GOALKEEPER AND PENALTY AREA LINE (YET AGAIN)

December 16, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
A goalkeeper gains possession of the ball in their area. They get ready to punt the ball. They let go of the ball at the top of the penalty area line. They release the ball from their hands in the area but their foot makes contact with the ball during the act of punting outside the penalty area. Is this a violation? Does the entire act of punting have to take place in the penalty area? Or is it no violation. because the ball was released from the keeper’s hands within the penalty area?

USSF answer (December 16, 2008):
The answers to your questions in the order in which they were asked:
1. No.
2. No.
3. Yes.…

"Inventive Commentators"

RECERT TESTS, COMMENTATORS, AND DELAY OF RESTART

December 14, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Was just catching up on Ask A Ref.

I was reading November 2008 III of III. There was a question about a couple of recert questions, and the guy mentioned a 50 question recert test. The answer seemed to imply that the number of questions on a recert can vary widely across the country.

I just took my test tonight (8 recert) and it had 75 questions. Not that I really care, but I thought the test was standard across the USA, so every 8 recert would take a similar 75 question test.

And we had a 12 recert taking a 50 question test, so that may explain that guys’ understanding of the laws 🙂

Anyway, another topic. I saw a professional game on tv a few weeks ago.

I think it was MLS. Situation was this – note Im seeing all this on tv without a lot of explanation from the announcers.

Attacker kicks ball out over goal line. Keeper looks over to sidelines, lifts up one leg, points to cleat, then rolls hands around like for a substitution, implying he wants to change his cleats. The trainers run out onto the field, he changes his cleats. He goes to reset the ball for the goal kick, and just before he kicks the ball, the center comes over and shows him a yellow card.

Again, no explanation from the announcers – they dont know definitively what is going on anyway. Side note – am I crazy, or does John Harkes not have a clue about the laws of the game?

I presume the caution was for delaying the restart. But if the delay was caused by the changing of the cleats, can the ref logically show a caution for that, when he allowed the trainers onto the field in the first place?

If you know what really happened in this situation, I would like to know, as it keeps me awake at night, but more importantly it might make a good instructive question for Ask A Ref.

USSF answer (December 12, 2008):
1. Recertification testing
The Federation supplies tests of 100 questions for use in testing referees in grades 12 through 5 to the state directors of instruction. Recertification testing is run differently in each state. Some states randomly select 50 (or 75, as in your state) questions and use them for recerts. Other states take these tests and rewrite them to suit themselves, changing answers from the correct one to an answer that fits the particular need of the state or the individual instructor. Unfortunately, there is little the Federation can do about this.

2. Television commentators
Most — not all, but certainly most — television commentators, even those who have played professionally and internationally, have no clear grasp of the Laws of the Game. They look at the game from the viewpoint of the position they played (or their experience in other sports), rather than at the overall picture. Additionally, the commentators are also watching the game unfold from a significantly different location than are the referee and the assistant referees. They do the game a great disservice by suggesting that the referees do not know what they are doing.

3. The incident
The game you saw was the playoff game between the Chicago Fire and the New England Revolution. Prior to taking the goal kick, the Chicago goalkeeper, Bush, indicated that he was injured and the referee permitted the trainers to enter the field. However, then Bush also indicated that he wanted to change his boots, as they were not suitable for the field conditions. He failed to get the referee’s permission for this and then took too long with it and the referee rightly cautioned him for delaying the restart of play.

There are, of course, other questions that could be asked, such as what was the score (and the rhythm) of the game? Was the delay for tactical purposes? Was Chicago trying to “use” this time to interfere with the Revolution’s pace of play? However, the core of the matter is the actual delay of the restart.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

WHAT TO DO?

December 11, 2008December 12, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
[I and a friend] were discussing testing questions and the famous ‘opponent entangled in the net’ scenario came up.

==
” opponent enters the goal during dynamic play and becomes entangled in the net …. keeper then steps into the goal and punches opponent ” ….

The question is whether, after the well-deserved Send-Off, the correct restart is a Dropped Ball due to action off the field …. or an Indirect Free Kick due to the fact that the player [ GK ] left the field to commit the misconduct -as indicated by note 5 under 12.35 in current versions of ATR.

At some point in time, we were taught that the restart was a dropped ball. We are guessing that under the current interpretation, the correct restart is now IFK …. this would make sense to keep things consistent.

If there are any exceptions, please explain.

USSF answer (December 11, 2008):
In cases like this, the restart is governed by what occurred first. As we all know, players are permitted to leave the field during the course of play to avoid obstacles or to show that they are not involved in a possible offside situation, so the player who left the field has done nothing wrong — unless there is some evidence that he or she was taunting or using inappropriate language against the goalkeeper. The new supplemental memorandum (commenting on this year’s Interpretations section of the Lawbook) makes it clear that leaving the field for the purpose of committing misconduct is by definition NOT “leaving the field in the normal course of play” and therefore the goalkeeper’s act of leaving the field without permission to attack the player in the net governs the restart, an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when that occurred (keeping in mind the requirements of Law 13). The restart cannot take place until the goalkeeper has been shown the red card and dismissed for violent conduct (and the other player has been punished, if that is warranted by what went on).…

Advice to Referees

THE SHOULDER

November 18, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
This came out of a recent tournament. U12B game; young referee in center; myself and a very experienced referee as AR’s.

The players had been getting a little out of hand, with several instances of late charges„ shoulder of the defender to the back of shoulder of the attacker, after the defender was beaten, rather than shoulder to shoulder. At the half-time break I suggested to the CR that he should watch for these, calling them to help calm down the game.

The other AR agreed, but also asked the question (teaching mode), When is shoulder to back contact allowed? The CR and I thought that this was never allowed, although the foul might be trifling and therefore not called.

The other AR gave as his answer that when the ball is on the goal line, and a defender is legally shielding the ball, an attacker can initiate shoulder to back contact to move the defender off the ball.

I asked for a reference and later (after the game), he told me it was either in the ATR or a memorandum. I have been unable to find this interpretation.

This is important to me because, as I progress up to calling older players, I am seeing this situation. I don’t want to award a DFK (or a PK!) for a legal charge.

Also, where does the “shoulder” stop? I know that sounds funny, but the ATR in Section 12.5 refers to “the area of the shoulder” as opposed to “toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area) .” Is a charge with the shoulder of one player making contact with the shoulder blade of the opponent legal? I had always thought not.

USSF answer (November 18, 2008):
We are always pleased to give anatomy lessons. In the “shoulder-to-shoulder” charge, the shoulder is indeed composed of “the area of the shoulder.” In other words, the shoulder blade or the front part of the body where the arm and the upper chest meet. All of this is spelled out quite carefully in the Advice to Referees, as you note:

12.5 CHARGING
The act of charging an opponent can be performed without it being called as a foul. Although the fair charge is commonly defined as “shoulder to shoulder,” this is not a requirement and, at certain age levels where heights may vary greatly, may not even be possible. Furthermore, under many circumstances, a charge may often result in the player against whom it is placed falling to the ground (a consequence, as before, of players differing in weight or strength). The Law does require that the charge be directed toward the area of the shoulder and not toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area): in such a case, the referee should recognize that such a charge is at minimum reckless and potentially even violent. (See also Advice 12.14.)

That is the traditional area of “the shoulder” in soccer, as defined since time immemorial.…

Law 11 - Offside

APPLES AND APPLESAUCE

November 17, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I recently took a 50-question USSF recertification test. Two of the “official” answers seemed to deviate from statements made by you on this column.

The first question involved OS or not by two attackers standing apart at the top of the goal area during the taking of a free kick just off-center and outside the PA. The question stipulated that they did not move. Nonetheless the “correct” answer was OS, presumably for visual obstruction of the keeper. See your answer of 3/4/08 on this column.

The second question involved the r/s, if after a goal and before the k/o, it is discovered that one team had an extra person on the FOP.

The “correct” answer was no goal, if the extra person was on the goal scoring team, and goal, if extra person was on the other team. The question made no mention of any involvement in play by the extra person. In the absence of the latter it would seem to me that the answer is goal in either event. See your answer of April 2, 2008.

Thank you in advance for your assistance on this query.

USSF answer (November 17, 2008):
In the both your questions you are talking apples and applesauce, in other words, two totally different situations. The two questions on the recert test are not affected by the two answers on Ask A Referee or Ask a Soccer Referee. The one in your first test question involves players standing at the top of the goal area, and the scenario does not tell us where they are in relation to the goalkeeper. More specifically, we fail to see how an answer about jumping up and down in a “wall” or in front of a keeper can have anything to do with a recert test question about offside. The question in the item dated 4 March 2008 involved a player who stood directly in front of the goalkeeper and who, IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE, did so to block the goalkeeper’s view. And there was a caveat in the 4 March question involving “merely standing.” It was stated that “this would be acceptable behavior unless (a) the attacker moves as the goalkeeper moves (which makes it similar to such behavior at a corner kick) or (b) is so close physically to the goalkeeper that it could be interpreted as an aggressive occupying of ‘personal space.”” Neither is the question regarding the extra person in any way related to what was discussed in the 2 April answer, which dealt with an outside agent entering the field. Apples and applesauce; related, but not related, made of the same materials yet totally different.

Finally, without knowing exactly (a) what level test you took (7/8 or 5/6) and (b) the questions whose official answers you question, there is little we can do. There is no such thing as an “official” 50 question recert test — there is only a 100-question grades 8/7 test — if a state association chooses to pull only 50 questions out and use them for recertification purposes, there isn’t anything we can (or should) do about it, but who knows what other changes might have been made. On the surface, the official answer on the first question (whatever it is) sounds acceptable — if they were just standing but still obstructing the keeper’s view while in an offside position, then they were clearly in violation of Law 11 and should be declared offside. On the second question, the situation again seems straightforward and not contradicted by anything we have said — namely, if a goal is scored but before the kick-off restart is taken, it is determined that the scoring team had an extra player illegally on the field, then the goal would not count regardless of what role (if any) the “extra” player had in the scoring of the goal.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT; SOLVING A WHODUNNIT?

November 12, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
The game was getting rougher as the boys kept missing their scoring opportunities and their frustration began to escalate. I made a decision in my head that I was going to have to card the next foul as persistent infringement in an attempt to settle the game down.

There was a poor choice of a tackle on the white team about 7 yards before the penalty area when they were attacking the black goal. I went to blow for the whistle when the ball went straight to an attacking white player who was wide open and did a few dribbles and took a good shot on goal. The keeper did deflect it and it went out of touch for a corner kick.

In the melee of players and from deciding to follow the player with the ball, I lost sight of the black player who made the foul. I went to chat with my AR and he didn’t see who it was either since he was watching else where on the field. So I went to the black teams captain and asked who made the tackle. He said he didn’t know. I then explain to the captain that this isn’t for him specifically, but it was for persistent infringement and I wasn’t sure who made the tackle either.

Besides making a better effort to try to pick out what player it was (the obvious answer) next time, what should my actions have been if how I handled it wasn’t correct.

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
We are not sure that your decision to punish just any foul by just any player as persistent infringement was the right decision to make, as it does not follow the traditional order of things. For there to be persistent infringement, a pattern of either of two things must occur: (1) one player fouls a number of opponents or (2) members of one team foul one opponent. These are destructive tactics aimed at destroying the rhythm of the game. Note: The actions described in (2) would be punished with a caution for unsporting behavior, not for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game.

If you feel that the game is getting out of hand and simply calling the fouls and giving stern talking-to’s to the players is not working, then just caution the next reckless foul as unsporting behavior. Don’t philosophize, act. And a cautionary note: If you don’t know and can’t get reliable information from other members of the officiating team, the only thing you can do is resolve not to make this mistake again. Although we have advised it in the past, asking captains, or players generally, to name a miscreant is not good policy.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DGF or SFP?

November 12, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Attacker A has beaten the 2LD and has only the GK between himself and the back of the net. Attacker A moves along the 18 in a fashion parallel to the goal line. GK “takes him out” (match referee’s description of the foul). Is this DGF (apart from possibility that it may also be SFP)?

USSF answer (November 12, 2008):
You don’t tell us if Attacker A has the ball. If he does, it might or it might not be 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 (aka DGF). If the referee determines that the that the player was able to shoot — which is not clear from your question — then the correct call could be DGF. If not, there is always the possibility of serious foul play.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER SECOND TOUCH

November 7, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
What should be the proper call? U8 Girls game.

An attempt on goal by the opposing team. The goalie blocks the shot and picks up the ball. The ball and goalie never leave the penalty area. She performs a drop kick that goes straight up in the air and lands in the penalty area. Can the goalie touch the ball again (foot or hand) before one of her teammates or does another player need to make contact with the ball first?

If there is a penalty for touching the ball before her teammates, what would be the proper call?

USSF answer (November 7, 2008):
Under the U8 rules published by U. S. Youth Soccer, there are no goalkeepers, so this question must be answered in accordance with the normal Laws of the Game.

Yes, any other player must play the ball before the goalkeeper may touch it again with her hands. If the goalkeeper touches it with her hands, the correct restart is an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred. (If this was within the goal area, then it must be from that place on the goal area line that is nearest to the place where the infringement occurred.)…

Coach

ERRONEOUS STOPPAGE OF PLAY/OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE

November 5, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a tournament game this summer, I awarded a penalty kick for Team A against Team B. After the goalkeeper and Team A’s player were set to begin, I blew the whistle to signal for the penalty kick to be taken, at which point, I heard a “HOLD ON!!” from behind my back, and instinctively, I blew the whistle for the kick to stop. By this point though, Team A’s player had already taken the shot and scored. Let me be clear, my second whistle occurred BEFORE the kick was taken.

Upon realizing it was a parent from Team B (parents on both sides) who had yelled, not my AR or a Coach, with an urgent problem (player having an asthma attack, seizure, whatever!), I immediately ran to my AR1 and because we both could not definitely point out which parent caused the distraction, I caused the entire sideline that the next outburst would elicit an immediate ejection.

Back to the game, I had Team A retake the penalty kick, at which point they did NOT score.

My crew and I were unsure if I was correct in blowing the whistle again after I initially signaled for the start of the penalty kick. We thought it could be argued both ways: because the keeper was scored upon, he could have said he was distracted by the obscenely loud outburst, but if the keeper would have made the save, Team A’s kicker could make the same argument. My initial instinct was that I was wrong to have blown the whistle the second time, and should have allowed the kick to proceed and then see what the commotion was about, but the request sounded so urgent, I didn’t hesitate in blowing the second whistle. So was I right to stop the penalty kick because of the yell? Also, what should I have done about the parents, not knowing who specifically yelled. Thanks in advance.

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
A whistle blown means that the play has stopped and the kick, if not already taken before the whistle was blown, is negated. The Law requires that the kick be retaken. It may seem unfair in this particular circumstance, but it is the Law and must be followed.

It is unfortunate that you could not identify the particular parent, but it would have made no difference in the restart. You can ask the team to police its own spectators and keep them quiet, but unless the parent or other spectators break a civil law, there is little you can do other than terminating the game.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

THE SIX-SECOND RULE

November 5, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I would like to know when FIFA adopted the rule which requires an indirect free kick to be awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession. My reason for asking is that I recently refereed a tournament in which I awarded an IFK in two separate matches. The reaction by the coaches clearly indicated their displeasure with my call, even though in my pregame routine I have made it a practice to remind the coaches, captains and the goalies directly to be aware of the six seconds and to release the ball from their possession within that time frame. To be honest I do not count just to six seconds and then blow the whistle. I count slowly to eight seconds and then blow the whistle. This assures me a high level of confidence that the six seconds have passed without resorting to watching my watch which would take my eyes and concentration away from the field and the players.

My other concern is that while I was watching other matches or when I was an assistant referee in other matches I noticed throughout the matches goalies keeping possession well beyond the six seconds and the referee paying no attention to it. As an assistant referee is it also my responsibility to enforce the rule and should I have raised my flag?

USSF answer (November 5, 2008):
The six-second rule was introduced into the Laws of the Game about 20 years ago. This particular portion of the Law is noted for its not being called strictly to the rule — and there is a reason for that. The six-second count does not begin until the goalkeeper is clearly in possession of the ball and ABLE to think about releasing the ball into general play. Not while the goalkeeper is on the ground; not while he or she is recovering from a fall; not while he or she is rising: Only after the goalkeeper is clearly alert and ready to function.

Anything beyond that time is a matter for the individual discretion of the referee, who is the sole judge of the passage of time in a soccer game.

Using the guidelines above, you can mention this in the pregame conference to the ARs who work with you or to the referee when you are AR, but never, never make calls on situations that are clearly visible to the referee.

Finally, a point we emphasize in our answers to this and similar questions about goalkeeper release of the ball: Most of the time the offense is trivial as long as you are seeing an honest effort to put the ball back into play. We also recommend that the referee warn the ‘keeper about the time on the first offense before we do anything more about it.…