Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
An interesting question has arisen. After some searching I cannot find a similar situation covered in previous questions.

At a free kick, a defender is lingering within 10 yards of the ball.

The would-be kicker, rather than seeking the intervention of the referee, is irked at the opponent and kicks the ball as hard as possible at him.

Obviously the kicker could be sent off for violent conduct, or the referee could see it as unsporting behavior, depending on the speed and closeness of the kick. But what is the restart? Colleagues agree that it “feels like” this should be a foul. But if so, which foul is it? Kicking? Does the ball become an extension of the foot, similar to thrown objects being an extension of the hand? Or has the referee stopped play solely to administer misconduct, so the restart is indirect?

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
If throwing the ball is considered an extension of the hand and thus the action is striking, why can’t the ball be considered an extension of the foot and the scenario described would be kicking? We would have no trouble — assuming the referee is thorough in evaluating what happened — giving a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for kicking and a red card for violent conduct.…

"Inventive" Refs

BE CAREFUL OF HIGH KICKING!!!

Posted on by

Question:
A recent event during a local cup: Player A is defending a corner kick, facing towards the corner flag/goal near the opposite end of the box. The ball goes over the defence and player A, bounces, and he goes for the clearance. Player A, however, doesn’t notice player B (from the attacking team) coming from behind him to head the ball. When player A makes contact with the ball, it’s at head height (and hence, so is his foot), and he catches player B on the head/face with his boot. Player A did, however, make contact with the ball first (or roughly at the same time). This was all inside the box.

Should this play be a penalty or an indirect free kick for the attacking team?

Thanks!

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
We have a hard time buying the scenario completely. If player B is “coming from behind,” how then does A manage to kick B’s “head/face”? And it would be rare that a ball at head height is more naturally played with the head than with the foot. Any player playing a ball at head height with his foot must take more than average care that an opponent is not nearby and, failing that, has been CARELESS (which is what defends the minimum foul level — i. e., with no accompanying misconduct. The referee should look not at what a player INTENDS as a valid basis for judging a foul (other than handling) — but should look, instead, at the results of the player’s actions.

Only the referee on this game can make that call, whether in favor of player A or of player B.…

"Inventive" Refs

POSITION OF PLAYER WHO HAS LEFT THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Regarding the recent IFAB/USSF memorandum about Defenders Leaving the Field of Play:

A fellow referee recently told me that we should interpret the memo to mean that if the defender leaves the field along one of the touchlines, for the purpose of attempting to put an attacker in an offside position, that we should judge his position to be the point on the touchline where he/she actually left the field — not necessarily the closest point on the touchline to where the player actually is at the moment the AR has to judge offside position. What the ref is telling me seems like the fair thing to do, but I don’t see that wording in the memorandum. And it could make a big difference.

Example: The second-to-last defender leaves the field of play over a touchline some 20 yards out from the endline. The third-to-last defender is 30 yards out from the endline and on the field of play.

While play continues, the second-to-last defender who is now off the field of play begins to walk up the field, but off the field, away from his team’s own endline. He makes it to a point off the field that is 35 yards from the endline in an effort to make the teammate at 30 yards the new second-to-last. Now, an attacker, who has made it to the 25 yard mark becomes actively involved in play from a pass by a teammate who was farther from the goal they are attacking when it was passed. Offside or not? According to the memorandum, it seems yes.

According to the fellow referee I mentioned above – no.

Am I missing something?

USSF answer (August 20, 2009):
The defender who leaves the field in the normal course of play or in an attempt to make an attacker be in an offside position is to be treated as on the field at the point on the goal line or touchline closest to where the defender left.  

So, you ask, what happens if the defender moves while off the field, just as in your example?  For offside purposes, the player who has left the field over the touchline remains at the spot where he or she left. The same holds true if the player leaves the field across the goal line near the far post and, while the same play is continuing, comes around the far corner and is off the field (still) but now several yards up from the goal line.  In that case, too, the player remains “on the goal line closest to where he left the field” for purposes of determining the second to last defender.  In other words, the player’s movement while off the field makes no difference.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SPOT OF THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Near the end of a hard fought 1-1 game, I whistled a handling offense by the defense just outside the penalty area. At least 2 defenders remained in position for an instant just in front of the spot of the foul, but the momentum of the ball caused it to roll 3-4 yards to the side. An alert attacker set the ball at this new position and took a quick shot at the goal as this location was not obstructed by defenders. The quick shot went wide and so I indicated a goal kick.

However, had the shot gone in I had to wonder how I would have handled this volatile situation. The defense could protest that the kick was not from the proper spot (if they were alert). Or, if I disallowed the kick certainly the offense would protest.

I think the proper procedure would have been to be alert to this quick kick tactic and whistle a second time as the ball is set in the wrong location and before a quick kick is attempted, and insist the ball be placed at the spot of the foul. Then, if the player quick kicked anyway everyone has heard the second whistle as evidence that play was not properly restarted.

Had the kick scored in the original scenario and I had not time to whistle for proper placement of the ball, I think the proper but unpopular decision would be to deny the goal and retake the kick from the proper location. In this case a few yards from the spot of the foul is VERY significant to restarting play unlike a restart near midfield.

Please advise. Thank you, this site is the best.

USSF answer (August 19, 2009):
The farther the infringement (and thus the ball) from the goal being attacked, the less the referee cares about finding the exact blade of grass on which to have the free kick taken. As the infringement moves closer to the goal, the more exact the position of the ball for the free kick should be. Although in this case the ball does not seem to have moved appreciably closer to the goal, it may have given the kicking team a better angle, so the restart should be stopped immediately, if possible. If that is not possible, then have it retaken properly — and admonish the defenders (no caution necessary) for hanging around.

If all else fails, the key is making a decision and sticking to it. Your opinion is protected in Law 5, as quoted here: “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.”…

Advice to Referees

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
Does persistent infringement of the law applies to all of laws or just 12 and 14? I know it does not apply to Law 11.

USSF answer (August 18, 2009):
A complete explanation of persistent infringement appears in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.28.3 PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT
Persistent infringement occurs when a player repeatedly commits fouls or certain other infringements. It is not necessary for the multiple fouls to be of the same type or all to be direct free kick fouls, but infringements must be among those covered in Law 12 or involve repeated violations of Law 14. In most cases, the referee should warn the player that the pattern has been observed and, upon a subsequent violation, must then issue the caution. If the pattern is quickly and blatantly established, then the warning should be omitted and the referee should take immediate action. In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

The referee must also recognize when a single opponent has become the target of fouls by multiple players. As above, upon recognizing the pattern, the referee should clearly indicate that the pattern has been observed and that further fouls against this opponent must cease. If another player commits a foul against the targeted opponent, that player must be cautioned but, in this case, the misconduct should be reported as unsporting behavior, as must any subsequent caution of any further foul against that same targeted opponent. Eventually, the team will get the message.

Examples of persistent infringement include a player who:

* Violates Law 14 again, having previously been warned

* If playing as a goalkeeper, wastes time, having previously been warned or penalized for this behavior

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INCIDENT AUGUST 8 2009 NE REVOLUTION VS LA GALAXY

Posted on by

Question:
This is a query about a basic refereeing incident that I had hoped would be highlighted in your excellent Week in Review series (but unfortunately was not mentioned in Week 20).

I was one of the 26,000+ people at the Gillette Stadium watching the New England Revolution vs Los Angeles Galaxy match on Sat August 8 2009.

In the second half, an LA Galaxy player appeared to have an injury to his face region and went to ground but play continued. Eventually, with the ball still in play, the referee (Jorge Gonzalez) whistled for stoppage. But at the restart, another LA Galaxy player (David Beckham, no less) took a direct free kick. This was a bizarre incident. As referees well know, the proper restart should have been a drop ball. Also, the ball was not purposely kicked out at the touchline, otherwise the restart would have been a throw-in (which BTW was another refereeing incident that was excellently highlighted in your Week in Review – Week 15 item Injury Leading to a Throw-In: Law 15). I am puzzled by this bizarre incident.

Can you please officially reply to my query, and/or better still also post a constructive comment on your excellent US Soccer Referee website about this incident.

Please keep up the great work; your efforts are deeply appreciated not just domestically but also all around the world!

USSF answer (August 15, 2009):
We are happy to send along this explanation to our visitor. And thank you for the compliment on our website.

At 46:00, there are two back-to-back challenges in the center circle. In the first challenge, the Galaxy player goes down from a challenge the referee judges as fair. The ball then goes to Donovan, who is fouled, and the referee immediately and correctly calls the foul. There is some minimal and unintentional contact made with Donovan’s face and he holds it on the ground but gets up without complaining. However, the referee does everything correctly. He stops the game for a foul and restarts it with a Galaxy free kick as it was the Galaxy who were fouled.

This is the closest to the situation questioned and it is handled correctly by the match officials.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SAVING FALLEN COMRADES (REDUX)

Posted on by

Question:
I pose this question only to test the limits of your imagination and wisdom (which always impresses me).

The goalkeeper runs into a goalpost and falls unnoticed by the referees. The ball comes rolling toward the open goal when the last defender grabs the hands of the unresponsive goalie and stops the ball
– puppeteer-like.

Is this handling by the defender and thus a red card incident?

USSF answer (August 12, 2009):
Please see our answer of August 11, 2009, on a similar topic. This would not be a case of deliberate handling by the ingenious last defender, but it would certainly be unsporting behavior, punishable by a caution and an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the misconduct occurred. It also meets the requirements for a send-off for denying the opposing team a goal or a goalscoring opportunity through an act punishable by a free kick.

Of course, there is always the alternative for the intelligent and proactive referee, who, before the defender’s act, sees that the goalkeeper’s injury was obviously serious (though unnoticed earlier) and stops play. In such a case, with the mental decision by the referee predating this curious behavior, play would be stopped (for the injury) before all this foolishness occurs. Some harm, no foul, no outrage from either team.…

Ball in Play

PLAYING THE BALL OFF THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Can a player in the game be standing out of bounds then run over jump up and head a ball that is in the air but over the side line, with out stepping in before making contact with the ball.

USSF answer (August 11, 2009):
Assuming the ball had not left the field by crossing entirely over the touch line when the player headed the ball and that the player in question was not off the field with the permission or at the order of the referee, it doesn’t matter if that player at the time was partially or even entirely off the field.  While players are expected to be on and to remain on the field during play, the Law allows a player to leave the field briefly if this is done “in the course of play.”

If the ball left the field of play before being headed by the player, then the continued play must be ignored because play is considered stopped whenever the ball leaves the field.  If the player who headed the ball was off the field with the permission or at the order of the referee, then the player must be considered to have re-entered the field illegally (i. e., without permission) — play is stopped, the player is cautioned, and the match restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped.  These responses would be the case whether the player headed the ball or played it in any other way.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SAVING FALLEN COMRADES

Posted on by

Question:
I saw a situation while watching WPS this past weekend that got me thinking. A shot came in to the keeper who caught it and stumbled backwards towards the mouth of the goal. She caught herself on the goal post and was successful with the save. Here is my question, what if she had not been stopped by the goalpost, but my a teammate? I know a player cannot use a teammate to boost themselves up, for example in a header, and that this can be considered unsporting behavior. What about a stumbling goalkeeper with ball in hand falling back towards the goal? Would you allow this? Unsporting behavior with a caution and IFK according the special circumstances for IFK offenses inside the goal area? I would assume one could make a case for DOGSO, but good luck with that (arguing the 4 D’s would be difficult.) I appreciate your response. Thanks.

USSF answer (August 11, 2009):
This is one of those issues that has been much debated and, while there is no significant conceptual difference between a teammate propping up the goalkeeper to prevent her from falling back — not misconduct — into the goal (thus causing a goal) and a player lifting a teammate up to enable her to head the ball — the latter being clearly a misconduct — we would hesitate to make an ironclad ruling on this.

All of this makes for an interesting discussion, but the long and short of it is that it would be difficult to sell the notion that the teammate had prevented an obvious goalscoring opportunity under any circumstances — if the ‘keeper had the ball in her possession, there was no chance for the attacking team to play the ball. It would also be difficult to caution the teammate for unsporting behavior, unless the act was so blatant that it could not be denied. Apply The Seven Magic Words: “If, in the opinion of the referee, . . ..”

Now, if that teammate lifted up the ‘keeper so that she could control the ball . . .…

Handling

HANDLING THE BALL OUTSIDE THE PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
During a recent Men’s intramural game the Goal Keeper went for a low hard shot and collected the ball but due to his momentum running for the ball and a wet field, he slid outside the penalty area. In my opinion he was unable to stop and slid out by a few feet but did have possession of the ball when he slid out. Immediately the attacking team was calling for a “hand ball”. In my opinion he played the ball in the area and did not deliberately handle the ball outside the penalty area. I allowed him to get up and go inside the area and release the ball. After the match several players and referees approached me and disagreed with my call saying I should have awarded a DFK. Your opinion please.

USSF answer (August 11, 2009):
Our opinion, and it is strictly opinion, is that if the condition of the field caused the goalkeeper to handle the ball outside the penalty area, the referee COULD apply the common sense notion of a “trifling offense” and do as you did, allowing the goalkeeper to return to the penalty area and release the ball into play for others.

However, we must point out that the Law does not recognize weather conditions and the correct decision would be to award a direct free kick for deliberately handling the ball.  Although we need to remember that the Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players, that does not apply in this case.

There is no case to be made here for saying that the goalkeeper’s handling offense prevented a goal, so there would be no reason for showing a red card to the goalkeeper.…