Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CHARGE WITH USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE?

Posted on by

Question:
Player ‘A’ challenges for the ball from the front (or side) with a slide tackle of greater than average force. His opponent (‘B’) backs off the ball, essentially bailing out of the situation obviously in fear of the possible physical consequences of such a tackle. As a result, ‘A’ wins the ball cleanly, without touching player ‘B’.

IFK, DFK, card, or play on as there was no contact?

USSF answer (January 29, 2009):
It’s always hard to diagnose a situation from the comfort of our desks, but it would appear that player ‘A’ should, at a minimum, be cautioned for unsporting behavior for his reckless action. At most it would be a send-off for serious foul play. The restart would be a direct free kick for charging an opponent carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force, as described in Law 12. The decision as to which of these levels of infringement had occurred would depend on the age and skill levels of the teams.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DIVING TO HEAD A LOW BALL

Posted on by

Question:
Green team is attacking blue’s goal, the ball is bouncing in the penalty area between knee- and waist-height. Green forward dives at the ball to head it into goal and is kicked in the head by the blue defender a.) before b.) after the defender’s foot makes contact with the ball to clear it. What would be the proper call in this case?

USSF answer (January 28, 2009):
That decision can be made only by the referee on the game, who has seen all elements of the play. However, a general guideline is that a player who dives to head the ball below the waist that another player is attempting to kick has not exercised good sense and may be considered to have placed both players in a dangerous position. If there is contact, the foul would normally be called against the player who was trying to head the low ball. If there is no contact, the player attempting to head the low ball would likely be called for playing dangerously.…

"Inventive" Refs

TRICKERY?

Posted on by

Question:
Defense player (A) standing mid way between half field and the penalty arc, lobs a ball in the air back towards his own goal. Defense player (B) is standing in the penalty arc. There is multiply players from both team between Player A and B. Player (B) in the penalty arc decides to head the ball back to his keeper who picks it up.

The referee in this game called trickery to the pass back rule as he perceived that the original intent of player A was a pass back to the goalkeeper and that player B header was trickery to by step the law and allow the keeper to pick up the ball. He awarded a free kick just outside the 6 yard box.

Was he correct?

USSF answer (January 28, 2009):
It is not against the Law to head the ball to one’s own ‘keeper in this situation.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

LEAVING THE FIELD TO COMMIT AN INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
My question is about fouls .
Before i start, i will state some data:
Blue Team = Defense
Red Team = Attack
* The red team is around the goal of the blue.

So here it goes:
Player from the red team is holding the ball by his feet, trying to turn off player from the blue.
The place of both players is close to the out line.
The red player passed the blue player by going OUT of the field, keeping the ball inside.
The Blue player decides to tackle the red player while he is standing OUTSIDE the field.
My question is , if you call for a foul, how do you renew the game ? free kick? from where? If it’s a “referee ball” so who get the ball ? if the attack, than what about if its very close to the defense goal?

USSF answer (January 28, 2009):
A player is allowed to leave the field to avoid an obstacle while playing the ball. This does not require the permission of the referee.

We cannot be expected to read the players’ minds. If the Blue player was standing inside the field and stuck his foot outside the field when he tackled the Red player, then he is considered to have left the field without the permission of the referee, because he left the field to commit the offense. The restart — following the caution for leaving the field to commit the infringement — is an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when play was stopped. The Blue player has not left the field during the course of play, but left it specifically to commit what would have been a foul if it had been committed on the field.

Please note that no foul can be committed off the field of play. Such acts are punished as misconduct.…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREEING REQUIRES ANALYSIS AND DECISION MAKING

Posted on by

Question:
If an action is deemed a foul and except for that action a goal would likely have been scored, and whistle is blown and free kick or PK given, MUST the offending player be sent off if the 4D’s are satisfied?
Does score, time left, severity of foul, etc enter into the thought process?
U19 boys game, score is 6-0 late in second half… another breakaway by the team ahead, who happen to be far superior in skill level. The last defender is chasing the striker and trips him about 12 yards from mouth of goal. Only frozen Keeper to beat. Center blows whistle and awards PK. Looks to AR and pats right hip with questioning look. AR shakes head no. (FYI, he missed the PK)
In the Spirit of the Law this is the correct decision in my opinion. But the Letter of the Law seems very clear on this matter. It was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity with a penal foul. no doubt about it.
It didn’t appear to be a tactical foul, it wasn’t reckless, but was careless. If the foul is given isn’t the red card almost mandatory? Is the only way to avoid the send off to not call it a foul?
Is there something in the Laws that allows for leniency? A send off and missing next game seemed too harsh in this situation. If the game were tied and hotly contested would that make a difference? (I probably would have sent offender off in this case). Does asking AR for opinion show indecision and little courage or good team work?
I’ve seen this breakaway situation several times and most of the Center Referees I’ve asked admit they didn’t even go through the thought process of a send off. Does anything in the Laws support that? Is it the standard, unwritten law to only send off for severe or tactical fouls, or game changing fouls, or worse when the coach yells for a red and reminds the CR to consider a send off? Thanks for your answer.

USSF answer (January 21, 2009):
The only possible response to the question posed in the first paragraph is yes. If a player, through carelessly fouling an opponent, has, in the words of Law 12, denied “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick,” then the player must be sent off for that reason. There is no room for dithering or taking counsel or pushing the decision off onto another person.

We are concerned about what appears to be the central assumption of your questions — that the determination of misconduct is based on how the referee feels about the severity of the foul.  This is very dangerous thinking and can lead to exactly the sort of issues you describe, none of which are relevant to the discussion.  A foul is a foul and misconduct is misconduct.  These are two separate things which only occasionally intersect.  In the case of “OGSO,” the only place they intersect is that a decision about a send-off for OGSO requires first that a defender has committed an offense (not even necessarily a foul, and certainly not necessarily what you call a “penal foul” — we stopped using this term a long time ago) inside the penalty area which is punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.  Once that has been decided — and the requirements for committing a foul are well known — the referee need only turn to the entirely separate question of whether the “4 Ds” requirements for the misconduct were also present.  It is a serious mistake to mix these requirements, for example to apply any of the “4 Ds” to the issue of whether a foul should be called or to apply the requirements for a foul to the issue of whether a defender should be sent off for OGSO.  The only other issue that might arise here is if the foul itself warranted a red card, in which case the red card for SFP or VC takes precedence over the red card for OGSO.

All decisions of the nature you have described must be made “in the opinion of the referee.” However, the referee him- or herself must make this decision; it CANNOT be left to the opinion or discretion of the assistant referee. Referees must have the courage to make the correct decision immediately and then live with it. If they cannot do that, they might consider getting into officiating tiddlywinks.…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREE DECISION MAKING

Posted on by

Question:
I have become frustrated on many occasions when an opposition player, after going down feeling he was fouled, has place his arms around the ball to stop it from moving. It often seems to be the case that before this happens, the referee allows play to continue, but when the player handles the ball, gives the free kick in that players favour.

Recently in a game I was watching, the opposite of this happened, and when the player handled it, a free kick was given the other way. The only obvious reason for this would be hand ball. In this case, why was a yellow, or even red card not given, since it was a deliberate hand ball?

The only other reason that a free kick was given was because of simulation, and in that case, what could be the reason for a yellow card not to be given?

USSF answer (January 18, 2009):
Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees. It would appear that there is a vast difference between what you see happening on the field and what the referees see.

In the first case you cite, it would seem that the referee him- or herself was not certain what was happening and allowed the player to determine the call. We do not like this.

In the second case, it would seem that the referee made a partially correct decision. Several possibilities exist for solutions to this situation: (a) The referee decides it was deliberate handling, pure and simple, and awards the direct free kick. (b) The referee decides it was deliberate handling and dissent, and cautions the player and then restarts with the direct free kick. (c) The referee decides it was dissent and cautions the player and restarts with an indirect free kick.

As to simulation, there is no reason not to give a caution, unless the referee decides that he or she knows better than the Law Givers and flouts their instructions in the Laws of the Game.

Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

MINE!

Posted on by

Question:
My players have recently been getting technical fouls called on them for saying “I go” or “Mine”. The referee was very unclear as to what can be said instead of “I go”. So my question is : What can be said? Is there a website where I can go to see official FIFA rules regarding proper and improper word usage?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
It is not clear why any referee would caution your players if they are indeed saying what they are saying and then following through. The only matter of concern here would be verbalizations intended to deceive the other team into misidentifying the miscreant as one of their teammates instead of a player on the opposing team. The reason “Mine” would be unobjectionable (unless screamed in the ear as a means of distracting rather than misidentifying) is because it is “team-neutral” — anyone who, upon hearing this, decides to back of from taking the ball deserves whatever happens next.

And referees do not — or certainly should not — call “technical fouls” in soccer. Those are reserved for basketball referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

YOU MUST CALL FOULS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ON THE FIELD!!

Posted on by

Question:
Do indirect free kicks in the penalty box still exist? So often penalties are awarded for fouls in the area that do not deny goal-scoring opportunities (players going away from goal etc), this leaves the ref in a catch 22 as if it is either/or as the punishment will not fit the crime. It seems that in taking subjective judgement away from the ref the laws tie the hands of the official, who sometimes even yellow-card an attacker for simulation when they were in truth fouled, but rather than give a soft pen the ref cards the striker for diving. Using the indirect free-kick in the box would empower refs to deal with the pushing etc from set-pieces, instead of forcing them to turn a blind eye on defensive cheating unless it is really flagrant and can justify a near-certain goal.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Wherever did you get the idea that the award of a penalty kick is limited to situations in which an obvious goalscoring opportunity is involved?!?!?! That is completely wrong!

The Laws of the Game have not changed in this regard for over one hundred years. There is no such thing as a “soft penalty.” If a direct free kick foul, in other words a “penal” foul, is committed on the field, it should be treated exactly the same in the penalty area as it would be at midfield. There is no “either / or,” there is only the correct call.

You will find a similar question and answer on the website now, dated December 17. The answer states:

“We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

“You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.”

Why is it so difficult for referees to understand that a penalty kick does not have to be “earned”? it is sufficient that a penal foul is committed in the penalty area against the attacking team.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DELIBERATE PASS BACK?

Posted on by

Question:
‘Deliberate pass-back’

I was watching the EPL Arsenal v Aston Villa game recently and saw what I thought was a questionable non-call. Arsenal defender Sagna cleared a ball off the goal-line that was headed into net had he not intervened. He cleared by doing a ‘semi-bicycle’ kick and just managed to keep it out. However, the clearance went straight to his beaten keeper, Almunia, who was positioned at about 6-8 yards off his line. Almunia caught it and then punted it out.

According to USSF memo, this is to be considered a deliberate kick to him, as it was most certainly deliberate intervention but not necessarily played directly to keeper. The sanction would therefore be an IDK.

Is USSF differing in their interpretation of ‘to him’ from FIFA in this regard or did the referee perhaps somehow consider this a misdirection, which IMO would be questionable, or even perhaps a trifling offense, which seems even less so? The keeper in this instance would have clearly been under pressure from attackers had he not caught it. Seems like ref let this one slide a bit too easily.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Aha! While watching the game we knew we would get a question on this. We cannot read the referee’s mind, no more than we can read the player’s mind. However, the ball was clearly not meant for the goalkeeper and the referee applied Law 18, Common Sense, to this situation. The offense, if any, was extremely doubtful.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“PASS BACK” MEMO OF MAY 21, 2008

Posted on by

Question:
I think the May 21, 2008 memo should have included a reference to page 111 of the Interpretations http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/2008-2009%20LOTG%20Interpretation%20for%20Referees.pdf where the only violation mentioned for a “pass back” to the goalkeeper is “…deliberately kicked to him by a teammate…” Or maybe include part of the Memorandum in the Interpretations.  I can see coaches feeling justified in berating a referee if the referee called the offence as specified in the Memorandum if the coach was only aware of the “pass back” violation as specified in the Interpretations.

Just a thought

USSF answer (December 17, 2008):
1.  When the May 21 2008 Memo on official changes in the Laws of the Game was prepared and published, the current year’s Lawbook was not available and so we could not know what the Interpretations would say on any topic, much less this one.

2.  When we were ready to prepare and publish the supplemental memorandum, we reviewed the Lawbook (including the Interpretations section) closely to identify those areas where IFAB had changed the language enough that the “clarification” appeared to modify our current understanding and implementation of the topic.  The topic of the “pass back to the keeper” was not one of them.  Nothing appeared in the Lawbook (or the Interpretations section) that significantly altered any of our earlier memos on this topic or what is plainly stated in Advice to Referees.…