Question:
I was working as an AR for an under-17 boys game a few weeks ago.
Ball is rolling through the penalty area and defender for Team A is legally shielding forward from Team B until the ball goes out for a goal kick.

Team B forward is clearly frustrated with the defender’s shielding tactic, and, after the ball rolls out, the forward picks up the ball and does a basketball-style chest pass at the feet of the defender, who is now running back onto the field to his position for the goal kick and his back is turned to the forward. The ball struck the defender on the feet. The defender did not appear to react to the ball hitting him.

The center referee did nothing. I would have at least shown a card, but I cannot decide if it would have been yellow or red. The ball definitely struck the defender, but not with much force. To the letter of the law, this is striking an opponent. But would it have been too harsh to send off the player in this instance?

USSF answer (May 27, 2009):
Only the referee on the game can determine whether the act was reckless (caution) or done with excessive force (send-off). If, in the opinion of the referee, the act constituted misconduct or serious misconduct, then a caution or send-off (depending on the nature of misconduct) would be warranted.

We see no reason for a send-off in this situation (with these circumstances), but either a strong dressing down (which wasn’t mentioned) or a caution would be warranted.

The restart — after the caution or send-off — will be for the reason the ball was out of play, a goal kick.…

Question:
A goalkeeper and an attacking player on a fifty /fifty ball collide and slide over the goalline some 10 feet into the area inside the netting between the goal posts. The ball is stopped on the goal line.The attacker attempts to reach his leg out, intending to draw the ball back over the goalline. The keeper scambles over top of the attacker in an attempt to grab the ball pinning the attacker’s legs preventing him from doing so. A defender then manages to clear the ball from the area.

USSF answer (May 14, 2009):
Both players left the field during the course of play and thus have the permission of the referee to be where they are.  Working with your statement that the ball was still on the goal line and the goalkeeper and attacking player were fully off the field when the goalkeeper did what he did, we would suggest that the decision to be made (which only the referee on the spot can make) is whether the goalkeeper was holding the opponent back rather than merely trying to play the ball.  Your description suggests a tussle in which either could be occurring.  If both players were simply trying to disentangle themselves in a scramble to get to the ball, then what is happening is ordinary play and, although needing to be watched carefully, it should be allowed.  If the referee decides that the goalkeeper is holding the opponent to prevent him from playing the ball, then the goalkeeper is guilty of misconduct.  Since this is occurring off the field, the goalkeeper would be cautioned and play restarted with a dropped ball on the goal area line straight up from where the ball was when play was stopped (this is an example of the “special circumstances” involving restarts in the goal area).…

Question:
During a PK, 1-2 players from the defending team shout out loud just as the kicker kicks the ball. Ball does not go in(deflects off goalie and goes out of bounds)). Ref shows one player a yellow card and awards attacking team a corner kick. Would a retake of the PK be justified based on the rule that if a teammate of the goalkeeper infringes the Laws of the Game, and the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is to be retaken ?

USSF answer (May 12, 2009):
The two shouting opponents must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the ball did not enter the goal, the penalty kick must be retaken. If the ball did enter the goal, the goal is scored and the restart is a kick-off.…

Question:
I was recently the center referee for a mid-flight U14 boys game. One player on the white team had foot skills well beyond any other player. This player “fell” twice early in the game when pressured by a defender. I did not see any trip, so let play continue. His third “fall” was a very acrobat twisting fall over a defender’s leg which left me wondering if he was fouled or if he took a dive. I decided to watch this player’s feet closely any time he touched the ball during the remainder of the game.

In the second half, with white up 1-0, the same player had the ball in the opponents’ penalty box. There were two defenders between him and the goal. Both defenders were facing him and standing about 2 feet apart with their legs in a natural position at their sides and slightly out from their hips. The white player played the ball between the two defenders and ran into the gap. Before either defender could react, the white player feet clearly got entangled in one of the defender’s feet and he tripped / went down hard.

In my judgment, the skilled white player could have stepped over the defender’s leg and gotten through the gap without making contact, but chose to allow himself to be tripped to draw the foul and a PK.

My choice was to either caution the white player for diving or to give him the PK for being tripped. In favor of the PK – the white player had a right to the space between the defenders and he was tripped. In favor of a caution – the white player had the skill to jump over the legs and continue to the ball.

I ended up giving the player the PK since he did have a right to the space and did go over the defender’s leg and I felt I should not be judging his intent (did he allow himself to be tripped?), but rather the actions on the field (attacker splits the gap and trips over defenders leg).

Was this the proper call? Should a referee judge the intent of a player?

USSF answer (May 12, 2009):
The referee must judge the result of an action, not attempt to divine the intent of the player. The word “intent” was removed from the Law some years ago.

No player has a right to “space.” Each player owns the space he or she is currently occupying, unless he or she ran to a spot and suddenly stopped, effectively creating a blockade of an opponent. If all was as you describe it, the defenders were attempting to play the ball, rather than play the player, and they committed no offense.

Did the player actually dive, or did he fall over the opponent’s foot by running over it? That might be a foul by the attacking player. If the defending player was trying to play the ball, there might be a foul, but we cannot call either of those fouls from the comfort of our desks.…

Question:
2 players from opposing teams running towards goal, side by side enter the penalty area. Only the goalkeeper is between them and the goal. the ball is at waist height in front of the attacking player. The defending player raises his foot across the attacker and gets a slight touch on the ball (just enough to take it away from the attacker). At this stage with the defender’s leg outstretched the attacker falls to the ground.
There is no question that the defender is responsible for tripping the attacker in the penalty area… But there is also no doubt about it that the defender definitely played the ball away before making any sort of contact with the attacker.
What should the result be? play on? penalty? red card?

USSF answer (May 6, 2009):
You do not mention any contact between defender and attacker (opponent). If we assume that there was indeed contact, then we have tripping, just as you suggest, which is punishable by (in this case) a penalty kick. If there was no tripping, then there was a good possibility of playing dangerously, punishable by an indirect free kick. If it was, in the opinion of the referee, playing dangerously, rather than a simple fair play for the ball, then in either case the correct action to be taken is to send off the defender for “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.” If it was a fair play for the ball, there is no infringement of the Law and nothing should be called.…

Question:
Is the goalie aloud to touch the ball wither by hand or foot after they have attempted to drop kick it out of there defensive area. For example: Goalie picks up the ball attempts to drop kick it but misses the ball completely. Can they pick it up again and kick it if they are inside the area aloud by goalies to handle the ball? Same situation however the ball is outside the handleing area and they kick while its on the ground. Is this goalie mishandling infraction?

2nd situation: Goalie goes to drop kick the ball and just nicks the ball with their foot. Can they play the ball again either by picking it up and drop kicking it again or just by running up to it and kicking it?

Im under the understanding that if a goalie makes a drop kicking motion and nicks or misses the ball they can not play it again. If they do its goalie mishandling and its an indirect free kick for the other team.

USSF answer (May 6, 2009):
If the goalkeeper releases the ball from the hands and kicks it away and it hits the the ground, the ball is in play for everyone and the goalkeeper may not pick it up again until some other player has played it. Correct restart is an indirect for the opposing team from the place where the goalkeeper touched the ball again after releasing it.

On the other hand, the goalkeeper may certainly kick the ball without touching it again with the hands. That has never been an infringement of the Laws.

That said, this sort of thing often occurs among younger and less-skilled players. The referee should use discretion in calling this foul, at least the first time it occurs, during a game with such players. The correct action in that case would be to remind the goalkeeper that he or she may not touch the ball again. We might add at least a brief reminder that, most of the time, this scenario would and should be deemed trifling by the referee and not worth stopping play in order to punish such a violation where no one was impacted.…