Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Advantage

ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
Is it right to conclude that if I call or indicate an advantage, I MUST (regardless of the result or outcome) punish the defense and/or reward a free kick to the offense, provided that the advantage is within reasonable time?

USSF answer (April 20, 2009):
No, you would not be correct to conclude this. You will find all you need on this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

5.6 ADVANTAGE
Referees have the power to apply (and signal) the advantage upon seeing a foul or misconduct committed if at that moment the terms of the advantage clause (Law 5, 12th item) were met. Applying advantage permits the referee to allow play to continue when the team against which the foul has been committed will actually benefit from the referee not stopping play.

The referee must remember that the advantage applies to the team of the fouled player and not just to the fouled player. Soccer is a team sport and the referee is expected to apply advantage if the fouled player’s team is able to retain or regain control of the ball.

The referee may return to and penalize the original foul if the advantage situation does not develop as anticipated after a short while (2-3 seconds). Referees should note that the “advantage” is not defined solely in terms of scoring a goal. Also, a subsequent offense by a player of the offending team must not be ignored while the referee allows the anticipated development of the advantage. Such an offense may either be recognized by stopping play immediately or by applying the advantage clause again.  Regardless of the outcome of the advantage call, the referee must deal appropriately with any misconduct at the next stoppage, before allowing play to be restarted. (See also 12.27.)

NOTE: After observing a foul or misconduct by a player, the referee decides to apply advantage and within a second or so, the ball goes out of play across a boundary line. The referee may still penalize the original offense.

The referee may also apply advantage during situations that are solely misconduct (both cautionable and send-off offenses) or to situations that involve both a foul and misconduct.

The use of advantage as described in Law 5 is strictly limited to infringements of Law 12 — both the section covering fouls and the later section on misconduct .  Other offenses under the Laws of the Game (e. g., violating Law 15 on a throw-in, offside, “second touch” violations at a restart, etc.) are not subject to the application of advantage.  As with any other infringement of the Law (e. g., the lack of corner flags, a whistle blown by a spectator, the illegal entry onto the field of a spectator), these are subject to a determination by the referee that the infraction is doubtful (uncertain that it occurred) or trifling (the infringement occurred but had no importance for the course of play).  For example, if a ball comes onto the field of play from a nearby field, it is not necessary to stop play unless and until this “foreign object” actually interferes with play or causes any confusion for the players.  Deciding not to stop play in such a case is not based on applying advantage but of following the time-honored principle embodied prior to 1996 in International Board Decision 8 of Law 5 (dropped in 1997 but still considered a core value in the Laws of the Game — see the first paragraph of Advice 5.5, above).

Referees must understand that advantage is not an absolute right. It must be balanced against other issues. The giving of the advantage is not required in all situations to which it might be applied. The referee may stop play despite an advantage if other factors (e.g., game control, severity of a foul or misconduct, possibility of player retaliation, etc.) outweigh the benefit of play continuing. As a practical matter, referees should generally avoid a decision to allow advantage for fouls which happen very early in the match, for fouls performed in front of the team areas, or for misconduct involving violence unless the chance for a goal is immediate.

A common misconception about advantage is that it is about deciding if a challenge is a foul. On the contrary, that decision has already been made because advantage cannot be applied to anything which is not a foul (meaning a violation of Law 12). Advantage, rather, is a decision about whether to stop play for the foul. Accordingly, giving the advantage is “calling the foul” and thus it must be as obvious to the players as signaling to stop play.

Inconspicuous advantage signals are as much to be avoided as a whistle which cannot be heard. Likewise, however, using the advantage signal to indicate that something is not a foul or misconduct, or is a doubtful or trifling offense, is equally wrong. 

In determining whether there is persistent infringement, all fouls are considered, including those to which advantage has been applied.

…
Illegal Gamesmanship

THROW-IN TACTICS

Posted on by

Question:
On a throw in by the blue team, a blue teammate, with an opponent right behind him/her, in anticipation of the ball’s receipt, turns just as the ball is thrown to a place behind and to the side, making contact with the opponent and “pushes off” the opponent with his/her body then runs onto the ball. The player does a “quick turn” with the clear intention of pushing off the opponent with the shoulder or body to seemingly gain an advantage. Comments? Is it all fair in love and soccer or is there a more nefarious
element?
I asked my husband’s niece who uses this play and she said that she is coached to do this. They want someone right behind them so they can use this tactic to their advantage.

USSF answer (April 17, 2009):
Turn about is NOT fair play in this case. If this happens before the ball is released, the throw-in, if subsequently completed, is taken again and the thrower’s teammate should be warned not to repeat this action. If he or she persists in this behavior, the correct remedy is to caution the player for unsporting behavior and retake the throw-in. If this happens after the ball is released, stop play and restart with a direct free kick for the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

ROLE OF THE GOALKEEPER

Posted on by

Question:
I am a coach and in my teams last game, an opponent took a shot on goal. The shot was a slow roller on the ground and my keeper went to pick up the ball. As he was about to pick up the ball, another player on the opposing team came crashing into my keeper knocking him to the ground. Another player ran up and kicked the ball in the goal.

The referee counted the goal. When I argued the call the referee explained to me that as long as my goalie doesn’t have possesion of the ball that the play was legal, no matter if another player ran over my goalie. Is there a rule I don’t know about? I have been playing, coaching, and watching soccer for many many years and it seemed to me like the worst call I had ever seen.

USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
We didn’t see the incident, so cannot comment specifically on it; however, we can say with full certainty that the goalkeeper’s role is, by the very requirements of the job, inherently dangerous. Goalkeepers know this going in and most operate accordingly.

The goalkeeper has no more rights than any other player, with the exceptions of protective equipment and not being challenged when attempting to release the ball into general play. When not in possession of the ball, the goalkeeper may be fairly challenged. And the “fairly” is determined by the referee, not the coach and not the player.

The goalkeeper is considered to be in control (= possession) of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm.

Finally, a reminder that, as age and skill levels go down, the referee must interpret both “possession” and “safe challenge” more liberally.…

"Inventive" Refs

OFFSIDE: WHEN IN DOUBT, . . .

Posted on by

Question:
In a men’s division 2 game AR 1 is watching a group of attacking and defending players challenging for the ball about ten yards directly in front of the net. The ball is kicked out of the group to an attacking player in an offside position on the far side of the field. The AR’s view of exactly who kicked the ball is blocked.

The referee looks to the AR for a call but in the pregame the referee instructed the AR’s that they had the offside call. The referee allows play to continue. Can the AR signal for offside if he did not see that an attacking player kicked the ball to the player in an offside position?

USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
The rule for the assistant referee in possible offside situations: When in doubt, leave the flag down.

The problem suggests poor pregame instruction, with no donut for the referee.  This is typical of the bad habits referees get into when they don’t THINK about their pregame instructions — the referee ALWAYS has the call, based on information provided by the AR.  The WEIGHT the referee gives to the information depends on (a) the issue (i. e., position or involvement) and (b) the AR’s distance to the event.  The referee might defer to the AR in the case of clear information from the AR and doubt on the part of the referee, but the referee cannot simply turn over to the AR all responsibility for making a potentially game critical decision if the referee has no doubt about what he has seen.…

Interpretations/IFAB

OFFSIDE: DOES THE PLAYER REALLY NEED TO TOUCH THE BALL?

Posted on by

Question:
A recent email from a league for which I referee contained the following: “A player in an offside position may be judged to have violated the offside law by three criteria, but two of these (interfering with play and gaining an advantage) REQUIRE that the player touch the ball. If the player does not touch the ball, the only way he can infringe the law is by interfering with an opponent.”
I don’t believe that this is correct. It is my understanding that if the ball is passed to a player in an offside position and there is really no chance that another attacking player who is onside would come onto the ball, then the offside should be called even before the offside player touches the ball. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this. I also believe that if the ball is passed to a player in an offside position but there is a chance that an onside attacker could get to the ball first, then the AR should wait to see who gets to the ball first–as long as the offside player doesn’t otherwise interfere with play.
Thanks for any guidance you can give here.

USSF answer (April 14, 2009):
We direct your attention to the Laws of the Game 2008/2009, Interpretations and Guidelines for Referees:

LAW 11 – OFFSIDE
Definitions
In the context of Law 11 — Offside, the following definitions apply:
* “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
* “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate
* “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
* “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

The current international interpretation is that the player in the offside position must touch the ball to be considered to have interfered with play.

So, you ask, what happens if that player simply follows the ball? In that case, he or she is likely to draw the attention of one of the opponents, who will move with him or her. Now the player in the offside position has interfered with an opponent and need not touch or play the ball to be considered offside.…

"Inventive Assessors"

PROCEDURE FOR ISSUING CARDS

Posted on by

Question:
I have Law 12 questions dealing with procedure to issuing cards. According to USSF the proper way to issue a card towards a player or substitute is IBC (Isolate, Book, and Card). However from watching MLS, EPL, La Liga etc, I see referees issuing cards first, then taking the time to write in the book.

I do issue cards by IBC, but only due to the fact that my assessor says “players are ready to restart and don’t want to wait for the booking IF I show the card first.”

1) What is the proper procedure in FIFA (international matches) to issueing cards?

2) Are the USSF/FIFA procedures similar? or does FIFA teach it differently.

3) When issuing Reds should the procedure be the same? IBC, or show the card, then book them?

Please give an indepth explaination.

USSF answer (April 12, 2009):
You must have watched far fewer games than we have, as your observation that the cards are issued immediately in all situations is, in fact, wrong, no matter what country you live or referee or watch TV in. Either that or selective memory has contributed to the assessor’s well-meant but misplaced advice.

Throughout the world there are two ways to administer the issuance of cards for misconduct. The first is the standard way: stop play, take names, write details of the incident and then show the card, together with an admonition to behave for those who have been cautioned. The second is used to immediately defuse difficult situations in which delay of the card could lead to even greater difficulties: That is to show the card immediately and then take down the details.

We suggest for your (and the assessor’s) further reading p. 38 of the Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials (2008-09).…

Law 1 - The Field

NO CORNER FLAGS; DELIBERATE PASS TO GOALKEEPER MISSED

Posted on by

Question:
1. in a game played where corner flags were not available…if the ball goes out of play from an attacker’s foot and travels directly over where the corner flag would have been, is it restarted with a goal kick or a throw in?  Are corner flags required for a game? must they actually be a flag or can they be just a post (flag on one that was provided had torn off)?

2. keeper commits a passback violation that was not obvious to all players (or to the referee) but was to the two attacking strikers.  Immediately following the keeper picking up the ball but before the referee had blown his whistle, the striker pulled the ball out of the keeper’s hands (not unsportingly though), placed it on the ground, passed it backward to the other striker who taps it into the goal.  The referee agreed that it was a passback violation, but took a second or two to fully process it and decide that it was an infraction.  The whistle was never blown, even after the ball went into the net.

question…is the infraction enough for the foul to occur, or must the referee blow his whistle to award the foul? since the foul and misconduct situations do not require there to be a whistle, would this situation require one?  is this a goal?  What about less controversial ones..is the whistle the device that awards the foul or communicates it?

it goes without saying that the crew got in a lot of trouble (with the players) for allowing this to happen.

USSF answer (April 10, 2009):
1. Yes, corner flags and posts are required. However, if they are not available, the referee must make certain that he or she can judge where the corner is. The final decision in your question is up to the referee.

2. It’s difficult to determine in which instance the referee made himself look more foolish: (a) in missing the goalkeeper picking up the deliberate pass from his teammate (?!?!?!) or (b) in allowing the striker to pull the ball from the goalkeeper’s hands while the ball was still in play, at least in the eyes of the referee. Where was the assistant referee? Where was the referee? Neither one was anywhere near the field of play, right?

Fact 1: The players (through the IFAB) make the Laws of the Game, but it’s the referee who enforces them, not the players.

Fact 2: The whistle is needed to stop play for a free kick or penalty kick. (See Interpretations, use of the whistle.)…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER KICKS BALL, PICKS IT OUT OF THE AIR

Posted on by

Question:
the goalie has possession of the ball and punts the ball not very far about a yard away can she pick it up again while the ball is in the air…and nobody touches the ball? does it make a diffrence if it touches the ground?

USSF answer (April 10, 2009):
If the goalkeeper releases the ball from her hands and kicks it away and it hits the the ground, the ball is in play for everyone and the goalkeeper may not pick it up again until some other player has played it. We have a difficult time picturing a punt that the goalkeeper kicks only one yard yet is able to catch in the air. Seeing as this is clearly impossible, it did not happen — at least for purposes of this particular case — and there is no infringement of the Law.…

Law 11 - Offside

OFFSIDE WHEN DEFENDER PASSES BALL BACK?

Posted on by

Question:
If a defender in full possession of the ball, passes the ball deliberately backward (ie no glancing or rebound) with the intention of passing back to the goalkeeper, and in so doing passes to an opponent from the attacking team who would, if the pass had come from an attacking team mate, have been standing in an offside position at the time of the pass from the defender, with the clear intention of interfering with play (and indeed going onto score so actually interfering with play), is the attacking player in an offside position?

In a recent Champions League game (Manchester United v FC Porto April 7th), this was demonstrated when Wayne Rooney, who was standing clearly in an offside position between the last defender and the goalkeeper in anticipation of the pass back, took possession of the ball by virtue of the pass and went onto score. He was in my opinion, not only (a) standing in an offside position when the ball was played (b) interfering with play by taking possession of the ball (c) preventing an opponent from taking possession of the ball by intercepting the ball in an offside position.

All of the Rules and interpretations I have seen phrase the consideration of an offside offence in terms of passes accurately or erroneously made by the attacking team and falling inadvertently (by rebound or deflection) or deliberately to a team mate who may or may not be in an offside position. Or they deal with an opponent defending a set piece goal kick. They do not deal with a deliberate pass by a defender to an opposition player who may be in a conventional offside position at the time the ball is played. 

Could you tell me what should be the correct interpretation of this situation? Is an attacking player never offside if a defender passes directly to the attacker who would otherwise be standing in an offside position, by virtue of the defender having passed (inadvertently one assumes) to him?

USSF answer (April 9, 2009):
In short, yes. But perhaps we should give you more information on the matter.

A player may stand in an offside position for the entire game and never be called offside if he or she is not involved in play. And that, in turn, requires that the ball last be played by a teammate. If the ball was last possessed and played by an opponent, as in your scenario, there can be no offside.

We are concerned about possession of the ball in such cases, not in accuracy of passes. If by accuracy you mean that the opposing defender took a wild swing at the ball and it glanced off him to the player in the offside position, that would not negate the call of offside, as the opposing player never had possession of the ball.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

COACH’S INSTRUCTIONS TO PLAYERS

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent youth league (U10) our opponents used a tactic where to prevent a quick quick after a foul the coach instructed his players to line up within the required distance and “have the referee move you” Although you have answered a similar question, my question was if the coach is deliberately instructing players in an illegal tactic should the referee address the coach or the players? Also is each player involved cautioned or a single player cautioned (In the event the referee decides to issue a caution–At this level I’m sure rule 18 may imply some instruction first before penalty). I wanted to provide some (correct) insight in my referee report (we evaluate our referees and i take my role seriously to give them correct feedback so that they can improve).

USSF answer (April 9, 2009):
The referee cannot act on incomplete information. Unless the referee or one of the other officials hears the coach issue such instructions and judges that act to be irresponsible behavior, it did not happen.  Unless a coach is inciting to riot, we can’t really penalize coaches for bad advice or bad judgment or ignorance of the Law — only players who make the mistake of taking the coach’s advice.  If that is the way the coach is seeking to delay, then so be it.  It either works or it doesn’t.  In this case, this becomes a function of the referee’s knowledge of the Law, feel for the game, and competitive level of the match. No referee should hesitate to card a player for failure to retreat the required distance (FRD) — where it made a difference — despite the tactics of the coach, because it is the player doing it.

As to cautioning the players who are failing to withdraw the required distance from the spot of the restart, the referee should not issue cards willy-nilly, but should caution whichever player or players need the caution so that the referee can get the job done.  This follows the fundamental principle of doing the LEAST necessary to accomplish the desired result.  Usually, it only takes one, which is why we advise referees when faced with this sort of situation to single out ONE player by number and demand enforcement.  THAT’s the player who gets the card if there isn’t compliance.  Technically, of course, ALL players are subject to the same discipline.  Whom do you single out?  Doesn’t matter– though we would tend not to pick someone who had already been cautioned IF the prior caution was for something other than FRD. Now if it had been for FRD, hammer the sucker!).…