Question:
I am a high school coach and last night we had a game were the opposing goalie dribbled the ball back into the box and then picked up the ball with her hands. The ref said that it was a free kick for us, but then changed his mind and gave the team a goal kick. Now I do not know if someone on her team passed the ball back to her or if we shot the ball, but does it matter? According to IHSA RULES, is she allowed to dribble the ball back into the box and pick it up?
USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
Coach, we don’t do high school rules here, but unless your state high school association has some special rule on this matter, the answer is pretty clear: NFHS rules on this are the same as the Laws of the Game. If the ball came from a deliberate kick by a teammate, indirect free kick for the opposing team where the goalkeeper handled the ball (it is still directly following the kick by the teammate, despite the goalkeeper dribbling the ball before picking it up). If it did not come from a teammate or if the teammate’s contact was not a deliberate kick, then there is no offense at all. Under no circumstances or variations in the scenario could the referee correctly give a goal kick.…
Question:
Situation inside six yard box, forward driving towards goal was cut off by defense and attempted to turn out and back , a defender CHARGED into her from behind then in a continuous motion and gave a 2-handed shove,straight out with enough force to knock her down. She was struck from behind at shoulder blade height and with enough force to send her flying over the ball and to the ground! No foul was called and Ref said it was Legal.??? I say Law 12 was broke?
USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
Coach, provided that the situation was precisely as you describe it, the defender should have been sent off for violent conduct — or for serious foul play if the referee believed that the defender was challenging for the ball, which doesn’t sound likely in this case. Penalty kick restart.…
Question:
On the occasion of a goal kick from Team A the coach is instructing his outside mid-fielders to step off the pitch about 1/3 of the way down, proceed in the direction of the kick while still outside the pitch then enter the pitch to make the play. It took me awhile to realize what was going on. After the game I asked the referee if this was leaving the field without permission and she agreed that they weren’t leaving the field to play the ball as allowed. Also note that the player was not reentering the field at the point at which they left. I also contend that this was done to deceive and thus would be considered unsporting behavior.
USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
Players are allowed to leave the field without permission only during the course of play — to avoid obstacles, such as an opponent, and to play the ball in the possession of an opponent on the line.
Players are not otherwise allowed to leave the field of play without specific permission of the referee. Doing so and then re-entering without permission is at least a cautionable offense.
This has nothing to do with trickery or deception. It is, plain and simple, the offense of leaving the field without permission, an act of misconduct in itself.…
Question:
1. Why are there two DOGO’s?
Handling is also punishable by a free kick or penalty kick so wouldn’t dogf be sufficient?
2. Signal by AR for goal to by disallowed is to stand at attention with flag straight down, but doesn’t say anything about the signal after eye contact with CR. Why doesn’t AR follow the same procedure as signaling a foul or offside as soon as he see’s it? Standing at attention with flag straight down to signal a person interfering looks the same as a foul, but the restart is IFK, not DFK. It seems like a conference is needed to get the correct restart, when giving the signal as soon as it becomes an offense gives all the necessary information. I see no reason to wait to give the flag a waggle or indicate offside. Can you explain the reasoning?
USSF answer (April 30, 2009):
1. The International Board wanted to make it clear that these were two different situations in several important respects. First, DG-H has a goalkeeper exception, DG-F does not. Second, they use a different standard — DG-H = but for the handling, the ball would have gone into the net;; DG-F = in the opinion of the referee, the opportunity was disrupted. Third, DG-H does not involve any of the “4 Ds” (they are applicable only to DH-F). Fourth, DG-H applies to a substitute who has illegally entered the field, DG-F does not.
2. Yes. But we assume you want more than this clear and simple answer.
It is presumed that the referee will have seen enough of the events occurring just in front of the goal to differentiate among the three different possibilities for canceling a goal even though the ball is in the net (offside offense by the scorer, offside offense by a teammate of the scorer, foul by an attacker) and that the AR’s signal is primarily a further confirmation. To that end, the procedure for the first is to signal the offside offense in the usual way but to simply stand still (“at attention”) for the other two. The referee, seeing the latter signal, therefore knows that there are only two possibilities — offside offense by a teammate of the scorer or a foul by an attacker. This is usually sufficient for most experienced referees. If it is not for some reason, then the referee and AR can confer briefly. As for differentiating between an indirect free kick versus a direct free kick restart for the two offenses indicated by the AR standing still, most experienced referees would again recognize that, so close to the defending team’s goal, it rarely matters which will occur.…
Question:
High level U15 girls national championship series preliminary match. To set the scene – Game is tied 0-0 in the second half. White goalie comes out to near 18 and makes a save. Ball comes loose and blue forward hits ball off goalie. Goalie jumps on ball outside the 18 and is called for handling. Goalie then proceeds to argue with CR for 30-45 seconds (I believe stating that she had control when the blue player hit the ball which is not what I saw or what the CR saw). CR does not issue caution and says after the game that “this was a high level state cup game and emotions were high” so she did not issue a caution (AR stated during game that he would have cautioned keeper).
With 4 minutes left in game and white winning 1-0, white keeper makes another save and trips blue player just inside the 18. CR blows whistle and issues keeper (who is still holding the ball) a caution.
After a short discussion with keeper, CR backs off and allows keeper to punt. After the game, CR states that caution was for dissent and that she would have just dropped the ball to the keeper and allowed her to punt and since there was not much time left, she just allowed the keeper to punt.
How should this have been handled?
USSF answer (April 21, 2009):
While we might agree with the referee’s initial decision not to caution the goalkeeper for dissent because of the high emotional level of the game, we do not recommend allowing protracted sessions of “discussion” with any player. The referee should state her decision, take care of business (if any), and get on with the game. (And the AR should have kept his mouth shut unless speaking directly to the referee.)
The second decision raises three areas of concern.
– First, the caution for dissent may or may not have been correct, but if the referee saw it that way, then it was correct. We wonder if it should not have been for unsporting behavior (reckless play in tripping the opponent).
– The second area of concern is the possibility that there was an obvious goalscoring opportunity — we don’t have any details to determine one way or another.
– The third area of concern is the way the game was restarted — or “continued,” as a punt is definitely not a way to restart the game. A dropped ball is not possible. A punt is clearly an abomination. If the caution was for dissent, the only legal restart is an indirect free kick (not a dropped ball) for the opposing team where the goalkeeper committed the dissent. However, if the caution was for the goalkeeper tripping the opponent, then the correct restart is a direct free kick or, in this case, a penalty kick.…
Question:
Consider the following setup.
An attacker is in an offside position on (or close to) the goal line.
A team mate takes a shot from around 14 yards while the goalkeeper went out of the goal to challenge him. All defenders are behind the line of the attacker who has the ball.
1. The offside attacker (which has no defenders around him and is not interfering with or disturbing the goalkeeper) gets hit by the ball and the ball enters the goal. Even if the ball had not touched him, it is obvious that the ball would have still ended up in the goal.
Question: Should the offside position be called or should the goal be allowed? (By the book: call the offside – interfering with play because he touched the ball)
2. The offside attacker deliberately steps inside the goal to avoid the offside possition (no matter if he gets hit by the ball there). In this case the goal should be disallowed and the offside player cautioned for deliberately getting off the field without permission, right?
3. The offside player stumbles and falls beyond the goal line inside the goal (being hit otherwise by the ball), avoiding this way the offside position. What should be the call in this case? What if the player fakes (not so obviously maybe) a stumble and falls inside the goal avoiding this way the offside (supposing that this would be the only way to avoid being hit by the ball)?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
1. Offside. No one could say for certain that the ball would have entered the goal without the player’s touch, no matter how much it would have appeared so.
2. No offside. Unless the referee believes otherwise, the player who enters the goal to avoid being involved in the play and does not touch the ball before it fully crosses the goal line and does not in any way prevent the goalkeeper from saving the shot has not interfered with play and should not be punished.
Furthermore, when an attacker leaves the field in order to demonstrate noninvolvement in active play for purposes of avoiding being declared offside, the Laws of the Game have traditionally recognized that this attacker has left the field “in the normal course of play” and should accordingly not be cautioned for this reason.
3. This decision can be made only by the referee on the game, taking into consideration what the referee has seen of play and the player thus far in the game.
In any event, whatever the attacker’s motivation or method of entering the area of the goal, the fact is that this attacker did not make contact with the ball, did not interfere with play, and thus should not be declared offside.…
Question:
I had a strange situation come up this winter in indoor, but I suppose I could have seen it just as easily in outdoor, and couldn’t find any written information.
Here’s the situation: A ball is kicked to another player and the ball wedges itself between her legs, just above the knees. Everyone freezes for a second, and the player begins to hop down the field with the ball still trapped between her legs. After 4 or 5 hops, she let it fall and resumed dribbling as usual. I let it go, because I could think of no infraction that would include that occurrence. Did I make the correct no-call, or should I have made a call in this situation, perhaps Playing in a Dangerous Manner? What would you have done?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
This player has both played in a dangerous manner and committed unsporting behavior. Players are not allowed to “carry” the ball with any part of their body, neither the head not the shoulders nor their legs. Other than when the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball, at which time he or she cannot be interfered with, the ball must always be available for others to play fairly.
By keeping the ball between her legs, this player has placed both herself and others in danger; herself, because another player might decide to take a kick at the ball to dislodge it, and others, because they cannot play the ball fairly and might injure either her or themselves by trying to do so. She has also committed unsporting behavior by unfairly withholding the ball from play.…
Question:
A game with older teenage boys. There is a breakaway of two attackers, running at full speed. At the 18 yard line the striker gives a glancing kick. The keeper kneels on the six and easily collects the ball. The other striker continues running at top speed, leaps into the air & lunges at the keeper, who is still kneeling & still holding the ball. The attacker’s leg is extended, his cleats are up, and he is aimed at the keeper’s head. The keeper ducks, & the attacker misses. In the opinion of the referee, if full contact had been made, as the referee believes was the attacker’s intention, it would have excited the interest of the E-911 emergency ambulance, and indeed possibly the Grand Jury.
The referee is aware that the IFAB writes that any lunge at an opponent that endangers the opponent’s safety should be sanctioned as serious foul play, but until now these examples have always been for cases where the tackle or lunge did in fact make contact.
As the attempt to endanger an opponent missed, and no contact was made, the referee is unclear how the Laws should be applied. In particular, do the Laws regard this instance as Serious Foul Play?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
Nowhere does the Law (including the Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees you refer to) say that there must be contact in the situation you describe. Look at the four violations of the Law that embody this view:
– kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
– trips or attempts to trip an opponent
– jumps at an opponent
– strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
In such a case the referee should have no doubt, no fear, no hesitance. Players who behave like the striker you describe MUST be sent off immediately for serious foul play. No debate, no dithering. Just do it!…
Question:
Is it right to conclude that if I call or indicate an advantage, I MUST (regardless of the result or outcome) punish the defense and/or reward a free kick to the offense, provided that the advantage is within reasonable time?
USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
No, you would not be correct to conclude this. You will find all you need on this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:
5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.
The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.
The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again. Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)
NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.
The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.
The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct . Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage. As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play). For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players. Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).
Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.
A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.
Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong.
In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.
Question:
The following two clips are generating a lot of discussion among some referee groups. The two clips are very similar and seem to have the same issues.
You indicate that these games are being played at college level. We could not possibly comment on how the game is officiated under NCAA rules, but, if these games were being played under the Laws of the Game, we could say several things about the acts of the throwers and the opponents and the officiating itself.
First, players at this level know the tactics of their opponents, especially of the throw-in specialists, and in these two games they were seeking to negate the thrower’s skills by placing a player at a spot to interfere with the thrower’s ability to gain distance. In addition, there is the added element of coaching: In the game (Situation 1) in which the White player throws the ball at the Blue player, one can clearly hear the coach telling the Blue player to “Move up, move up!” The coach is obviously asking his player to distract and impede the thrower.
Nevertheless, we cannot condone the tactics of the throwers in either situation. In both cases, the throwers have committed violent conduct and must be sent off. Note in Situation 1 that in the second throw-in the thrower elevates his throw so as to miss the Blue opponent, as well as a coach or other person advising the Blue player to cover his face.
Second, although it is not required at a throw-in, the referee and the AR could have been proactive and moved the player who was attempting to unfairly impede the thrower back the required two meters from the point of the throw-in. (The referee could, in addition to sending-off the throwers, have cautioned the opponents for unsporting behavior, but that would depend on factors not in evidence in these clips.)
We are puzzled by several aspects of officiating in the first situation: Play is stopped following the ball in the face. For what? If the whistle was blown for a “serious injury” to the opponent but the throw was deemed good and legal, then (a) the opponent should have been required to leave the field and the restart should have been a dropped ball. If play was stopped because the throw was deemed legal but striking occurred, then the restart (after a red card for the thrower) should have been a direct free kick. If play was stopped because the opponent failed to respect the required distance, only then could the throw-in be retaken but again the opponent should have been cautioned. (And it is likely that the opponent would have been struck in the face even if he had been the required distance away.)
in both cases, the matter should have handled in accordance with 15.8 of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:
15.8 THROW-IN STRIKES AN OPPONENT
A throw-in taken in such a way that the ball strikes an opponent is not by itself a violation of the Law. The act must be evaluated separately as a form of striking and dealt with appropriately if judged to be unsporting behavior (caution) or violent conduct (send off from the field). In either event, if deemed a violation, the restart is located at the place where the throw-in struck the opponent. If the throw-in is deemed to have been taken incorrectly, the correct restart is a throw-in.