Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Interpretations/IFAB

FEINTING AT PENALTY KICKS

Posted on by

Question:
I am reading many of your archives with much delight; I came across one in particular (Infringement by Kicker at Penalty Kick – Feb. 2010). You indicated that feinting of penalty kicks was going to be a topic of discussion at the IFAB meeting in March, 2010. I am curious, was there any further clarification or changes that came out of this meeting?

USSF answer (June 10, 2010):
Yes, there was further clarification, with good news for referees and bad news for crafty players. Here’s a quote from the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (in the back of the Law book):

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
Procedure
Feinting at the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behavior for which the player must be cautioned.

And see this text in the Memorandum on Law Changes 2010 published by USSF:

USSF Advice to Referees: Players may feint during the run to the ball (so long as this does not involve, in the opinion of the referee, excessive changes in direction or similar delays in the taking of the kick) but feinting actions once the run to the ball is complete are now to be considered a violation of Law 14 by the kicker. This would include clearly stopping and waiting for a reaction by the goalkeeper before taking the kick or any similar clear hesitation after the run to the ball is complete and before kicking the ball into play. In other words, once the kicker has reached the ball, the kick must be taken without hesitation or delay. In most cases, the referee should allow the kick to proceed and then decide on the appropriate action to take based on the outcome of the kick: if the ball went into the net, the goal is canceled and the kick retaken; if the ball did not go into the net, an indirect free kick is given to the opposing team where the violation occurred. In either case, before play is restarted, the kicker must be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CARELESS, RECKLESS, EXCESSIVE FORCE VS. ACCIDENTAL

Posted on by

Question:
The Laws define the terms “careless, reckless and with
excessive force” for penal offenses:

1. Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent.
2. Trips or attempts to trip an opponent.
3. Jumps at an opponent.
4. Charges an opponent.
5. Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent:
6. Pushes an opponent
7. Tackles an opponent.

This makes it much easier for Referees to gauge the respective punishment when the force reaches a certain level. However, is it possible to do any of the above without a foul actually being called since it was neither careless, reckless, nor with excessive force?

A defender and attacker are running full speed, side-by-side shoulder-to-shoulder and stride-for-stride. The defender makes a cut and to make the cut he extends his leg outside his normal gait. The attacker’s leg clips the defender’s leg and the attacker goes down like a sack of potatoes. There is nothing to be considered careless, reckless or with excessive force. The referee considers the tripping to be unintentional and accidental and allows play to continue. But who on the field is going to accept that when the defender wins the ball? The attacking team is going to be irate and the defending team is going to think that they got away with one. The offense is “Trips or attempts to trip an opponent”. A trip is a trip, intentional or not. Should the referee call a tripping foul? Or does the brave referee make the non-call with the comfort in knowing that he’s the only one on the field that knows he’s right?

USSF answer (June 10, 2010):
You might wish to search through the archives to find this answer (only an excerpt given here) of April 15, 2010. It should answer all your questions on this matter.

12.3 CARELESS, RECKLESS, INVOLVING EXCESSIVE FORCE
“Careless” indicates that the player has not exercised due caution in making a play.

“Reckless” means that the player has made unnatural movements designed to intimidate an opponent or to gain an unfair advantage.

“Involving excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the use of force necessary to make a fair play for the ball and has placed the opponent in considerable danger of bodily harm.

If the foul was careless, simply a miscalculation of strength or a stretch of judgment by the player who committed it, then it is a normal foul, requiring only a direct free kick (and possibly a stern talking-to). If the foul was reckless, clearly outside the norm for fair play, then the referee must award the direct free kick and also caution the player for unsporting behavior, showing the yellow card. If the foul involved the use of excessive force, totally beyond the bounds of normal play, then the referee must send off the player for serious foul play or violent conduct, show the red card, and award the direct free kick to the opposing team.

And it is worth repeating — yet again — that the occurrence of contact between players does not necessarily mean that a foul was committed. Contact occurs and it is accepted and welcomed, as long as it is accomplished legally — and that includes most accidental contact.

And the referee can very effectively reinforce his or her conviction that no foul has occurred by shouting out “No foul!” Never leave doubt in the minds of the players as to your comfort with your decision.…

"Inventive" Refs

POSITION OF HANDS FOR THE THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
Law 15: What constitutes “from behind” the head? All of the ball behind all of head? center of the ball behind all of the head? center of the ball behind center of the head?

Thanks

USSF answer (June 7, 2010):
While some particularly limber people may be able to position the entire ball behind their head, the rest of us are not that well enabled. The “from behind and over the head” refers to the hands, the means of delivering the ball. The hands must be positioned behind some portion of the back and top of the head before the ball is delivered.

A gentle reminder to all referees (and coaches and players and spectators) who read this: The referee should not go looking for offenses to call. Let the game flow if there is no clear — let us emphasize that, CLEAR — infringement that somehow affects the game.…

Law 1 - The Field

PARTICIPANT SAFETY OUR PRIMARY CONCERN

Posted on by

Question:
The technical area was marked and extended up to 1m from the field of player. This is permissible in LOTG. However they then erected a temporary shade structure on this boundary. It comprised supports made of 1″ box channel made of aluminum steel, pegged to the ground. It was quite solid, and I had concerns a player could easily trip or run off the FOP and collide with it. If so could injure themselves.

While I could write a report to local association of my concerns, at the time what right do I have to have it moved back (say 2-2m) from FOP.

USSF answer (June 7, 2010):
Law 1 tells us:

Decisions of the International F.A. Board
Decision 1
Where a technical area exists, it must meet the requirements approved by the International F.A. Board, which are contained in the section of this publication entitled The Technical Area.

The Laws of the Game expect that competitions will follow the basic premise of all the Laws of the Game, protecting the safety of all participants. A structure within one meter of the touchline would likely not be considered to be safe for players, team officials, and the officiating crew.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

GOAL SCORED WITH AN EXTRA PERSON ON THE FIELD OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
Play is stopped during the routine course of play and in this example the restart is a throw in for Team A. It is discovered prior to the throw in that a team has too many players on the field. The Referee deals with the extra player appropriately and play is restarted with Team A throwing the ball in, regardless if Team A or B had the extra player.

Now change the example and Team A scores a goal. It is discovered prior to the restart that Team A had an extra player on the field (rostered player, not an outside agent). The Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines explains how to handle this situation except for the restart. Play was stopped because the ball left the field of play (below the crossbar and between the posts), not because of the extra player. 

I feel the restart should be goal kick because play was stopped due to the ball leaving the field of play over the end line, last being played by the attacking team. The fact that the ball entered the net is nullified by the presence of the extra attacking team member. Is this the correct restart?

USSF answer (June 2, 2010):
Your reasoning is almost impeccable. The ball was out of play, ostensibly awaiting a kick-off for the goal, when it was discovered that the extra player existed. After the referee has cautioned and removed the extra player the correct restart is a goal kick.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

NO JEWELRY ALLOWED!

Posted on by

Question:
I am asking this for one of our players in our league. I am presently the president of a club in [my state].

This is for over 30 women division. One of our players wears in the inner lobe of her ear a half circle earring with a small ball on each end and it can only be removed with surgical instruments. It could be easily covered.One referee has refused to let her play while she played before some games with no issues.

Nowadays many younger girls have body piercing and so on .

Question: Would it be less dangerous such an earring than a metal knee brace and what is the rule regarding this kind of earrings.

Thanks for your answer.

USSF answer (June 1, 2010):
Unfortunately for your player, the rules we play by, the Laws of the Game, are clear: no jewelry.

LAW 4 – THE PLAYERS’ EQUIPMENT
Safety
A player must not use equipment or wear anything that is dangerous to himself or another player (including any kind of jewelry).

The rule on no jewelry also applies to items worn as part of body piercings. The only exceptions for “jewelry” are medicalert bracelets and religious items specifically required by the wearer’s religion.

Although the referee on any particular game has the final authority to approve or disapprove any item of equipment as to its safety, that decision must be taken within the Laws of the Game which are quite clear on the subject of jewelry. There are only two acceptable reasons even to consider allowing such noncompulsory equipment — religious or medical reasons — and even there the referee must still determine that the item meets the Law’s safety standard. By tradition and worldwide acceptance, nondangerous wedding bands are also considered acceptable. It does not appear that the item worn by the player in your scenario meets any of the exceptions and so we would expect every referee to be firm in not allowing anyone wearing such an item to be a player.…

Interpretations/IFAB

RESTARTS FOR QUESTION OF MARCH 10, 2010

Posted on by

Question:
Please provide the proper restarts for your answers on March 10, 2010 (text follows). I agree the goalkeeper cautioned, and the player or substitute is sent off for DOGSO – handling. In addition, would cautioning the substitute for unsporting behavior also be in the Spirit of the Game?

I believe the restart is a penalty kick if a player on the field exchanged places with the goalkeeper without informing the referee and committed DOGSO – handling,
but the restart is an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when play was stopped if a substitute came on the field and exchanged places with the goalkeeper without informing the referee and committed DOGSO – handling.

I appreciate your clarifications.

Q&A OF MARCH 10, 2010

ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION FOR GOALKEEPER; DOGSO

Question:
What would you do if a goalkeeper ran off the field and another player took his place without the referee knowing it during play. Also, the other team shoots and the new goalkeeper blocks it over the goal. Then you realize the keeper change. What do you do?

Answer (March 10, 2010):

We have a problem here with the description of the situation. Was this a “player” who was already on the field in another position or was it one of the substitutes from the bench?

The decision would be easy if it had been a player on the field who exchanged places — without informing the referee — with the ‘keeper (who then remained on the field): Allow play to continue and then caution both at the next stoppage.

However, based on your description, it seems that a substitute (loosely called a “player”) came on the field and replaced the former goalkeeper. The presents the referee with a totally different set of circumstances:
1. The referee’s acquiescence was not requested nor given for any substitution or exchange.
2. The goalkeeper deliberately left the field of play without the referee’s permission, so he must be cautioned.
3. The new goalkeeper entered the field without the referee’s permission and is thus still a substitute who has entered the field without permission and then denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

That places the incident squarely under the sending-off offenses in Law 12: 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 goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Therefore, because the substitute is not a player and certainly not a goalkeeper, he must be sent off in accordance with the Law.

USSF answer (May 31, 2010):
Don’t forget that we were dealing with two distinct possibilities in that scenario. We did not know if the “player” was a player already on the field who took over for the goalkeeper or whether it was a substitute who entered without permission.

IF IT WAS A FIELD PLAYER WHO ILLEGALLY CHANGED PLACES WITH THE GOALKEEPER
There are two choices here — because two persons committed misconducts (there would be no fouls here, and certainly not handling because the player with the keeper jersey has the power of the ‘keeper to handle the ball even if he made the swap illegally). What were the offenses? The field player and the goalkeeper each should be cautioned for the illegal swap and the proper time to do this is at the next stoppage, in this case due to the ball leaving the field last touched by the goalkeeper (therefore a corner kick). However, the original goalkeeper also committed misconduct by leaving the field illegally, which is normally an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped. Here, however, the play was stopped for the corner kick and, in any event, it would be more advantageous for the opposing team to retain the corner kick than to be given an indirect free kick. So, caution the field player and caution the original goalkeeper — a second caution for the illegal exit for the original goalkeeper is consistent with the Law but the referee could decide not to make this a second yellow and thus have to send off the original goalkeeper. Start with a corner kick.

IF IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED THE FIELD AND ILLEGALLY ASSUMED THE ROLE OF THE GOALKEEPER
In this scenario, two players have committed five acts of misconduct. The substitute (1) entered the field illegally, (2) illegally changed places with the goalkeeper, and (3) prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball. The original goalkeeper (4) illegally changed places with the substitute and (5) illegally left the field. The Interpretation tells us, however, that the restart is determined by the illegal entry of the substitute onto the field, no matter what other offenses that substitute may commit thereafter. We also know that, although it would technically be correct to issue a caution for (1) or (2) to the substitute, the real (and most serious offense) was the prevention of the goal. So, send off the substitute for DGH and include a description of his other misconducts in your game report. Caution the original goalkeeper for the illegal exchange of places with the goalkeeper and, as above, decide whether a second caution for the illegal departure from the field would be in the best interests of the game as it would result of course in a red card. The problem here is the restart. Normally, this would be an indirect free kick for the substitute illegally entering the field placed where the ball was when play was stopped … but play wasn’t stopped for this offense, it was stopped because the ball left the field. However, Law 3 tells us that the illegal entry of a substitute doesn’t have to cause an immediate stoppage “if the substitute … does not interfere with play” — there are few more obvious or serious ways to interfere with play than stopping a ball from going into the net. Accordingly, play should be considered to have stopped when the substitute handled the ball and the opponents should be given an indirect free kick where the ball was when it was handled by the substitute.

Of course, the officiating team would not be facing such challenges if any of them had been more observant and caught the problem at its source instead of allowing it to expand past any easy solution.…

"Inventive Assignors"

INTERFERENCE BY ASSIGNORS

Posted on by

Question:
Elaborating on your question of May 5, regarding Mentor / Assessor actions during a game; may I extend the question to cover Assignors?

I am of the opinion, having done some research, that an Assignor cannot and should not, for example, replace a less-than-adequate AR during the course of a match. To me, this at a minimum interferes with the Referee’s authority over his/her crew during the match, and also opens the door to a perception that the officials can be replaced until the hosting organization gets the result that they want.

The context for this is that the ARs and even the Referees are very inexperienced, perhaps working their first few games, and so a reasonable observer could agree that the performance of an AR (or Referee) was, in fact, inadequate. It seems to me that the Assignor (and through him/her, the sponsoring organization) can: change future assignments … including the next game, provide instruction or mentoring, etc.. But once a game has begun the crew cannot be altered except by the referee who may dismiss an assistant for the reasons cited in the Laws.

And perhaps the Assignor should take additional care in the selection of crews.

I am hoping you could confirm or correct my interpretation. I have administrative responsibilities related to assignors in my state

USSF answer (May 26, 2010):
Once the match begins, only the referee has the power to relieve an assistant referee or fourth official of his or her duties. No assignor, no referee administrator of any sort or level, no instructor, no assessor or any other person has this right. And if the referee does decide to do without the person being removed, the game must be officiated in line with the guidelines given in the Referee Administrative Handbook — available for download from http://www.ussoccer.com and published here many times.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

ADORNMENTS FOR REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
Could you help me settle an on-going discussion within our referee board?

Although the rules of the game and most local leagues are clear on adornments worn by players, there appears to be little ever said about adornments worn by referees. Specifically, earrings. Does US SOCCER or FIFA have any directives on this subject? I seem to remember seeing what I thought was an earring on an English Premier League game referee, or was I mistaken?

USSF answer (May 26, 2010):
With the exception of the referee’s watch (and the possible exception of a wedding band), no referee should wear any adornment that is not permitted for players. In other words, NO JEWELRY.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

KNEE BRACES

Posted on by

Question:
I am looking for advice on whether a commonly used knee brace may be in violation of Law 4. I’m seeing more and more female players recovering from ACL injuries using a brace similar to the one shown in the attached file. In a game I did yesterday I noticed a brace during checkin. I asked the player and coach if a referee had ever disallowed her from playing because of the brace and the answer was no. At the start of the second half the opposing coach approached me to inquire about the brace. He told me that his players were complaining that they were getting ‘bumped’ by the brace during close in play. No player approached me with that complaint.

Is such a knee brace considered to be dangerous to players?

USSF answer (May 26, 2010):
Braces may be worn if they meet the same requirement that must be met for any equipment, that it ensures complete safety for all participants. The final decision rests with the referee for this particular game; not the last game, not the next game, but this game.

In addition, a player wearing an item of clothing or equipment which is not standard but which has been inspected by the referee and found not to be dangerous may still not use the item dangerously during play. If the player in question is using the brace to unfairly augment her abilities or as a weapon, then it may not be worn.…