Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Interpretations/IFAB

WHOM TO SEND OFF

Posted on by

Question:
The following situation arose in a recent game I watched:

Attacking player with a breakaway towards opposing goal is pursued and illegally tackled by a defender right about 18 yards from goal.

Attacking player had possession, only keeper to beat, and was moving in the direction of goal (4 Ds fulfilled). Referee whistles foul and awards DFK outside of box. The referee apparently “loses track” of the offending player and does not remember a number/who to send-off (though he was certain that a send-off for DOSGO was warranted). Play is restarted without any recognition of the misconduct that took place, just a DFK. After the match the referee claims that there is “nothing [he] could have done in the situation.” He just messed up…

Is this true? Shouldn’t someone have been sent off from the offending team even if the referee was unsure exactly who? If that is true where does that authority come from in the laws, interpretations, and other sources governing the beautiful game and how should the referee go about selecting a player to send off?

Thank you for all you do!

USSF answer (September 29, 2009):
Back in 2004 we stated quite clearly that “The resourceful referee will do everything possible to punish the correct person for serious misconduct. In doing so, the referee is expected to make appropriate use of the assistant referees and the fourth official.” That answer and the following exception, based on guidance from the IFAB over the past two years (see the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Law book), apply to this situation: If the AR had seen the misconduct, had raised his flag, and had maintained it through the ensuing play, the referee could give the card and the send-off once he became aware of the AR’s flag. Unfortunately, in this case the AR does not appear to have seen the incident. If the ARs and the fourth official are unable to provide the necessary information, then the referee has a problem — one that should never have occurred.

Thus, under the strict interpretation of the Laws, the referee was correct: if no member of the officiating team could identify the miscreant, he could legally do nothing. Players cannot be sent off willy-nilly simply because the referee failed to attend to his duties. However, this sort of situation is a case in which the referee might ask that the captain of the offender’s team provide the necessary information. The captain cannot be forced to do this, but the referee might suggest that the game will be abandoned if the miscreant is not produced. In all events, the referee must provide full information (or at least as much as he has retained) in the match report.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SEPARATE THE INFRINGEMENTS

Posted on by

Question:
I was doing an over30 competitive match when the following occurred: White player is dribbling in the penalty area when he begins to lose his balance. Orange fullback sees the white player is beginning to fall and pretends to be tripped by the player and falls pinning the attacker under him. I blew the whistle and awarded a penalty because in my opinion the fullback simulated a fall in order to knock the attacker to the ground and fell on top so the attacker was completely taken out of the play. Of course the orange team was upset and felt I penalized their defender for falling. Could I call this a trip because the action of the fullback caused the attacker to go to ground? Unfair challenge? Or simulation (misconduct IFK)? I don’t know what to call it but it certainly looked like a foul to me.

Your thoughts please

USSF answer (September 24, 2009):
We seem to have at least two infringements here and they must be dealt with in the order in which they occurred. We also need to remember that the referee must base the restart on the infringement that occurred first, rather than the more serious, unless the infringements occur simultaneously, which was not the case described here.

If we accept your description, this is the order in which the infringements occurred:
Infringement the first: The defender simulates a fall.
Infringement the second: The defender then trips the attacker.
Infringement the third: The defender then holds the attacker down.

The correct action here would be to call the simulation and caution the defender for unsporting behavior, for which the restart is an indirect free kick from the spot of the infringement. While the defender did indeed trip the attacker and then hold him down, these acts occurred after the simulation and cannot be punished — unless, of course, you applied the advantage for the simulation and then called the second infringement, the tripping. This would allow you to caution the defender for the simulation and also award a penalty kick for the tripping in the penalty area.

Based on the description, the referee could take either path, depending on what he felt the game “needed” under the circumstances (temperature of the match, behavior of the players, etc.). In addition, there is a third option — caution for the simulation, indirect free kick or penalty kick restart based on which offense is the basis for the stoppage, but then a second caution for the subsequent misconduct of holding the opponent down — which results in a dismissal (red card) for the second yellow.…

Advice to Referees

“FOUL” AFTER FOUL

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent game player A grabs player B and pulls him down on the ground.  Prior to the whistle being blown, player B stands up and holds the ball in his hands stopping play…..whistle is blown.

Player A should be cautioned  but in discussing this with both National and State Emeritus refs, they both state that only Player A should be cautioned.

Normally I would agree, however in reading  the following, I believe I would be required to caution Player B as well.

12.32 SEQUENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS OF THE LAW
If the referee has decided to stop play for an infringement of the Law (foul, misconduct, offside, or other reason) and another infringement of the Law occurs between the making of this decision and the actual whistle to stop play, this subsequent violation must be treated as misconduct and handled appropriately

.USSF answer (September 21, 2009):
The first foul was called (in the referee’s mind at least) and the delay in whistling covered in the Advice to Referees is irrelevant. You seem to have misunderstood the language of 12.32. It doesn’t mean that ANYTHING that happens after play is stopped is misconduct — it is merely a statement that anything that happens after play is stopped can ONLY be misconduct (i. e., not a foul). Player B committed no offense, whether he thought the whistle was going to blow or not, because the referee’s mental decision had effectively stopped play. Now, if B had reacted to something else (e. g., an AR flag) and the referee had decided NOT to stop play, then we have an entirely different matter.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

COLLISION OF GOALKEEPER AND OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
I am a grade 8 referee working to improve my skill level and increase in understanding of the game. I have found the us soccer website to be extremely helpful. Find the week in review to be very educational. Currently have a question on making the correct call when there is goalie/attacker collision. When both players are clearly playing the ball and there is not an apparent aggressor, should there be a “no call” or should there be a foul? When one player or the other is clearly an aggressor and “takes the other out”, is it correct to call a foul on the goalie when the ball has been played and a goal prevented? Would say if the attacker takes out the goalie, it is clearly a foul. Is there guidance to making a call when there is a goalie/attacker collision? Thank you.

USSF answer (September 16, 2009):
One question at a time.

First, if both players are clearly (and fairly) playing the ball and not one another and, as a result, they collide, there is NO FOUL. PERIOD. This despite the penchant some referees have for calling this a foul.

2. If one of the players (whether goalkeeper or a field player) is clearly playing his/her opponent, rather than playing the ball, that is a foul. If the act is aggressive, it is serious misconduct, worth of a sending-off (red card). If it is instead reckless, it is unsporting behavior and must be cautioned (yellow card).

3. If the act by the “aggressor” is a foul, interferes with a goal-scoring opportunity (including the actual preventing of a goal), and all “4 Ds” are present, then the “aggressor” should be sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick. However, if the act in and of itself is worthy of a sending-off, then that is the reason to be included in the match report.…

"Inventive" Refs

SUB ENTERS FIELD, PLAYS BALL

Posted on by

Question:
How should the following matter be addressed?

Our game involved experienced upper teen-aged players. During the game, a defender attempted to kick the ball into touch/out of play to stop the attack. The ball struck a waiting substitute (in this instance, a substitute for the defending team) at the midfield line who was standing too close to the touch line; thus, the ball never completely crossed the touch line but rebounded and remained on the pitch.

In our game, the referee stopped play, verbally admonished the substitute, and restarted using a drop ball near the intersection of the touch and midfield lines. This remedy just doesn’t feel right to me. The substitute had control of where they were and, by being too close to the touch line, committed an act that interfered with play.

In conversation with other referees, several other alternatives to the above procedure have been discussed:

· Caution (yellow card) to the substitute for unsporting behavior (UB), restart with an indirect kick by the non-offending team at the point where the ball struck the substitute. This is my preference as it recognizes the substitute has been improperly involved in the play.

· Play on, as the substitute has the same status as any part of the field – overhanging tree limb, corner flag, referees, etc. I am uncomfortable with this as I do not see the substitute as being something either incidental or necessary to the field or maintenance of the game.

· Treat the ball as if it had completely crossed the touch line (ignoring the contact) and allow the attacking team a throw-in. While this fulfills the nature of how the play should have developed, it certainly lacks honesty and impinges on the integrity of the game and its referees.

Depending upon the proper remedy, what would be the restart if the struck substitute were on the attacking, rather than defending, team?

USSF answer (September 16, 2009):
If a substitute has entered the field without the permission of the referee — which this substitute has done by being too close to the line, no matter how inadvertently, and playing the ball — the Law prescribes the correct punishment and restart. (See the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees at the “back” of the book, Law 3.)…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SLOW BUT STEADY WINS THE RACE

Posted on by

Question:
As always, many thanks for the excellent resource you provide.

A question has arisen in another forum regarding how long the referee team has to make a call. Specifically, the scenario was given as:

a. During a play for the ball in the penalty area, there is a collision, with no foul committed at that time; three players simply tangle and go down, and the ball caroms away.

b. While the players are untangling and getting up, and the referee’s attention is on the next play some distance away, a still-sitting defender deliberately cleats an opponent in the thigh.

The referee does not observe this, but the AR does. However, the AR does not immediately recognize this for the foul and misconduct that it is.

c. While play continues, the AR is replaying the scene is his mind, and gradually comes to the realization that the incident deserves a send off, presumably for violent conduct.

d. No more than 15 seconds later, play is stopped for an injury.

The AR now has a moment to completely consider what he saw, gets the referee’s attention, and relates what happened. The referee sends off the defender.

Here is the point of dispute. I believe that, since this referee stopped play for the injury, and the AR made no decision at the time, but only after the fact, that the restart is determined by the reason the referee stopped play: a dropped ball. The other point of view is that, since play has not restarted since the incident occurred, the referee team is still empowered to punish the foul as well as the misconduct, and the restart should be a penalty kick.

I appreciate that making the correct call is always the primary concern, but I believe the referee needs to maintain some personal integrity here. This was not the case of an AR signalling for a foul & misconduct at the time it occurred, and not getting the referee’s attention until after play was stopped. The AR did not make up his mind until (in my opinion) it was too late to call the foul. For the misconduct, of course, it is never too late, at least until the match report is filed.

What do you say: dropped ball or PK?

USSF answer (September 15, 2009):
In this case, the original reason for the stoppage is irrelevant. The assistant referee is reporting serious misconduct in the play prior to the stoppage.

Send off the defender for violent conduct. Restart with a penalty kick for the foul against the attacking player.

Give the AR a magic pill to make him/her observe more closely and think more quickly.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT BY GOALKEEPER (HANGING ON/MOVING THE GOAL)

Posted on by

Question:
I was involved in an interesting conversation last weekend at a youth tournament.

Here is the scenario:

The ball is passed/shot towards the goal. The ball appears to be going over the cross bar. The goal is a not of the strong variety. As the ball is approaching, the goalkeeper jumps and grabs the crossbar (causing the bar to dip) as the ball goes into touch. If the goalkeeper had not held onto the crossbar the ball would have made contact and might have stayed in play.

There are now two questions:

#1 Should the goalkeeper be given a yellow card for Unsporting Behavior for bringing the game in disrepute for hanging on the crossbar?

#2 What should the restart be?

*goal kick since the attacking team played the ball out of bounds
*drop ball because of the goalkeepers action for hanging on the crossbar

Thank you for taking the time to read my question.

Why has the “ask the referee” link been removed from the website? It was my favorite thing to read.

USSF answer (September 14, 2009):
1. Caution to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior.
2. Restart with an indirect free kick for the opposing team on the goal area line at the point nearest to where the goalkeeper committed the unsporting behavior.

If the referee needs to do more to promote his/her control of the game, the goalkeeper could also be dismissed for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick — in this case the indirect free kick for the misconduct.

The U. S. Soccer Federation’s website is being rebuilt. Ask A Referee will return in the fullness of time. Meanwhile you can find all the current and past questions and answers at http://www.askasoccerreferee.com .…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SHIELDING VS. HOLDING

Posted on by

Question:
If a player is screening the ball and it is in playable distance, is it legal for the screening player to raise their arms to make it harder for the opposing player to get to the ball?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
Under normal circumstances, “screening” means that there was no physical contact. Here is a citation from the 2009/2010 Laws of the Game, Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (IGR), has to say on the matter:
“Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”

When physical contact occurs, which is what the IGR means when it refers holding off an opponent, the act has been converted into “holding” and is punished with a direct free kick. The shielding player is allowed to use a normal amount of arm and elbow room, but not to extend his/her arms beyond that range.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR NO FOUL? MISCONDUCT?

Posted on by

Question:
I was working a game over the weekend and an issue came up that we needed help on. I was one of the AR’s on this game and the attacking team was moving towards my side of the field. The ball had been kicked towards the goal. There was an attacker running towards the ball (she was onside) as was the goalie. As the goalie approached the ball she started to slide as they do. The attacking player also came in on a slide trying to kick the ball forward and missed, subsequently kicking the goalie in the stomach right above the groin area cleats up. The goalie had the ball in her hands when she was kicked. The game had to be stopped for about 4-5 minutes due to the injured goalie. Thank you very much. I can any questions you might have.

Actions?
Goalie free kick restart?
Yellow to the attacking player?
Red card for cleats up tackle?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Unless it was obvious that the attacker was playing the goalkeeper and not the ball, there is no clear reason to consider misconduct in this case. In your scenario the attacking player’s action was careless (hence the foul and direct free kick restart for the goalkeeper’s team), but it was neither reckless nor performed without regard for the safety of the opponent (hence no card). Direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team.…

"Inventive Assessors"

THIRD MAN IN GETS RED?

Posted on by

Question:
I have a couple of questions about the following situation, which occurred at a U16 match.

Two opponents at midfield near the benches are mouthing off to each other, and some shoving is going on. A substitute comes off the bench onto the field, but nothing comes of it (everything settles down pretty quickly). I don’t know whether it is a factor or not, but the shoving/shouting happened behind the referee’s back while the ball was out of play, but once the assistant referee got the referee’s attention, the referee handled the situation and cautioned the two players and the substitute. From what I’ve been told, this was an isolated incident, and the referee had the match under control both before and after the incident occurred.

After the match, the assessor told the referee that ‘the third man in’ should have been sent off, even though he made no contact with anyone.

My questions to you:

1. Do you know where this mentality (third-man-in gets-a-red) came from?
2. What sort of feedback would you give to this assessor?

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
The assessor seems to be misreading and misquoting a USSF directive on “Game Disrepute and Mass Confrontation.” The actual directive states:

1. Third Man In
– If a third man joins the game disrepute and causes it to escalate to mass confrontation, this player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior.
– The third man in may be sent-off for violent conduct if his actions so warrant

There is certainly no suggestion in the directive that a third person to join any incident MUST be sent off, particularly if he or she has not done anything more than enter the field.

Our feedback to the assessor would be that he/she should thoroughly review the directives before making pronouncements on matters of this nature.…