Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Impeding

SHIELDING VS IMPEDING

Posted on by

Question:
Corner Kick-shielding. During a recent U12 Girls game I was officiating, the blue team was awarded a corner kick. Blue player took the kick but miss hit the ball. The ball traveled forward about 6 feet towards the goal. The kicker, realizing that she could not kick the ball again since it would constitute a two touch violation, yelled at her teammate to come in and get the ball. The red team defender who was next to the blue teammate also ran towards the ball to try and gain control of it.

Question: Would it have been OK if the blue team player who kicked the ball ran between the red team player and ball to shield her from getting the ball (with the understanding that the ball would have been within playing distance of the blue team player who kicked it) and give the blue teammate of the kicker a better opportunity of getting the ball by swinging behind the two players?

If the kicker was not allowed to legally play the ball again immediately due to the two touch rule, can she still be involved in the play and shield the opposing player from getting the ball?

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
Shielding the ball does not establish or continue “possession” of the ball. The Blue player is technically unable to actually play the ball, because to do so would constitute the “second touch.” Being within “playing distance” should not be considered sufficient to allow the kicker to shield the ball – the ball must in fact also be playable by that player. In other words, the concept of “playing distance” must include being able to play the ball legally.

If the player can legally play the ball and the ball is within playing distance, the player may shield as a tactic to prevent an opponent from getting to the ball (provided, of course, that the shielding does not involve holding).  If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes “impeding the progress of an opponent” and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.…

"Inventive" Refs

THE REFEREE DID WHAT?! (CORRECTED)

Posted on by

Question:
In a high school varsity game played under USSF rules (as opposed to NHSF) the attacking team plays a ball that rolls into the penalty area and is picked up by the goalie. After the goalie has possession, a defender running with the attacker chasing the ball plays the body and bumps the attacker in a significant manner. The referee (I was the AR) gave the defender a caution for UB, and then allowed the goalie to punt to continue play.

We discussed after the game as to whether, after the caution, he should have awarded the attacking team a penalty kick, an indirect free kick from the spot of the contact, or whether letting the goalie punt was appropriate.

We’d appreciate your feedback.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
The correct course of action would have been to stop play for the foul by the defender, to caution the defender for unsporting behavior and restart with a penalty kick. However, in this case, the referee did not stop play and appears to have cautioned the defender “on the fly,” not something that is in accordance with the Laws of the Game. This shows either ignorance of the Law or willful disregard of the Law by the referee.…

"Inventive" Refs

DEFINITION OF “RELEASING THE BALL INTO PLAY”

Posted on by

Question:
The following event occurred in an under 17 boys classic game:
The keeper of Team A caught shot from team B and proceeded to jog to the top of the penalty area where he bounced the ball once before the impending punt. The bounce hit a sand spot and died in place, wherupon in a continuous motion the keeper scooped it up and punted it. The referee whistled and awarded and indirect free kick to Team B for “touching the ball a second time violation” which resulted in a goal being scored by Team B.

After the game, I questioned the referee about that call, and he stated that once the keeper lost possession of the ball, he could not pick it up again. I stated that the rule requires the keeper to release the ball from his possession which implies intent (except for dropping an air dribble), and that a bad bounce from a field defect does not end possession as long as the keeper’s play is continuous. I have seen the same with a mud spot or water puddle in the goal area and also a divot in the pitch that causes the ball to bounce badly.

USSF answer (September 20, 2011):
While the goalkeeper’s choice of a spot to bounce the ball was unfortunate, he did NOT relinquish possession of the ball by doing it and was perfectly within his rights to reclaim the ball in his hands. The goalkeeper is allowed to throw the ball in the air or bounce it on the ground and still retain possession of the ball. The referee was wrong to call the “second touch.” Naughty, naughty referee!…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PLAYER UNIFORMS

Posted on by

Question:
It appears that during the ‘regular’ season there are only a handful of referees that still require a player’s shirt to be tucked in at the beginning of the match. Virtually all matches at higher levels do not seem to worry at all about this. I feel almost alone in this area – why do we still require this if so many (the majority) don’t give it a second thought?

USSF answer (April 5, 2011):
In the past custom, tradition, and safety required that players keep their shirts tucked in and their socks pulled up and generally maintain a professional appearance. However, nowadays the uniforms are cut differently by the manufacturers and the jerseys are clearly meant to be worn outside the shorts. It is time for us referees catch up with modern fashion and learn to live with it.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

“IN THEIR OWN HALF OF THE FIELD”

Posted on by

Question:
At a kick-off, a player is straddling the halfway line (or, more dramatically, has one foot on the line and the other in the opponent’s half). Referee did not call an infringement or foul of any kind, trifling or otherwise.

My Background: Law 8 doesn’t say that a player can’t be in the opponent’s half, only that he must be in his own half. It seems to me that when the Laws say “outside”, they mean “completely outside, and not on, over, or above the line”. My interpretation of “inside” would be “any part of the head, torso, legs, or feet on, over, or above the line”.

I believe the referee’s decision was correct, but a colleague (a referee instructor) said that, for the purposes of Law 8, a player is not in his half if any part of him can be considered to be in the opponent’s half, thus any player having his head, torso, leg, or foot on, over, or above the line violates the Law, and the referee must either order the kick-off retaken or adjudicate the infraction as trifling and let play continue.

Question: At kick-off, is a player considered to have “gained the line” (to borrow an ice-hockey term) in the scenario above? More specifically, we both agreed that play should continue in the scenario, but disagreed as to whether it is a trifling infringement (ATR 5.5) or no offense.

USSF answer (September 15, 2011):
Yes, ALL players are expected to remain in their own half of the field until the ball is in play. Being in play means that the ball has been kicked and moved forward, even if that forward motion may be only slight. Custom seems to be a bit more laissez faire, with the player who is to receive the kick-off normally a short step or two into the other team’s half. Despite being counter to the Law, this is accepted practice throughout the world.

In most cases, the offense, if any, is TRIFLING, particularly when the teammate of the kicker is slightly or even mostly over the line by a step or so and this is the player who is going to “receive” the ball from the kick-off. However, a player who is more than a brief step or so over the halfway line should be instructed to return to his own side of the halfway line.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO LECTURES ON HOW TO PLAY!

Posted on by

Question:
This week in a U-10 girls’ match, the adult referee told the team before the match that it was, “okay to play with your elbows up as long as they did not go above your shoulder.” The end result was a match that mainly featured players keeping other players away from themselves (and the ball) with their arms bent / elbows up at shoulder height. It also featured players impeding other players’ progress with their arms bent / elbows up at shoulder height in order to maintain an advantageous position and not allow a player to get around them and make a play for the ball. My understanding has always been that the arms need to remain by the player’s side and cannot be used to shield or impede and that players can only be physical “shoulder to shoulder.” Your thoughts on this will be much appreciated.

USSF answer (September 14, 2011):
Coach, one of the things we tell both new and experienced referees is not to lecture players on how to play or on any other aspect of the game during the pregame activities. We referees have enough problems managing the game without also acting as coaches on the field. That is the job of the coach.

The arms should remain in a normal athletic position while playing soccer, used only to maintain balance or to aid in running faster. No elbows up, no pushing, no holding, no tripping.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

SPECTATOR DEFIES RULES OF COMPETITION

Posted on by

Question:
state association has a issued a memo stating that only players,and coaches on the roster may be in the bench area. situation a spectator places a seat between the players bench,and the goal line on the players side of the field before the match starts. This spectator is asked three times by center official to move,spectator refuses. spectator asks if he doesn’t move what will happen, official responds that they will be asked to leave. spectator responds that isn’t permissible,as it is in a public park. what is the rule?

USSF answer (September 14, 2011):
In a case like this, the referee should work through any league/tournament representative on site or, if none, through one or both coaches, with their incentive being that the match is suspended until the spectator leaves in compliance with the competition authority’s rules and the match will be terminated if compliance is not achieved within a reasonable period of time.…

Advice to Referees

ALLOW TRICK PLAY ON PENALTY KICK IN EXTENDED TIME? NO!

Posted on by

Question:
How far does “free kick” go in taking a PK in time extended solely to take the PK? In regulation time a team can legally have a choreographed play whereby the kicker taking the PK passes the ball forward to an oncoming, not encroaching teammate – who finishes with a shot on goal. Could this be done in time extended solely to take the PK, or is only a direct one-time shot on goal allowed?

USSF answer (September 8, 2011):
The PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF A MATCH OR HOME-AND-AWAY, listed at the end of the Laws of the Game, tell us, “Unless otherwise stated, the relevant Laws of the Game and International F.A. Board Decisions apply when kicks from the penalty mark are being taken.”

Penalty kicks, once awarded, are taken regardless of the amount of time remaining in the half. If time expires or will expire before the restart can occur, the referee should announce this fact and indicate clearly that the penalty kick is now being taken “in extended time.” This means that no player other than the kicker and the opposing goalkeeper may enter the penalty area before or after the kick is taken by the original kicker. Therefore, no trick play such as you theorize would be possible.

Even if the second player did break the Law and enter the penalty area illegally, this excerpt from Advice to Referees 14.8 would also apply:

At the taking of a penalty kick in extended time, violations of Law 14 are handled the same as if the kick were not in extended time but with the following exception: if the required restart after a violation would be an indirect free kick, the kick in extended time and the period of play are considered over.

…
"Inventive Coaches"

THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS

Posted on by

Question:
A team chooses to play a game with the minimum # of players, but have an injured player on the bench. The team then gets a red card putting them under the minimum requirement to play, however they elect to sub in the injured player to maintain the minimum requirements on the field because there is only a couple minutes left in the game–are they allowed to use that player to maintain the minimum and continue the game?

USSF answer (September 7, 2011):
Unless having had a player sent off actually created the situation, there is nothing in the Laws of the Game to forbid a team that has been playing under strength — for whatever strange reason — to augment its numbers to a greater (but still within the number established by Law 3 or the rules of the competition) by inserting a substitute already listed on the roster (if rosters are required in this competition), not as a replacement for the red carded player, but to augment an understrength team. The only problem in this scenario might be the ability of the “injured” substitute to play.…

"Inventive Coaches"

OFFSIDE? NO!

Posted on by

Question:
a free kick from 25 yards, all players onside just after ball is kicked defenders step out leaving 2 attackers inside keeper parries shot to one of them he slots home? goal or offside….?

USSF answer August 28, 2011):
Score the goal. The key to the answer lies in two words in your scenario, “just after.” Because the two attackers were not in an offside position when their teammate played the ball, they cannot possibly be called offside.…