Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

"Only in America!"

BALL AND PENALTY AREA (WHICH INCLUDES THE LINE)

Posted on by

Question:
In one of last year’s ‘week in review’ articles (and in one of the DVDs provided this year to the SDIs), there is a statement that says, “the goalkeeper may legally handle the ball as long as any part of the ball is crossing the penalty area line whether on the ground or in the air. The position of the goalkeeper’s body plays no role in determining the handling offense.”

Now I ask you to consider a situation in which part of the ball is within the penalty area, but the rest of the ball is geometrically outside of the penalty area. The week-in-review statement suggests that it would be legal for a goalkeeper to deliberately touch (with his hands) that portion of the ball, even if the goalkeeper’s body were geometrically located entirely outside of the penalty area.

I have four questions.

First, is what I just said true? That is, is it legal for a goalkeeper (irrespective of his location) to use his hands and deliberately touch the red portion of the ball in Fig 1a?

Second, if the above is true, how is the ruling reconciled with the Law, which tells us to award a direct free kick to the opposing team where the offense occurred unless the goalkeeper is within his own penalty area? Do we simply say that, if a player touches a ball and if the ball is in the penalty area, the touch (by definition?) occurs within the penalty area?

Third, if a field player uses his hands deliberately to touch the red portion of the ball, do we award a PK?

My fourth question is this: If a player is off the field of play and deliberately touches the red portion of the ball with his hands, is the offence considered handling? That is, would we stop play and restart with a DFK?

USSF answer (July 27, 2009):
Let’s look at it in increments.  If any part of the ball is on the line, the ball is within the penalty area.  At no time in this situation did the ball leave the penalty area.  The fact that part of the ball was outside the penalty area is irrelevant.  The BALL was still in the penalty area and, accordingly, it can still be handled by the goalkeeper, and that includes ANY PART of the ball.  The BALL is a whole thing and either is or is not in the penalty area.  If it is, it can be handled by the goalkeeper.  If it is not, it cannot be handled by the ‘keeper.  Thus the WIR article is in complete agreement with the Law.…

"Inventive" Refs

THROW-IN AND HANDLING

Posted on by

Question:

During an over 40’s mens’ recreational league match this weekend, there were 2 issues that another referee who is an assessor, told me I did incorrectly that surprised me.

1. During a throw-in, the player raised the ball just above his head and threw it in. Since law 15 states that the thrower delivers the ball from behind the head, I awarded a throw-in to the other team. After some discussion, it does raise the question, how far behind the head does the ball need to go before being a legal throw in?

2. During play near mid-field, a blue team player kicks a hard ball at close range (about 2 yards) from the white player who is running toward the ball. The white team’s player, in a flinch reaction, puts his hand up to protect his face and the ball hits his hand. He does not direct the ball after the contact. At the time, I did not consider it deliberate, and let play continue. This “no call” decision was based on the Advice to Referees as well as the 2009 Referee Program Directive on Handling the Ball, Part 4, where it talks about a purely instinctive reaction to protect sensitive areas of the body. This is consistent with the Advice to Referees. The other referee told me that not only should I have called handling, I should have given a yellow card because he considered it a tactical foul. I believe that it was neither a foul nor a misconduct.

USSF answer (July 14, 2009):
1. Referees need to remember that, in addition to the Letter of the Law, they need to be in tune with the Spirit of the Laws.  A throw-in is simply a way of restarting the game.  The decision on how far behind the head the thrower must bring the ball is a matter for the referee to decide.  While the requirements of Law 15 are pretty specific, not bringing the ball fully “behind” the head is a relatively trivial infringement of those requirements.

2. Many referees have yet to learn that refereeing is not a case of “us” against “them,” but a matter of finding the best solution to a problem by balancing the Letter and the Spirit of the Law.  As you describe the situation, and remembering the sources you have cited, we believe that you reached the correct decision in this case.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“MAKING ONESELF BIGGER”

Posted on by

Question:
In Referee Week in Review – Week 15, the first video clip illustrates a deliberate handling foul (Colorado at Seattle, 32:00).

In the podcast discussion, the concept of “making oneself bigger” is emphasized. In the video, as the ball strikes the player, the player seems more to be making himself smaller, drawing his arms inward and slightly turning his body away from the ball.

I am not questioning the handling call itself, as it is easy enough to argue that the arms were deliberately moved into the path of the ball. But could you explain further how the concept of making oneself bigger applies to this particular incident?

The player taking away the kicker’s passing lane using hands/arms is also discussed. Prior to making contact with the ball, the player does leap with arms stretched upward–is this where making oneself bigger applies? And if so, how does this factor into the foul since no contact with the ball occurred while the arms were outstretched?

Thanks much.

USSF answer (July 8, 2009):
Referees at all levels must understand the criteria and the context in which terms are used and must analyze how the term, concept or criteria should be extended to use in a game. This is the case with the criterion “making yourself bigger.” Remember, not EVERY example or use of a criterion can be mentioned. For this reason, the ability to analyze and understand how it should be interpreted or applied is critical to an official’s success.

Here is the full definition of “making yourself bigger” found in U.S. Soccer’s 2009 Referee Program Directives. The definition should answer your question.

This refers to the placement of the arm(s)/hand(s) of the defending player at the time the ball is played by the opponent. Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling. Referees should interpret this action as the defender “deliberately” putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent (like spreading your arms wide to take away the passing lane of an attacker).

• Does the defender use his hand/arm as a barrier?

• Does the defender use his hand/arm to take away space and/or the passing lane from the opponent?

• Does the defender use his hand/arm to occupy more space by extending his reach or extending the ability of his body to play the ball thereby benefiting from the extension(s)?

Nowhere in the definition does it state that “making yourself bigger” applies ONLY to the arms at your side. On the contrary, it merely covers “takes away space from the team with the ball…” and “deliberately putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent.” Notice, it does not mention only to the side nor how far from the body the arms/hands can be. The definition also says “LIKE spreading your arms wide….” Key is the word “like.” This means there are other reasonable answers.

So, in this case, think about what “bigger” means. When a person is said to be “bigger,” it does not mean only to the side. It means all around the body. This should include above the body as well. A player can clearly take away a passing lane or space from an opponent by extending his arm/hand directly in front of himself. This fits the definition of “making yourself bigger.” Think about the concept and draw a mental picture for yourself.

Concepts like “making yourself bigger” and “unnatural position” can overlap also. This is a case when both occur in the same action by the defender.…

"Inventive Coaches"

PRESENCE OF THE GOALKEEPER ON THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
Simple question, do you have to have a goalkeeper to start a game? Or can you use the minimum seven players as on field players.

Why I ask, while watching a game last week, the keeper walked off the field (with permission by the ref) and the team refused to put a keeper in as there was 10 minutes to go. The referee refused to start the match until a keeper was put in. Is this correct?

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
Simple answer: Yes, each team must have a designated goalkeeper on the field of play for the game to begin. However, that does not require that the goalkeeper be on the field the entire time nor present for every REstart.

While the team is required to have a goalkeeper, there is no requirement that that goalkeeper be on the field nor able to participate in play. (We could point to an October 2004 incident in an English Premier League match between Manchester City and Bolton Wanderers in which the referee allowed the goalkeeper to lie on the ground unattended for well over a minute; the goalkeeper, who had fallen without any contact from either opponent or teammate, finally got up. Luckily for him and his team no goal was scored.)

The Law also allows the goalkeeper (or any other player) to leave the field during the course of play and if, after the restart (typically a throw-in), the goalkeeper has not returned and a goal is scored, life is hard.

While off the field with the permission of the referee, the goalkeeper (like any other player) is still a player for purposes of determining the number of players on the team (the ‘keeper in your scenario remains legally allowed to be on the field, though in this case he requires the referee’s permission to return).  We would consider this as comparable to the decision process the referee must go through if a team has only seven players and one leaves the field:  If the departure is very temporary and in the course of play (no referee permission required to re-enter), play continues.  If the departure is temporary and the player needs the permission of the referee to return, the referee should not restart play until the player has returned with permission. If the player (whether goalkeeper or not) is not ready to return when the restart is able to be taken, why should the game wait for this player? That is not fair to the other team. In the case of a goalkeeper who is not willing to return within a reasonable amount of time, the team should then either substitute in a new goalkeeper or the game would be abandoned and a full report submitted to the competition authority.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

LAZY REFEREES AND GETTING THE CALL RIGHT

Posted on by

Question:
I was reading through the May 2009 Archive about the goalkeeper injury. This brought to mind a situation that I witnessed at my son’s High School match. I am a recreational referee, and realize that the high schools here in Texas play under UIL rules, not the LOTG. Nevertheless, the situation seems clear-cut. During the match an attacking forward was 1 v 1 with our goalkeeper. The attacker was playing the ball a yard or two in front of him and as he approached the goal box, the goalkeeper reached down to pick-up the ball. The attacker continued through, while the goalkeeper had his hands on the ball, and kicked or kneed the goalkeeper in the head, causing both players to go down. The contact was sufficiently hard to knock the goalkeeper unconscious and he was totally immobile. A defender was able to clear the ball in touch. The AR was parallel to the incident and had a clear view, but the CR was about a yard out of the center circle (where he spent the majority of the match.) The CR allowed the throw-in and the opposing team finally put the ball in touch so the goalkeeper (who literally had not moved at all the entire time) could be attended to. The CR had never made any made a call, never took any disciplinary action, and never even stopped play to address what was obviously a very seriously injured player, in large part because failed to be in a position to follow the active play.

1. Should this not have been a foul for kicking?
2. Should it not have warranted Sending Off for Serious Foul Play (excessive force), or at least a Caution for Unsporting Behavior (reckless)
3. Should not have play been stopped immediately when it was obvious the goalkeeper was unconscious (he was actually unconscious for well over a minute. When he went to the hospital, had a serious concussion and was out for a month.)

I believe I know the answers, but would like to get your take and how culpable is the CR for not being in position to see and the AR for not making him aware of the situation.

USSF answer (July 1, 2009):
If all was precisely as you describe it, then the following answers apply to your numbered questions.
1. Yes.
2. Yes, serious foul play.
3. Yes.

The referee is expected to cover as much of the field as possible to manage a game properly. Yes, the referee should have been close enough to play to see this incident and deal with it properly. In addition, the AR, given the poor positioning of the referee, should have passed the information to the referee. That point concerns us almost more than the referee’s dereliction of duty.

We recommend that this incident be reported to the authority that governs high school soccer in your area. The report should include date, place, time, teams, and a full description of the incident.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

HOLDING HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
ast weekend I was the CR for a U12G game at a local tournament and had a situation that I had never seen before. Early in the first half. Red player has the ball and is attacking. Blue defender is trying to stay between the red attacker and the goal.

The odd thing was that both the attacker and the defender had interlaced their fingers to get a grip on the other player. The attacker appeared to be trying to hold off the defender and the defender appeared to trying to move the attacker away from the goal.

I stopped play, warned both girls, and restarted with a dropped ball (closer to the red player that had had possession). My theory was that both girls were equally guilty of holding.

What should the call and the restart have been? Would your answer change if this happened in the blue defenders penalty area?

USSF answer (June 28, 2009):
Unless there is some way of determining which of these “lovebirds” started holding first, then your decision might be correct. However, a viable alternative to the dropped ball would be to wait until the outcome of the “mutual holding” becomes clear.  The dropped ball is rarely a good solution for offsetting fouls.

Most important of all, please remember that in no case should the referee make a different call if this were to occur in the penalty area. We call a foul the same in all situations, no matter where it occurs on the field.…

"Inventive" Refs

PLAYING DANGEROUSLY

Posted on by

Question:
I saw this situation in the recent Far West Regionals during pool play.

One defender and one attacker are battling for the ball. The defender slips and falls with her legs over the ball. Defender tries to get away from the ball and does not attempt to play the ball. The attacker holds her down by her shoulder and jersey not allowing her to get away from the ball. Referee calls dangerous play on defender. The sideline discussion: is the girl allowed to hold the defender down (some argued this is a smart play) and others argued she was holding and that the call should have been holding versus dangerous play. What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
Based solely on your description (the only evidence we have), we suspect that the referee has no courage and blew the call. It should have been called holding and the restart should have been a direct free kick for the defender’s team.

Some referees still seem to have the wrong idea about playing dangerously; to wit, they wanted a call for playing dangerously (and the referee on this game obliged, albeit erroneously). Nothing in the Laws of the Game forbids a player on the ground from playing the ball.  As long as the player on the ground does nothing to endanger herself or other participants, there is no dangerous play. Let it be clear that it is dangerous for a player to hold the ball (lying on top of it, holding it with the legs, etc.) when on the ground. But it is not dangerous to make a legal play of the ball.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CAUTION FOR DELIBERATE HANDLING?

Posted on by

Question:
In U13 high level tournament last weekend a midfielder was running at a moderate pace and the ball crossed in front of her at waist height.

She seemed to reflexively slap it down, and then she stopped running as she knew she would get called for handling. She actually turned around and started walking backwards, anticipating the free kick from the opponent at the spot of her infraction.

The center ref had whistled the call, and then showed her a yellow card. She showed no disention, did not kick the ball again when it was on the ground, and did not complain.

Was a yellow called for? I don’t think I have ever seen it called like that, and the Laws don’t seem to indicate it was appropriate.

When questioned at half, the Ref confirmed he gave her the yellow for her “deliberate” attempt to handle.

What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
If the referee believed the act of deliberate handling to have been a tactical foul, then the caution for unsporting behavior was deserved.,…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PROCEDURE AT SECOND CAUTION

Posted on by

Question:
Question involves procedure for issuing a red card when 2 yellows are given. Incident as follows: a reckless tackle deserving of a caution. As the yellow card is shown, the culprit jumps up, gets in the face of the referee and will not stop criticizing the call. The referee decides this dissent warrants another caution and the subsequent red card. I believe it is USSF policy not to show the second yellow but to go straight to the red. Is this true or do we show the second yellow and then the red?

USSF answer (June 24, 2009):
Correct procedure is to show the second yellow card for the cautionable offense, immediately followed by the red card for the send-off for receiving a second caution in the same match.

A cautionary note: Because a second caution will result in the player being sent off, the second caution should be given when, in the opinion of the referee, it is truly a cautionable offense (in other words, you would have given a first caution for the misconduct) and the misconduct clearly continues a pattern of behavior of that player despite the prior notice of the first caution that a continuation would result in the player being sent from the field.  In circumstances where the behavior of the player does not represent such a continuation, the referee should attempt to manage the player using other techniques short of a caution.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MOONING?

Posted on by

Question:
So I saw an interesting situation at the DC United Sounders match today. The keeper mooned the fans. He did not show his bare butt but he did display his underwear. I immediately wondered whether that would be a send off or a cautionable offense. I can not imagine that there would be no punishment. This happened at the very very end of the match during the time wasting DC United was doing.

Is it serious enough to be considered an offensive gesture?

USSF answer (June 19, 2009):
The answer to your question can be determined only by the referee on the particular game, but it sounds like unsporting behavior at a minimum and possibly an offensive, insulting, or abusive gesture.

It would have been helpful to see the incident ourselves, but a run through the game video by the US Soccer referee staff did not turn up anything of this sort.

NOTE: If everyone who sends in questions regarding professional matches would give us the exact match time of the incident, it would make it easier to give more complete answers.

A READER COMMENTS:
Just a follow-up to the June 18 comment by a soccer fan that was accusing the D.C. United keeper of “mooning.” the fans in Seattle. The ESPN360.com replay of the game, shows Wicks at 89:45 stepping back to take a goal kick and seeming pulling his shorts down to re-tuck his jersey. Again, in stoppage time at 3:00, the camera show him again getting ready to take another goal kick and he is in the process of pulling his shorts up again (just before a beer bottle is flung at him). Maybe it’s just a nervous habit–forgets he’s in public–or perhaps a bit of gamesmanship with his tormentors.
…