GOALKEEPER CROSSES LINE WITH BALL IN HAND

October 22, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I had this in a game I did the other night. The keeper stops a shot and gets ready to release it but I told her to hold on for one second because a player on the other team seemed to be injured. The player said she was fine so I told the goalie to play on without blowing my whistle. The goalie ran to the line and carried the ball past the penalty area before she released the ball. I then blew my whistle for the first time and awarded the other team an Indirect Free Kick for improper clearing of the ball by the keeper. I was in a two-man system and the other official (who is my father) felt the call should have been a hand ball and a direct free kick to restart. We settled on my interpretation of the rules and the kick taken was an IFK. The kick actually went off the goalie’s fingertips and went in the goal. Since it went off the goalie’s fingers the indirect free kick was satisfied, so I got lucky with the call since both direct and indirect kicks were satisfied. However, what would the correct call be so I can make the right call next time? Thanks

USSF answer (September 22, 2008):
Our opinion is that your father was technically correct: The restart, if you stopped the game for this extremely trifling infringement, should have been a direct free kick. (There is, by the way, no such infringement as “improperly clearing the ball.”) You can already see where this answer is going. You interfered with the goalkeeper’s release of the ball and then, when she committed a TRIFLING infringement of the Law, you punished her and even allowed a goal to be scored against her team.

Lesson to be learned from this: If you cannot tell immediately that a player is truly injured, there is no need to delay play. Instead, you should let the goalkeeper clear the ball from the penalty area and only then stop play, if you must, to check the possibly injured player. If you do otherwise, you have then already determined that the player is injured and should stop play immediately. And that means that the restart will be inside the penalty area through no fault of the defending team. It’s a matter of good management and common sense for referees to try not to disadvantage unfairly the team that has not committed any infringement.

Then, of course, there is always the fact that you were officiating in a two-referee game, something to be avoided by referees registered with the U. S. Soccer Federation, as the dual system of control is not in accordance with the Laws of the Game or the policies of the Federation.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SHIELDING VS. IMPEDING OR CHARGING

October 22, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
U14G game. Two opponents are aggressively pursuing a 50/50 ball in the open field. Blue arrives at the ball an instant before yellow. Blue’s first action, with the ball now directly at her feet, is to shield the ball from the fast approaching Yellow player by moving her body sideways directly into the path of the oncoming Yellow player. Blue player has a more woman-like body. She’s at least a foot taller than Yellow and is widest at the hips. The Yellow player, with a more girl-like body, goes flying over the hip of the Blue player.

In my judgment since Blue arrived at the ball first (albeit only by an instant) and since she was clearly within playing distance of the ball, her act of shielding the ball was legal. In my opinion, the fact that Yellow went flying through the air was the result of her own carelessness. Accordingly, I did not whistle and allowed play to continue.

First, based on these facts was that the correct call?

Second, it is also my opinion that Blue knew that her act of shielding the ball would cause a violent collision between the two and that the smaller girl would be more adversely affected by such a collision. (These were two talented, aggressive players, probably the best on each team, who had been going at each other for some time prior to the collision.) Could Blue ever be called for a foul in this situation? If so, what do I look for to determine a foul occurred.

USSF answer (October 22, 2008):
A player who is within playing distance of the ball — as determined by the referee, not the player — is permitted to interpose her body between the ball and the opponent. The fact that she is larger makes absolutely no difference. If she chose to put her hips in a particular position before the opponent arrived, life is hard for the opponent. Unless you are absolutely certain that the shielding player has physically moved her hip during the actual contact, thus using a part of her body for a purpose that is not permitted — charges have to be shoulder to shoulder, even for women — then there has been no foul here.…

Handling

RE: GOALKEEPER CROSSES PENALTY AREA LINE, BALL IN HAND

October 20, 2008 by Jim Allen

Reader Comment:
No question but a comment pertaining to the Q&A about goalkeeper being out of the PA when punting.

I have seen six AR’s flag for this in the past year or so. On five of the six, the GK was clearly NOT over the line when there was still ball-hand contact. As you know, goalkeepers when punting usually release the ball from their hands well before their left leg extends forward and plants in the act of punting. I am convinced that most AR’s who flag for this (and they are always either the most inexperienced or the most anal) only do so because they see the left leg over the line in the act of punting – which of course is totally irrelevant as to whether the GK handled the ball out of the PA.

It would be nice to see this point emphasized in referee training.

Also wouldn’t hurt to emphasize it in an answer in Ask a Referee.

Editor’s comment: And here it is as an unofficial comment.

…

Coach

ABUSIVE COACHES REDUX

October 20, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I recently participated in a team of referees during a local town tournament. This is my first year as a referee and have learned that every game and every coach is different.

My question follows on the heals of the “Abusive Coaches” question.

Q: As an AR, what authority do I have if during a game I am hearing abusive comments from the coaches (who are standing behind me at their bench) but are not amplified so the CR can hear them. If the AR can hear them, so can the substitute players sitting on the bench. The commits I was hearing were not PG appropriate.

USSF answer (October 20, 2008):
Included in any pregame (particularly if the team includes inexperienced and/or young assistant referees) should be some guidelines on the extent to which the AR is expected to deal with sideline behavior on their own, when to bring the referee into it, and how this is accomplished.

Without making an elaborate show of it, find a way to bring the referee nearer to you and give him or her a brief and precise summary of what has been going on and ask him/her to act on it. If the referee refuses to act, prepare a match report with your input on it for the benefit of both the competition authority and the state referee authorities.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER CROSSES PENALTY AREA LINE, BALL IN HAND

October 20, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Recognizing your answer on this question from the archives (Oct. 12, 2007), I have always considered the goalkeeper perhaps carrying the ball a tad too long in his hands before punting as committing a doubtful or trifling offense (after all, what difference is 1 foot or so on a kick of perhaps 40 yards?).

Nonetheless, I had a zealous AR raise a flag for just such an offense, a flag that I did not see for several seconds as the ball was in dynamic play at the other end of the field when it came down. Flummoxed at seeing the flag, I blew the whistle and the AR proceeded to shout for all the world to hear, “The goalie crossed the line before punting.” I admit to being perturbed not just at the calling of the offense but at the flagrant disregard for procedure in the shout as it gave me little choice in addressing the matter.

I proceeded to tell this story with my crew at my next match and carefully included mention in the pre-game conference that I considered any offense well behind the course of play to be trifling unless it rose to the level of misconduct. Amazingly, an AR made the same call in that game even after the pre-game conference, and he also shouted out, “It was a whole yard.”

My question therefore is two-fold —

1. Am I indeed correct that this offense can be doubtful and/or trifling, even at “a whole yard,” when absolutely nobody on the field except the AR even notices?
2. If I am correct, do you have any advice for how the wise referee can recover some sense of credibility with the players after such a call is made? Having been burned twice, I want to be really ready next time.

USSF answer (October 20, 2008):
Answer 1: While recognizing that the offense by the goalkeeper of crossing the penalty area line with the ball still in hand is never doubtful, but often trifling, we must also recognize that it is certainly an infringement of the Law and must always be treated as such. The referee will usually allow the first such act to go unpunished, but must then clearly warn the goalkeeper to observe and honor the line and the Law. If it occurs again, the referee should call the foul and no later than the third offense caution the goalkeeper for persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game.

Answer 2: Sage advice for the intelligent referee is hard to give when assistant referees fail to follow instructions from the referee in the pregame conference. As long as play is stopped anyway, acknowledge the AR’s flag and go over to speak with him or her. Reinforce the instruction not to interfere in the flow of the game with trifling matters — but remember the sage advice given in Answer 1 — and remind the goalkeeper to stay within the confines of the penalty area when he or she has the ball in hand. Then restart the game properly and add the time lost in this exchange to the time of the half.

Another course of action might be for the referee to confer with the AR (making sure the conversation was private), direct the AR to nod his or her head in apparent agreement, walk back toward the ball (making a swing past the GK for a private discussion of no more than a sentence or two), and then restart with a dropped ball. In short, although the AR has obviously created a problem — both the the signal and then with his horrendous mechanics — the situation is still not without options.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CONTACT BETWEEN PLAYERS

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
The hardest decisions I have to make at these ages is when body contact between opponents rises to the level of a foul. Several factors affect my thinking:

1. Body sizes can vary widely. I’ve seen U10 boys who were 5′-6″ and 130 lbs playing against U10 boys who were 4′-6″ and 70 lbs. Even nominal contact between the two can send the smaller child flying.

2. The kids simply haven’t developed an appreciation for the immutable laws of physics. Many race for every ball at full speed seemingly unaware of the potential for injury when collisions occur with opponents, or even teammates, who are doing the same thing. The objective is clear to the kids (i.e. get the ball); the consequences of the behavior in trying to obtain the objective are not.

3. Because of leg strength (or lack of it), and field size, the game is played very close. It is not uncommon, in my experience, to see 5 or 6 players within 5 yards of the ball. More players within a small area results in more body contact. Legs get tangled, bodies collide, arms are raised in defense etc.

Certainly, I can apply the same standards at younger levels that I do at older levels, but such behavior would result in many, many whistles, stoppages, discussions, frustration and just not much fun for the players, coaches or parents.

In my view, I simply can’t use the same standard for younger ages.

Typically, what I look for before whistling is more of an attempt to make contact with a player than with the ball. But that makes my decisions more subjective, and that subjectivity may frustrate coaches and players. More subjectivity also allows coaches and players to perceive they are being judged more harshly than their opponents.

I’m wondering if I’m looking for the right thing. Is there a more objective way to determine when body contact at these younger ages is foul play?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
We find that too many referees whistle for contact that is not illegal under the Laws of the Game. A certain amount of contact is common in soccer and, if it is not clearly careless, reckless, or done with excessive force, it should be allowed. Players do get tangled up when both are going for the ball or trying to shoot or clear the ball. In addition, children grow at different rates and, as you point out, there can be great disparities in size (height and build) between players of the same age

Referees should be careful to judge the way in which acts are committed. If the player or players appear to be otherwise playing fairly, yet the precise definition of a charge is violated because of differences in height and build, the intelligent referee will understand and give the benefit of the doubt to the player of greater or lesser height and build, whichever applies.…

Coach

CARDING A COACH

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I can not find any reference to the reasoning behind this, only references to Law 5 — which do not really address this issue.

Why not (as they do in Water Polo) show a card to a team official or coach? If the Referee is responsible for maintaining control of a game and has the authority to ‘send off’ a team official or coach…why not show the card?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
Reasoning? You want reasoning for matters that have been true from time immemorial? Not going to happen.

Law 5 tells us that the referee:

– takes disciplinary action against players guilty of cautionable and sending-off offenses. He is not obliged to take this action immediately but must do so when the ball next goes out of play
– takes action against team officials who fail to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and may, at his discretion, expel them from the field of play and its immediate surrounds

This is amplified later in Law 12 as follows:

“The yellow card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been cautioned.

“The red card is used to communicate that a player, substitute or substituted player has been sent off.

“Only a player, substitute or substituted player may be shown the red or yellow card.”

…

Coach

ABUSIVE COACHES

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was the center ref for a U12 boys rec league game. The coach for one of the teams has a reputation for being loud and boisterous in general. However, in this game he went “over the top” not necessarily towards the referees (although he did voice his opinion about our calls quite frequently) – but mainly toward his players.

He berated them throughout the game with an extremely loud voice such that everyone on neighboring fields could hear him, and with a tone and a look that communicated disgust and near-hatred for whichever individual player he was yelling at.

I felt very badly for these 10- and 11-year-old kids who were near tears at times because of their coach. The amazing thing is, their team was winning the whole time anyway, and this was a rec league! My question is simply – do I as the ref have any authority during the game when it comes to how the coach is treating his players?

If the answer is no, I’m simply going to request not to ref any more games for this team – I can’t stand to listen to that guy again.

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
An excellent question and one with which we have dealt several times in the past. Back in December of 2007 we stated [the information has been abridged]:

There is a national trend within the soccer community toward eliminating abuse of young people by any adults. You, as a referee, are certainly empowered to ensure responsible behavior by the team officials. The method chosen would be up to the individual referee.
//deleted//
We can add that, under the Law, any POSITIVE coaching is allowed from the technical area, as long as only one person speaks at a time and then returns to his seat on the bench. As a practical matter, particularly at the youth level, any POSITIVE coaching is allowed. In either case, whether at the level of the least experienced players (and coaches) or at the highest levels, any case in which the coach behaves irresponsibly will result in the coach being dismissed. (Two examples from among many: ranting at the referee, overt participation in deception of the opposing team.)

A coach has no “right” to anything in the game of soccer, other than the right to conduct him-/herself responsibly during the game — from within the technical or bench area — while offering advice to his/her team’s players. A referee who allows coaches or other team officials to parade around the field or shout abuse at players in the guise of instruction, in contravention of the requirements in Law 5 that coaches behave responsibly and that referees not permit anyone other than players to enter the field, should be ashamed.

Coaches are expected to behave responsibly. (See Law 5 and Law 3, IBD 2, the only places in the Laws that team officials are mentioned. [Note: This is from the Laws of 2007/2008.]) The referee’s first line of defense (unless the behavior is REALLY egregious) is to warn the coach who is behaving irresponsibly. This is the equivalent of a caution, but no card is shown. Then, when the behavior persists (as it usually does, because most coaches who behave this way fail to understand that they must change their errant ways), the coach is expelled from the field for failing to behave in a responsible manner. Please note that under the Laws of the Game, no card may be shown; however, showing the card may be a requirement of the rules of the competition.

In all events you should prepare a supplemental game report or letter to the league on the matter. You might also suggest in the report or letter that they send someone to monitor a couple of games. The letter could be written in such a way that says perhaps the coach was having a bad day, but it should suggest that it might be beneficial to the children involved if someone from the league dropped in for a game or two just to make sure.

[In the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” we note [unchanged for 2008/2009]:
QUOTE
5.10 BEHAVIOR OF COACH AND BENCH PERSONNEL
Coaches or other team officials, one at a time, may provide tactical advice to their players, including positive remarks and encouragement. The referee should only take action against coaches or other team officials for irresponsible behavior or for actions that bring the game into disrepute. A coach or other team official may not be cautioned or sent off nor shown any card; however, at the discretion of the referee, such persons may be warned regarding their behavior or expelled from the field of play and its immediate area. When a coach or other team official is expelled, the referee must include detailed information about such incidents in the match report.
//deleted//
END OF QUOTE

You ask what constitutes responsible behavior. It means that the coach or other team official has not stuck to what their part of the game is, issuing tactical instructions or praise to their players. If they go beyond those bounds, then their behavior is irresponsible. Shouting abuse and heaping derision on players is irresponsible behavior and brings the game into disrepute.

As to what bringing the game into disrepute means in the normal course of the game, this answer of September 7, 2006, should give you all the information you need:
“‘Bringing the game into disrepute’ means doing something that is totally counter the spirit of the game, which is meant to be played fairly and in a sporting manner. Such acts show a lack of respect for the game, e. g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, deliberately kicking the ball into one’s own goal or taunting.” it also includes intimidation and arguing with the referee.

We might also add that unless the matter is particularly grave, the referee would usually wait until the next stoppage. However, if the situation is indeed grave — as any case of abuse would be — then stopping the game and drawing attention to the matter is an excellent tool in and of itself. It sends a clear message that the referee is serious about the matter. In such cases, the referee would stop play with the ball in the possession of the abusive coach’s team (if possible), advise the coach or other team official that this behavior is irresponsible and must stop if the coach or other team official wishes to remain in the vicinity of the field. If this warning is not effective, then another stoppage and the expulsion of the coach must follow. No cards, please, unless the rules of the competition require them. Also, do not engage in extended discussions when doing this in any circumstances: State the message and leave.

As long as the coach or other team official does not behave irresponsibly by shouting abusively at the players or attempting to influence the opposing players through shouting false information, there is little restriction on that person’s activities. However, in that regard, we cannot forget the importance of the competitive level of the players as a factor in deciding what is permissible. After all, although there is no formal definition of “tactical instructions,” we have commonly recognized that this would not include choreographing every move, particularly for any match above mid-level youth.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TRICKERY

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Under Law 12, Decision 3 deals with ‘Trickery’. Within this there seems to be a position among some referees that ‘Trickery’ – bringing the ball from your feet to your head – is a stand alone violation and should be called anytime it is observed, however this happens frequently during play all over the pitch.

At issue is that frequently players under the pressure of an opponent bring the ball from their feet to their head and play it over the opponent to a team mate or their keeper who strikes the ball with their foot, clearing the ball upfield, out and away from pressure.

Some referees say this was accomplished using ‘Trickery’ and a violation should be called with a yellow card given and an IFK as a restart.

What is the correct application of ‘Trickery’ in this instance?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
There are no longer any International F. A. Board decisions appended to Law 12. They were in the 2007/2008 edition of the Laws. Decision 3 of 2007/2008 reads:

Decision 3
Subject to the terms of Law 12, a player may pass the ball to his own goalkeeper using his head or chest or knee, etc. If, however, in the opinion of the referee, a player uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play in order to circumvent the Law, the player is guilty of unsporting behavior. He is cautioned, shown the yellow card and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred. * (see page 3)
A player using a deliberate trick to circumvent the Law while he is taking a free kick is cautioned for unsporting behavior and shown the yellow card. The free kick is retaken.
In such circumstances, it is irrelevant whether the goalkeeper subsequently touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of Law 12.

That text is now found in the back of the Laws for 2008/2009, under Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees in reference to cautionable offenses:

* uses a deliberate trick while the ball is in play to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper with his head, chest, knee, etc. in order to circumvent the Law, irrespective of whether the goalkeeper touches the ball with his hands or not. The offense is committed by the player in attempting to circumvent both the letter and the spirit of law 12 and play is restarted with an indirect free kick
* uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to his own goalkeeper to circumvent the Law while he is taking a free kick (after the player is cautioned, the free kick must be retaken)

It is clear from the text and from accepted use throughout the world — well maybe not in the United States, where “those foreigners” are not allowed to tell us anything — that the IFAB’s meaning is that trickery occurs only when a player is passing the ball to his/her own goalkeeper. It does not occur when the ball is passed to some other player.

Furthermore, just to lock it down tightly, the misconduct offense requires the referee to decide that the action was done to circumvent the Law. Merely observing that the ball was played from foot to head is not enough, even if the ball subsequently goes to or toward the GK. Because we are dealing with misconduct here (the “trickery”) and not the foul commonly referred to as “pass back to the keeper,” we are required to evaluate the intentions of the defender.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE AS APPLIED TO DELIBERATE HANDLING

October 15, 2008 by Jim Allen

Question:
Wondering if advantage can be applied to handling. In a recent Adult game, team ‘A’ has the ball just outside the penalty area and takes a shot on goal when a team ‘B’ defender comes running in front with ‘open arms’ in an unnatural position. The ball contacted the defender’s hands and still headed towards goal, but the hit on the ball from handling action sends the ball up over the crossbar. I delay the whistle for the handling for 2-3 seconds until after I determine that the shot is not going to enter the goal due to the handling (comment: DOGOSOH did not apply in this circumstance since there was an additional defender in the penalty area between the attacker and the keeper, who I believe could have blocked the shot had it not been deflected up). In effect, I apply advantage and since the advantage had not been realized, I call the original foul and award a DFK.

I was told after the game by our Referee Development Coordinator (a state level referee) who was at the game that you cannot apply advantage to handling. Handling either happens or it doesn’t, and I should have whistled the ball immediately or not at all. From what I have always understood, handling is an offense in law 12 and so advantage to the fouled team may be applied – also, I did not see anything on Advice to Referees on LOTG addressing this. Would you please clarify?

USSF answer (October 15, 2008):
Let’s start by correcting two false premises in your scenario:
(1) The 4 Ds apply only to infringements under sending-off offense 5 (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), but NOT to infringements of sending-off offense 4 [denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)].

(2) Your state-level referee colleague is dead wrong and you are correct. Deliberately handling the ball is an infringement of Law 12. The advantage may be applied to any infringement of Law 12, provided the referee believes it to be in the best interest of good game management.

And the answer to your question: You were correct to apply the advantage, but you should have sent off the defender if his action actually did meet the requirements for sending-off offense 4. The USSF publication Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game provides all the information you need:

12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
(a) Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball
The send-off offense for deliberate handling, number 4 under the seven send-off offenses, “denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area),” does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball would apply to any player (or substitute) other than the goalkeeper in his or her own penalty area who handles a ball to prevent it from entering the goal, even if the ball was last played by a member of the defending team. A red card for denying a goal by handling cannot be given if the attempt is unsuccessful; in other words, if the ball goes into the goal despite the illegal contact. However, the referee may caution the player for unsporting behavior before restarting with the kick-off.

The referee must remember that many fouls, including deliberately handling the ball, occur in the penalty area and could result in a penalty kick but not a sending-off.

[Note there is nothing in this section on the 4 Ds. They are covered in the next subsection, 12.37(b), which deals with sending-off offense 5.]…