Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Advice to Referees

NON-REGULATION APPURTENANCES

Posted on by

Question:
I was posed this question that I didn’t honestly have the answer to. This is in regards to the portable goals with the tires on the sides to make moving the goal easy.

Everything has been set properly but during the course of play ball seems to go over the touchline close to the uprights, but hits the tire of the goal and bounces back in to play without the entire ball crossing the line.

The question is: Do we consider the tire part of the goal and let play continue or do we treat it simular to football field goal that hangs over the goal and if that is hit, the ball is out regardless if it bounces back into play?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
You are correct! Wheeled goals fall under the same category as football goalposts. This is covered in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

(b) Non-regulation appurtenances (see 1.7)
These include superfluous items attached to the goal frame (such as the uprights on combination soccer/football goals) and not generally subject to movement. If the ball contacts these items, it is deemed to be automatically out of play and the restart is in accordance with the Law, based on which team last played the ball.

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR NO FOUL? MISCONDUCT?

Posted on by

Question:
I was working a game over the weekend and an issue came up that we needed help on. I was one of the AR’s on this game and the attacking team was moving towards my side of the field. The ball had been kicked towards the goal. There was an attacker running towards the ball (she was onside) as was the goalie. As the goalie approached the ball she started to slide as they do. The attacking player also came in on a slide trying to kick the ball forward and missed, subsequently kicking the goalie in the stomach right above the groin area cleats up. The goalie had the ball in her hands when she was kicked. The game had to be stopped for about 4-5 minutes due to the injured goalie. Thank you very much. I can any questions you might have.

Actions?
Goalie free kick restart?
Yellow to the attacking player?
Red card for cleats up tackle?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Unless it was obvious that the attacker was playing the goalkeeper and not the ball, there is no clear reason to consider misconduct in this case. In your scenario the attacking player’s action was careless (hence the foul and direct free kick restart for the goalkeeper’s team), but it was neither reckless nor performed without regard for the safety of the opponent (hence no card). Direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team.…

Coach

COACH INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
I was watching a U-11 girls match last weekend. The red team was about to take a corner kick, one player (player 1) from the red team retrieved the ball and set it on the corner arc. As she was doing so the coach of the red team began to yell “NO I don’t want you to take the kick have (player 2) take it” Player one then apparently touched the ball with her foot and went into position while player 2 ran over and began to dribble the ball. The referee blew the whistle and indicated a IFK to the other team. The red coach began to scream at the referee that player one had touched the ball, and it was obvious that this was a designed strategy. The referee then changed his call and allowed the red team to retake the corner kick.

While the players certainly could have done this on their own, is the coach permitted to engage in intentional deception by his instructions as to who will take the kick? Would a caution to the coach have been proper?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Under the Laws of the Game, no team official may be cautioned or shown any cards. However, the (unauthorized) rules of some competitions may allow this. You would have to check the rules of the competition to see if this is allowed. The IFAB, the body that makes the Laws of the Game, does not permit it. Nor does FIFA, the body that administers the game and publishes the Laws, nor the U. S. Soccer Federation. Leaving aside any (unauthorized) rules of competition, if, in the opinion of the referee, the coach interferes with the game, that act becomes irresponsible behavior and the coach should be expelled (not sent off and not shown the card, but expelled) from the field and its surroundings. We should note that most instructions from coaches are simply noise and can generally be disregarded. However, if the behavior of the coach clearly distracts and misleads the opponents, or is loud, sudden, or abusive to anyone (his/her team’s players, the opponents, or the officials), that is the time to deal with the action.

The tactic in your scenario might be legitimate if the players had come up with it themselves. The critical issue to be resolved is whether the first player merely touched the ball (no kick, no movement of the ball) or actually “kicked” it so as to put it into play. If it was simply a touch, then the second player is the one who put the ball into play and then played it a second time — this is a second touch violation, whistle, indirect free kick to the opposing team where the second touch occurred. If there was at least some perceptible movement to the ball as a result of the first player’s contact, then what followed was entirely lawful.

As to the restart, if the referee stopped play for what he thought was a second touch violation but was then advised by the assistant referee that the first contact did indeed result in “kick and moves,” then the restart must be a dropped ball.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

RETAKE?

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question for you that I came across while reviewing “Laws of the Game”. In Law 17 “The Corner Kick” it says “In the event of any other infringement (other than the ones listed): the kick is to be retaken”. Does that mean that if a foul is committed by defense before the ball is touched, goes into the goal or goes out of bounds the corner kick is to be retaken?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
No, that is not accurate. All possibilities for infringements AFTER the ball is in play were covered in the preceding bullet points. This section refers to infringements that occur before the ball has been kicked and moved into play. That would be misconduct by one team or the other.

The same principle applies to all restarts: If something untoward occurs before the ball has been put into play and (1) the ball is subsequently put into play before the referee can stop it or (2) the ball is not put into play, nothing can change the original restart, which must be completed in order for the game to continue.…

"Inventive" Refs

TAUNTING?

Posted on by

Question:
U14 Boys game Played under FIFA Laws with modifications for time and substitution.
Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D standing on 18 yard line 6 yards away, yells SHOT. CR says stop. In second half Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D, standing on the 6 yard line yells SHOT. CR referee stops game and gives Player D a warning for Taunting. Is this the correct call?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
“Shot”? What does that mean? Not sure how taunting would apply here. It seems to be essentially the same as yelling, “Ball!”

Players are allowed to communicate with one another, but not to act unsportingly. Yelling “Shot” would not seem to be unsporting, simply silly.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

FOOL ME ONCE, ETC.

Posted on by

Question:
Referee has stopped play for an injury and will restart with a dropped ball. A player from the Red team says, “drop it to me and I’ll kick it out of play” clearly in the interest of fair play. So the referee drops the ball to this player who then turns and mounts an attack on the opponents goal. That is to say, he doesn’t do what he told the referee he would do. I don’t think you can caution this player for USB even though he clearly HAS been unsporting. [A person from another country] says you absolutely caution the player for USB. I really don’t know. What sayest thou?

USSF answer (August 31, 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.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
An interesting question has arisen. After some searching I cannot find a similar situation covered in previous questions.

At a free kick, a defender is lingering within 10 yards of the ball.

The would-be kicker, rather than seeking the intervention of the referee, is irked at the opponent and kicks the ball as hard as possible at him.

Obviously the kicker could be sent off for violent conduct, or the referee could see it as unsporting behavior, depending on the speed and closeness of the kick. But what is the restart? Colleagues agree that it “feels like” this should be a foul. But if so, which foul is it? Kicking? Does the ball become an extension of the foot, similar to thrown objects being an extension of the hand? Or has the referee stopped play solely to administer misconduct, so the restart is indirect?

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
If throwing the ball is considered an extension of the hand and thus the action is striking, why can’t the ball be considered an extension of the foot and the scenario described would be kicking? We would have no trouble — assuming the referee is thorough in evaluating what happened — giving a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for kicking and a red card for violent conduct.…

"Inventive" Refs

BE CAREFUL OF HIGH KICKING!!!

Posted on by

Question:
A recent event during a local cup: Player A is defending a corner kick, facing towards the corner flag/goal near the opposite end of the box. The ball goes over the defence and player A, bounces, and he goes for the clearance. Player A, however, doesn’t notice player B (from the attacking team) coming from behind him to head the ball. When player A makes contact with the ball, it’s at head height (and hence, so is his foot), and he catches player B on the head/face with his boot. Player A did, however, make contact with the ball first (or roughly at the same time). This was all inside the box.

Should this play be a penalty or an indirect free kick for the attacking team?

Thanks!

USSF answer (August 28, 2009):
We have a hard time buying the scenario completely. If player B is “coming from behind,” how then does A manage to kick B’s “head/face”? And it would be rare that a ball at head height is more naturally played with the head than with the foot. Any player playing a ball at head height with his foot must take more than average care that an opponent is not nearby and, failing that, has been CARELESS (which is what defends the minimum foul level — i. e., with no accompanying misconduct. The referee should look not at what a player INTENDS as a valid basis for judging a foul (other than handling) — but should look, instead, at the results of the player’s actions.

Only the referee on this game can make that call, whether in favor of player A or of player B.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

RIGHT OF DEFENDING TEAM AT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I was an AR during a tournament U14 Boys game. The ball as headed out of Red’s defensive end about 10 yards from the half line.

Red committed an IFK foul via dangerous play in my clear view, but could not be viewed by the referee. I raised my flag and gave it a wave, which the referee acknowledged and blew his whistle.

Unfortunately, this was about 5 minutes into the second half and therefore I indicated the incorrect direction for the restart (Red kick). BEFORE play was restarted, the direction was corrected, but Blue clearly recovered better than Red and quickly restarted play. The kick was made directly to another Blue player, who shot on goal and scored with the referee indicating a good goal and moving to the center circle for the restart. Red’s coach was understandably upset and complaining his boys did not have time to get back on defense.

Blue’s coach was saying nothing.

The referee came over to me to discuss the goal. We both agreed there was no misapplication of the LOTG, so a protest would not be upheld. We both agreed no matter what decision we made, one team was going to be upset. I asked the referee if he had signaled/indicated for Blue to wait for his whistle, and the referee said no. The final decision came down to this question – What is the right thing to do for the game? The answer was to not count the goal, and restart with Blue taking an IFK from the original spot of the foul. The confusion occurred due to our (mine for indicating incorrect direction, and referees for not requiring a ceremonial restart) error. Red of course was happy, and the amazing part was Blue’s coach made NO issue of the decision.

Our review of the incident yielded a learning point of making sure to use a ceremonial restart in future similar situations.

The question is, does USSF agree with our decision on the field?

Final note, Blue went on to win the game 2-1 and I made certain to greatly compliment Blue’s coach after the game for his touchline behavior (meaning he didn’t make any sort of scene or any display of dissent & Blue was on my touchline) as well has his team’s response which was to continue to put their energy into playing football, and not put their energy into the referees.

USSF answer (August 25, 2009):
Although normally we stress that the guilty team at a free kick has zero to very few rights, and thus neither deserves nor may demand any special treatment, in this case the officiating crew confused them and violated the defending team’s right not to be misled by the officials. Therefore, the restart must be ceremonial in nature.…

"Inventive" Refs

DEFENDER LEAVING THE FIELD (A TWIST)

Posted on by

Question:
A very interesting answer on Aug 20 re offside off the field of play.

I wondered at the wording IFAB put into the ILGGR this year to cover the ITA-NED game in 2008. (To cover something that IFAB thought “everybody knew”, but evidently was only found in documentation from USSF and the Austrian FA.) Specifically, that the player would be considered to be off the field until the next stoppage of play.

Would the Aug 20 answer change any if the defender who went over the touchline off the field went *closer* to his goal line? He could thereby entice an attacking player to go closer to the goal into an offside position (which remains at the fixed point of his departure).

There has been a question on AR mechanics – does he stay in position at the departure point? I suspect yes. But then another question if the defender is on the far side of the field from the AR, how does the AR know that the defender left the field? Also, how far “off” is “off”? – is it like other offside positions, that the arms and hands don’t count, but head torso and legs do, so if the toe is still on the line the defender is still on the field?

I guess all the above really isn’t a question per se, but I do have one question though; neither the Law Change memo nor the Aug 20 answer specifically states. Is it presumed that the defender who goes off the field stays off the field until the next stoppage? And if so and he returns, what happens then.

USSF answer (August 21, 2009):
The sense of the IFAB’s new wording in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidance for Referees (ILGGR) is that, for offside purposes, the player shall be considered to be on the touchline or goal line until the next stoppage in play. If the defending player returns to the field of play without the referee’s permission before the next stoppage of play and, in the opinion of the referee, thereby influences play, the defending player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the referee stops play to administer the caution, the restart is an indirect free kick for the attacking team at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.

During this action, the AR stays with the second-to-last defender (taking into account the defender off the field), NOT level with where the defender left the field.  These places may turn out to be one and the same place if the defender left across a touch line but would NOT be the same if the defender went off the field across the goal line (unless TWO defenders went off the field!).…