I was not interpreting the term “foot” correctly. He stated, “Any part of the leg is considered, not just the foot.” He did not believe I should have called a “pass back,” however, because he felt the defender’s action was not deliberate: he considered the action more of a mis-directed attempt to clear the ball over the goal line.

Can you offer clarification and guidance? What parts of a defender’s body are included for the purposes of the “pass back” violation?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
Sigh! You are correct, there have been and continue to be too many questions about possible “pass back” infringements.

The Law is clear: “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, . . . touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.” Kicking requires the use of the foot. The foot does not include the knee, thigh, or shin.

We cannot read the minds of the players; we can only interpret what we see. In this case no foot equals no infringement.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLAYER SENT OFF AT HALF = PLAY SHORT IN SECOND HALF

Posted on by

Question:
3:00 minutes before the end of the first half a player gets a yellow card. The referee blows his whistle ending the first half. The player that got the yellow card a few minutes earlier starts to argue with the referee and uses foul language. The referee shows him a second yellow card and then the red card. The player is ejected from the game. At the start of the second half the team from the ejected player starts the second half with 11 players and not short. The referees all agreed that the game period had ended and that he was not a field player at the time of the ejection.

Was that the correct call?

USSF answer (October 5, 2009):
Coach, we recommend that referees, coaches, players, and parents all read the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” The 2009/2010 edition is available for download from the USSF website. It contains the following information directly applicable to your question — and establishes clearly that the player who receives a second caution during a break in the game must be sent off for that second caution and may not be replaced:

5.17 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE GAME
Misconduct committed by a player or a substitute prior to the start of the match, during the match, and during breaks between playing periods is subject to a formal caution or a send-off, as appropriate. Yellow and red cards, which are now mandatory indications of cautions and send-offs, may be shown only for misconduct committed by players, substitutes, or substituted players during a match. “During a match” includes:
(a) the period of time immediately prior to the start of play during which players and substitutes are physically on the field warming up, stretching, or otherwise preparing for the match;
(b) any periods in which play is temporarily stopped;
(c) half time or similar breaks in play;
(d) required overtime periods;
(e) kicks from the penalty mark if this procedure is used in case a winner must be determined.
(f) the period of time immediately following the end of play during which the players and substitutes are physically on the field but in the process of exiting.

Cautions issued prior to the start of the game or during breaks between periods are recorded and they are counted for purposes of sending a player from the field for receiving a second caution during the match. To prevent misunderstandings, the referee should inform officials of both teams before the first period of play begins of any cautions or send-offs occurring prior to the start of the match.

If a player or substitute is cautioned or dismissed for misconduct which has occurred during a break or suspension of play, the card must be shown on the field before play resumes.

If a player is dismissed before the match begins, the player may be replaced by a named substitute, but the team is not allowed to add any names to its roster and its number of permissible substitutions is not reduced.

The referee may send off and show the red card for violent conduct to a player, substitute, or substituted player after the game has been restarted if the assistant referee had signaled the offense before the restart.

Players or substitutes who have been sent off may not remain in the team area, but must be removed from the environs of the field. If this is not practical because of the age or condition of the player, the team officials are responsible for the behavior of the player or substitute.

There can be no “temporary expulsion” of players who have been cautioned, nor may teams be forced to substitute for a player who has been cautioned.

Postgame: Any misconduct committed by players or substitutes after the field has been cleared must be described in the game report and reported to the competition authority. The referee may display cards as long as he or she remains on the field of play after the game is over. Referees are advised to avoid remaining in the area of the field unnecessarily. (However, see Advice 5.13.)

What your question does not include is the statement in the scenario that the player used foul language. In that case the referee’s action should have been a DIRECT red card, not a second yellow.  What is not stated directly in the quotation from the Advice, but is still relevant to the question, is that any player who was a “player,” i. e., recognized by the referee as being on the field as a player, at the end of the first half is still a player of record until officially substituted (assuming Law 3 substitution rules) which means among other things that the referee must be notified, must give permission, and the player must step onto the field with that permission.  Absent any of these steps in the substitution process, a coach cannot declare someone no longer a player.…

"Inventive" Refs

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
Situation: Goalkeeper on ground. Offensive Player on ground on goal line, attempts to kick ball, kicks goalkeeper in face. Continues to kick and kicks ball into goal.

Goal or Foul?

U9 game, the AR said he did not see goalkeeper get kicked in face.  She was crying (u9) and had a mark and was removed from game due to injury.  Referee counted goal.

My interpretation of Law 12 – Foul and Direct Free Kick – 
if a player commits any of the following offenses in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless..etc. 
– Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

USSF answer (October 5, 2009):
As you have reasoned, this player has committed the foul of kicking an opponent. While players are permitted to play the ball while on the ground, they may not place any participant (including themselves) in danger and may certainly not foul an opponent without facing punishment.

Correct referee action: Send-off for violent conduct, followed by a direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team. This applies even for U9s.

What complicates the decision is that apparently neither the referee (or so it seems) nor the AR saw the incident. What were they doing? Clearly not watching the game very carefully. This issue essentially resolves itself into the extent to which a referee can visit a penalty (direct free kick/penalty kick, yellow/red card) upon a player for something that the referee has not seen but may suspect.

Moral of the story: Pay full attention to what is happening on the field, even at the U9 level.…