DOUBLE CAUTION FOR EXCESS CELEBRATION?

March 21, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
This question is based (at least loosely) on events in a recent professional match in Italy (Serie A). Late in a scoreless game, a player scores a goal. In his celebration, he removes his shirt — normally cause for a caution. He then runs to the nearest corner flag, lifts the flag, and waves it in the air — normally a cause for a caution. Should a referee consider these acts to be part of one extended, excessive celebration and therefore caution the exuberant player once? Or should a referee consider this two separate acts, each worthy of a caution? Or something else?

[In the actual game, I’m not sure whether the player who pulled out the corner flag was the goal scorer who had removed his shirt. He was certainly part of a celebratory mob at the corner.)

USSF answer (March 21, 2009):
Unless there is some truly overwhelming reason to send off this person in the hypothetical situation of demonstrating his jubilation at the scoring of a goal, a caution for unsporting behavior should be sufficient.…

Interpretations/IFAB

MISCONDUCT OFF THE FIELD

March 18, 2009March 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
An attacker goes down the wing, cuts in very close to the end line, enters the box, evades a defender and then the keeper comes to challenge along the end line. The attacker slips the ball between the keeper’s legs and runs around him off the pitch with the intention of collecting the ball on the other side and tapping it into the net.

However, the keeper grabs him by the ankles and brings him down (off the pitch). Is it a penalty (and a red card) or since the offence took place off the pitch is it a hop ball and a caution for the keeper for ungentlemanly conduct? Anyone know?

USSF answer (March 18, 2009):
Coach, if a player leaves the field to commit misconduct, the minimum punishment is a caution for unsporting behavior. We responded to this problem back on 24 February and what follows is a slightly modified version of that response, designed to answer your question. One caveat: It is not clear to us where the ‘keeper grabbed the attacker by the ankles. If it was while the player and the ‘keeper were on the field, but the player fell off the field, then the restart would be a penalty kick.

Regarding misconduct off the field of play: In its guidelines for 2008/2009, the International Board in effect created two scenarios for when the referee stops play for misconduct committed off the field by a player. In the first case, the referee must decide if the player left the field in the normal course of play and, while off the field committed the offense. In this case, after dealing with the misconduct, the referee will restart play with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area). However, if the referee decides that the player left the field for the purpose of committing the offense and after dealing with the misconduct, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area).

In the first case, a dropped ball is the correct restart, based on the fact that misconduct was committed off the field. In the second case, an indirect free kick is the correct restart because the player has illegally left the field before committing the restart.

One must remember that the indirect free kick restart is not for the misconduct committed off the field, but for the illegal exit from the field.

That, of course, opens up an interesting discussion of whether, since misconduct was committed in the departure as well as in the conduct off the field, then it would follow that the referee could also give a second yellow and then a red. But that decision would be up to the referee on that game, at that moment, with those players, and in that specific situation.

Not dealt with here is the matter of whether or not this act of misconduct involved the use of excessive force, which would result in a sending off of the goalkeeper.

We hope this answers your question.…

Interpretations/IFAB

LEAVING THE FIELD AND COMMITTING MISCONDUCT

February 25, 2009February 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Today at a referee clinic, we discussed the new memorandum about when players leave the field to commit misconduct. Unless I understood incorrectly, I believe that they said that if a player is running and leaves the field of play to strike an AR, it would be a dropped ball. They said that since the misconduct was not against an opponent, a dropped ball is the only possible restart.

However, looking at the memorandum now, it does not specify whether or not that misconduct must occur against an opponent, just that the intent to misconduct was the reason for leaving the field of play. By this logic, wouldn’t there be a IFK for the opposing team?

Additionally, if a player left the field to strike a substitute on his/her own team, would that also be an IFK?

USSF answer (February 24, 2009):
We assume you refer to Supplementary Memorandum 2008/2009, which contains this information:

Law 12
In its guidelines, the International Board has in effect created two scenarios for when the referee stops play for misconduct committed off the field by a player. In the first case, the referee must decide if the player left the field in the normal course of play and, while off the field committed the offense. In this case, after dealing with the misconduct, the referee will restart play with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area). However, if the referee decides that the player left the field for the purpose of committing the offense and after dealing with the misconduct, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area).

In the first case, a dropped ball is the correct restart based on the fact that misconduct was committed off the field. In the second case, an indirect free kick is the correct restart because the player has illegally left the field before committing the restart.

Please remember that misconduct is misconduct, not necessarily involving any foul, and may be committed by a player, a substitute, or a substituted player against anyone, anywhere, and at any time. A foul, on the other hand, is any unfair or unsafe act committed ONLY BY A PLAYER, against an opponent (or the opposing team), on the field, and while the ball is in play.

We hope that your instructor had the knowledge and wisdom to explain to everyone in the clinic that the indirect free kick restart is not for the misconduct committed off the field, but for the illegal exit from the field.

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY? WHAT TO DO?

February 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I am a coach of 12 years and encountered a situation during a game last season and would like your input as to the correct call for the situation.

Here is the setup; the attacker is heading towards goal followed closely by a defender, the only player between the attacker and goal is the keeper, the attacker has entered the area and is about the 15 when the defender reaches forward and gives a slight tug (hold or grab) on the left shoulder of the attacker trying to slow down the attacker’s progress, the attacker feels the hold and lunges forward through the air as if he were pushed.

Would you send off the defender for a deliberate hold in the area that denies an obvious scoring opportunity and award a pk, or would you caution the attacker for unsportsmanlike behavior, or both, or neither?

If both, what would the restart be?

USSF answer (February 20, 2009):
There are various possibilities for punishment, depending on the referee’s perception of the situation.

Was the attacking player simulating? If so, the referee needs to decide exactly WHAT was being simulated. Was it the foul itself, or was the attacker fouled but the simulation was an attempt to get the referee to add misconduct to the punishment (i. e., a card)?

If it was the foul itself that was being simulated, then the attacker needs to be cautioned for this and the opposing team given an indirect free kick where the simulation occurred.

If the defender committed a foul (holding or pushing) and the simulation was an attempt to get the referee to show a yellow or red card, then the attacker must certainly be cautioned for this but we are still left with the fact that the attacker was fouled inside the opposing team’s penalty area by a defender — which means a penalty kick restart.

In this case, the only question remaining is whether the defender’s foul also involved misconduct and thus the defender must be shown a card as well. What are the only possibilities for carding the defender based on the foul? The referee might decide that the foul itself was reckless (yellow card) or involved excessive force (red card), but the referee must be careful not to be influenced by the attacker’s simulation. The other possibility is that the referee might decide that the foul interfered with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (OGSO). Assuming all the “4 D” elements were met, the referee must take into account whether the interference was actually caused by the defender’s foul or whether the attacker contributed to the interference by the simulation. In other words, if the “falling down” hadn’t occurred when the attacker simulated, would the attacker’s OGSO have been interfered with by the original foul?

Only the referee “on the spot” can make these determinations.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CHARGING AN OPPONENT

February 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a person is dribbling, is the defense player allowed to lean almost like being ridden of the puck in hockey. Is this obstruction? No tackle for the ball is attempted it.

USSF answer (February 20, 2009):
All is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the only beholder who counts is the referee. Yes, players are allowed to charge an opponent, using their shoulder against the area of the shoulder of the opponent. We hesitate to make any analogies to the sport of ice hockey lest we be attacked by someone’s father or mother.…

Interpretations/IFAB

GOALKEEPER LEAVING FIELD FOR TREATMENT

February 13, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
have [an] interesting question for you, one that had senior instructors in animated disagreement. We know that:

(a) A team has 11 players, one of whom must be the goalkeeper.

(b) With permission of the referee, a player may leave the field temporarily for treatment of an injury and not be replaced. Play continues.

(c) In the case of (b) above, with the referee’s permission the player may return to the field during play over any touch line, or if play is stopped, over any boundary line.

The question is, if the injured player is the goalkeeper and that team wishes to continue play while the GK is being treated, if this allowed or must one of the other players (or a sub) be designated as GK?

This situation could conceivably arise, for example, in the last few minutes of a 2-1 game when Red is down but has been pounding away at Blue’s goal trying to tie it up. The Red GK gets injured and must be assessed for a possible concussion, the team has no more subs and is reasonably sure the GK can return, so they want to continue playing while momentum is on their side (perhaps also due to concern about game time remaining).

We recognize that in normal circumstances the right thing to do is to wait for the GK to return and add the time lost. But the question is: If the team wants to continue, must we force them to wait?

The referees on one side of this argument point out that no Law is being violated just because the GK happens to be off the field. The referees on the other side think the spirit of the Law (and maybe somewhere, the letter) requires that the GK be on the field. It’s been an interesting discussion.

Would you like to weigh in with your thoughts and/or an official answer?

USSF answer (February 13, 2009):
There is no written requirement that the goalkeeper MUST remain on the field of play. However, The goalkeeper cannot leave the field with the referee’s permission specifically for treatment unless he or she is either substituted or exchanges places temporarily with a field player (following the guidance in Law 3). The clear intent of the Laws is that the goalkeeper remain on the field of play. That is demonstrated through the provisions in the Law that the goalkeeper may be treated on the field, even though (with some specific exceptions) others must leave. (For the exceptions, see Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, Injured Players.)

However, the goalkeeper is permitted to leave the field during the course of play, just as are all players. A statement in the 2008-2009 Laws of the Game (Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees) demonstrates that: “If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of playing movement.”
An earlier question and answer (2006 IFAB Q&A, Law 3) also illustrates the point:

20. During a match, the goalkeeper sprints from the goal to stop an opponent. He kicks the ball out of the field of play and a throw-in is awarded to the opposing team. The momentum of the goalkeeper takes him off the field of play and before he can return, the throw-in is taken and a goal is scored. What action, if any, should the referee take?
A goal is awarded since no offence has been committed.

A goalkeeper may be treated just off the field while play continues — we often see this in higher-level games — but must return as quickly as possible.

When the ball is out of play, the goalkeeper may gain the permission of the referee to leave the field specifically for treatment, but play cannot be restarted until that goalkeeper has returned to the field, been substituted, or exchanged positions with one of the field players.…

Advice to Referees

“DELIBERATELY KICKED”

February 12, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In clause 12.20 of the ATR, is the operative interpretation “deliberately kicked” or kicked “deliberately to the goalkeeper” by a teammate?

In one of my recent games, white attacker in possession of the ball is moving toward blue’s goal, with blue defender challenging shoulder to shoulder. Blue defender wins possession and kicks the ball away from the white attacker. Blue goalkeeper, while still in her own penalty area, moves toward the ball and picks it up. Clearly the blue defender “deliberately kicked” the ball. But she didn’t necessarily kick the ball “deliberately to the goal keeper”.

Has the goalkeeper committed an infraction?

USSF answer (February 12, 2009):
We think the Advice is quite clear as it stands but will address the matter here.

Two answers to the first question: (a) Both. “Deliberately kicked” or “kicked deliberately” mean that there was some forethought to the player’s action; the player knew where he or she wanted the ball to go and kicked it there. On the other hand, an obvious attempt to clear the ball that happens to run to the ‘keeper is not punishable, nor is a ball that is obviously miskicked. (b) “To the goalkeeper” means directly to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can conveniently play the ball.

Second question: If, in the opinion of the referee, … .

We add a final note, meant solely to clarify for referees (and, unfortunately, many instructors, too) that the phrasing MUST NOT be interpreted as “kicked with the intent that the ball go to the goalkeeper.” “Deliberately” modifies “kick” and not the direction (meaning the totality of the direction “to the goalkeeper”) which is why the kick must be deliberate and the direction must be deliberate (i. e., not a miskick) but the direction itself doesn’t have to be the specific direction of “to the goalkeeper.”…

"Inventive Commentators"

FOULS AND MISCONDUCT CAN OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY

February 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Could you explain the decision in the following scenario. It caused a lot of controversy in a recent match and teams still expect an explanation from me:

A player shoots towards goal, first time, as soon as he receives the ball from a team-mate. Just as he shoots, an opposition player tackles him very hard. The tackle deserves either a red, or a yellow card, but the player’s shot goes in (ie. he scores but is left injured). In either situation, whether the tackling player deserves a red, or a yellow card, does the goal stand? Would an advantage be allowed in any case (red or yellow)? Does this apply to all outfield players and the goalkeeper or are there slightly different rules regarding the keeper (committing the foul)?

My thoughts would be since its a “dangerous” tackle, advantage should not be allowed, and the very second the tackle was made, the game stops immediately, therefore, the player who fouls receives a red/yellow card, and the fouled team get a free kick/penalty.

Alternatively, the goal stands and the player is not cautioned or sent off at all. One thing I thought definately shouldn’t happen is for the goal to stand AND the player cautioned/sent off using the “advantage” rule. I thought this is not permitted since the game should immediately stop from the second a dangerous foul is committed, regardless of whether the subsequent shot ends up in goal or not.

USSF answer (February 11, 2009):
Yes, the goal stands, because the referee will sensibly have waited a moment or two to see what happens, applying the advantage but waiting that moment or so to see what happens before announcing it.

The same rules apply to goalkeeper and outfield players for such an infringement. Why would they differ?? In this case, if the referee decides that the tackle was excessive and that it was delivered with no intent to play the ball (e. g., late or from an angle opposite to the ball), then it is and should be reported as violent conduct. If the referee decides that the player was attempting to play the ball with excessive force, then it is and should be reported as serious foul play.

If there is a chance of a goal, the referee will wait that extra second or so to declare the decision already made: That the tackle was done with excessive force and is therefore serious foul play or violent conduct. The referee must NEVER take away a deserved goal, no matter that the player has been injured. If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee will stop play, send off the opposition player for serious foul play, and restart with a penalty kick or a direct free kick, whichever is correct for the place where the foul and serious misconduct took place.

The referee must make the decision as to what he or she will do at the moment the particular infringement occurs. That will not change for whatever else may happen after the infringement. In this case, the goal was scored and the rest follows automatically.…

Advice to Referees

CONTACT WITH THE CORNER FLAGPOST

February 7, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There was a karate kick to the lower back of player in a Premiership game recently (Liverpool vs Chelsea). Transfer that scenario to USSF territory in our minds so you can comment on the happenings. The refs missed the kick, oops. The Liverpool player was holding the corner flag before the kick. Isn’t that not allowed to hold the flag? Could this assault possibly be avoided by penalizing the Liverpool player for holding onto the corner flag? What level of play would that call be considered trifling?

USSF answer (February 7, 2009):
The referee in this game was most likely unable to see the play, but it occurred directly in front of the assistant referee. We need to remember that, just like the goalposts, the corner flagposts are considered to be part of the field. Players routinely make contact with both the goalposts and the flagposts. Doing so is not an infringement of the Laws. If you need a reference, see the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which says:

1.8 DEALING WITH APPURTENANCES TO THE FIELD AND OUTSIDE AGENTS
(a) Required appurtenances
These are the goals, corner flags, and flagposts required by Law 1. Contact between these appurtenances and the ball or players is a normal part of play and requires no special consideration in determining the restart.//rest snipped//

We cannot comment on the apparent foul and misconduct by the Chelsea player; however, we would agree with you that making contact with the corner flag for nefarious purposes would be just as illegal, say, as throwing a rock, and for the same reasons and judged on the same standards. But the thought of punishing the sort of actual contact with the post in this case, a means of forestalling being charged by one opponent and kicked by another opponent, is just plain weird.…

"Only in America!"

UNSPORTING BEHAVIOR? WHY A RED CARD?

February 6, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There was an incident where 2 high school players were red carded for taking their jersey’s off after the game had ended walking off the field for I’d say in disgust since they lost the game. I find that too harsh to be red cards. Now… they were not taunting anyone and they were not doing anything other than walking off the field. So do you give red cards for that or anything for something like that AFTER the game is over? I find it pretty lame that they have to sit out 1 game for something that did not involve another team or any taunting or fighting or throwing of shirts… now if they were taunting or wanting to fight… fine card them… and throwing of shirts… let the coach deal with that. Is it just a judgement call or was that too outrageous??? Many times have i seen other sports where jersey’s were taken off right after the game was over but no actions were taken. Also could you elaborate on the rules where it says “unsporting behavior”? I think its too vague of a phrase.

USSF answer (February 6, 2009):
Coach, we don’t do high school rules here, so we can speak only to the Laws of the Game (the rules the rest of the world plays by).

First to “unsporting behavior”: The lawmakers (the International Football Association Board) left the words vague for a purpose. That purpose is to enable the referee to apply common sense and intelligence in enforcing the Laws of the Game. Unsporting behavior is any act that could bring the game into disrepute, i. e., any act that runs counter to the spirit of fair play. Some examples: mocking the opponents, as in the removal of shirts during the game; some forms of gamesmanship, such as calling “mine” to fool an opponent; using a cellphone on the field; performing fouls recklessly (without thought for what might happen to the opponent); handling the ball to score a goal; and faking an injury or pretending to have been fouled. There are hundreds of possibilities for unsporting behavior and the referee needs to have this weapon in his or her arsenal.

Second, beyond unsporting behavior, the lawmakers left other portions of the Laws vague as well, for the very reasons explained above.

Third, regarding the removal of shirts AFTER the game, there is absolutely no rule against it. In fact, we see it every day on television at the highest levels of the game.

Finally, as to your question about giving a red card after a game has ended, the Laws of the Game allow a card (regardless of color) to be shown if a player commits misconduct while the referee is still in the area of the field even though the match may have ended. …