OFFSIDE OR IMPEDING?

March 12, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
This occurred in a U13B game today.

Forward is lined up, even with the 18, but outside of the penalty area, a step offside, with a defender next to him. Through ball is passed beyond both of them. They both run for the ball. As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first.

Defender establishes position between the forward and the ball, and attempts to shield the ball over the goal line for a goal kick.

As they both move toward the goal line, following the ball, the center decides the defender is not within playing distance of the ball, whistles, and calls obstruction, awarding an indirect to the attacking team.

But doesn’t awarding obstruction imply the forward would have played the ball, or at a minimum interfered with play, which means he was offside?

USSF answer (March 12, 2011):
Unless we are misreading your question, the referee’s decision would seem to have been incorrect. We recommend for your (and the referee’s) reading this excerpt from the Advice to Referees (2010/2011):

11.4 INTERFERING WITH AN OPPONENT
“Interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. Interference can also include active physical or verbal distraction of the goalkeeper by an opponent as well as blocking the view of the goalkeeper.

A player who is in an offside position when the ball is played toward him by a teammate and who attracts the attention of an opponent, drawing that opponent into pursuit, is guilty of interfering with an opponent.

Referees are reminded that the reference to “playing or touching the ball” (see Advice 11.5 below) does not mean that an offside infringement cannot be called until an attacker in an offside position actually touches the ball. Please note: Here and elsewhere in the guidance for offside, “play,” “touch,” and “make contact with” are used interchangeably (as they are in the Laws of the Game and its Instructions). However, these terms are interchangeable only for the attackers. For the defenders, merely touching the ball is not sufficient in the context of an offside decision — they must actually play (possess and control) the ball, meaning that for them there is indeed a meaningful distinction between “touch” and “play.”

“Touching the ball” is not a requirement for calling an offside infringement if the attacker is interfering with an opponent by making a movement or gesture which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts that opponent.

According to the IFAB Circular of August 17, 2005: “A player in an offside position may be penalized before playing or touching the ball if, in the opinion of the referee, no other teammate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.” Further, “If an opponent becomes involved in the play and if, in the opinion of the referee, there is potential for physical contact, the player in the offside position shall be penalized for interfering with an opponent.” In addition, referees must remember that the indirect free kick restart for an offside offense is taken “from the initial place where the player was adjudged to be in an offside position.

Therefore, the referee should have called the player in the offside position offside at the moment the defender was distracted by his movement and moved to protect the ball. The indirect free kick would be taken from the place where the forward was when the ball was played by his teammate.

In addition, we must also point out that your reaction—”As the AR, I am thinking, forward is offside, but lets see who gets to the ball first”—was the entirely wrong action to take. In these circumstances, it doesn’t matter who gets to the ball first; that reasoning would be used only when the race is between an offside position attacker and another attacker who started from an onside position. The very fact that the attacker’s action caused a defender to race with him to the ball is sufficient to stop, square, and raise the flag for what would eventually be an offside signal. What happened afterward (the alleged “obstruction”) was not the offense.…

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO-F, DOGSO-H, DOGSO IN GENERAL

March 2, 2011March 2, 2011 by Jim Allen

Clarification of why certain situations do not meet the requirements (March 2, 2011):
Several questions have come in recently dealing with obvious goalscoring opportunities (OGSO) and we have replied based on the specific wording of each question. See entries of January 19, 2011 (DOGSO: THE DEBATE ON DG-F IS OVER!), and February 22, 2011 (DOGSO-F). It appears that some readers may have been confused by our replies (and in some cases, thought our answers were incorrect in any event). These scenarios have been discussed extensively and the following represents the single, condensed, and official response.

Scenario 1: Red takes a free kick from outside his own penalty area and inadvertently plays the ball toward the goal. The Red goalkeeper, to prevent a goal, stops it with his hands.

This cannot be an obvious goalscoring opportunity because a goal cannot be scored directly against the kicker’s own team on any free kick. The goalkeeper has committed an indirect free kick foul but there cannot be a red card send-off for the goalkeeper’s action based on this scenario.

Scenario 2: The Red goalkeeper punts the ball but the ball deflects from the referee and is heading back into the Red goal. To prevent this, the goalkeeper stops the ball with his hands.

Although a goal could be scored directly from the punt and the goalkeeper’s action did prevent a goal, it is again the case that a red card cannot be given in the scenario. First of all, the goalkeeper’s action involved handling — but not a handling offense — and handling by the goalkeeper is specifically exempted if it occurs within his team’s penalty area. Second, what about the argument that the “second touch” offense by the goalkeeper is punishable by a free kick? Doesn’t this come under the fifth send-off offense? The clear and unequivocal answer is, no. Denying a goal or goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick requires that the offense be committed against an attacker (in the language of the Laws of the Game: “an opponent moving towards the player’s goal ….”) Go back to the 4 Ds which we use to evaluate an OGSO: do any of them apply? The only one that could be considered relevant is “number of defenders” but the other three cannot be applied.

Distance to the ball? Whose distance? The attacker who was fouled … but there was no attacker who was fouled. Distance to the goal? Not applicable because there was no foul. What was the “direction of play” (not the direction of the ball)? Was the opponent who was fouled moving towards the goal? There was no opponent who was fouled.

In short, there can be no OGSO for either DG-F or DG-H if (a) the offense in question directly follows a restart performed by a player on the team which committed the offense or if (b) the offense was not committed against an opponent. The offense may result in a red card for other reasons but not for denying or interfering with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

OUTSIDE AGENTS

March 1, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
During a GU-14 game, two players from opposing teams collide and fall to the ground. One player gets up and walks away; the other player remains seated on the ground crying, but otherwise exhibiting no other outward signs of injury. As the referee approaches the crying player, a spectator rushes onto the field and runs towards the crying player. After assessing the situation and determining that the player is not injured, merely winded, the referee proceeds to admonish the spectator for rushing onto the field. The spectator hurls expletives at the referee and yells “that is my daughter, you can’t tell me what the f*** to do.” How should the referee handle this situation?

USSF answer March 1 2011):
This is inexcusable behavior at the U14 level, especially for a parent. The entry into the field without permission might be excusable—but only barely—at the U9 level or younger, but beyond that there is absolutely no excuse for such interference by a spectator. You have already stopped the match. If the spectator does not leave the field when you request it, first go to the coach and inform him/her that if the spectator does not leave the field you will abandon the match and let the league sort out the matter. Include full details in the match report. In no case are you required to accept language of this sort at any level or from any person.…

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO-F

February 22, 2011February 23, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have a question about some wording in the ATR guide. We have a local facebook group where one of the guys posted this scenario:

A defender is taking a free kick outside of the penalty area and passes the ball back to where he thinks the goalkeeper is. The goalkeeper, in actuality isn’t there and now the ball is rolling towards an empty net. The defender realizes an attacker is charging at the ball with intent to score. Just before the attacker reaches the ball to shoot it in, the defender slides in a taps the ball away with his foot. The second touch by the defender is an infringement resulting in an IFK — Should it also be DOGSO-F? Should the defender be sent off?

In the ATR 12:37, it says a DOGSO when a player or substitute “(b) denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick”.

Is a second touch considered an offence or infringement? If it’s not a DOGSO, then perhaps the wording needs to be changed in the ATR so that this statement can’t be taken out of context.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
Please remember that the acronym DOGSO-F does not exist in the Laws of the Game. It is simply a device to aid the referee’s memory. In accordance with Law 12, sending-off offense 5, a player, substitute or substituted player may be sent off if he commits any offense “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.” The F in the acronym stands for “free kick or penalty kick,” not “foul.”

Is the second touch an infringement punishable by an indirect free kick for the opposing team? Yes, it is. May the defender be sent off for this infringement in the scenario you present? No, because there is no obvious goalscoring opportunity (as the ball going into the goal directly would result in a corner kick for the opposing team) and thus no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied.

There is no need to revise the Advice in this regard.

Further clarification:
Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the express language of Law 12 requires that the offense be committed against an opponent who is moving toward the offender’s goal at the time of the offense. The offense which is central to this scenario was not committed against any opponent, much less one moving toward the player’s goal at the time. The language of Law 12 is very clear—we assume purposely—about separating out two different reasons for sending a defender off for a so-called tactical or “professional” foul: one is handling, which is not committed against any opponent but against the Spirit of the Game, and the second is any other kind of foul which IS committed against a specific opponent. One cannot help but conclude from this that a foul or misconduct, regardless of the circumstances, which is not committed against an opponent and which is not handling is therefore not a sending-off offense under Law 12 (at least not under reasons #4 or #5. If it was a tactical foul (which this was not) and was the offender’s second caution, then there would be a send-off, just not under sending-off reasons #4 or #5.

Nor is sending-off reason #4 at issue, because it is limited solely to a handling offense, not just touching the ball (which might include a second touch offense).…

"Inventive" Refs

MISUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE

February 22, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
situation: a forward was supposedly fouled outside the box but the ref played the advantage & allowed the forward to play on.

the fouled player maintained the ball & took an unimpeded shot on goal. he missed. the ref then called the ball back to where he said the foul occurred for a direct free kick. should the ref have called it back after he let the team play on til he shot on goal? the ref only made the call to bring the ball back after the player missed his shot.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
The referee cannot guarantee that a goal will be scored when he or she invokes the advantage. If this player had an unimpeded shot on goal, then the advantage has been fulfilled and the referee MUST NOT go back to the foul. Life is hard; shoot better next time.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

HELP IN RETRIEVING THE BALL OUT OF PLAY

February 5, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
What limits, if any, apply to participation of outside agents in retrieving a ball that has left the field of play and/or expediting the process of returning the ball to play?

Example: In a U-19 boys game the red goalkeeper collects the ball near the top of his own penalty area and kicks it high and long toward the blue goal. After the ball has been kicked, Red players R1, R2 and R3 streak across the halfway line into the blue half, hoping to collect the ball. They run past B1, the lone Blue defender (other than the keeper) in the Blue half. B1 manages to settle the kick from the red keeper, then kicks it sharply toward the touch line where the Blue substitutes, team officials and spectators are standing. B1’s intent is to give his teammates time to return to the defensive end while the Red team retrieves the ball and executes the throw-in. However, an outside agent (substitute, team official or spectator) catches the ball on the fly about 10 feet outside the touch line and chest-passes it briskly to R4 who has just left the field where the ball went into touch. R4 receives the ball and immediately executes a strong throw-in toward R1/2/3 who manage to score. What should the referee do?

Related question: Under what circumstances, if any, can/should an AR arrest a ball that has passed into touch in his immediate vicinity?

USSF answer (February 5, 2011):
Given the particular questions you ask, the answers are:
1. There are no limits unless the “helpers” are not helping expedite the restart. If the “helpers” are delaying the restart, the referee must step in and put an end to it. (Remember no cards may be shown to coaches or spectators unless the rules of the competition allow for that.) The referee must also add any time lost because of the delay.

2. Unless the ball is about to fall into the clutches of greedy alligators or disappear into a wormhole, there is no reason for the AR to touch the ball in any way. Seriously, the AR should act only if needed to protect himself from being struck. It is almost instinctive (particularly if the AR is a former or current player) to want to stop the ball in an effort to be “helpful,” but this is a misplaced act of good will,because in doing so the AR has actually helped the team with the throw-in to restart more quickly that might have otherwise been the case. And if the AR fails to do the same thing for the other team at any time for any reason, they may think the AR is favoring their opponents. Furthermore, stopping the ball draws attention away from the AR’s main, Law-mandated responsibilities.…

Law 16 - Goal Kick

PLACEMENT OF THE BALL AT A GOAL KICK

January 26, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a player puts the ball down for a goal kick and then moves it to the other side of the goal area is it a IDFK or just a warning and a possible caution for delay of the game?

USSF answer (January 26, 2011):
Unfortunately, we cannot lay our hands on a particular document, but the general rule is that If, upon being awarded a goal kick, the defending team blatantly wastes time by placing the ball within the goal area for the restart and then subsequently moves it unnecessarily to another location within the goal area, this act can be deemed as timewasting.

The option of placing the ball anywhere in the goal area was intended to speed up play. Given that guideline and goal, the only factor then is to avoid undue delay or timewasting. If moving the ball after being placed is not permitted, what should the referee do?

As with most questions of this nature, the only correct answer involves how the referee interprets the action and how he or she uses common sense and. If there were a real, worldwide problem in this area, the IFAB would include the answer as a Decision under Law 16. Here is a clear and simple rule: Moving the ball around like that is wasting time, pure and simple. Unless the movement is blatantly outrageous and used in the closing seconds of a tight game by the goalkeeper or other player of the team in the lead, the referee should warn first and, on repetition, caution the guilty player.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PLAY OR GONE, THAT IS THE QUESTION

January 26, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A Match is a few mins into the second half when you realize that the teams did not change ends at half time.

I know that you would have to restart the second half again and nullify EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING which happened in the time which was played.

This raises a further question: What would happen if you sent somebody off in this now nullified time?

I say you would have to allow them back on.

This question was asked at a Referees Seminar in [another country[ last year and the organizers were dubious of my answer.

USSF answer (January 26, 2011):
Without having full details of what occurred in the match, and knowing full well that there is nothing in the Laws of the Game to cover this situation, our opinion (and it is no more than an opinion) would be to stop play as quickly as possible, have the teams switch ends of the field, and restart with a dropped ball where the ball was (but with this location determined by the reversed polarity of the field — i. e., if 3 yards past the midfield line into the Blue end of the field, drop the ball 3 yards past the midfield line into the NEW Blue end of the field). Allow all earlier actions to stand, regardless of what they were, and then provide full details and a “ea maxima culpa” in the match report. There is no basis in the Laws to restart the half anew; doing so would imply that the actions occurring since the original start of the second half did not occur and the culprit would thus escape without punishment.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

BOTH REF AND GOALKEEPER MUST LIVE WITH THE DECISION

January 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was refereeing a game when a player strayed offside, AR had the flag up, the ball went into the hands of the keeper, i yelled “come on guys”, i waved for the AR to take his flag down, goalkeeper rolls the ball about 2 feet away from himself and walks back do make a run-up, when the opposing team’s attacker comes and kicks the ball into the goal. I allow the goal, but the AR stays where he is. The defending team’s players ran towards me yelling, and after conferring with my AR i allow the goal. Was this correct by me?

USSF answer (January 19, 2011):
By the time the matter of offside came up (as a protest by the likely offending team), you had already decided that the goalkeeper had established possession. When the goalkeeper put the ball down, all bets were off. The Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players. Life is hard, score the goal.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELIBERATELY HANDING THE BALL TO STOP A GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

January 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
What is the difference between denying a goal and denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity in the deliberate handling sending off offence.

Where a player including the goalkeeper deliberately handles the ball which denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity outside the penalty area is that player sent off for DOGSO H or for DOGSO F.

The reason I ask is that the USSF opinion is that the 4Ds does not apply to DOGSO H and the ball must be destined for the goal for DOGSO H to apply suggests to some that deliberate handling is not a sending off offence unless it stops a ball entering the goal, which is plainly not the case. Perhaps that might be explained more clearly.

USSF answer (January 19, 2011):
First, a clear policy statement: The U. S. Soccer Federation cannot and does not presume to speak for other national associations when providing guidelines on how various statements in the Laws are to be interpreted and implemented. That said, the Federation does follow to the letter what the Laws say regarding matters bearing on obvious goalscoring opportunities (OGSO) and also follows the guidance provided by the IFAB and FIFA on that topic.

Just to keep it straight, here is what Law 12 says about the OGSO offenses:

Sending-off offenses
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:
//deleted//
• denying 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)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
//deleted//

Second, a cautionary note regarding acronyms, which are mere conveniences and not always entirely descriptive of what is being discussed. The acronyms DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H are used primarily as shorthand when filling out the referee’s match report. DOGSO-H means just that, “denying 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).” However, DOGSO-F is somewhat more complicated, as it includes not merely denying an OGSO by a foul, but also by ANY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A FREE KICK OR A PENALTY KICK. That includes misconduct.

The reason the Federation says (and has always said, from the very first introduction of the OGSO concept when the two new reasons for a send-off were created by the International Board) that the “4 Ds” do not apply to send-off offense #5 (DG-H) is because (a) USSF created the 4 Ds specifically for DG-F, (b) the requirement that all four Ds had to be present before a red card for DG-F could be given simply cannot be applied to a handling offense, and (c) the “D” represented by “Distance to ball” was completely inapplicable.

In attempting to decide if it were highly probable that a ball would have gone into the net if the handling had not interfered with the movement of the ball, the referee must juggle, weigh, and balance a number of factors, including SOME of the Ds, but not in so absolute a way as they are used in evaluating a DG-F situation. For example, one D involves the number of defenders and, for a DG-F situation, the Federation has said that this D cannot be rated as a “yes” if there is more than one defender between the foul and the goal (not counting the defender who committed the offense). In a DG-H situation, it is not so ironclad. In a DG-F situation, the D involving direction of play is only one of four factors but, in a DG-H situation, the direction, force, and speed of the ball are arguably the most important of the factors to be considered. For example, a ball played forward by several yards might lead to a decision that the D for direction of play (and distance to the ball) is present, but this would not be the case in a handling situation where, if, in the opinion of the referee, the handled ball either was already or would have stopped far short of the goal, a DG-H red card cannot be given.

We are concerned about how you arrived at your statement “that deliberate handling is not a sending off offence unless it stops a ball entering the goal, which is plainly not the case.” We would argue that it is in fact plainly the case. Handling the ball is not a direct sending-off offense unless, in the opinion of the referee, but for the handling the ball would have gone into the net. This is clearly a judgment, but it is a judgment grounded on analyzing a number of variables — which happen to include such matters as how close to the goal the handling occurred, how many defenders there were between the site of the handling and the goal, and the direction/speed/force the ball was taking at the time the handling occurred. The fact that these variables resemble three of the four “Ds” involved in DG-F (denying an OGSO by foul/misconduct) is not accidental. The judgment to be reached here does not have to be one of “certainty” but, rather, one of “high probability” based on the referee’s experience and reading of the variables.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.…