Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Advantage

ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
Bolton v Arsenal 1.20.2010, around minute 34 if i recall…

Bolton foul at about 25 yards from their goal, and the ball ends up with Fabregas. Advantage is indicated by the referee: Fabregas dribbles twice and loses the ball.

The referee subsequently awards the free kick from the 25, as the advantage is not realized.

Or is it? After all, the offended team did maintain the possession and move the ball forward, however briefly.

It seems that once advantage is determined, the foul should be ignored unless it rose to the level of a caution (this one did not).

I am aware that in the penalty area, if an attacker is fouled but retains possession, often the penalty call is deferred until it is known if an effective shot on goal is achieved.

In this case, however, it seems that the defenders suffered double jeopardy.

Do you have advice as to how much opportunity, whether it be time of possession or effectiveness of attack, should be given the team/player who is fouled to realize advantage?

USSF answer (January 29, 2010):
The referee in this game followed established principles by invoking the advantage clause and then determining that the advantage had not accrued to Arsenal. His decision was correct. If, after observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so the player loses possession of the ball, the referee may still penalize the original offense.

It all pivots on the time lapse (which you didn’t define beyond “dribbles twice” and “however briefly”). It is important to note that even the International Board’s measure of time (“2-3 seconds”) is itself imprecise, so it all comes down to the opinion of the referee.

Some citations from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” (2009/2010) seem appropriate here (all from Advice 5.6):
One way to determine when to invoke the advantage is to apply the Four Ps: Possession, Potential, Personnel, and Proximity. Possession means active and credible control by the player who was fouled or a teammate. Potential means the likelihood of continuing an immediate and dangerous attack on the opponents’ goal. Potential is evaluated by judging the Personnel involved (the number and skills of the attackers relative to the number and skills of the defenders within 2-3 seconds of the offense) and Proximity (the distance to the opponents’ goal; the less the distance, the greater the potential).

In cases where the referee is applying the advantage clause, the advantage signal should be used to demonstrate that the game is being allowed to flow. Use of the advantage signal sends a visual message to the players/spectators that the referee saw the infraction, thereby mitigating potential negative feedback…

Interpretations/IFAB

TUSSLE OVER BALL IN GOAL

Posted on by

Question:
With time running out at the end of a game the blue team scores to tie the game. A player from the blue team runs into the goal to retrieve the ball so that they can hurry up to try and get the ball back into play. While doing this, he gets into a tussle with the goalie from the red team who was also trying to get the ball. What should the call be? Should either player be cautioned for unsportsmanlike conduct? or for delay of the game?

USSF answer (January 23, 2010):
After the referee has stopped play for a goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Red). A player who provokes confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (See Law 12, “Delaying the restart of play,” in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2009/2010.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (B) who was interfering with the Team A player carrying the ball to the center of the field.

The team which has possession (Red) may “allow” the opposing team to hold/transfer/carry/etc. the ball by acceding to the action (i. e., not disputing it). However, the opposing team does this at its peril. In your game, Blue, perhaps believing that Red was moving too slowly to carry the ball back to the center circle for the kick-off, tried to take the ball that “belonged” to Team Red. Blue has no right at any time to request that the ball be given over to it (including such childish behavior as attempting to grab the ball or punch the ball out of the Red player’s control.

Rather than immediately cautioning either player, the true owner (against whose team the goal was scored) and the “wannabe” owner (whose team will be defending at the kick-off), it would be better if you simply spoke quickly to both players, admonishing the wannabe owner to leave the ball alone. You could also tell the player that you will judge whether there is any “delay” in getting the ball back to the center spot and will, if necessary, add time to make up for any time lost.

There is little reason to immediately caution either player if you do what we suggest above. In any event, the possibility of a caution would depend on HOW the Blue player attempts to gain possession (i. e., how aggressively, how prolonged, etc.). We cannot see how the mere fact of attempting to gain possession is itself cautionable.

The critical fact that makes the player’s action cautionable is that his attempt to retrieve the ball caused a tussle with the true “owner” of the ball, the GK. If this hadn’t been inserted into the scenario, then the referee could well have ignored the whole thing . . . because there would in fact have been no delay.…

Ball in Play

GOAL KICK WITH OPPONENTS IN THE PENALTY AREA REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
Just read your response about opponents in the penalty area during a goal kick.

Follow up question: if the last thing you said is true: “if the ball leaves the penalty area, is therefore in play, and then goes to an opponent who, at the time the goal kick was taken, was in the penalty area, play should continue (no matter where the opponent has moved to by that time)” then why is their a requirement for all opponents to be outside the penalty area until the ball has actually left the area?

From time to time I have told fellow refs to look out for this so that an opponent does not (to borrow a phrase from Law XI) gain an unfair advantage from being in an “illegal” position.

The only question for the referee to ask himself is at what point does this infringement go from being unfair to trifling, i.e. the greater amount of time between the taking of the goal kick (or defensive free kick) to the time that the “illegally” positioned player becomes involved in play, the more likely that it becomes trifling and the referee should let play continue.

Does that make sense to you, or am I all wet?

USSF answer (January 21, 2010):
The reason there is a requirement for opponents to be out of the penalty area at the taking of a goal kick (and to stay out until the ball is in play) is exactly the same reason there is a requirement that opponents be at least ten yards away from a free kick (and stay ten yards away until the ball is in play). However, we routinely and properly allow the team with the ball to take a free kick if there are opponents closer than ten yards so why should we not also allow the team with the ball to take a goal kick if there are opponents within their penalty area? And, having allowed it in either case, why would we not — once the ball is in play — require the team with the restart to live by their decision to take the restart quickly even if this results in a disadvantage since it was their decision in the first place?

At all times, it is the responsibility of the referee to prevent or punish play which is contrary to the Law if such play in fact is unfair or unsporting because it had a non-trifling impact on the game. But is also the responsibility of the referee to avoid stopping play for admitted breaches of the Law where such a stoppage is unnecessary based on the needs of the game.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PROPER RESTART AFTER GOAL BY TEAM MAKING ILLEGAL GOALKEEPER CHANGE

Posted on by

Question:
If a team makes an illegal keeper change, Law 3 instructs the referee to wait for the next stoppage before cautioning the players involved. What if the next stoppage is a goal scored by the offending team? My assumption is that the goal would not count because Law 10 states that there must not have been an infringement by the scoring team. Is this correct? If my assumption is correct, then what would be the restart? The “Advice to Referees” deals with the case of a goal scored by a team with an illegal player on the field. This seems similar, so would the restart be an IFK in the goal area for the non-offending team?

USSF answer (January 20, 2010):
There are two separate issues here.

First, Law 10’s reference to a prior violation of the Law by the team scoring the goal is traditionally understood to mean a violation that played some part in the scoring of the goal. For example, if a Red fullback, at his team’s end of the field, just before Red scores a goal, directed dissent to the trail AR, the fullback would, of course, be cautioned for the dissent but this would not nullify the goal because there was no connection between the two events.

Second, the caution for the illegal goalkeeper change does not in the slightest affect the legal status of either player — more specifically, the goalkeeper is still the goalkeeper regardless of how he or she became the goalkeeper. Accordingly, not only is there no nexus between the illegal goalkeeper change (see issue 1, above) but the caution for this misconduct is not at all like the illegal entry of a substitute. In the latter case, the person on the field illegally is still illegal and represents a continuing violation of the Law whereas the illegal goalkeeper change is a discrete offense whose punishment is simply being delayed (until the next stoppage which, in this case, is the goal being scored).

The goal should count.…

Advice to Referees

RECOGNIZING AND DEALING WITH IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR

Posted on by

Question:
Could you provide some examples of irresponsible coaching at the youth level (U8-U12) of soccer. I recently had a game that had 3 coaches for one team and two coaches for the other team. (Our league allows 4 coaches per team). Constantly throughout the game ALL six coaches would be hollering at the players providing DIRECTIONS on positioning and passing and anything else. The majority of the coaching rarely had any tactical instructions – mostly were the type of “pass now, why did you kick it with your left foot, what are you doing” type of directions. I stopped the game (after listening to them shouting for the majority of the game)and demanded that the coaches let the players play the last 4 minutes with silence from the coaches area. The coaches complied (what a relief!) and the game was ended 4 minutes later. After the game, one coach complained about my demand for silence and said “Where is it written down that I can’t shout instructions to my players?” I did not have a ready response to his question other than I don’t believe the coaching was positive, informative, or in the spirit of the game. I may have come on too strong for the situation, but I was so tired of their screaming at their players, that I felt something needed to be done. Maybe I was right and maybe I was wrong, but for 4 minutes the players played their own game and it was peaceful for the first time that game and everyone on the field had a good time. So, what constitutes irresponsible or inappropriate coaching?

USSF answer (January 18, 2010):
According to Law 5, the referee “takes action against team officials who fail to conduct themselves in a responsible manner and may, at his discretion, expel them from the field of play and its immediate surrounds.” By no stretch of the imagination do most, and certainly not many, coaches or other team officials behave irresponsibly.

Here are some examples of irresponsible behavior, based on questions received and answered here or taken from the USSF position paper of March 22, 2006, on Management of Behavior in the Technical Area. These examples were directed by coaches or other team officials at referees, assistant referees, fourth officials, players of the opposing or their own team, and opposing coaches.

1. Screaming at or verbally or physically abusing the officials or any players or other participants for any reason.
• a youth coach “who begins to scream at his players when the game begins and does not stop until long after the game is over. With every touch of the ball by his team he gives (screams) instructions to the players off the ball as well as the player with the ball. With every touch of the ball by the other team he is giving (screaming) specific instructions to each player on his team as fast as he can get them out of his mouth. Much of what he says is negative and all mistakes are pointed out and players are taken to task. He is a physically intimidating person who loves to argue about anything and most area referees just stay as far away from him as they can.”
• ordering a player who has made a mistake to “drop and give me ten” (pushups) right there on the field.
• Speaking insulting words or making offensive gestures
• making unwanted contact with opponents

There is a national trend within the soccer community toward eliminating abuse of young people by any adults. The referee is certainly empowered to ensure responsible behavior by the team officials. The method chosen would be up to the individual referee.

2. Interfering with the game in any way, such as:
• yelling out instructions to do something illegal or giving deceptive instructions.
• when coaches become actively involved in helping their team deceive the opponents, such as saying that player “x” should do this or that and clearly intending something else to occur (as discovered after the restart).
• clearly instructing the players to line up within the required distance and “have the referee move you.”
• instructing his/her team, both on the field and on the bench, to jump up and down, waving their arms, and scream at the top of their lungs.
• giving tactical instructions to other players when invited to enter the field to see to the injury of a player.
• presuming to give the officials instructions on how to make or signal their calls.
• insisting that an opposing player be cautioned or sent off.
• throwing objects in protest
• kicking chairs
• striking advertising boards
• persistently and flagrantly protesting decisions by an official
• interfering with the performance of assistant referee or fourth official duties
• refusing to return to the technical area
• entering the field of play without the permission of the referee

SO, WHAT CAN THE COACH OR OTHER TEAM OFFICIALS DO?

Under the Law, only one person at a time is authorized to convey tactical instructions from the technical area. The coach and other officials must remain within its confines except in special circumstances, for example, a physiotherapist or doctor entering the field of play, with the referee’s permission, to assess an injured player. The coach and other occupants of the technical area must behave in a
responsible manner.

As a practical matter, particularly at the youth level, any POSITIVE coaching is allowed. Whether at the level of the least experienced players (and coaches) or at the highest levels, any case in which the coach behaves irresponsibly will result in the coach being dismissed. (Two examples from among many: ranting at the referee, overt participation in deception of the opposing team.)

A coach has no “right” to anything in the game of soccer, other than the right to conduct him-/herself responsibly during the game — from within the technical or bench area — while offering advice to his/her team’s players. A referee who allows coaches or other team officials to parade around the field or shout abuse at players in the guise of instruction, in contravention of the requirements in Law 5 that coaches behave responsibly and that referees not permit anyone other than players to enter the field, should be ashamed.

WHAT CAN THE REFEREE DO?

Coaches and other team officials are expected to behave responsibly. (See Law 5 and Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, the only places in the Laws that team officials are mentioned.) The intelligent referee will generally disregard coaching comments, unless they become openly disrespectful of the game and of the referee. The referee’s first line of defense (unless the behavior is REALLY egregious) is to warn the coach who is behaving irresponsibly. This is the equivalent of a caution, but no card is shown. Then, when the behavior persists (as it usually does, because most coaches who behave this way fail to understand that they must change their errant ways), the coach is expelled from the field for failing to behave in a responsible manner. Please note that under the Laws of the Game, no card may be shown; however, showing the card may be a requirement of the rules of the competition.

Unless the matter is particularly grave, the referee would usually wait until the next stoppage. However, if the situation is indeed grave — as any case of abuse would be — then stopping the game and drawing attention to the matter is an excellent tool in and of itself. Proactive steps such as the admonition of the coach will usually prevent players who become disgusted with their coach’s behavior from acting out and thus becoming subject to punishment themselves. It sends a clear message that the referee is serious about the matter. In such cases, the referee would stop play with the ball in the possession of the abusive coach’s team (if possible), advise the coach or other team official that this behavior is irresponsible and must stop if the coach or other team official wishes to remain in the vicinity of the field. If this warning is not effective, then another stoppage and the expulsion of the coach must follow. No cards, please, unless the rules of the competition require them. Also, do not engage in extended discussions when doing this in any circumstances: State the message and leave.

In all events you should prepare a supplemental game report or letter to the league on the matter. You might also suggest in the report or letter that they send someone to monitor a couple of games. The letter could be written in such a way that says perhaps the coach was having a bad day, but it should suggest that it might be beneficial to the children involved if someone from the league dropped in for a game or two just to make sure.

[In the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” we find:

5.10 BEHAVIOR OF COACH AND BENCH PERSONNEL
Coaches or other team officials, one at a time, may provide tactical advice to their players, including positive remarks and encouragement.  The referee should only take action against coaches or other team officials for irresponsible behavior or for actions that bring the game into disrepute. A coach or other team official may not be cautioned or sent off nor shown any card; however, at the discretion of the referee, such persons may be warned regarding their behavior or expelled from the field of play and its immediate area. When a coach or other team official is expelled, the referee must include detailed information about such incidents in the match report.

The maximum numbers of substitutes and substitutions are set by the competition authority and with the agreement of the two teams within the requirements of Law 3. Additional people in the technical area, such as team members who are not named as players or substitutes (for the current game) on the roster or parents or other persons involved with the team, are permitted to be seated with the team in the technical area (or other designated team area) only if this is allowed by the competition authority. Such persons will be considered team officials and are therefore held to the same standards of conduct specified in Law 5 as other team officials. Although team officials cannot commit misconduct or be shown a card, they may be ordered from the field for irresponsible behavior. Full details must be included in the match report.

The “Ask, Tell, Remove” process is recommended for all officials to follow relative to conduct within the technical area:
* Ask
If a situation arises where there is irresponsible behavior, the official (referee, assistant referee, or fourth official) should ASK the person(s) to stop.
* Tell
If there is another occurrence of irresponsible behavior, the official should inform that person that the behavior is not permissible and TELL them (insist) to stop.
* Remove
If the non-accepted actions continue, the referee must REMOVE that person immediately.

These are the recommended steps, but they are not necessary if the behavior and conduct of personnel within the technical area requires immediate dismissal. Remember, where circumstances permit, match officials should use a “gentle escalate” approach so that referee team responses match the nature of the bench behavior. Try to use the least intrusive response that will solve the problem.

…
"Only in America!"

FOLLOW-UP TO SUBSTITUTION QUESTION

Posted on by

Question:
In looking at the most recent posting under Ask a Referee, there was a question regarding unlimited substitution.

It was pointed out that the Laws of the Game allow this for U16 and younger games, but no older.

As far as I am aware this is completely ignored in U17,18 and 19 play throughout the US , including the McGuire (National) Cup turnament. It is also true of many adult amateur leagues. This would appear to be a clear violation of the Laws of the Game.

Does USSF, USYSA and/or AYSO have an exemption from FIFA to allow unlimited substitution at U17 and older age groups? Of course, FIFA does allow it in Girls (Womens) matches.

On a related note, if a USYSA State Association asks or requires a league to violate the Laws of the Game (e .g., today it’s using Kick Ins or not calling Offside in the youngest age groups, but tomorrow it may be using a Rugby ball …) how should the league handle this (Assuming the league simply wishes to follow the Laws of the Game)? If there are allowed exceptions, where are they published?

USSF answer (January 18, 2010):
The Laws of the Game permit the following modifications, as stated in the Notes on the Laws of the Game:

Modifications
Subject to the agreement of the member association concerned and provided the principles of these Laws are maintained, the Laws may be modified in their application for matches for players of under 16 years of age, for women footballers, for veteran footballers (over 35 years of age) and for players with disabilities.
Any or all of the following modifications are permissible:
* size of the field of play
* size, weight and material of the ball
* width between the goalposts and height of the crossbar from the ground
* duration of the periods of play
* substitutions
Further modifications are only allowed with the consent of the International Football Association Board.

In addition, the referee must be aware of what to do if/when he or she encounters a local rule exception which appears not to be consistent with the Laws of the Game (in an affiliated match). Check with your local referee authorities about the rules of competition for all leagues and other competitions in which you referee. Forewarned is forearmed.…

"Inventive" Refs

SEND-OFF AT HALFTIME UNDER UNLIMITED SUBSTITUTION RULES

Posted on by

Question:
A question has arisen regarding USSF soccer games which specifically use UNLIMITED substitutions.

Background:

FIFA LOTG allow for modifications to the substitution law for youth, all women’s games and veteran’s games. In MA all U19 town travel soccer, most if not all premiere youth soccer, all women’s soccer and all O-30 soccer use Unlimited Substitutions.

In those games, as the referee, I am Not informed of who is starting the game nor who is starting the second half. During the game, at specific times, I will allow awaiting substitutes to replace players on the field, but I never record who enters or who leaves. I do have a roster, that I checked prior to the game, for both teams which provides me a list of players and numbers who are allowed to participate in that game.

Therefore, not knowing who will be asked by their team to start the 2nd half of the game, I always assume that once I blow my whistle to end the first half, and thereby start the half time interval, Everyone is a Substitute.

Question: During the half time interval, I need to dismiss a person on one of the teams who is in uniform and is on the roster for that game. For the start of the second half, I would allow that team to have eleven players on the field, as the person I dismissed, is by my definition, a Substitute.

I can find no place in the USSF position papers, ATR, etc. that differs from my assumption: During the half time interval, all people on the roster are considered Substitutes if the game is using an Unlimited Substitution rule.

Comments?

{This is for Youth, Women’s games and Veterans games that specifically use Unlimited Subs.}


USSF answer (January 14, 2010):
This sort of situation is one of the reasons that the Laws of the Game forbid unlimited substitution. In point of fact, the modifications specified by the International F. A. Board permit modifications only for players through Under 16 (not Under 19), women, and “veteran” players, who are defined as over 35 (not Over 30). If the person sent off at halftime was a player at the end of the half — in other words, was on the field as a player and not on the bench in the role of substitute — the team plays short in the second half (or, in extra time, in the next period). If the person sent off was not a player at the end of the half, the team does not play short. If the officiating crew cannot determine that the person was in fact a player at the end of the period, then the team does not play short.

Your basic assumption, that during the halftime break every player/substitute on the team’s roster is considered to be a substitute, is clearly wrong. Every person who is officially a player at the end of the first half remains a player of record until officially substituted. And every referee, no matter in which competition he or she referees, should know what “officially substituted” means, because the process is described in Law 3 and is NOT subject to local rule variations (or a referee’s personal opinion). That includes permission of the referee AND entry onto the field of play. It is the referee’s JOB to know who was and was not a player of record (though this can be tricky in youth play with its standard exceptions to Law 3’s limited substitution rules). It is one of the reasons why we generally recommend knowing who was NOT a player at the end of the first half by identifying those persons in uniform who were on the bench, since this is usually a much smaller number.

This is not covered in the Laws because it would not be a problem in higher-level games. They KNOW who is in the game and who is not, because there is none of the constant shuttling of players in and out of the game that we see in competitions that permit it. We expect the referee and assistant referees (and fourth official, if there is one) to know who was in the game at the end of the half. Those who do not yet exercise due diligence in determining this fact ought to consider doing so.…

"Inventive" Refs

FOOL ME ONCE REDUX

Posted on by

Question:
My question is a follow up to a situation that was presented to you on [August 31], 2009 entitled “Fool Me Once, etc.”

In this case, you stated that the referee would be wrong to caution player A for unsporting behavior after telling the ref, “if you drop the ball to me, I’ll kick it out of bounds,” and instead taking the ball and mounting an attack.

Assume that the situation is as follows: A ref, preparing to restart play with a drop ball, is standing next to players from both teams (player A and player B).

The ref clearly hears player A tell player B that if player B allows player A to win the drop ball, player A will either kick the ball out of bounds or kick the ball back to player B’s goalie/teammates. Player B agrees and after the restart, player A takes the ball and mounts an attack. Would this not be considered unsporting and worthy of a yellow card? Thank you.

USSF answer (January 11, 2010):
One of life’s great lessons is that you cannot trust everyone with whom you deal. The sooner we realize that, the better off we are For the benefit of other readers, let’s repeat the answer of 31 August 2009:

“Where the player kicks the ball is of no interest to the referee, whose sole job here is to get the ball back into play quickly and fairly to all participants. However, the fact that the referee was foolish enough to accept the word of a player that he would do thus or such is incomprehensible.

“There is no basis for the referee to caution the player for unsporting behavior. However, the referee should quietly go soak his or her head and learn to face facts: All players will con the referee if given half a chance. In addition, we would further add a penance or two to the referee’s lot. We find it difficult to justify a caution for fooling the referee, but not if the player fools an opponent illegally.”

The response in your situation would be the same as in the 31 August answer, with one addition beyond the substitution of “player” for “referee” in several places. And that addition is this: No player should trust an opponent, whose interest is in winning the game for his team, not playing in an ethically correct manner or giving the opposing team any advantage.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

ENCROACHMENT ON PENALTY KICKS 2

Posted on by

Question:
A video from Week 23 in review shows an attacker clearly entering the PA to soon during a PK, due to the feint. This was clearly a violation of Law 14, yet the goal stood. The violation and the non-call are both very common occurrences. My first question is: At the taking of a penalty kick would you ever bother to call a foul(on a defender or attacker)for entering the PA by a few feet to soon; if a goal was scored, of if the keeper obtained control, or if the shot went across the end line? In all instances this foul seems to be trifling to me, but without guidance from the Laws different referees will call this same type of play differently. My second question, assuming you agree it is acceptable for me to view this as a trifling offense, is why have the law if we are not going to enforce it consistently? Many coaches, players and parents/fans do read the Laws, and it is reasonable for them to expect the laws to be enforced.

When referees don’t enforce the Laws consistently it undermines our credibility, and in my opinion rightfully so. My humble suggestion would be to take the Law 14 sentences “… infringes the Laws of the game:”, and add the phrase “and interferes with the taking of the kick or the defending of the kick:”

USSF answer (December 21, 2009):
We beg to differ with your statement that no call was made. In point of fact, players from both teams enter the penalty area in both Clip 1 and Clip 2 from Week in Review 23. While the encroachment by these players is clearly against the procedure mandated in Law 14, the referee is allowed to exercise discretion and determine whether the encroachment has had an effect on the kick. In these two cases, the answer for the referees on those games was that the infringement was trifling and had no effect.

As to changes in the wording of the Law, those are not up to us but to the International Football Association Board, the body that makes the rules.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

ENCROACHMENT ON PENALTY KICKS 1

Posted on by

Question:
I have been watching many English Premier League (EPL), UEFA Champions League, and other European league matches on TV. In most of the matches in which a PK occurs, I notice that the referees do not penalize players for encroaching into the PA, nor the GK for coming off his Goal Line, before the PK is taken. For example, in the recent Stoke City vs Wigan Athletics EPL match on 12/12/2009, in the 90th minute of the match, Wigan was awarded a PK. As the Wigan player was running to take the kick, and just prior to making contact, at least 4 Stoke City players were already 2-4 yds into the box and the GK was about 2 yds off his line. The GK made the “save.” Neither the Referee, nor the Assistant Referee, indicated any offense to the encroachments.

In the ensuing commentaries, I heard it mentioned it was OK for the “back line” to encroach, but not the GK to come off his line.

Don’t these European leagues adhere to the FIFA LOTG? Or, am I missing something like an unwritten rule not to penalize the encroachments unless … ?

USSF answer (December 21, 2009):
We certainly cannot comment on calls made by referees in other countries; not our business. However, while it is not strictly in accord with the Law, many referees at the higher levels of play do not call the encroachment by either team unless it has some effect on the kick. If it DOES make a difference, then it had better be called, but either of those decision is up to the referee on the game. Do not attempt this at home.…