“FOUL” AFTER FOUL

September 21, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a recent game player A grabs player B and pulls him down on the ground. Prior to the whistle being blown, player B stands up and holds the ball in his hands stopping play…..whistle is blown.

Player A should be cautioned but in discussing this with both National and State Emeritus refs, they both state that only Player A should be cautioned.

Normally I would agree, however in reading the following, I believe I would be required to caution Player B as well.

12.32 SEQUENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS OF THE LAW
If the referee has decided to stop play for an infringement of the Law (foul, misconduct, offside, or other reason) and another infringement of the Law occurs between the making of this decision and the actual whistle to stop play, this subsequent violation must be treated as misconduct and handled appropriately

.USSF answer (September 21, 2009):
The first foul was called (in the referee’s mind at least) and the delay in whistling covered in the Advice to Referees is irrelevant. You seem to have misunderstood the language of 12.32. It doesn’t mean that ANYTHING that happens after play is stopped is misconduct — it is merely a statement that anything that happens after play is stopped can ONLY be misconduct (i. e., not a foul). Player B committed no offense, whether he thought the whistle was going to blow or not, because the referee’s mental decision had effectively stopped play. Now, if B had reacted to something else (e. g., an AR flag) and the referee had decided NOT to stop play, then we have an entirely different matter.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

COLLISION OF GOALKEEPER AND OPPONENT

September 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I am a grade 8 referee working to improve my skill level and increase in understanding of the game. I have found the us soccer website to be extremely helpful. Find the week in review to be very educational. Currently have a question on making the correct call when there is goalie/attacker collision. When both players are clearly playing the ball and there is not an apparent aggressor, should there be a “no call” or should there be a foul? When one player or the other is clearly an aggressor and “takes the other out”, is it correct to call a foul on the goalie when the ball has been played and a goal prevented? Would say if the attacker takes out the goalie, it is clearly a foul. Is there guidance to making a call when there is a goalie/attacker collision? Thank you.

USSF answer (September 16, 2009):
One question at a time.

First, if both players are clearly (and fairly) playing the ball and not one another and, as a result, they collide, there is NO FOUL. PERIOD. This despite the penchant some referees have for calling this a foul.

2. If one of the players (whether goalkeeper or a field player) is clearly playing his/her opponent, rather than playing the ball, that is a foul. If the act is aggressive, it is serious misconduct, worth of a sending-off (red card). If it is instead reckless, it is unsporting behavior and must be cautioned (yellow card).

3. If the act by the “aggressor” is a foul, interferes with a goal-scoring opportunity (including the actual preventing of a goal), and all “4 Ds” are present, then the “aggressor” should be sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick. However, if the act in and of itself is worthy of a sending-off, then that is the reason to be included in the match report.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SLOW BUT STEADY WINS THE RACE

September 15, 2009September 22, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
As always, many thanks for the excellent resource you provide.

A question has arisen in another forum regarding how long the referee team has to make a call. Specifically, the scenario was given as:

a. During a play for the ball in the penalty area, there is a collision, with no foul committed at that time; three players simply tangle and go down, and the ball caroms away.

b. While the players are untangling and getting up, and the referee’s attention is on the next play some distance away, a still-sitting defender deliberately cleats an opponent in the thigh.

The referee does not observe this, but the AR does. However, the AR does not immediately recognize this for the foul and misconduct that it is.

c. While play continues, the AR is replaying the scene is his mind, and gradually comes to the realization that the incident deserves a send off, presumably for violent conduct.

d. No more than 15 seconds later, play is stopped for an injury.

The AR now has a moment to completely consider what he saw, gets the referee’s attention, and relates what happened. The referee sends off the defender.

Here is the point of dispute. I believe that, since this referee stopped play for the injury, and the AR made no decision at the time, but only after the fact, that the restart is determined by the reason the referee stopped play: a dropped ball. The other point of view is that, since play has not restarted since the incident occurred, the referee team is still empowered to punish the foul as well as the misconduct, and the restart should be a penalty kick.

I appreciate that making the correct call is always the primary concern, but I believe the referee needs to maintain some personal integrity here. This was not the case of an AR signalling for a foul & misconduct at the time it occurred, and not getting the referee’s attention until after play was stopped. The AR did not make up his mind until (in my opinion) it was too late to call the foul. For the misconduct, of course, it is never too late, at least until the match report is filed.

What do you say: dropped ball or PK?

USSF answer (September 15, 2009):
In this case, the original reason for the stoppage is irrelevant. The assistant referee is reporting serious misconduct in the play prior to the stoppage.

Send off the defender for violent conduct. Restart with a penalty kick for the foul against the attacking player.

Give the AR a magic pill to make him/her observe more closely and think more quickly.…

"Inventive Coaches"

INTERFERING COACH

September 14, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was refereeing a U12 rec game with 2 young AR’s (both were 14 yrs old – one boy & one girl). The girl was on the team side and the boy was on the spectator side during the first half. One of the coaches was constantly calling for offside (the players were in offside positions but were not involved in play – so no call, there was one offside that needed to be called and it was) and he was questioning some out of play calls. The girl AR requested to switch sides at halftime and I allowed it. I didn’t want the coach to start to influence her calls and I though the boy would be better able to handle it. About 10 minutes into the second half, the coach noticed the switch and called me over to complain that it was against the rules. I told him it was a rec league and really didn’t matter since their was nothing in the league rules. Is there any official FIFA rule on this? I checked my books after the game and could not find anything.

USSF answer (September 14, 2009):
Ah, those amazing and inventive coaches! The reason you cannot find any reference to switching the location of your assistant referees is that there is nothing in the Laws about it. Nor is there any position paper about it. There is no need for any rule, as the assistant referees are there to ASSIST the referee, who may ask his or her assistants to work on one side in the first half and on the other in the second half. If the circumstances require it, the referee may switch the ARs’ positions at any time during a period of play.

We cannot stress enough that most coaches know little or nothing about the Laws of the Game and how referees are supposed to work. (Note that this does not apply to all coaches; some, even though not referees themselves, know as much as most referees.) One thing many coaches do very well is how to manage the referees and their assistants. A question here, a niggle there. Anything to make the referee or AR upset and to affect their judgment.

The wise referee will nip this activity in the bud by taking the first opportunity to let the coach know, politely and professionally, of course, that such actions will not be tolerated. What is the consequence to the coach for interfering with the game and the officials? A nice seat well away from the field, out of sight and out of hearing.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

MISCONDUCT BY GOALKEEPER (HANGING ON/MOVING THE GOAL)

September 14, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I was involved in an interesting conversation last weekend at a youth tournament.

Here is the scenario:

The ball is passed/shot towards the goal. The ball appears to be going over the cross bar. The goal is a not of the strong variety. As the ball is approaching, the goalkeeper jumps and grabs the crossbar (causing the bar to dip) as the ball goes into touch. If the goalkeeper had not held onto the crossbar the ball would have made contact and might have stayed in play.

There are now two questions:

#1 Should the goalkeeper be given a yellow card for Unsporting Behavior for bringing the game in disrepute for hanging on the crossbar?

#2 What should the restart be?

*goal kick since the attacking team played the ball out of bounds
*drop ball because of the goalkeepers action for hanging on the crossbar

Thank you for taking the time to read my question.

Why has the “ask the referee” link been removed from the website? It was my favorite thing to read.

USSF answer (September 14, 2009):
1. Caution to the goalkeeper for unsporting behavior.
2. Restart with an indirect free kick for the opposing team on the goal area line at the point nearest to where the goalkeeper committed the unsporting behavior.

If the referee needs to do more to promote his/her control of the game, the goalkeeper could also be dismissed for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick — in this case the indirect free kick for the misconduct.

The U. S. Soccer Federation’s website is being rebuilt. Ask A Referee will return in the fullness of time. Meanwhile you can find all the current and past questions and answers at http://www.askasoccerreferee.com .…

"Inventive" Refs

MISCONDUCT DOES _NOT_ CHANGE THE RESTART!!!

September 9, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There is free kick outside the penalty area. defensive wall set inside the box. While defense setting their wall, defender push down an opponent into the ground inside the box at near wall. Referee changes the free kick call to the PK call. Is this a correct procedure?

If not what would you do?

USSF answer (September 9, 2009):
It is certainly not correct (or allowed under the Laws of the Game) to change the restart because of something that occurs when the ball is out of play. The defender should have been cautioned or sent off, depending on the nature of the push to the ground, and the restart should have been the original free kick.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SHIELDING VS. HOLDING

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a player is screening the ball and it is in playable distance, is it legal for the screening player to raise their arms to make it harder for the opposing player to get to the ball?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
Under normal circumstances, “screening” means that there was no physical contact. Here is a citation from the 2009/2010 Laws of the Game, Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (IGR), has to say on the matter:
“Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept in playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”

When physical contact occurs, which is what the IGR means when it refers holding off an opponent, the act has been converted into “holding” and is punished with a direct free kick. The shielding player is allowed to use a normal amount of arm and elbow room, but not to extend his/her arms beyond that range.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

PROPERLY INFLATED BALL

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Law 2 says that a properly inflated ball is between 8.5 and 15.6 psi at sea level. Lately I have been presented soccer balls which are labeled “inflate to 6-8 psi”. I have insisted that the ball be inflated to at least 8.5 psi. Am I right to assume that the Laws of The Game trump the manufacturer’s label?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
The specifications for the ball listed in Law 2 are intended primarily for play at the senior adult and international level. We do not know what sort of balls have been presented to you, but if they “feel” all right for play, we suggest you allow them to be used. Remember that the referee is the sole judge as to whether the ball meets the requirements of Law 2.…

"Inventive" Refs

FLIP THROW-IN

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have been told that the flip throw in is illegal. The only documentation I have found to support this is on page 128 of the 2009-2010 Laws of the Game of the fifa website. This is what it says:

“If the ball touches the ground before entering the field of play, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position provided that it was taken in line with the correct procedure. If the throw-in is not taken in line with the correct procedure, it is retaken by the opposing team.”

If a player tries the flip throw and the ball touches the ground in the process of delivering the ball, they simply retake with a “normal” throw. Is this correct?

USSF answer (September 8 2009):
No, none of the above applies in this case. Whoever told you the flip throw-in is illegal has likely been abusing illegal substances.

The text you refer to, part of the 2009/2010 Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, means that the throw-in is retaken by the opposing team if the ball, after being released by the thrower, touches the ground before entering the field of play. It has nothing to do with the flip throw-in, referred to by the IFAB and FIFA as the “acrobatic throw-in,” which is perfectly legal if performed in accordance with the requirements of Law 15.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY AREA

September 8, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.…