COACH’S COMPLAINTS VS. REFEREE’S DERELICTION OF DUTY

June 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a penalty shoot out the referee places the ball for the first kick, blows the whistle, the kick is taken and saved. The field is muddied up and the penalty spot is not clearly marked. One coach complains that the ball was not placed in the correct position, the referee paces out and finds the correct spot is actually 1 yard closer to the goal. He makes the first kicker retake the kick. 1) Should the first kick have counted – if not what if the complaint about the ball position been made after, say, 3 kicks, would all 3 kicks have to be retaken. Perhaps the referee should have had the opposing player take from the incorrect spot to equalize the situation and then all other kicks should have been from the correct position.

My sons team lost on the penalty shoot out, it is too late now but I was curious what the correct decision should have been.

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
The coach has no right to complain about the distance of the kick. But the referee bears the responsibility — under the Laws and in the spirit of the Game — to ensure that the distance is correct. Yes, the decision to retake the kick was correct, but it would not have been necessary if the referee had done his job correctly.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO OGSO POSSIBLE IF THE BALL IS NOT IN PLAY

June 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In a fast break away one player with the ball makes an attack. About two yards outside the top of the penalty area the goal keeper fouls the attacker. Advantage is not applied. In the opinion of the referee, the foul (a DFK) does not merit a card of any type. The whistle is blown, the restart of a direct free kick is announced by the ref, the ball is placed, and the whistle is blown to restart play. Before other defenders can arrive the attacker starts to take what seems to be a certain goal scoring opportunity at an unguarded net.

Before the shot is taken the goal keeper places his foot on the ball, stopping any chance for a quick shot. Other defending players then arrive, making an advantageous quick restart impossible.

In the opinion of the referee the keeper has clearly denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be sent off. The referee believes that by every standard of common sense and of Fair Play the goal keeper has breached the Spirit of the Laws, and that the Laws were written to prevent and to punish this very type of misconduct.

But by the letter of the Law, the referee is not sure that he has the power to do so. As the ball was not in play when the event took place, there was not & could not be an “opponent moving towards the player’s goal”. Although the goal keeper’s action will cause him to be cautioned, he will not have caused “an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Because the ball was not in play when the keeper broke the Law(s), his act of misconduct will not nor could not cause a free kick or a penalty kick to be taken. That is, when the ball is out of play the restart will always remain unchanged.

The referee knows that the world is an imperfect place, that life can be hard, and sometimes bad things happen to good people; but it seems egregious if the LOTG allow the keeper to remain in the game.

Your views?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
No view, simply the Law: The goalkeeper cannot have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as the ball was not in play when he committed his misconduct. Sometimes life is not fair. Caution the goalkeeper for failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a free kick; show the yellow card and restart with the original direct free kick, ensuring that all opponents are at least ten yards away when the ball is put into play.

We might also have hard words with the referee for not being proactive in the first place and preventing the goalkeeper from doing what he did.…

Interpretations/IFAB

LEAVING THE FIELD OF PLAY AND OFFSIDE

June 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Two players (attacker and defender) momentum take them both out off the field of play by the goal line about 5 yards from the goal. Just prior to going off the pitch, the attacker saves the ball from going out and passes it back to a teammate just inside the box.

The attacker that saves the ball and passes it back goes off the pitch and then comes back on the field in a matter of 1-2 seconds. In the process the teammate that received the pass shots wide and to the feet of the first attacker that just came back on the field. When the ball is struck, he is in front of the keeper and the defender that followed him off the pitch (the defender is still off the pitch when the ball is struck and also received by the attacker). The defending team claim it is offside because the defender was not on the field of play. Then they complained that the attacker didn’t get permission to enter the field of play. What should the call had been? Was I correct by not calling offside and that there was no need to ask to re-enter the field when your momentum takes you off the pitch. Thank you for your help.

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of playing movement. Players who leave the field during the course of play are permitted to return without the permission of the referee and play the ball.

A recent change to the Laws of the Game (see Interpretations and Guidance for Referees, Laws 2008/2009) makes it clear that “Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee’s permission shall be construed to be on his own goal line or touch line for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage of play. If the player leaves the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.” You will also find this change in the Memorandum 2008, available through the referee page at the ussoccer.com website:

“USSF Advice to Referees: The new text more explicitly describes how referees are to consider the location of a defender off the field when deciding if an attacker is or is not in an offside position. A defender who is off the field with the referee’s permission (and thus cannot freely return to the field) is not included in determining where the last and second to last defenders are located. A defender whose position off the field was not with the permission of or at the direction of the referee is deemed to be on the goal line or touch line closest to where the defender left the field and must therefore be considered as though still on the field. Furthermore, if the departure from the field is “deliberate,” (i.e., other than during the normal course of play), the defender is to be cautioned for the misconduct.”

So, yes, your decision was correct. Well done!…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CAUTION FOR DELIBERATE HANDLING?

June 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In U13 high level tournament last weekend a midfielder was running at a moderate pace and the ball crossed in front of her at waist height.

She seemed to reflexively slap it down, and then she stopped running as she knew she would get called for handling. She actually turned around and started walking backwards, anticipating the free kick from the opponent at the spot of her infraction.

The center ref had whistled the call, and then showed her a yellow card. She showed no disention, did not kick the ball again when it was on the ground, and did not complain.

Was a yellow called for? I don’t think I have ever seen it called like that, and the Laws don’t seem to indicate it was appropriate.

When questioned at half, the Ref confirmed he gave her the yellow for her “deliberate” attempt to handle.

What do you think?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
If the referee believed the act of deliberate handling to have been a tactical foul, then the caution for unsporting behavior was deserved.,…

"Only in America!"

OFFSIDE AT THE HALFWAY LINE

June 24, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
While reading through the Law 1 section of the website, I seem to have found a contradiction that I was hoping you could sort out for me.

PLAYER POSITIONING AT THE KICK-OFF
February 19, 2008

“Therefore, if the players stand on the halfway line they are in their own half of the field. If their heads or feet are slightly over the line, it makes no difference.”

Then:

OFFSIDE?
July 30, 2008

“Although it is not specifically stated, this same concept of “nearer to” should be used in determining if an attacker is in his opponents’ end of the field (i. e., if any part of his head, body or feet is past the midfield line.)

As explained, the player is “past the midfield line” in B and C because a part of the body that can legally play the ball is on or beyond the midfield line.”

I’ve had this question come up in a number of games with regards to offside calls (not positioning at kick-off) but the question of whether the midfield line is part of either or both halves still remains.

USSF answer (June 24, 2009):
You are talking apples and applesauce here; two different Laws covering entirely different situations. The halfway line belongs to BOTH halves. Foot position (or body position, for that matter) at the kick-off is treated similarly to the foot position for a throw-in: The foot may be on or behind or hanging over the line. For offside, the only thing that matters is where the parts that can legally play the ball are. However, in all cases, the offense, if any, is TRIFLING.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO ADVANTAGE BY THE ASSISTANT REFEREE

June 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
What is the proper way to apply advantage as an Assistant Referee? Or is advantage generally to be applied only by the Center?

Do I signal the foul and allow the center to determine advantage? Or may I, as the AR, keep my flag, run with the play to see what develops, and if no advantage materializes in 2-3 seconds then raise my flag and call the previous foul?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
In general, the AR should flag only for fouls or misconduct that the referee cannot see. However, that does not give the AR the right or privilege or power to invoke the advantage clause; that is reserved for the referee. In addition, a late flag by the AR for a foul in which the AR him- or herself might have “invoked” the advantage earlier is problematic. In the unlikely case that it might need to be done, this is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference. …

Law 11 - Offside

FOULING THE PLAYER IN THE OFFSIDE POSITION

June 18, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Thanks for a wonderful resource and for the recent elaboration on the interpretations applicable to deliberate handling vs. offside.

I was hoping you could provide some similar guidance with respect to offside (by interfering with an opponent) vs. a penal foul against the player in offside position (OSP).

For example,

(1) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross goes up alongside a defender to challenge for a header, and is carelessly pushed by the defender — offside for interfering with a player, or push on the defender?

(2) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross is running towards the far post, but the cross is to the near post, and the attacker is carelessly tripped from behind by a defender chasing to catch up -offside (interfering with the defender by movement that distracted), or tripping foul?

And on a more general note, should the OSP status at the time the ball was played have any influence on the determination of whether contact should be deemed trifling?

USSF answer (June 18, 2009):
(1) Offside for interfering with an opponent. There is always the possibility of a caution for the defending player who pushed, but that would depend on whether the referee needed it for game management purposes.

(2) Offside for interfering with an opponent.

As to trifling, the answer is pretty generally yes.…

"Inventive" Refs

DIAGONAL SYSTEM OF CONTROL

June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
While using the diagonal system of control is there anything that prevents a referee from using a right diagonal instead of a left?

While working a tournament I was told by a referee that has been in USSF for a while that I can not choose to run a right unless there is a good reason such as deteriorated field conditions where the AR’s would run in a left diagonal. Supposedly there was a directive put out by USSF on this matter but with about an hour or 2 of reading and searching couldn’t find anything on it. I did find one question on here that mentioned an EPL game answered on July 22, 2006 but it didn’t really answer it.

I had been choosing to run a right number 1, because I feel more comfortable in that pattern. The other reason I do it is players arent used to me being there and it keeps them on their toes by me being there when they don’t expect it.

Is there any documentation to support my preference or am I doing something that is prohibited.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The “standard” diagonal for the referee is the one that runs from bottom right to upper left of the field, just as shown in the diagrams in the back of the Law book. However, there is no “rule” that says the referee cannot run the other direction instead. And that other diagonal may be the one best suited for either the personality of the referee and the conditions of the field, as you point out. If you wish to use the opposite diagonal, you are more than welcome to do so.

Referees should remember there is no actual fixed diagonal run. The “diagonal system of control” is simply a name for a way of ensuring proper coverage by the referee and the assistant referees for management of the game. According to the 2009-2010 edition of the Guide to Procedures, the referee’s positioning during play is flexible, using the diagonal system of control. The referee:
• Follows positioning diagram guidelines during play and at restarts but uses discretion to choose alternate positions when needed
• Able to observe active play and lead assistant referee
• Remains close enough to observe important aspects of play without interfering with player or ball movement
• Understands that attention may be needed elsewhere on the field to monitor behavior of specific players not actively involved with playing the ball

And, as you mentioned in your question, it is also practical to use the reverse diagonal due to the condition of the pitch (particularly the status of the AR’s patrol area) or, occasionally, to take an AR away from people (spectators or team).…

Handling

DELIBERATE HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE (REINFORCED)

June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
RE: DELIBERATE HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — NEW INTERPRETATION
I read with interest your discussion of deliberate handling by a defender that prevents a pass by an attacker from reaching another attacker in an offside position. You stated that, given new offside interpretations, this should be considered deliberate handling rather than offside. My question involves a slightly different situation that was discussed around 1997 in an issue of Fair Play, if I remember correctly: deliberate handling by a defender that deflects a pass by an attacker, redirecting it to another attacker in an offside position. Assuming that the deflection is not considered control for purposes of resetting the offside situation, should this still be considered offside if the attacker in the offside position plays the ball (but not if he refrains from doing so)? The difference between the new situation and the old one is that in the new situation the handling prevents the player in an offside position from interfering with play, while in the old situation the handling enables the player in an offside position to interfere with play. I believe that the USSF interpretation circa 1997 for the old situation was that when involvement by the player in the offside position eventually occurs, the offside offense is deemed to have occurred at the time of the pass, which predates the handling. In the old situation, however, the handling predates involvement by the player in the offside position.
Thanks, as always.

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
We see no functional difference (under the current guidelines from the IFAB) between deliberate handling that prevents a ball from going to an attacker in an offside position and deliberate handling that results in the ball going to an attacker in an offside position (who, presumably, would not have been able to even consider playing the ball but for the handling). Either way, the handling must be called and, either way, the offside offense has not occurred — in the first situation because the ball was redirected and, in the second situation, because the attacker isn’t even given a chance to make contact with the ball because the handling occurred first (and the AR’s flag should not go up in either case for anything related to offside).

Now a simple redirection of the ball from an accidental deflection off the defender is a different matter and the offside would be called.…

Handling

HANDLING VS. OFFSIDE — CAUTION?

June 11, 2009June 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
With reference to your recent answer regarding deliberate handling and offside:

A long forward pass is attempted from attacker A1 to attacker A2, who is in an offside position. Defender D1 deliberately handles the ball to prevent it from reaching A2. Defender D2 is near A2, with no other attacker in the vicinity. D2 would have easily controlled the ball, assuming that A2 does not interfere, but for D1’s handling. Should we really caution D1 for a tactical foul, since the handling did not break up an attack? In deciding on whether to caution D1, doesn’t the referee need to determine whether a legitimate attack is possible?

USSF answer (June 11, 2009):
The referee must do what is best for the game in any situation like this. However, if a player gets away with a blatant deliberate handling offense once, he or she will do it again. The intelligent referee will be able to figure out what will happen to their game if that goes on.

In addition, you have introduced a potentially significant element tin your scenario that was not present in the original situation — the caution for a tactical foul presumes that the foul was tactical and this is what the referee has to decide. The issue you are raising — which must also be taken into account — is whether the foul was intended to be tactical even if, in fact, it turned out not to be tactical. In other words, the defender may not have taken his teammate into account (didn’t know his teammate was so close, knew his teammate was close but was a klutz, whatever) and thus, in his mind, he was indeed attempting to stop the opponents’ attacking play. After all, the misconduct is based as much on the clear intentions of the perpetrator as it is on the actual outcome.…