Category: Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Advice to Referees

TACKLING FOR THE BALL IN THE ‘KEEPER’S HANDS

Posted on by

Question:
if an attacker slides feet first at a keeper (not trying to injure, but trying to get a piece of the ball) keeper is on the ground making an attack and the play is boom boom yet keeper has connection with the ball and attackers feet(cleats) hit keeper, what is the appropriate call if any??????????
Thanks for your help
Mike Hall

USSF answer (July 24, 2008):
If we understand your question correctly, the player attempts to slide tackle the ball away from the goalkeeper who is holding the ball with his hands. If that is the case, the player has committed a direct free kick foul. The following excerpts from the 2008 edition of the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful in determining the correct punishment, if any is necessary.

12.7 TACKLING
The referee must judge whether the tackle of an opponent is fair or whether it is careless, reckless, or involves the use of excessive force. Making contact with the opponent before the ball when making a tackle is unfair and should be penalized. However, the fact that contact with the ball was made first does not automatically mean that the tackle is fair.  The declaration by a player that he or she has “got the ball first” is irrelevant if, while tackling for the ball, the player carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force commits any of the prohibited actions.

A foul committed while tackling an opponent with little or no concern for the safety of the opponent shall be cause for the player to be sent from the field and shown the red card for serious foul play.

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

RECOVERING FROM ACCIDENTAL ENTANGLEMENTS

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent U14 boys game, an attacker and a defender were “tangling” one-on-one, with the attacker bringing the ball down the left side of the field and into the penalty area while the defender ran on his inside, contesting for the ball.  As they arrived just outside the corner of the goal area, their forward motion stopped abruptly and in the process the players became entangled and both fell to the field, with the attacker outside of the defender in relation to the goal area. In the referee’s opinion, there has been no foul.

Still in a one-on-one situation (the goalie had stayed on his line and neither player’s teammates had arrived on the scene), the attacker scrambles to get to his feet, ostensibly planning to step or jump over the defender on the ground and shoot the ball, which is now just inside the corner of the goal area. As he attempts to stand up, the defender rolls back and forth a little, perhaps in an attempt to get up himself, or perhaps in an attempt to delay the attacker until help can arrive.

The attacker manages to get on his feet and as he steps over the body of the defender, he ends up slightly stepping on and pinching the side of the defender between his foot and the turf, leaving the defender in some pain. He manages to get to the ball, but by now the goalie has come out to defend and his shot goes wide for a goal kick.

My question is to what degree the attacker must take care not to step on his opponent in this situation?  In the opinion of the referee, the attacker did not intentionally injure his opponent; however could it be dangerous play on the attacker?  How much responsibility does the attacker have to not step on his rolling-around opponent as he attempts to get up and put the ball in the goal, especially given that in the opinion of the referee it was reasonably likely that the defender was rolling in a way that would help prevent his opponent from getting up (although certainly not definite enough to call a foul on the defender and award a penalty)? Is this an outcome based situation, that since the defender was injured that by definition the attacker’s lack of care resulted in a dangerous play? If so, could one also argue that the player on the ground was also at fault for dangerous play or impeding by rolling around a little and making it difficult for his opponent to get up (even if he was not intending to delay his opponent, just like the attacker wasn’t intending to step on the defender)?

USSF answer (July 23, 2008):
Of course the attacker should exercise due caution in getting up from the original accidental spill, and the opponent must exercise precisely the same due caution. If the opponent — whether deliberately or through simple lack of awareness — interferes with the attacker’s ability to play the ball afterwards, the possibility exists for the fouls of tripping (unlikely unless the referee deems the act to be deliberate), impeding the progress of an opponent, or playing dangerously. It is also possible that there is no foul at all.. Only the referee on the spot can make this decision.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“PICKS” AND IMPEDING

Posted on by

Question:
X has the ball. Teammate Y provides square support. Defender is containing X only. There’s a lot of open space in front of Y.

Situation 1: X cuts toward Y, winds up to pass to Y, defender runs toward the passing lane, Z cuts in front of defender. = Clearly impeding the progress.

Situation 2: change the order of events.

Teammate Z runs forward and stops, about 3-4 feet from defender, between defender and that open space. Z then passes, and Y runs to, the open space in question. Y receives the pass, and carriers, shoots, whatever – and has an extra second or so to play the ball.

Defender has to run around Z to get to either the pass or Y – – there is enough room to do this but the extra second or two it takes is all that Y is looking for.

By the time defender chose what direction to go in and began to progress in that direction, Z, stationary, was already an obstacle is there an obligation to move?

To be clear, yes, the reason Z chose that spot to occupy was that it was in between the defender and a passing lane. Z didn’t just happen to be standing there and X wasn’t just being opportunistic.

But at the time, it wasn’t a passing lane being used and defender was not moving toward it, and had not decided to move toward it.

I’ve had my youth players do this countless times, and it’s been effective – usually the defender is so agitated at falling a step behind the play that he or she races after the pass, leaving Z uncovered.

They’ve never been called for impeding the progress when they’ve done this.

Last week in an adult pick-up game I was the Z – – it was a hot day and toward the end of the game, the defender just kind of stumbled into me, which I didn’t expect, as I’d been a good 3-4 feet away definitely not trying to invite contact or positioned closely enough that contact would have been the likely result.

The defender thought I’d committed a foul.

By the letter of the rule, when Z chose the spot to occupy, that spot didn’t obstruct or impede the defender’s progress – the defender wasn’t running to what would a few seconds later become the passing lane, thus Z’s going to that spot can’t be impeding the progress.

Thus it can only be impeding the progress if there’s an affirmative obligation, if you’re stationary, to move out of a player’s way.

Also, there are 9 other defenders – Z doesn’t know for a fact that defender would choose that path, defender could retreat or stay and cover Z, trusting another defender to come over. But Z knows that that defender would have the best chance of intercepting the pass.

I’m thinking that the fact that I’ve never seen that called in a refereed game means there’s no such obligation to move – that if you’re standing already in a spot that becomes tactically advantageous, not offsides, on the field, etc….., you can keep standing there.

Can you confirm that?

USSF answer (July 21, 2008):
Simple answer covering all eventualities: A player is allowed to occupy space but is not allowed to move into space that an opponent is actively using with the result that the opponent is forced to stop, swerve, or slow down to avoid contact. Under normal circumstances, “impeding” does not involve physical contact (which is why it is a “lesser” offense) — if contact occurs, the impeding player is now guilty of a direct rather than an indirect free kick offense.…

Advantage

“DELIBERATE” MATTERS

Posted on by

Question:
I have an issue concerning the 12th law. In this law (2007/08) it states, “A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offenses… handles the ball deliberately” (Law 12 Page 25). There are a few reasons I have an issue concerning this law.

First of all, let us consider Law 11. Concerning offside positions it is an offense intentional or not; the same should apply to handling. It is not an offense to be in an offsides position if no advantage is gained; therefore, it should not be an offense to handle the ball if no advantage is gained. If an advantage is gained from being in an offsides position, deliberately or not, it is an offense; therefore, if an advantage is gained from handling the ball, deliberately or not, it should be an offense.

Secondly, this change in the law makes it much less ambiguous. This means there is less reason to argue with the official; it is much easier to argue intent then it is to argue if advantage was gained.

Thirdly, this law makes it much easier for the official to make a decision. It is much harder for the official to decide if the handling was deliberate than it is to tell if an advantage was gained.

Finally, on a side note. I believe law 12 (2007/08) should be left alone in the “Sending-Off Offenses” portion where it states, “A player, substitute, or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offenses… 4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball” (Law 12 Page 26). I don’t believe a red card should be given for unintentionally handling the ball preventing an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, but it should still be a foul and a direct free kick (or a penalty kick) should be awarded to the opposing team.

In conclusion, I think that the current law should be changed because it isn’t fare, it is easily arguable, and it is difficult to know when to call.

USSF answer (July 17, 2008):
You seem to have missed the crux of the matter: Handling is an offense ONLY and punished ONLY IF IT IS DELIBERATE. There are many occasions on which a player may handle the ball accidentally,. Some examples: When it is kicked at the player from short range and there is no time to react, when the player turns around (we will assume no guile here) and finds the ball coming at him and there is no time to react, or when the player is protecting him- or herself while in the wall. This is not only soccer law, but soccer tradition.

We have covered the topic in our publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which states:

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as “handling the ball” involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player’s hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). “Deliberate contact” means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player’s arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).

In comparing the concept of “advantage” under Law 12 with the same concept in Law 11, you are comparing peanuts and watermelons: Both are essentially the same shape, but their constituent parts function differently.

A further point to ponder is that there is no element of intent or deliberation or even advantage when it comes to an offense under Law 11.…

Law 1 - The Field

FOUL ON THE PENALTY AREA LINE

Posted on by

Question:
A defender has fallen on the ground in the “D”, the area just above the penalty area inside the penalty arc. The ball rests nearby in the D, just touching the penalty area line. As an attacker fast approaches, the defender, in a panic, uses his hand to deliberately knock the ball back to his goalkeeper. His hand contacts the ball outside the box and never reaches the penalty area line.

Should a direct kick or a penalty kick be awarded to the opposing team? That is, is the handling considered to be “in the penalty area” because the ball is “in the penalty area”, even if the actual contact occurs outside the penalty area?

USSF answer (July 14, 2008):
If by “just touching” you mean that the ball was overlapping the penalty area (PA) line, that placed the ball WITHIN the PA, so it makes no difference that the hand contacted the portion that was outside the PA. The correct restart would be a penalty kick — after the player was been properly punished.

The correct punishment depends on the position of other players during the event in question. If the deliberate handling did not deny the attacking team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, then the punishment is a caution for unsporting behavior.…

"Inventive" Refs

DUTIES OF THE AR

Posted on by

Question:
a friend of mine is a State 1 from MA, and told me the following scenario that occurred to him in a recent match:

Ball is in attacking third for ‘keeper’s team, so AR is watching play, while maintaining position regarding senond-last defender. As the AR turns his head, he becomes aware of the attacking team’s ‘keeper standing in his own goal, with his back to the play, relieving himself.

When my friend relayed this to me, my initial thought was a caution for leaving w/out permission. However, the AR brought up the viable position of an ejection for Abusive Language and/or Gestures.

What do you think? For what it’s worth, he did not inform the referee of the situation at any time.

USSF answer (July 9, 2008):
A referee of any grade level should know better than to withhold information from the referee in charge of the match. While we appreciate the goalkeeper’s obvious wish to both irrigate and fertilize the grass in the goal, this is unsporting behavior — bringing the game into disrepute — and the goalkeeper must be cautioned and shown the yellow card.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DISSENT OR FOUL/ABUSIVE LANGUAGE? REF’S DECISION!

Posted on by

Question:
What does a player have to say to be sent off and shown a straight red card for the “use of offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures”?

I watched the New York at Colorado game on MLSLive.tv and in the 81st minute Colorado defender (and USA National Team player) Pablo Mastroeni felt AR1 Bill Dittmar missed a clear offside call and began screaming at Dittmar from across the field, and clearly saying (from the replay) “F#@# You!” directed right at Dittmar. Dittmar does nothing. Only after the next minute or so when Mastroeni continued to scream at him for the “missed call” did Dittmar finally get Weyland’s attention and indicate to him that Mastroeni needs to be cautioned for dissent. Caution? So what does a player have to say to actually be sent off for the language they use toward officials?

Is USSF reviewing this and punishing Mastroeni further? And how could the CO coach protest and give the 4th official an earful after Mastroeni was cautioned? My question is why wasn’t Mastroeni sent off?

Do players cuss on the field? Of course. But directed toward an official!? That shouldn’t be. I’m reading a book by former English Premier League Referee David Elleray and I know by the things he’s said in his book that Mastroeni would have been sent off right away.

Have things changed that much since the early to mid 90s when Elleray was around?

USSF answer (July 8, 2008):
One of the things we need to remember when watching professional and international games is that the game is called differently at every level of play, whether it is the pros, top senior amateur, other amateur, top-level youth play, lower-level youth play, etc. The pro players are more experienced and are willing to put up with and dish out more than the referee will allow at the senior amateur level of play (and so on down the line) and a lot more than referees should or will allow for younger, less experienced and conditioned players. In any event, the MLS looks at all instances of this nature and deals with them through its disciplinary process.

The matter of dissent and how the professional-level referee should judge it was covered in the “Referee Week in Review 14,” under Dissent, which you can find at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_14_2008.htm

When deciding whether a player’s actions are cautionable for dissent (by word or action) or can be red carded for offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures apply the following criteria:
〈        Public
Are the player’s actions public in nature? From a visual perspective, can others see it and, if so, what message is the player sending? Verbally, who can hear the comments (other players, spectators, television) – consider the volume of the comments? Are the actions or comments meant to “show the referee up?” Consider whether the actions/comments create a negative impression/attitude towards the referee in general.

〈        Personal
Are the comments directed at the referee or just said as a reasonable emotional reaction to a poor play? Consider the tone of voice and the derogatory content of what was said. Are the actions of the player aimed at the referee or merely personal frustration?

〈        Provocative
Are the comments or actions intended to incite further misconduct or heighten the tension level? Do the comments elicit anger and potentially provoke further conflict on the field? Consider the ramifications of racial or gender based comments.

Overall, are the comments and actions disrespectful to “any referee” – not just to the referee to whom they were addressed? Officials must be aware of actions/comments that undermine the position of the referee and must take the appropriate action that matches the actions of the player.

As to Mr. Elleray’s book, we do not comment on the works of retired referees from other countries.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR MISCONDUCT?

Posted on by

Question:
Under the rules for “Unsporting Behavior”, are there any restrictions on what players may/may not say?

For example, is it a foul to say “mine” or “let go” to signal to a team mate that he should leave the ball for me?

I read under “Unsporting Behavior” that one cannot say things to distract an opponent – are these considered fouls then?

USSF answer (July 7, 2008):
No, this would not be a foul, but it might possibly be misconduct. A foul is an unfair or unsafe action committed (1) by a player (2) against an opponent or the opposing team, (3) on the field of play, (4) while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent. If any of these requirements is not met, the action is not a foul; however, the action can still be misconduct. Unsporting behavior is one form of misconduct.

A defending player is generally allowed to call to his or her teammates that he or she will play the ball. However, if the defending player calls to distract an opponent, rather than to give information to a teammate, that is unsporting behavior. On the other hand, the team with the ball is allowed to use “false” calls to deceive their opponents.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DEALING WITH DISSENT AND FOUL LANGUAGE, ETC.

Posted on by

Question:
1) In a recent game, a player was quite disrespectful towards me, and even twice, in the same conversation, used foul language (“F” word), as well as asked “have you ever refereed before?” I was extremely nice, as I only cautioned him, given that it was his first time playing in the league. I simply asked that he act maturely like all other players in the league (who for the most part respect my calls, given that most think I’m a good ref who properly knows/enforces the Laws of the Game). When I asked his name (we’re required to obtain the name in this league–unfortunately, no ID cards are issued), he refused to give it to me (simply laughed and again mocked me). I strongly suggested he provide it unless he wanted to see a red card. After the game, and over the course of the next few days, I’ve become upset with myself for not issuing a red card during the match for his various acts of dissent, as well as for a lack of any signs of contrition (no apology by him, only by his captain). My question to you (I’m sure the answer is ‘no’): I know that one can ‘downgrade’ a card from red to yellow, but is there precedent for one to ‘upgrade’ a card from yellow to red? If so, please point me directly to the source (couldn’t find it on your or FIFA’s website), so that I can show the commissioner, as well as his captain. This guy needs to learn a lesson.

2) If a player like this shouts dissentful remarks while the ball is in play, I just want to make sure of where the restart is (near him or where the ball was when the whistle was blown) supposed to take place. Alternatively, shall I wait next time until play stops (out of bounds) until issuing a card? His words were so egregious that I stopped play immediately.

3) In a recent game, a goalkick was started with the FB passing wide to the GK. The GK became nervous with pressure by the opposing FW, and simply dribbled back to his box, where, once inside, he fell on the ball and used his hands. This incident isn’t your normal passback situation where it leads to an indirect free kick. My question: is such a play permissible, or should it also lead to an indirect free kick for the other team? Thank you.

USSF answer (July 1, 2008):
1) When a player clearly “uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures” toward the referee or any other participant in the game, that player is sent off. No cautions, and no ifs, ands, or buts. If the player will not give the referee his/her name, then the referee should get it from the captain. And no, once given, a send-off cannot be downgraded to a caution if the game has been restarted. Nor may a caution normally be changed to a send-off once the game has restarted. The referee must simply include all pertinent details in the match report.

2) If the referee stops play for misconduct while the ball is in play, the restart is an indirect free kick from the place where the offense occurred. In this case, where the player uses offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures.

3) This situation is indeed the classic offense of the goalkeeper playing the ball with his hands after it was kicked deliberately to him by a teammate. The restart is an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the goalkeeper played the ball with his hands (bearing in mind the requirements listed in Law 13 regarding indirect free kicks inside the goal area.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INFRINGEMENTS COMMITTED OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
The attacking team makes a long pass downfield. The ball is heading toward the goaline, just inside the penalty box. An attacker is sprinting downfield trying to get to the ball before it rolls out of bounds. A defender is giving chase as well.

The attacker is able to stop the ball right before it crosses the goalline, and the ball rolls backwards about a yard, sitting inside the penalty box, about halfway between the side of the goal box and penalty box.

However, the momentum of the sprint to the ball causes both players to leave the field of play by a few yards. The attacker is a bit more agile than the defender, and is able to change direction first.

However, prior to the re-entering the field, the defender turns, and grabs the attacker’s jersey, preventing him from getting to the ball and making a cross to an open player.

My very small, meager, and limited understanding of the Laws (I have no business earning a badge and suiting up in the yellow shirt on Saturdays) are that the action by the defender is classified as misconduct, as it occurred off the field of play. In all likelihood, the defender shall be cautioned for unsporting behavior for the blatent shirt pull. However, the only possible restart in this case is a dropped ball at the point where the ball (if outside the goalbox, moving it parallel if not) was when the misconduct occurred.

If my interpretation is correct, to put it mildly, this really sucks for the attacking team. Sure, the defender gets a caution, but for robbing the attacking team from having the ball in a prime location, the result is a dropped ball. That just seems to go against the spirit of fair play.

I would also hope the referee in this situation would double check with his AR who studiously sprinted down the sideline as well to make sure that tug on the shirt didn’t happen to conclude with any part of it occurring over a blade of grass on the outside edge of the goalline, inside the penalty box, where a penalty kick could be awarded.

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
Any infringement of the Laws committed while off the field by players who have left the field during the course of play must be punished by a caution for unsporting behavior or a send-off for violent conduct, as applicable to the action. The only restart permitted by the Laws of the Game is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when the infringement occurred (keeping in mind the special circumstances regarding restarts in the goal area).…