Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 11 - Offside

FOULING THE PLAYER IN THE OFFSIDE POSITION

Posted on by

Question:
Thanks for a wonderful resource and for the recent elaboration on the interpretations applicable to deliberate handling vs. offside.

I was hoping you could provide some similar guidance with respect to offside (by interfering with an opponent) vs. a penal foul against the player in offside position (OSP).

For example,

(1) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross goes up alongside a defender to challenge for a header, and is carelessly pushed by the defender — offside for interfering with a player, or push on the defender?

(2) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross is running towards the far post, but the cross is to the near post, and the attacker is carelessly tripped from behind by a defender chasing to catch up -offside (interfering with the defender by movement that distracted), or tripping foul?

And on a more general note, should the OSP status at the time the ball was played have any influence on the determination of whether contact should be deemed trifling?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
(1) Offside for interfering with an opponent. There is always the possibility of a caution for the defending player who pushed, but that would depend on whether the referee needed it for game management purposes.

(2) Offside for interfering with an opponent.

As to trifling, the answer is pretty generally yes.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

KICKS BY ‘KEEPER IN U10/U12 SMALL-SIDED SOCCER

Posted on by

Question:
In a U-10 game in the USA, playing 6v6, a referee surprised me with what he described as a little known FIFA rule on goal kicks and goalkeeper punts. He would not let the goalkeepers kick or punt the ball on the fly over the center line (midfield line). I have coached U10 soccer for 5 years and never heard of a rule like that.

Apparently, it was OK if our goalkeeper punted or kicked the ball just short of the center line and had the ball bounce over it to one of either our players or the opposition’s players. What is the correct rule?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
The referee was correct. Such a rule exists in small-sided soccer (Under 10 and Under 12 only) played under the rules recommended by the U. S. Youth Soccer Association:

Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct: Conform to FIFA with the exception that an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team at the center spot on the halfway line if a goalkeeper punts or drop-kicks the ball in the air from his/her penalty area into the opponents penalty area.

The USYS modifies the recommendation with the following advice:
Law 12
The rule on the goalkeeper’s distribution still allows for the ball to be punted the entire length of the field, it just can not go directly into the opponents’ penalty area …

Handling

HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — CAUTION?

Posted on by

Question:
With reference to your recent answer regarding deliberate handling and offside:

A long forward pass is attempted from attacker A1 to attacker A2, who is in an offside position. Defender D1 deliberately handles the ball to prevent it from reaching A2. Defender D2 is near A2, with no other attacker in the vicinity. D2 would have easily controlled the ball, assuming that A2 does not interfere, but for D1’s handling. Should we really caution D1 for a tactical foul, since the handling did not break up an attack? In deciding on whether to caution D1, doesn’t the referee need to determine whether a legitimate attack is possible?

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The referee must do what is best for the game in any situation like this. However, if a player gets away with a blatant deliberate handling offense once, he or she will do it again. The intelligent referee will be able to figure out what will happen to their game if that goes on.

In addition, you have introduced a potentially significant element tin your scenario that was not present in the original situation — the caution for a tactical foul presumes that the foul was tactical and this is what the referee has to decide.  The issue you are raising — which must also be taken into account — is whether the foul was intended to be tactical even if, in fact, it turned out not to be tactical.  In other words, the defender may not have taken his teammate into account (didn’t know his teammate was so close, knew his teammate was close but was a klutz, whatever) and thus, in his mind, he was indeed attempting to stop the opponents’ attacking play.  After all, the misconduct is based as much on the clear intentions of the perpetrator as it is on the actual outcome.…

"Inventive" Refs

LYING DOWN ON THE RAILROAD TRACKS

Posted on by

Question:
Can the player from the opposing team lay down on the ground in the path of a player to try and impede him? Is it a penalty if he does?

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
Surely you jest! We find it hard to imagine a player lying down in the path of an opponent, much less trying to hinder or delay the opponent that way. Way too dangerous a thing to do. However, if a player were indeed crazy enough to do it, the foul would be playing in a dangerous manner, punishable with an indirect free kick for the opposing team at the place where the foul occurred. Or, as you suggest in your question, it could also be “impeding the progress of an opponent” (particularly an opponent so lacking in athletic ability as to be unable to jump over someone on the ground).…

Illegal Gamesmanship

DELAY OF THE RESTART OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
Often times in the MLS I see a very frustrating tactic and I have seen this in the matches I referee. Players stand in front of the ball at free kicks, especially in dangerous areas. Often times because of the unpunished nature of the offense it also happens at midfield. Players often times want a quick restart and this prevents this tactic. I feel frustrated as a biased fan. I can’t imagine how frustrated players get and parents get at youth matches. I imagine that both sides are getting frustrated.
Since I feel like the enforcement of the law is not very consistent with the 7+7 memorandum I want to know how to prevent the tactic and when does it become a cautionable offense. What are the criteria for it to become cautionable? I know what the memorandum says but what sort of advice do you have on enforcing this law?

One example (from a biased Seattle fan) would be the incident where Riley was sent off in the LA Galaxy match. Shouldn’t the player who clearly “provoked” the confrontation receive a caution. Under the 7+7 memorandum provoking a confrontation by touching the ball after the referee has stopped play is one of the offenses of special concern of FIFA. I was surprised to find it was not in the week in review.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
We are fortunate to have input from Brian Hall, U. S. Soccer’s Manager of Assessment and Training.

First, let us address your question regarding the Riley situation. You are correct, the player who withheld the ball from Riley and, therefore, prevented Riley from putting the ball into play quickly should have been cautioned for delaying the restart of play. This exact subject was covered in U.S. Soccer’s “Week In Review 8” which can be found at http://www.ussoccer.com/referees/weekinreview.jsp.html (select week 8).

Explanation and video review of the subject are covered coinciding with Video Clip 2: Los Angeles at Seattle.

Now, to your broader question. Referees have been instructed and continue to receive guidance relative to delaying the restart and not respecting the required distance. In fact, the overall management of free kick restarts is covered as one of U.S. Soccer Referee Program’s main directives for 2009.

These directives can be downloaded at: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13172742.html. However, if you are watching the game worldwide, you will see referees elsewhere are facing the exact same challenges.

In the 2008-09 publication of the Laws of the Game, FIFA revised the wording relative to “distance” and free kicks. Check the new section FIFA has introduced to replace the old “Questions and Answers:” “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees.” In this section, the term “distance” is defined:

“If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent is less than 9.15 meters from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue.” It also states….

“If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent who is near the ball deliberately prevents him taking the kick, the referee must caution the player for delaying the restart.”

Key terms are “intercepts,” and “deliberately prevents.” Upon reading U.S. Soccer’s directive on “Free Kick and Restart Management,” you will see that “deliberately prevents” is defined as “lunging or advancing forward or toward the ball.” So, if a defender is less than 10 yards and he/she lunges or advances forward toward the ball and then makes contact with the ball, this player must be cautioned for delaying the restart. On the other hand, if an attacker takes a free kick and the defender is less than 10 yards but in view of the attacker, then the attacker assumes the risk of the quick free kick and any defensive contact would not be punishable (the kicker knew the location of the defender at the time he/she took the free kick).

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.

…
Advantage

ADVANTAGE VS. MISCONDUCT AND “NATURAL” STOPPAGES REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
In the UEFA championship match, there was a situation where the referee applied advantage to a reckless foul (deserving of a caution) and allowed play to continue.  Over the course of the next several seconds, the advantage was fully realized but, in the end, the ball ended up in the hands of the opposing team’s goalkeeper.  At that time, the referee stopped play and showed a yellow card for the reckless foul.  Is this proper?  I thought you had to wait for the ball to leave the field before giving the card?  Was the restart correct?

USSF answer (June 2, 2009):
Several questions have come in regarding this incident, a few referring directly to the UEFA match and others raising the issue generally.  Although we have answered these questions individually, there has been some misunderstanding of what is truly at issue here.  Accordingly, we are using this latest question to offer some general advice for handling such situations.

Several referees felt that the referee, having decided not to stop play immediately for misconduct based on the application of the advantage concept, cannot thereafter stop play solely because the advantage, which lasted long enough to erase the foul, has ended. Our position is not only yes, he can do that, but we would ask in return, why not? The Law requires only that the card be given at the next stoppage of play and, per the Law, that can occur by the ball leaving the field (which is often the ONLY type of stoppage considered here) or by the referee stopping play. Why do referees stop play? Well, there are hundreds of reasons, including (see Advice to Referees) simply wanting to talk to a player as well as such more obvious things as injuries, weather, another foul, etc., or simply for the good of the game”!

We recommend for everyone’s reading the Interpretations/Guidelines (on p. 90 of the 2008/2009 Laws) regarding the referee missing the AR’s flag for severe misconduct and reiterated in the USSF Memorandum Supplement 2008:

Law 6
Both last year and again this year, the International Board has created an exception to the general rule that, if advantage is applied to misconduct, the appropriate card must be shown and the proper action taken (e.g., the player sent off) at the next stoppage; otherwise, the opportunity to card has been lost. The Interpretations provide that, if an AR signals for violent conduct but the signal is not seen until after play is restarted after the next stoppage, the referee may still display a red card and send the player off the field. If this should occur, the restart is based on the current stoppage of play rather than on the violent conduct that occurred previously.

USSF advises that:
– this exception is not limited to “violent conduct” in its official sense as a form of misconduct but applies as well to serious foul play (where violence or excessive force is involved) and other acts of misconduct,
– the AR must have signaled for the misconduct at the time it occurred and maintained the signal until it is seen by the referee, and
– if play is stopped solely in response to the signal by the AR, play is restarted with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area) but otherwise the restart is in accordance with the Law.

Referees are strongly urged to cover this type of situation in their pregame discussion and to make clear what sorts of misconduct are serious enough to warrant maintaining the AR’s signal past the next stoppage of play. If a player has received a second yellow card in the same match but was not at that time shown a red card and sent off, the referee remains able to correct the error at any time it is brought to his or her attention by a member of the officiating team.

This information from the Interpretations/Guidelines is not directly related to the question at hand and some will argue that it is also “not specifically authorized” in the Laws of the Game. However, there are many things we do that are “not specifically authorized” and fall under the words used in the Laws themselves, “If, in the opinion of the referee.” In this case the solution is indeed part and parcel of the Laws and it prepares the way for a more proactive role for the referee after applying the advantage. If the referee has to stop the game because no “natural” stoppage seems imminent, then he can do so. Referees are expected to do what is needed to meet the demands of the Spirit of the Game, to give the players a fair game. Waiting for a “natural” stoppage in this game would have left open a path for more infringements. Better to stop them now, before they occur, rather than wait and hope.

As we read it, the International Board was so concerned about violent conduct going unpunished that it carved out this exception to the general rule that a card not given at the next stoppage (natural or “unnatural”) is lost forever. With this in mind, why should the referee be prevented from implementing the same spirit by stopping play himself after the advantage has been realized and the opposing team (the one that committed the violent conduct in the first place!) now has control of the ball? This does not mean that the referee should in every case do as was done in this situation, stopping play without waiting for a “natural” stoppage. However, it does mean that the referee must keep his or her finger on the pulse of the game, applying, as we suggest in Advice 13.5, his or her feeling for the game in what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”). Only by exercising common sense can the referee do what is correct in such cases.…

Ball in Play

MLS: CHICAGO VS. CHIVAS, 28 MAY 2009

Posted on by

Question:
I am really confused by a call that was made on this game, and was hoping maybe you could shed some light on it for me. About 12 minutes into the game, Chicago was awarded a corner kick. Prior to the kick being taken a Chivas player body slammed a Chicago player inside the penalty box (the defender swung the offensive player around by the neck and then picked him up with both hands and laid him on the ground). The referee did not call a foul, and the AR called the corner kick back for a re-kick. Did I miss something? Shouldn’t that have been at least a yellow card to the Chivas player, if not a red since the ball was not yet in play? And shouldn’t there have been a PK for Chicago?

USSF answer (June 1, 2009):
Careful evaluation of the corner will show that the contact occurred before the corner kick was taken. Hence, given the fact that the ball was not in play, you must restart with the original corner kick.

Nowhere in the law does it state that a yellow card or red card needs to be issued because the ball is not in play. As you are aware, I’m sure, there is lots of holding taking place during corner kicks. Referees have been instructed to take a proactive role in dealing with this holding. This is the case in this situation.

The referee team takes a proactive role by stopping the play and retaking the kick. The referee’s whistle is a bit delayed because he is attempting to judge whether the offended team would benefit by allowing play to continue instead of retaking the corner kick. The assistant referee does help the referee by telling him that the ball was not in play at the time of the hold. As a result, the referee makes the correct decision to retake the corner kick.

In terms of misconduct, the referee decided that the holding was merely “careless” and not “reckless” and, thus, that is was not unsporting behavior. Consequently, he did not issue a caution to the defender. The referee could have been stronger in dealing with the holding defender by having a word with him and this may have assisted in proactively sending a message to prevent further holding. If you watch the entire game, you will see that the referee stopped the game on several other occasions prior to a corner kick being taken due to holding and jostling in the penalty area.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER CONTROL

Posted on by

Question:
A keeper goes up in the air and establishes control , grabbing a high ball with both hands, and then as he brings it down, it hits a head or shoulder of a defender who is making no overt play on the ball and the ball goes into the goal. Goal scored or indirect kick coming out?

USSF answer (May 30, 2009):
By “defender” you mean a teammate of the goalkeeper, right? If so, then score the goal. There is no reason to stop play or to award an indirect free kick if a teammate interferes with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.

If it had been an opponent (not playing the ball, as you state) who interfered with the goalkeeper, then the award of an indirect free kick for the goalkeeper’s team would be justified in most cases. The referee would certainly not award a goal in this case.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT VS. FOUL AND “NATURAL” STOPPAGE

Posted on by

Question:
Three questions about the same incident. The comprehensive answer is, as usual, at the bottom of the item.

A. Please evaluate the actions taken by the referee in the following scenario:

As red #6 makes a pass from the middle third of the field, blue #8 comes in late with a clearly reckless tackle. The pass finds red with an excellent attacking opportunity with pace toward the blue’s goal and numerical advantage. The referee opts to invoke the advantage clause.

The attack ends when red #10 takes a shot on goal which is handled and held by blue’s goalkeeper.

At this point, the referee stops the match to deal with blue #8’s misconduct, and awards red an indirect free kick from the point of the original offense.

Has the referee taken appropriate action in this case? If not, what are the referee’s options?

B. UEFA Champions League Final…

I realize you can’t officially comment on what FIFA referees do or don’t do, but if this were to occur in a USSF-sanctioned match…

2nd half, Barcelona player gets recklessly fouled by a Man U player in Barca’s defensive half. Referee plays the advantage for Barca.

Attack is continued while fouled Barca player is down and injured.

Shot on goal is eventually taken by Barcelona but saved by Man U goalkeeper, who then distributes ball to Man U teammates. Barca player is still down and referee still plans on issuing yellow card to original Man U player that committed the foul. Man U eventually plays the ball into touch, but is this sequence of events a good candidate for applying the fact that fouls and misconduct are two separate things by stopping play to deal with the misconduct once the advantage had been “spent” so to speak?

C. The referee has applied advantage to a foul that also involves a cardable offense, and plans to award the card after the advantage has dissipated. The resultant attack ends with a save and possession by the ‘keeper. The questions are: 1. Can the referee stop play at this time (to give the card), or must the referee wait until the ball next goes out of play before giving the card? 2. If the answer to #1 is the first option, is the restart an IFK or dropped ball? 3. Where?

USSF answer (May 28, 2009):
The referee has a very brief span of time in which to decide whether or not the advantage has been realized, no more than 2-3 seconds. If the advantage was not realized within the 2-3 seconds, then the original foul gets called, the yellow card is shown to Blue #8, and the restart is a direct free kick where the tackle occurred.

However, if the advantage was realized and maintained but then lost (as it clearly was when the GK saved the shot on goal), then the referee’s actions were entirely correct — the foul tackle is gone, the referee stopped play solely to handle the misconduct (reckless foul), and he restarted with an indirect free kick (stoppage for misconduct committed on the field during play by a player) where the misconduct occurred.

The only thing worth additional comment (simply because most referees would have failed to recognize what this referee recognized) is that the referee stopped play to deal with the misconduct when the advantage disappeared, rather than waiting for the so-called “natural” stoppage (the ball leaving the field) in order to come back to #8. There is no need to wait for a “natural” stoppage to come back and punish the miscreant.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

OFFICIAL REASON FOR CAUTIONABLE OFFENSE / DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
1. During a recent U19 boys’ match, team A scores a goal with 10 minutes left, but are still behind 3-2. Team B’s defender picks the ball up out of the goal. Immediately after leaving the inside of the goal, one of team A’s players tries to grab the ball out of team B’s hands. Knowing the game situation, I had recognized this as soon as the goal was scored and was sprinting, blowing the whistle and telling team A’s player to get in position for kick off. I got there quickly enough and there was no other issue other than the initial grab for the ball. I decided to caution team A’s player for provoking the confrontation that could have easily escalated. I believe that the official reason be “Unsporting Behavior”. Is that correct?

2. During a tournament this past weekend, I refereed a U16 boys’ game. I did some research on the teams before the game and determined that one of the teams was a top level youth (premier- team A) and the other was an entry /silver level select team (team B). It became apparent very early in the game, that team A was much more physical and stronger than team B. Team B was getting frustrated because team A was legally charging them off the ball. In the middle of the 1st half, I sent off a player for team B for grabbing a player from behind who had the ball with both arms wrapped around his chest area and then wrapping his leg around his leg and throwing him to the ground much like a player would in the other kind of football. This was after he had the ball taken away through legal charging. After he left the pitch, my AR on that side observed him receiving “high fives” from several substitutes on the bench which he mentioned at half time. I tried to explain to team B’s captain that team A was charging legally, but there were several other issues especially in the first half. Based on this, I have a few questions.

A. Other than communication with the captains and players, what else can a referee do to manage these differences in physical play? How can a referee prevent a misconduct rather than just punish and still be fair to both teams in this scenario?
B. Would the “high fives” be cautionable offenses for the substitutes as unsporting behavior? If so, would cautioning one of the substitutes be sufficient for this action? I also explained to my AR that he should have mentioned this at the time it happened. I also noted the high fives in the match report.

Thanks for your advice.

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
1. After the referee has stopped play for the goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Team B). A player who is “provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play” may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2008/2009.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (A) who was interfering with the Team B player carrying the ball to the center of the field. (And don’t forget to add the appropriate amount of time for the delay.)

2. A. It is not fair to team A to punish them for the lack of skill of team B by calling the game in a way that would benefit B, nor is it fair to B, whose players will clearly learn nothing beneficial from being given an advantage of this sort. Call the game in accordance with both the Letter of the Laws and the Spirit of the Game — insofar as the players allow you to do that. It would seem that team B was not interested in a challenging game.

2. B. Your AR should have alerted you immediately about the “high fives,” so that you could have addressed the matter at the time. A strong dressing down and possibly at least one caution (you pick the substitute) would have been good. Then supply full details in the match report (as you did).…