Question:
I am a coach and in my teams last game, an opponent took a shot on goal. The shot was a slow roller on the ground and my keeper went to pick up the ball. As he was about to pick up the ball, another player on the opposing team came crashing into my keeper knocking him to the ground. Another player ran up and kicked the ball in the goal.

The referee counted the goal. When I argued the call the referee explained to me that as long as my goalie doesn’t have possesion of the ball that the play was legal, no matter if another player ran over my goalie. Is there a rule I don’t know about? I have been playing, coaching, and watching soccer for many many years and it seemed to me like the worst call I had ever seen.

USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
We didn’t see the incident, so cannot comment specifically on it; however, we can say with full certainty that the goalkeeper’s role is, by the very requirements of the job, inherently dangerous. Goalkeepers know this going in and most operate accordingly.

The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the “fairly” is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.

Finally, a reminder that, as age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more liberally.…

Question:
I’m sorry, I’m not one to typically question the foul recognition skills of a referee who has centered a World Cup match, but after listening to Brian Hall on the Week in Review podcast for Week 1, reading the comments in the text, and then watching the video clips, I guess I need some clarification here.

In the evaluation of the Kjelstan foul, Hall writes:

“The leg is down toward the ground and not aimed over the top of the ball. If the cleats were to go over the ball and direct contact made with the opponent’s leg, the tackle could be considered serious foul play.”

I’ve attached two screen captures from the replay of this foul by Kjelstan. [Editor’s Note: Screen shots not included here.] Color me crazy, but both of these screen shots show Kjelstan clearly going over the top of the ball, studs exposed, foot off the ground and making direct contact with force into Kamara’s ankle. Personally, I would say this is a send-off challenge, as it appears to fit the exact description that Mr. Hall uses in his comments to describe serious foul play.

If I’m wrong about this, by all means I have no issue with being told so and why. I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of working a game at the level of MLS or have the experience necessary to differentiate minor differences in what might define a send-off at that level as compared to a U16 match. I guess I would, however, like some clarification on the comments made that defined this as a caution rather than a send-off.

USSF answer (April 13, 2009):
Screen shots can be deceptive, but U.S. Soccer made the decision that the challenge was only a yellow card by reviewing the play at full speed as well as the replays. In both cases, it was felt that the player committing the foul made contact with the ball and not with the opponent. In the run of play, this is what the referee also saw. As stated, if contact was not made directly with the ball, the referee would be well within his rights to issue a red card for serious foul play. This is not an easy decision and is one of inches. Every decision made must be considered in context. If a similar challenge occurs in an U16 match, the referee can use his/her judgment in deciding whether the challenge meets the criteria for a red card.…

Question:
the goalie has possession of the ball and punts the ball not very far about a yard away can she pick it up again while the ball is in the air…and nobody touches the ball? does it make a diffrence if it touches the ground?

USSF answer (April 10, 2009):
If the goalkeeper releases the ball from her 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. We have a difficult time picturing a punt that the goalkeeper kicks only one yard yet is able to catch in the air. Seeing as this is clearly impossible, it did not happen — at least for purposes of this particular case — and there is no infringement of the Law.…

Question:
during play a substitute player came onto the filed of play and disaollowed an obvious goal scoring oppurtunity in the penalty area .what should be the referee’s decision…….and if that happens to be the substitute goal keeper by disallowing that goal with his hands in the penalty area.

USSF answer (April 8, 2009):
Yes, this can be done. According to the IFAB/FIFA Q&A 2006-07, Law 3:

13. A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?
The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behavior and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.
13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take?
The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.

The answer is also found in FIFA training materials from 2006:

Denying a Goal or a Goal-Scoring Opportunity
It is not necessary that the offense which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity be a direct free kick foul
– It could be an indirect free kick foul (dangerous play)
– It could also be misconduct
• Example: goalkeeper bends the crossbar down far enough that the ball does not go into the net
• Example: a substitute illegally enters the field and trips an attacker who has a clear shot on goal
• Example: a defender uses the shoulders of a teammate to lift himself higher to head the ball away

Question:
I have a question about goalkeeper parrying. In FIFA’s Laws of the Game 2008/2009 (on-line version), in the section “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees”, it states on p. 111:

A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own penalty area in the following circumstances: 

• if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player: 
– the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from him, for example, after he has made a save 
– possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball 

In all my years of playing, coaching, and now refereeing soccer, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a referee award an indirect free kick for parrying, although I am pretty sure I’ve seen goalkeepers parry the ball. In fact, the just other other day I saw the following in an English Premier League match: ball is crossed into the penalty area from the flank; goalkeeper goes up for it in a crowd, but facing no direct challenge from at attacking player (i.e. keeper is the only one jumping up for the ball) ; goalkeeper uses his hands, almost like a volleyball set, to direct the ball beyond the far post where there is nothing but green grass; goalkeeper follows his “self set” and collects the ball in his hands. Referee allows play to go on.

Wouldn’t this be a prime example of parrying? If yes, shouldn’t the referee have awarded an indirect free kick to the attacking team? If no, could you explain what parrying is (and maybe why it’s almost never called)? Thanks a lot!

USSF answer (March 30, 2009):
We cannot comment on decisions taken by referees in other countries, particularly in top-level play. We can only suggest that whether the play was a parry or a true clearance of the ball, the decision can be made only in the opinion of the referee on the game. You or I don’t have any input in the referee’s decision.

Referees do need to remember that goalkeepers are sneaky and actively attempt to deceive the referee as to parrying vs. deflection. Even if the decision is that the initial contact was a parry, followed directly by a second contact with the hand, the referee always has the option to decide that it didn’t matter enough to stop play for the offense. A trifling offense at best.…

Question:
I’m a Grade 8 referee in Colorado, and have a question about a tackle in the Chivas/ Rapids MLS match on March 21. At the end of the first half, there was an over-the-ball tackle on Kisuke Kimura of the Rapids that I thought warranted a sending off. It seemed not only reckless but excessive as the player came over the ball with quite a bit of extra force. Referee Terry Vaughn didn’t call it, and the second half deteriorated into a 4 caution scrappy battle. Firstly, and I’m not looking to discredit mr Vaughn, but what would’ve been the correct decision for this tackle, and secondly, how should a referee deal with over-the-ball tackles? I’ve always felt they are dangerous, reckless, and on occasion, executed with excessive force, thus always warranting a card of some sort. Mistakes happen, but lifting your leg 10″ off the ground for a tackle requires extra effort! It seems malicious, and almost always follows some kind of frustrating incident earlier in the match.

Anyways, that’s just my $0.02. I look forward to your response.

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
Here is the Federation’s evaluation of the incident you asked about:
Just as half is approaching, Chivas player Sacha Kljestan goes in for a strong tackle in front of the Colorado bench. In this case, the tackle is reckless and a foul should be called as well as a yellow card issued for unsporting behavior. Referees need to distinguish this hard, reckless tackle from those that are committed with excessive force. Having the ability to distinguish the seriousness of the foul from the reaction of the team bench is a critical success factor in making the correct decision. Keys to interpreting this tackle as reckless are: (1) the shorter distance from which the tackle is initiated which means more control; (2) the position of the foot – closer to the ground and not over the ball; and (3) the fact that contact is made with the ball and not the player’s leg.

This is a hard and overly aggressive tackle that is reckless because of the position of the feet and the fact that contact is made with the ball. The tackle is not initiated from distance, thereby offering more control by the tackler. The leg is down toward the ground and not aimed over the top of the ball. If the cleats were to go over the ball and direct contact made with the opponent’s leg, the tackle could be considered serious foul play.…

Question:
How much can a player in possession of the ball use his arms to keep defending players from getting to the ball? Can they have their arms partially out to the side to “make themselves bigger”; can they have their arms straight out to the side to make a sort of wall; can they have an arm or hand in contact with a defender who is behind him and pushing forward against that arm? Clearly if the attacker gets to the point that he is applying enough backward or sideways pressure with his arm to physically move the defender away, it becomes a push, but I am not sure if any of the other described tactics constitute impeding or holding.

Thank you for any clarification you can provide.

USSF answer (March 26, 2009):
“Making oneself big” is not a good thing in situations involving deliberately handling the ball, nor is it a legitimate tactic in shielding the ball. No player shielding the ball from another is allowed to use the arms or any other part of the body for other than maintaining balance — which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent. If the player is simply maintaining balance — in the opinion of the referee — then an opponent who initiates contact with the player who has the ball is guilty of charging illegally.  If the player with the ball is holding out his or her arms or a leg not to maintain balance but to obstruct the opponent, the player has committed an indirect free kick offense, provided no contact occurred.  However, if the player with the ball initiates any contact, then he or she has charged, held, or pushed (all direct free kick fouls) and must be punished accordingly.…