Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 - Common Sense

WHAT TO DO?

Posted on by

Question:
In a U-19 mens match, a player went in for a hard challenge, missed the ball and fouled his opponent. My immediate reaction was to caution him for the reckless foul but when the two players got up they started swinging at each other. The near AR and I quickly sorted things out, then I sent off (red carded) both of the players.

Now I wonder if I should have first shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior, then the red card for violent conduct. Since the player did not have a prior caution, that might seem confusing to the coach and spectators, but in some leagues disciplinary points are issued for every card.

What is the proper procedure in this case?

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
The referee should IMMEDIATELY think preventive refereeing and get between the players BEFORE they start swinging. If that fails, the showing of the yellow card first may be confusing but is the correct action. The referee should always punish the initiator first in these situations. After the caution, then send off both players. If there is any confusion, explain it in the match report.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE AND READING MINDS

Posted on by

Question:
Today I was a single ref in a youth soccer boys game. My question concerns an offsides call that I made.

The offensive player was bringing the ball into the PK area on the right side (near post). The goalie was approximately in the middle but favoring the far post a little. An offensive player was clearly in the offsides position about 4 feet inside the far post waiting for a pass. He didn’t get the pass. The player with the ball shot the ball on the ground at the near post and scored. I did not see the goalie move toward the offsides player who remained 4 feet inside the far post. Of course I couldn’t read the goalie’s mind and I don’t know if he was partially focused on the offsides player. I don’t know if the goalie would have moved closer to the shot if the offsides player wasn’t a threat at the far post.

As soon as the goal was scored I disallowed the goal and called offsides. (the coach opposed my call saying that his man was not involved in the play) I based my call on the possibility that, by necessity, the goalie was frozen and couldn’t move toward the player with the ball or couldn’t move toward the near post. In essence the off-sides player could have made the goal wider by making the goalie stay near to him. I thought that was an advantage. Again I didn’t see the goalie move toward the off-sides player and I couldn’t read his mind.

What call would you have made?

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
Not offside. Referees should not attempt to read the minds of players or attribute to them actions that are not clearly evident. Referees act only on facts and the results of player actions. In this case the opponent was in the offside position, but you present no evidence that the player acted to interfere with an opponent, so he could not be declared offside. (There is no such thing as “offsides” in soccer.)…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INTERFERING WITH THE GOALKEEPER’S RELEASE OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I have been looking for clarification on how referees should consider a ball released by the goalkeeper. The Laws of the Game Guide states “It is an offence for a player to prevent a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands.” My situation: attacker within yards of keeper leaps at the punted/thrown ball in hopes of intercepting it at the beginning of its trajectory. The ball has been physically “released,” but is it considered released under the Law? At what point in the above situation is the act of releasing completed?

USSF answer (April 26, 2010(:
There has been considerable interest in this topic since Jaime Moreno of D. C. United violated the Law by cavorting and gesturing to interfere with the goalkeeper’s release of the ball into general play. This memorandum on the matter was issued by USSF on April 14, 2010:

Subject: Interfering with the Goalkeeper’s Release of the Ball
Date: April 14, 2010

Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) includes the words “prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands” as an offense punishable by an indirect free kick. By tradition and interpretation, this violation is described more generally as any action by a player which interferes with the opposing goalkeeper’s ability to get the ball back into active play freely and quickly.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in the process of “releasing the ball” from the first moment when he or she has clearly taken hand control of the ball until the moment when the ball has been clearly released into play. This includes any time when the goalkeeper is:
· bouncing the ball
· running with the ball
· in the process of dropping the ball in preparation for kicking it
· throwing the ball.

During the time the goalkeeper has control of the ball and is preparing to release it into active play, an opponent may not stand or move so close as to restrict the direction or distance of the goalkeeper’s release.

In the 70th minute of a match between D.C. United at Philadelphia Union on April 10, 2010 (clip found here), D.C. forward Moreno followed, moved in closer to, waved arms at, and made various head and body “movements” toward Philadelphia goalkeeper Seitz while Seitz was holding the ball and preparing to distribute it. During the course of this interference, Seitz dropped the ball and Moreno shot the ball into the net. These actions by Moreno constituted a violation of Law 12. The goal should not have been allowed and an indirect free kick should have been given where Moreno interfered. Moreno’s behavior additionally could have been cautioned as unsporting behavior.

Whenever a goalkeeper has taken possession of the ball and an opponent is either nearby or begins moving toward the goalkeeper, referees and assistant referees must recognize the possibility of interference and allow their attention to continue to focus on the goalkeeper. More proactively, a quick word to the opponent might well prevent this sort of offense.

The most important part of the memorandum is the final paragraph, reminding referees to be proactive in controlling the movement of opposing players near the goalkeeper. That brings us to the final sentence of our answer of April 12, 2010, on this topic and the answer to your question: “The referee should have blown the whistle immediately and awarded the indirect free kick to the goalkeeper’s team.”

A few words on how to judge interference with the goalkeeper: The key question is whether “in the opinion of the referee”  the goalkeeper, who is in the process of releasing the ball, has been influenced by the opposing player. The referee can only judge by the ACTIONS of the opposing player in question and the DISTANCE of the player to the keeper.  If the player jumps in the air to intercept the ball while being 10 yards away, that should not constitute interference.  On the other hand, a player who is as much as four yards away and jumps in the air to reach the ball would most certainly be considered to interfere.  The referee is the final judge. …

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE? NO!

Posted on by

Question:
A long ball is played in to an onside attacker behind the defense about 40 yards from the goal. The nearest defender is in close pursuit and (unlikely to catch the attacker) and the GK is coming out to cut down the angle. On his next touch the attacker pushes the ball out just a little too far allowing the charging GK to get his foot on it. The GK strikes the ball into the defender and it bounces back behind the GK right to the attacker. The attacker had moved out of the path of the charging GK after the attacker has lost control of the ball. The referee whistled the attacker as offside stating the attacker had gained an advantage by being in an offside position. I was a spectator for this one but disagreed with the call because when the attacker received the ball from the deflection (GK to defender)it was not played to him by a teammate but rather the defense. It seemed to me, in order for the referee to be correct, the attacker satisfied the criteria for offsides all by himself and basically put himself offside. What is the correct ruling here?

USSF answer (April 22, 2010):
There is no offside violation possible here by the attacker because the attacker was never in an offside position at a time when the ball was last played by a teammate. The last time the ball was played by one of his teammates, the attacker was onside. Even though he was ahead of the ball and ahead of the second-last defender and the goalkeeper, that doesn’t matter, The attacking team player who last PLAYED the ball before it came back to our attacker from the defender was the attacker himself. In other words, he could not possibly be called offside.…

"Inventive" Refs

ACCURACY IN MATCH REPORTS

Posted on by

Question:
If a referee submits a referee’s report about an incident during a match and the date on the report is different from the the date the actual match was played, is this report valid? the report submitted by this referee gives a different date from the match day he was referring too.

Secondly can the match report contain incidents that he said alledgally happen. This refers to an incident he didn’t actually see him self. Should he just report the facts of the incident. Does this type of report make the match report invalid.

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Inaccurate data on a match report is generally unacceptable. The final decision on that rests with the competition authority and the panel it has appointed to review the matter.

That is the reason why we constantly stress that referees check their data several times and proofread their reports before sending them in.

As to incidents that the referee did not actually see, we submit that, as the referee is obliged to take into account any events seen by an assistant referee or fourth official, there is no reason why the same information (assuming it is relevant) should not be included in the match report.

Of course, if there was no AR assigned and the lines were run by club linesmen, then the referee can only report incidents he did not see as hearsay, not as fact.…

"Inventive" Refs

DELAYING THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
I am currently being told by higher level referees and the referee advisor for our area that I should not issue yellow cards for delaying the restart even though the laws say this is a yellow card offense. I tell the captains of both teams that I will issue a card if a player does not give 10 yards, or an attempt at 10, when i point to the spot for the kick. The players involved are all u-15 and above so they know the law but are being coached to delay the kicks so that their team can get into position. It is hard to enforce this rule when you see the upper division referees as well as the FIFA referees repeatedly telling players to move back and then marching off 10 instead of issuing a card for a player blocking a quick restart. What is the official position on this?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Well, right or wrong and based only on the information you provided, the official position in your area seems to be not to referee in accordance with the Laws of the Game. However, that is not the official position of the U. S. Soccer Federation.

The Federation encourages referees, ARs, and fourth officials to first ask the players to get into position and take the restart correctly. If the players do not respond to this verbal encouragement, then the referee must take action in accordance with the Law. You will find the procedure outlined in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees under Law 12:

Delaying the restart of play
Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by tactics such as:
* taking a free kick from the wrong position with the sole intention of forcing the referee to order a retake
* appearing to take a throw-in but suddenly leaving it to one of his teammates to take
* kicking the ball away or carrying it away with the hands after the referee has stopped play
* excessively delaying the taking of a throw-in or free kick
* delaying leaving the field of play when being substituted
* provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play

Referees who fail to follow this procedure do the game and the players a disservice.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

INTIMIDATION OF OFFICIAL IS A SEND-OFF OFFENSE

Posted on by

Question:
The following occurred in a U15 elite boys match.

3 minutes into a match two players challenged for a ball on the touchline 3 yards up from where I was the AR. The player in white, slid in and was the last to touch the ball (in my opinion) before it went out of touch. I signaled a throw in for red. The white player who last touched the ball was on the ground about 2-3 yards from me.

He stood up and stepped forward a little. Clearly invading my personal body space his face was now about 10 inches from mine and he was about as tall as me. He looked me right in the eye in a clear intimidating fashion. I should have told him to immediately back off, but I was just shocked a player would do this 3 minutes into a game. He stood there 3-4 seconds, turned away and said, “Why don’t you watch the f***ing game”.

This was clearly a straight red card for vulgar language and I called the center over and told him what happened and he issued a yellow card.

My question is specifically this. If the player had done nothing more than standing up and stepping forward in an act of intimidation as I described, should this be a red card?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
Yes — with some hesitation. We would really like to have been there to see the player’s manner — to see, for example, whether the player could argue that the act of getting up naturally put him in such close proximity to the AR, to see whether, having gotten up, the player moved closer, etc. A red card is a fairly stiff penalty for intimidation via occupying personal space with no touching, no language, etc., but only the referee or AR on the game would know which was most appropriate for this particular moment of truth. An immediate clear and concise verbal report to the referee would be most beneficial. In this case the referee chose the caution, an action he will have to live with.…

Law 11 - Offside

OFFSIDE: IS “DUMMYING” EQUIVALENT TO “PLAYING”?

Posted on by

Question:
Three attacking players. Player 1 has the ball and passes it forward at which time his two team-mates are in onside positions. As the ball rolls toward Player 2, Player 3 runs into what is now an offside position. Player 2 dummies the ball – never touching it – allowing it to roll between his feet and on toward Player 3.

If dummying is playing then Player 3 is guilty of offside. If dummying is not playing then Player 3 is not guilty of offside.

What call does the AR make?

USSF answer (April 19, 2010):
The AR keeps running with the play; no offense has occurred.

We should note that one of your premises is incorrect: It is NOT “now an onside position” since the position is judged when a teammate last plays or touches the ball. It would be “now an offside position” if and only if never playing or making contact with ball somehow constituted playing the ball.…

"Inventive Assessors"

DANGEROUS PLAY VS. PHYSICAL CONTACT — OR NO FOUL AT ALL

Posted on by

Question:
is it possible to call dangerous play instead of direct kick foul when physical contact is made? ie: ball is rolling toward and near goal line, defender is 1 step ahead of attacker, both runner toward goal line, defender reaches around the ball to clear it back toward halfway line and kicks attacker in the process. not kicks toward attacker but makes physical contact, kicking the attacker on his follow through. my ar’s argued the defender didn’t see attacker gaining ground and didn’t intend to kick him, dangerous play. i believe as soon as physical contact is made, dangerous play is no longer an issue, it must be straight forward direct free kick for “kicking an opponent”. is it possible to call “dangerous play”?

USSF answer (April 17, 2010):
No, it is not possible to call playing dangerously when there is contact. In this situation we see no foul at all, simply incidental contact. No kicking or attempting to kick, no playing dangerously. It is simply a trifling contact that is not a foul, unless the referee believes in his or her heart of hearts that the act was premeditated — and your description of the situation does not suggest that.

Referees should not always be looking to call fouls in 50-50 or trifling situations. Furthermore, this is NOT what the “dangerous play” offense is all about! A referee CANNOT convert a player’s act to dangerous play simply because there was no intent.…

Advice to Referees

GOALKEEPER CONTROL OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I was centering an Academy game and the away team was deep into their offensive penalty box with an attack. They took a shot at the goal which the keeper stop but did not gain immediate control of the ball with his hands. The keeper fell to the ground (on his back) and managed to trap the ball under his legs. For the that instant the ball was fully in control by the keeper with his legs. The attacker was kicking at the ball and managed to get it out from under his legs and shot and the goal and it went in. I did not allow the goal and felt I had 2 rational reasons. My first thought was the keeper did have “control” of the ball with his legs and therefore the attack should have been stopped. The second thought was that it was dangerous play to try and kick the ball out from his legs (especially considering it was lodged under them) and an indirect free kick should have been awarded.

My question is this, does a keeper have to control the ball with his hands for it to be considered under control or if he or she has definite control with other parts of his body (legs, stomach) is that considered control?

USSF answer (April 16, 2010)
While we agree with your notion that the referee should have stopped play immediately, it would not have been because the goalkeeper had possession of the ball. Possession by the goalkeeper requires “hands-on” control of the ball, something he did not have. Here is an excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” that spells out goalkeeper possession:

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.

We see no offense by the goalkeeper. If, as it appears, the goalkeeper had the ball between his legs and did not delay unduly in attempting to extricate himself from this predicament, he did not play dangerously and the opponent was wholly at fault for taking unfair advantage of his situation. Merely making kicking motions would constitute the dangerous play offense, but actually making contact with the kicking motion turns it into a direct free kick offense plus a card (the referee would normally think red — due to “kicking,” but this could possibly be downgraded to a yellow if there were mitigating circumstances.)…