DOGSO: THE DEBATE ON DG-F IS OVER!

January 19, 2011January 19, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
A DOGSO question that has been subject to some vigorous debate: “[O]ffence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” in the context of DOGSO-F clearly includes both IFK and DFK offences listed in Law 12 (except for the goalkeeper IFK handling offences).

Does it also include “infringements” of Laws other than Law 12? For example, if a defender takes a free kick outside of the penalty area passes the ball back to where he thinks his goalkeeper is, but the goalkeeper is not there and the ball is rolling towards an empty net;

The defender realizes an attacker is charging towards the ball; just before the attacker reaches the ball to shoot it into the empty net, the defender taps the ball away with his foot. The second touch by the defender is an infringement of Law 13 resulting in an indirect free kick — can it also be DOGSO?

USSF answer (January 19, 2011):
Law 12 is clear on the matter. A player, [etc.], is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:

//clipped//
• 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
//rest clipped//

And Law 13 tells us:

Free kick taken by a player other than the goalkeeper
If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again (except with his hands) before it has touched another player:
• an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team, the kick to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick)

In the scenario you present, an offense punishable by a free kick, which may or may not have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity (OGSO), has been committed by the defender. To be certain that the offense has denied the OGSO, the referee must apply the 4 Ds, as spelled out in the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
In order for a player or substitute to be sent off for denying an “obvious goalscoring opportunity by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” (number 5 under the seven send-off offenses), four elements must be present:
* Number of Defenders-not more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul
* Distance to goal-the closer the foul is to the goal, the more likely it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity
* Distance to ball-the attacker must have been close enough to the ball at the time of the foul to continue playing the ball
* Direction of play-the attacker must have been moving toward the goal at the time the foul was committed
If any element is missing, there can be no send off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Further, the presence of each of these elements must be “obvious” in order for the send-off to be appropriate under this provision of Law 12

Just to make it absolutely clear, and to put an end to any further debate: If, in the opinion of the referee, all four of the “Ds” are present, then an obvious goalscoring opportunity has been interfered with and the defender who has committed a second-touch violation should be sent off for DG-F. The real question is, why would he NOT be sent off? What he did was an offense, punishable by a free-kick restart, and all four Ds were determined to be present by the referee. All free kicks are created equal as far as DG-F is concerned.…

Guide to Procedures

CORRECTING AN ERRONEOUS RESTART

January 18, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
The ball kicked by the attacking team over the defending team goal line for a goal kick the referee thought went of the defending team and award CK for the attacking team and they score of the CK than the referee saw the AR standing behind the Corner flag went to talk to him the AR advice the referee he gave the wrong restart, at this point can the referee disallowed the goal and award GK to the defending team?

thank you

USSF answer (January 18, 2011):
Rather than answering your question directly, let us consider some alternatives.

Ordinarily, the referee can correct a mistake in giving the restart to the wrong team (as, for example, might be the case if the referee announced a free kick for the Blue team but then realized, just as the Blue team is kicking the ball, that the free kick should really have been given to the Red team). The argument in favor of this correction even though someone had already taken the kick is that (a) the language in Law 5 that a decision cannot be changed once play has been restarted was historically intended to apply specifically to goals and cards becoming official and unchangeable, (b) the restart was actually illegal because (although the referee announced “Blue”) the referee’s intention was that Red be given the restart and it is the referee’s intention that counts, and (c) making the correction is clearly fair.

However, in this regard there are several additional factors that must be considered.

One is that considerably more time passed before the mistake was realized.

If the referee in this case had seen the AR’s signal and realized his error just before or as the corner kick was being taken and had whistled a stoppage, the decision to correct the corner kick to a goal kick would have been much easier to “sell” (it would not have mattered whether the ball went into the net or not). Furthermore, in this case (as described), it was not the referee who initially realized his mistake in awarding the wrong restart, it was the AR and it took a discussion between the referee and the AR to sort the matter out.

In order to “sell” a decision to recall, cancel, and retake a restart because the referee made a mistake in giving it to the wrong team, the action must have been taken quickly and it must have been on the referee’s own initiative. With so much time having elapsed and with the resolution having required consultations with one or both ARs (or fourth official), the correction to a goal kick might in fact raise more of a controversy than simply letting the corner kick stand. You would have to “take the temperature” of the match in order to decide to make the correction. The apparent scoring of a goal on that apparently incorrect corner kick adds complexity to the issue — allowing the corner kick to stand means necessarily allowing the goal to stand and that might be too significant a punishment for a team to suffer for the referee’s error.

All of this, of course, would have been avoided if the referee had been vigilant in maintaining eye contact with the AR in the first place. The error would have been corrected before the incorrect restart had even occurred or, at worst, the intention to correct would have been announced before the ball went into the net.…

"Inventive Coaches"

PLAYER POSITIONS AT RESTARTS

January 13, 2011 by Jim Allen

Question:
On a corner kick, may offensive players start from a position inside the goal (beyond the goal line) and then run out (in front of the keeper or to other positions) as the ball is being kicked?

I recently saw this employed, where one offensive player began inside the goal, then ran out in front of the keeper as the ball was being kicked.

USSF answer (January 13, 2011):
Other than those putting the ball back into play, players are required to remain on the field of play. So no, the tactic you describe is not permitted.…

"Only in America!"

SEND-OFF FOR HIGH SCHOOL CELEBRATION?

December 27, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
I n high school, if a player scores a goal and then celebrates by a dance or something to bring attention. Should the player be shown a red or is it possible to show a straight soft red?

USSF answer (December 27, 2010:
We do not do high school rules here; however, going to straight red of any sort—the real world does not have “soft” cards—seems a bit harsh.

According to NFHS rules (12-8.2.a), a player is given what is often referred to in HS play as a “soft red” (i. e., red+yellow together, sent off but can be replaced) for “any delayed, excessive or prolonged act(s) by which a player(s) attempts to focus attention upon himself/herself and/or prohibits a timely restart of the game.” Arguably, “a dance or something to bring attention” could be considered covered by this language. We say “arguably” with some reason, as nowhere else in the world is there any such thing as a “soft” card of any color. And a so-called “straight red” in such a situation would not be supported by the NFHS rules.…

"Only in America!"

WHAT IS “JEWELLERY”?

December 15, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
I could use some clarification on the FIFA definition of jewellery.

It is my interpretation of law 4 that “jewellery” has no firm definition, but, as a referee, I would defer primarily to the safety of the player’s equipment to determine the wearing of accessories. This is obviously not worth arguing about, but several of my players were reprimanded today for starting the game with string bracelets around their wrists.

It would be a big stretch to see these as potentially harmful to a player or opponent, but the referee today was adamant that such string bracelets are universally understood to be “jewellery.”

I ask this primarily as a referee, not a coach, because I want to know how FIFA would prefer this rule be interpreted.

Any help is greatly appreciated,

USSF answer (December 15, 2010):
There is no “FIFA” definition of anything in the Laws. The definitions are all made by the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the people who make the Laws, of which FIFA is a member. And they do not define jewelry for the simple reason that jewelry is jewelry, a decorative (usually) piece of adornment worn to enhance one’s beauty or to plug some product or cause. All jewelry is prohibited by the IFAB in Law 4, no matter what its appearance may be. Jewelry in any form is dangerous, which is why the IFAB has prohibited it; players’ hair or fingers may be caught and severely injured.

Jewelry includes (but is not limited to) “team spirit” strings; beads of any sort (worn in hair or on strings or leather, etc.); any adornment (including watches) worn on the wrist; rings with crowns or projections; adornment worn along the upper or lower arm; earrings of any sort (including “starter” earrings)l tongue studs; any visible body piercing; rubber, leather, plastic or other “bands” worn in reference to some sort of cause,

The only jewelry that is permitted in the United States is (a) medicalert jewelry for the purpose of aiding emergency medical personnel in treating injured players and (b) certain religious items that are not dangerous, are required by the religion to be worn, and not likely to provide the player with an unfair advantage (and even for the religious items, the player must have permission from the competition to wear it).

In short: No jewelry (or the wearing of any adornment of any sort) is allowed.…

"Inventive" Refs

FIELD OWNERS RULE!

December 13, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
A local school district recently installed artificial turf fields and they are used on weekends by the youth league. There are signs at the fields that say that metal cleats may not be worn on these fields.

Since well maintained metal cleats are not a danger to the players and are therefore permitted under the LOTG, several referees have asked if they are required to enforce the ban or if it is up to the home club to take care of it.

If a player shows up with safe metal cleats can the referee prevent him from playing?

Thanks for your help.

USSF answer (December 13, 2010):
This is one situation in which the referee has no choice about enforcement: If the field owner says no metal cleats, then the referee must enforce this requirement, which carries the same weight and authority as a rule of the competition. Otherwise the league might lose the use of these fields, and whose fault would that be if not the referee’s?…

"Only in America!"

REFEREE SYSTEM FOR “SCRIMMAGES”

December 6, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
My referee association recently requested referees for three scrimmage games this coming Sunday for U15/16B games. The assignor stated, “Duals requested for each game ….” I replied that I didn’t think we were allowed to officiate USSF games using a dual system. The reply I received was, “Scrimmages are allowed”. So my question is, can we use a dual system for “scrimmages”? Thanks for your assistance on this.

USSF answer (December 6, 2010):
As scrimmages, games between these teams could not be sanctioned by the Federation, even though all the teams and players are (theoretically) affiliated with US Youth Soccer. Because the games are not sanctioned, the referee may not be covered by USSF liability insurance, and that is a point that should be considered by every referee who is asked to officiate a non-affiliated game.

This is a matter to be decided by your state referee committee and perhaps even higher authority.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE “AFTER” A GOAL IS SCORED?

November 20, 2010November 20, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
Offside “after” a goal is scored? I know, strange title. Here is the scenario. Player A takes a shot on goal while Player B is in an offside position. The ball is on frame and appears to enter the goal and completely cross the goal-line when Player B heads the ball the rest of the way into the back of the net.

Goalkeeper nor any defenders reacted in any way to Player B so it appears that he did not affect the play. Since a goal was already scored when player B played the ball, is offside called?

In this case, Player A and B have names: Christiano Ronaldo and Nani.
You can see a clip of the play here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvzPFEIJyoY

USSF answer (November 20 2010):
We cannot debate the results of a referee’s decision-making process at this level. That is a matter to be resolved between the referee and his/her match inspector.

No matter how it may look to us or the players, a goal is not scored until the referee says it is scored. There was a similar occurrence earlier this year at the World Cup, when the ball kicked by Frank Lampard of England clearly bounced well inside the goal and was then swept out by the German goalkeeper. We all know it was a goal, but if the referee disagrees, life is hard.

With those conditions stipulated, we can say with a high degree of assurance that, if the contact with the ball is not made until after the ball has entirely crossed the goal line into the net and if there is no issue of interfering with an opponent prior to the ball entering the net, there cannot be an offside violation. In short, there is no offside violation after a goal is scored.…

"Inventive Instructors"

CONFLICTING VERBIAGE IN DIRECTIVE AND ADVICE ON DELIBERATE HANDLING?

November 19, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
I am concerned about teaching referees correctly, in accordance with the USSF’s current thinking, about Law 12 “Handles the ball Deliberately”. We have taught in the past that “gaining an advantage” from a ball that has hit the hand or arm makes no difference if the referee judged it wasn’t deliberate. And in fact the 2010 ATR (12.9) states that “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement…. NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.”

The Directives that came out in 2009 list as #3 Did the Player Benefit? I have taken this to refer for the first two points (1) “Making yourself Bigger” and (2) “Is the Arm or hand in an unnatural position”, and if the referee’s opinion was that it was not deliberate it did not matter if the player gained and advantage or benefit from the ball hitting his hand.

At a State Cup game the SYRA and I got into a discussion after a coach was told that advantage had no part in determining a handling call, he stated that now because of the 2009 Directive The player gaining a benefit should be whistled for handling. He has been in conferences and meetings that I have not so I wanted to be sure of the correct instructions (interpretations) that need to be taught to the referees.

USSF answer (November 19, 2010):
Despite superficial appearances to the contrary, we see no actual conflict between what is stated in the directive and what is said in the Advice to Referees. The third criterion in the Directive of February 2, 2009, Handling the Ball, is actually clear. However, the mention in that directive of “advantage” has absolutely nothing to do with the advantage we are familiar with from Law 5.

Criterion 3:

3. Did the player “benefit”?
In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offence has been committed.

The directive is speaking of a tactical advantage for the handling player, not the advantage invoked by the referee. It is similar in that way to the “gaining an advantage” referred to in Law 11 (Offside). In this sense, the directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The criterion at issue here is a way of coming to terms with the word “deliberate” as applied to the handling foul. All other things being equal, we are far less likely to consider an act to be deliberate if we cannot divine any reason for it happening. If the hand makes contact with the ball and there does not appear to be any purpose served by the contact, it is more likely accidental than deliberate — even if it drops kindly. The absence of a purpose, of course, doesn’t mean there wasn’t one — only that we cannot discern it. Where there is a discernible reason, and the contact achieves that reason, then we should be far more likely to suspect its innocence.

The directive does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled deliberately or not. The directive states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling-the-ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence of criterion 3 is key: “In considering all the ‘signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball, the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence that the handling of the ball was deliberate. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria, then additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.…

"Inventive Coaches"

PROTEST OVER REFEREE DECISION TO HOLD UP A RESTART

November 16, 2010 by Jim Allen

Question:
Referee decides goalkeeper has committed the offense of touching ball with hands, after ball was deliberately kicked to her by a teammate. Referee signals for IFK inside GK’s penalty area, approx 10 yards from goal. Before attacking team has time to take IFK, referee tells both teams that restart will be ceremonial (on whistle).

Reason for ref’s decision to make the restart ceremonial is not obvious, and not clearly communicated by referee. Possible reason is that the referee decided to consult with lead AR, to get AR’s input regarding the offense. Attacking team is upset that referee took away quick kick opportunity, protests the game to the competition authority for that reason. Questions: (1) Does the referee need to have a specific reason, for requiring a restart to be ceremonial (taking away quick kick opportunity)? (2) Would consulting with an AR regarding the offense be a sufficient reason? (3) Could the ref’s taking away of the quick kick opportunity be considered a misapplication of the Laws, and a legitimate basis for requiring the game to be replayed?

Note: I’m an experienced referee, quite familiar with the ATR. I’ve looked, haven’t been able to find a source that gives me a clear definitive answer regarding this scenario. Hoping to provide some helpful input and guidance to a protest committee which must decide what to do about the protest. Thanks!

USSF answer (November 16, 2010):
Law 5 is the authority here. See below:

Decisions of the Referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.
The referee may only change a decision on realizing that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.