Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

"Inventive" Refs

KICKS FROM THE MARK 2

Posted on by

Question:
You have probably seen the NCAA game that ended with KFTM, where a shot was saved by the GK and rebounded high in the air out near the 12 yard line and landed with backspin. The ball slowly rolled back into the goal as it was ignored by the GK. Neither the CR nor AR initially realized the goal should count, but the opposing GK (teammate of the shooter) vociferously pointed it out to the AR, and eventually the goal counted.

After hearing a lot of comments from referees on what they would do if this happened in a USSF game, I’d appreciate your comments. Some of these experienced referees have stated they would not count the goal (despite what seems to me to be clear in the Laws), stating things such as:
– “If there ever was a time when a referee should declare a penalty kick to be over before it technically must be declared over, this would be that time. Neither the goalkeeper nor the kicker entertained the possibility that a goal might still be scored.”
– “If this happened in most of our games, I suspect very few of us would award a goal. And I don’t think we SHOULD. . . If I’m the referee and a ball bounces off the crossbar and is 10 yards away from the goal line, in my opinion the kick has been completed.”
– “Besides being correct in what I feel is the spirit of the game or common sense, I believe a no-goal ruling also is correct by the letter of the law, as clarified by the ATR.”
– “That is very easy to defend: It is not a misapplication of the LOTG. It is a fact of play and the referee’s decision reigns supreme.”

I will go out on a limb and say that goal/no goal decisions are always in the category of “facts of play” (not protestable) and never “misapplications.”
– “You may want to re-read the relevant portion of the ATR again. The first time I read it, I missed the part about the ball needing to be in contact with post/bar/GK/ground AND still moving. Those criteria were NOT met on this particular kick. At least, at one point they were not and it seems completely valid for a referee to rule that the kick was completed — way before it came 10 yards back toward the goal line and crossed the line.”
– “Lets go directly to Law 5: 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. That is about as explicit as you can get. If the referee says it’s a goal then it’s a goal. If the referee says it’s not a goal then it’s not a goal. The decision is final. That means it cannot be protested.”

– – – – –

Based on the above statements by experienced referees, here are my questions, assuming this was a USSF game:

1. Under FIFA/USSF rules, should this goal count?

2. Assume the goal was not allowed and there was a protest.

Assuming the CR and AR accurately state that the ball spun back over the goal line but say that they believe the kick was over because it rebounded so far from the goal, would this be considered a misapplication of the LOTG (and thus protestable) or a factual situation that cannot be protested?

Thanks for your help. I think a lot of referees could use it in this situation.

USSF answer (December 8, 2009):
The first paragraph of Advice 14.13 is pretty clear; it also follows word for word the instructions from FIFA on when the kick has been completed. However, we might suggest that skeptics use their common sense and read the phrase “any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored” to mean in sequence or combination of those things. If the ball remains in motion after it has rebounded or deflected from any of those things and remains in the field, it is still in play. A referee would not stop play for such a thing during the game and there is no reason to stop it during penalty kicks or kicks from the penalty mark.

Answers: 1. Score the goal. 2. That situation would be counter to the Laws and tradition.

14.13 WHEN IS THE PENALTY KICK COMPLETED?
The penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark is completed only when the referee declares it so, and the referee should not declare the kick to be completed if there is any possibility that the ball is still in play. In other words: So long as the ball is in motion and contacting any combination of the ground, crossbar, goalposts, and goalkeeper, a goal can still be scored.

//rest deleted as non-pertinent//…

"Inventive" Refs

ACTION AFTER PLAY HAS BEEN STOPPED

Posted on by

Question:
Goal keeper grabbed the ball in his hands, all players were taking back their positions. An opponent player intentially pushed the goal keeper. Goal keeper was started to protested. Match referee was not absolutely sure about the fact. He came in D area and showed the Yellow card to goal keeper. Every one was stunned. Goal keeper came out from D area along with football during protestion. One player, asked the referee to concern with assistant referee. Assistant referee told the actual fact to match referee. Then he took back his decision of yellow card which he showed against goal keeper. And gave the free kick to other team outside the D because goal keeper took the football outside the D in his hands during protestion. Question is that, can a referee withdraw from his wrong decision of Yellow card during the match and if he do that, then if goal keeper during protestion against the wrong decision of referee, come out from D area with the ball in his hands, be punishable?

USSF answer (November 25, 2009):
If the referee had already stopped play for the incident between the goalkeeper and his opponent, then the place where the restart must be taken is the place where the opponent pushed the goalkeeper. That would be a direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team. The referee cannot change the location of the restart.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PRESSURE OF THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I have sat through the entry level referee clinics several times now and it has seldom been taught by the same guy twice. I do so to give the new referees a chance to meet their assignor and to keep myself in the loop on how they are being taught this year.

One year the instructor said that all balls should be checked by a gauge before the game. This he said was due to differences in construction, ambient temperature, altitude, etc…. The next sighted a ‘rule of thumb’ where you simply push in with two thumbs to get a feel for whether the ball is tight enough. I happen to side with the first of the two, especially knowing the I have some referees that could barely push a ball in at 6 lbs. and others that work in a packing house by day and could easily push in a ball at 18 lbs.

Here in lies my problem. I have a gauge and a back up (as well as one that is on an cordless electric pump that I keep in my bag). All 3 read the balls differently to one degree or another. How do I determine which is right and which one(s) I should throw away?

USSF answer (November 24, 2009):
Different instructors use different methods to make their points. As long as the referee learns that he or she must apply the requirements of Law 2, the Federation and the Law are satisfied.

As to how to judge the suitability of the ball, that is left to the discretion of the referee, based on what is suitable for this particular game.…

"Only in America!"

PLAYER AND MATCH MANAGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
My husband and I are referees for a long while. We were wondering your opinion on the Elizabeth Lambert (“dirtiest” female soccer player) story. We haven’t heard much (which is unusual)about the referees that were doing that game. We feel that most of the responsibility for the continuation of such “unsporting”, violent conduct lies with the referee crew. Why wasn’t she ejected early in the game instead of letting this game be get out of control. We understand that we miss things but this sure seemed to occur over and over.

USSF answer (November 24, 2009):
Your reasoning appears to be logical and sound. However, because this game was not played under the auspices of the U. S. Soccer Federation and under the Laws of the Game, and because it was not refereed by officials assigned by the U. S. Soccer Federation or its affiliates, we can take no official position on this matter.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PLAYER OFF THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
A winger dribbles the ball in the opposition half, directly down the touchline. He is tackled fairly off the ball by a defender and exits the field of play. The defender passes to a forward teammate who passes straight back; the first defender slips over; the ball continues directly down the touchline. The fallen winger meanwhile, noticing this, sprints down the touchline – still off the field of play – and onto the field to take the ball, alone, and score.

Goal?

USSF answer (November 20, 2009):
A player who has left the field in the course of play is expected to return as quickly as possible to a position on the field. The legality of the goal would depend on the referee’s perception of two things: Whether this player’s return occurred quickly enough and whether the player stayed off the field accidentally or to deceive the opponents.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

BALL DELIBERATE KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER (YET AGAIN)

Posted on by

Question:
Defender under pressure kicks the ball back to the keeper, it is a crappy rainy day, the keeper misplays the ball trying to kick it away but it bounces up an into the air only a short distance away where it bounces and as attackers and other defenders are now close at hand the keeper chooses to grab this ball with the hands.

Is this an INDFK offence?

Can it be ignored as the keeper tried to do the right thing the first time but failed?

Should it be ignored if a pursuing opponent was there to challenge but prevented because the keeper WAS able to use the hands?

Is the ONLY reason to make this call if time wasting was the reason?

Does the intention of the passer or the intention of the keeper matter?

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
There is no issue here at all if the scenario is to be given its face value meaning. A teammate kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper — no violation.

The goalkeeper kicks the ball (badly, but that doesn’t matter) — no violation. The goalkeeper subsequently handles the ball — since this occurred directly (no intervening play of the ball by anyone ELSE) — violation.

In short, there is no issue that a violation has occurred. The only question is whether it was trifling or should be whistled. This HAS to be decided by the referee based on the circumstances of play, taking risks, maintaining flow, etc. The only fact bearing on the matter is that the goalkeeper DID illegally take hand control of the ball under pressure from the opponents. In other words, he illegally withheld the ball from challenge, which is what this infringement is all about. Accordingly, although the decision must be up to the referee, the scenario tends to favor whistling this indirect free kick foul.

Referees often make the mistake of treating this as an issue involving time-wasting when, in fact, the central issue is unfairly withholding the ball from challenge.

And, no, the “intention” of the passer is not relevant to this decision because that was resolved when the action was determined to be a violation.…

"Inventive" Refs

TOUCHING THE CORNER FLAG

Posted on by

Question:
At my daughter’s game a player on her team was setting up to take a corner kick. As she approached the ball she lost her balance. She made the kick but her momentum actually carried her sideways and she brushed into the flag as she was making the kick.

The referee stopped play and stated she was not allowed to touch the flag. He then awarded the other team an indirect kick from corner area. The only ruling I could find regarding touching flag deals with players adjusting a flag TO a vertical position or FROM a vertical position prior to the kick. The referee was extremely professional, had perfect mechanics, and was obviously extremely competent. I know I was wearing my parent hat for this game, not my badge, but the ruling on touching the flag puzzled me. Is there a law, or directive that I have overlooked?

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
The referee may have been “extremely professional,” but he was also EXTREMELY PETTY.

The corner flags are not to be moved, but not in the sense for which the referee punished the player on your daughter’s team. We instruct our referees (and anyone else who cares to read the document cited below) that this sort of movement of the flag is not against the Law; such movement must be corrected, but not punished.

This statement is included in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

1.6 NO PLAYER MODIFICATIONS TO THE FIELD
Goalkeepers or other players may not make unauthorized marks on the field of play. The player who makes such marks or alterations on the field to gain an unfair advantage may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Players may return bent or leaning corner flags to the upright position, but they may not bend or lean them away from the upright position to take a corner kick, nor may the corner flag be removed for any reason.

…
"Inventive" Refs

WHEN IS OFFSIDE CALLED?

Posted on by

Question:
I have read the laws, and am a big fan of your site and clarifications. I think I understand offside, and the critical aspect of “involved in the play” that takes being in an offside position to that of being a penalty. But I am unclear on two things:

First, am I correct that the AR or CR should only signal for a stoppage due to offside when that attacking player becomes involved?

Second, if so, why does it seem (at least to me, after watching hundreds of premier games at the u14 and higher level) that refs don’t seem to understand that critical aspect? By that I mean that the second they see any player past the second to last defender when a ball is played, UP GOES THE FLAG!!! Play stops, and a free kick is given to the defending team. No attempt is ever made to see if the player in the offsides position stays out of the play!

No one at this level seems to recognize that a player can be offsides and not result in a foul. Certainly not parents screaming “offsides” on the sidelines.

Am I alone is seeing this glaring misunderstanding by officials (and fans) at this age/play level?

USSF answer (November 9, 2009):
Offside should be called only when the player in the offside position becomes involved in play through interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in the offside position.

The reason why some ARs flag early and some referees call for offside early is because they pay no attention to the Laws of the Game or to the instructional materials distributed by the U. S. Soccer Federation and so carefully and fully enunciated and disseminated by their state directors of referee instruction.

No, you are not alone. We, too, despair in company with you.…

Coach

COSTA RICA COACH USE OF RADIO IN WC QUALIFIER

Posted on by

Question:
I didn’t think a coach was allowed to use a radio on the bench. If you look at the espn video of the US-Costa Rica match at the 70:30 point, you will see the coach of the Costa Rice team speaking into a microphone on the collar of his coat.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
We supplied this answer to another questioner back in June. We believe it will apply to your question as well.

Under FIFA rules of competition, suspended coaches are neither forbidden nor allowed to communicate with their teams via mobile phones during FIFA matches. FIFA will not take any action. Nor is there anything in the Laws of the Game or Q&A to cover this. Accordingly, subject only to the requirement that the team official behaves in a responsible manner, mobile phones, headsets, walkie-talkies, and other similar communication devices may be used in the technical area.

To ensure better compliance from its teams, perhaps the league should provide more complete rules and guidance to the teams as to what constitutes “suspension” and what a coach or other team official who is under suspension may and may not do. It is not up to referees to police disciplinary rules of a competition.

To this we can add only this further clarification: The coach may not communicate with his players via a telephone of any sort.…

Advice to Referees

“BENEFITS” TO HANDLING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
I guess I missed the Feb. 2009 Directive on “Handling the Ball”. I suppose that’s a good thing, because one section seems to directly contradict all my training as well as Section 12.9 of “Advice to Referees”.

In the Directive, one of the things the referee is supposed to consider in determining a handling offense is “Did the player ‘benefit’?”.

My understanding is that whether or not a player benefits from incidental arm/ball contact is irrelevant; it is either deliberate or not, and what happens afterwards is immaterial. “Advice” states unequivocally: “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.”

Can you please clarify? If I’m misunderstanding the directive (as others have too), what is it supposed to be conveying?

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You would seem to be misreading Advice 12.9 and confusing its text with that of the Directive, rather like confusing apples with applesauce. They speak of two different things.

Advice 12.9 addresses the “benefit” an attacking player might achieve in the sense of attack, while the Directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The Directive on “Handling the Ball” does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled intentionally 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 is of (3) is key (quoting from the “Directive”): “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 the the handling of the ball was intentional. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.

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 offense has been committed. …