Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

"Inventive" Refs

IF YOU INTERFERE AT FREE KICKS, THEY BECOME “CEREMONIAL”

Posted on by

Question:
The following happened late in the season in a U16 boys travel game. Experienced, skillful teams. With about 5 minutes left in the game, I whistle a tripping foul on the defense (who is leading 2-1) about 5 yards out from the left corner of their penalty area. The attacker who is going to take the kick places the ball where I indicate, and a 3-man defensive wall quickly forms approximately 10 yards in front of the ball. The attacker positions himself to take a quick free kick, but a fourth defender strolls in front of him, walking slowly towards the defensive wall. The attacker stares at me, knowing (from what my practice in the game has been so far), that if he asks for 10 yards, I’m going to make the kick ceremonial, which he clearly doesn’t want. So he says nothing. At this point, it seems that I am hamstrung. If I don’t do anything, the attacker is unfairly denied a quick unobstructed free kick. If I whistle to caution the fourth defender, the kick becomes ceremonial, which the attacker didn’t want (and this late in the game and the season, a caution would be a very small price to pay for denying the quick free kick). If I move to actively manage the wall, the kick also becomes ceremonial.

What I did was to say sharply to the fourth defender, ‘Back up!’. He took one more step toward his defensive wall, whereupon the attacker blasted the ball into the upper right corner of the net, tying the game.

The defending team was of the opinion that my two words to the fourth defender were sufficient to make the kick ceremonial, they protested, and lost the protest. But the protest committee thought this was a close case, noting that generally anything a referee says in this situation tends to make the kick ceremonial. I don’t disagree, but am at loss as to how best to manage this situation fairly.

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
You did not commit any breach of the Laws, so we cannot comment on the advice of the protest committee, although they are correct in that by saying those two words you did interfere in the taking of the free kick, thus turning it into a ceremonial free kick. However, we are at a loss to design any other way for you to accomplish the end you had in mind, short of immediately stopping the game, cautioning the defender, and then signaling for the kick to continue. Given that you made a different choice, the only other thing we could suggest for your consideration would be a caution to the defender for unsporting behavior, administered after the kick.…

"Only in America!"

PUTTING THE BALL INTO PLAY AT A KICK RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Advice 13.5 has changed to read, ‘Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot.’ What would happen if a player used the bottom of the foot to roll the ball forward, and then without losing contact between foot and ball pulled the ball backward? Would that be a proper restart at a free kick? What about the special kicks (kickoff, PK) that have to go forward?

Does the change in Advice 13.5 change the answer of Sept 27, 2007?

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
The information included in Advice 13.5 is quite clear:

13.5 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the “kick” need only be a touch of the ball with the foot in a kicking motion. Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient.

When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot.  The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match.

The referee must judge carefully whether any particular kick of the ball and subsequent movement was indeed reasonably taken with the intention of putting the ball into play rather than with the intention merely to position the ball for the restart. If the ball is just being repositioned (even if the foot is used to do this), play has not been restarted. Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish for “failing to respect the required distance” when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart.

The referee must make the final decision on what is a “kick” and what is “not a kick” based on his or her feeling for the game-what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”).

In other words, it tells us what the referee should look for at a kick restart. However, that does not mean that the referee should not consider tradition and custom in making decisions. See, for example, the information in the answer of September 27, 2007:

USSF answer (September 27, 2007):
While the procedure you describe, rolling the ball forward, etc., is not what we would allow on a free kick (see below) and certainly not what is required by Law 8, it is commonly accepted practice for kick-offs at all levels of soccer. We have seen it allowed even at the current Women’s World Cup in China and in other high-level competitions throughout the world.

The kick-off, like the throw-in, is simply a way to get the game restarted when the ball has left the field. It is, and should be, regarded as a relaxed and less tense way of doing so. We allow trifling infringements of Law 15 in this regard, and we should do the same in the case of the kick-off.

What you describe does not meet the requirements of Law 8 for a kick-off. As always, however, the issue is indeed whether the action is a violation (it is), but we must consider whether the violation should/must/needs to be handled by a stoppage and a retake of the restart. Unless the player performing the kick-off incorrectly gains some unfair benefit, we are inclined to consider the violation trifling (on par with a teammate illegally standing just over the midfield line on a kick-off to “receive” the ball). As it occurs at the very highest levels on a routine basis, you might, at most, warn the kicker that what just happened was a technical violation of the Law. However, we would recommend that you consider it trifling and punish it only if the players begin to take even greater advantage of the referee’s kindness.

Now, if we are dealing with a free kick, the requirements of Law 13 would apply completely: When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being “moved” does not, for example, include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly.

When you consider custom and tradition, he two pieces of information are not inconsistent with one another.

Finally, we might add that the kick-off is also the way of starting a period of play.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

ASSIST; DO NOT INSIST

Posted on by

Question:
During my last game, I was an AR and there was a PK. The kicker sent the ball to the goal post, it bounced back on the field and she kicked it again going out of bounds for a goal kick. I raised my flag as soon as the kicker hit the rebound, however the CR said goal kick (which told me that he didn’t know that part of the law)…

I lowered my flag right away, thinking that I was not going to make a difference.

However, I thought what would have happened if the ball went in the goal… I would have raised my flag but what if the CR still declared a goal…

So my question is, what would be the right way to proceed in this scenario if you are the AR? Should you stay on the goal line trying to bring the CR’s attention? What if the CR does not agree with you, should the AR just lower the flag and concede the goal?

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
If the referee declares such a play of the ball to be a goal, it is the assistant referee’s clear duty to give the referee the correct advice. If the referee refuses to take this advice, then the assistant referee has done his or her duty.…

Guide to Procedures

POSITIONING FOR RESTARTS NEAR GOAL

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent game, Blue has a throw-in approximately 6 yards from Yellow’s goal line. Players for both teams are gathered on the 18. The CR is about 28 yards out, watching the players in the middle.

One option for the AR is to be in line with the 2nd to last defender on the 18, watching for offside. Yes, we know you cannot be offside on a throw-in, but there is opportunity for the ball to be thown to the middle of the field and played by someone there to another player who could now be in an offside position.

Another option for the AR is to be positioned between the player making the throw-in and the corner flag. This position allows the AR to keep all players and the ball between the AR and the CR.

1) In the absence of the CR assuming responsibility for the offside calls and instructing the AR to go to the corner, which option would be the best position for the AR?

2) In this particular case, does it make sense for the CR to move to the 18 and cover the offside calls as well as the play, or should the CR stay back in order to have a better angle to watch the play?

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
You seem to have set up a false dichotomy.  The assistant referee’s position on a throw-in is always “even with the second-to-last defender or the ball, whichever is closer to the goal line.”  In cases where the second-last defender is farther downfield (i .e., farther away from the goal line than the ball), then the rule still applies, but with the proviso that the AR cannot be where the ball is since that is also where the thrower is.  Accordingly, the general rule is modified slightly as “even with the second to last defender or the ball, whichever is closer to the goal line, and also between the thrower and the AR’s goal line.”

What this means in practice is that, if the second-last defender is closer, then the AR is even with that defender which, by necessity, places him between the thrower and the goal line.  If the second-last defender is upfield, the AR is simply between the thrower and the goal line.  In either case, the AR must be prepared to adjust based on movement of the ball and the second-to-last defender as a result of the throw-in.  What the AR must not do in an attempt to be even with the ball is to stand next to the thrower or even with the thrower but way off the touchline — the AR must still be on the touchline.

For examples, see the diagrams in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials” 2008-2009 edition, pp. 17, 18, 31-34.

The referee should be in a place where he/she can see where play is and where it is going, can see the AR, and is not in space the players need to use.…

"Inventive" Refs

PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
This is a question related to the throw-in. I have seen this called, and called it myself many times, but as I now look over the LOTG again, as well as advice, I find no backing for it. It could be that this is one of those that has historical significance and is no longer written, or I may have just been doing it wrong.

The LOTG states that a player must throw the ball with two hands, starting from behind the head. I have seen an addition, in practice, in which the thrower must throw the ball straight in the direction they are facing. For example, a red player taking a throw against blue team. Red player is facing towards blue team’s goal, but angles his arms during the throw to send the ball towards his own defensive player, the opposite direction that he is facing. I have also heard that it is illegal to throw the ball in a way that causes it to spin sideways. What is the correct ruling on this? I look forward to your answer before spring season starts in a couple of weeks.

USSF answer (March 11, 2009):
The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” 2008-2009 edition, lifts the veil from the mystery of the throw-in. Read the first sentence of Advice 15.3:

15.3 PROPERLY TAKEN THROW-IN
A throw-in must be performed while the thrower is facing the field, but the ball may be thrown into the field in any direction. Law 15 states that the thrower “delivers the ball from behind and over his head.” This phrase does not mean that the ball must leave the hands from an overhead position. A natural throwing movement starting from behind and over the head will usually result in the ball leaving the hands when they are in front of the vertical plane of the body. The throwing movement must be continued to the point of release. A throw-in directed straight downward (often referred to as a “spike”) has traditionally been regarded as not correctly performed; if, in the opinion of the referee such a throw-in was incorrectly performed, the restart should be awarded to the opposing team.  There is no requirement in Law 15 prohibiting spin or rotational movement. Referees must judge the correctness of the throw-in solely on the basis of Law 15.

The acrobatic or “flip” throw-in is not by itself an infringement so long as it is performed in a manner which meets the requirements of Law 15.

A player who lacks the normal use of one or both hands may nevertheless perform a legal throw-in provided the ball is delivered over the head and provided all other requirements of Law 15 are observed.

…
Law 13 - Free Kicks

PLACEMENT OF THE BALL AT KICK RESTARTS

Posted on by

Question:
This is an accumulation question that comes to mind only over years of watching games.

Referees are typically generous in placement of the ball for the taking of a free kick unless it’s advanced unreasonably closer to the goal (sometimes, just sometimes an inch beyond the corner arcs) OR when the ball is advanced beyond the penalty area or beyond the halfway line. There is no instruction I’m aware of that says that placement must be within the bounds of either area. But, I keep seeing referees force the ball back before the kick is accepted. This seeming pettiness goes against the ambition of keeping the game flowing without unnecessary interruption.

Why do referees do it?

USSF answer (March 9, 2009):
To prevent players from gaining an unfair advantage.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

WEARING THE OSI UNIFORM AT NON-AFFILIATED GAMES

Posted on by

Question:
I know we should not wear our USSF referee badge for non-USSF matches, but…

From the USSF’s point of view…

Is it ‘legal’ for USSF referees to wear the OSI uniform shirt and shorts with the USSF logo as shown here (http://www.officialsports.com/det_8070.jpg) for non-USSF matches, say for example high school matches?

USSF answer (March 9, 2009):
Referees must wear apparel that is approved for the competition in which they officiate. If there is no uniform requirement in a competition that is not affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation, then referees may wear what they like, as long as they do not bring dishonor on the uniform or themselves.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

OFFSIDE AT A KICK-OFF?

Posted on by

Question:
After years of officiating, I find this question almost funny… but then I realized (at the higher level of play) the play begins once the whistle is blown, not when the ball is kicked… so can a player be offside if he/she receives the ball from a kick-off?

USSF answer (March 9, 2009):
At a kick-off play does not begin until the ball is kicked and moves forward. No, a player cannot be offside directly from a kick-off; however, that player would have failed to follow the requirement of Law 8 that “all players must be in their own half of the field” and the kick-off would be retaken.…

Advantage

ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
This month’s meeting of our local official’s association had us discussing the position paper found on [the USSF] website concerning advantage in the penalty area (04/11/08). We took the tips from the paper and it was beneficial information for all involved. The discussion then turned to advantage. Half of those in attendance believe that advantage ended with the shot attempt by the teammate that was passed the ball (i.e. video highlight Kansas City v. New England attached to position paper). The other half indicated that no advantage developed because the teammate missed the shot. That left us with the question; what constitutes ‘advantage’ and when is it realized or finished? We realize that this scenario that we are proposing is not exactly like the video in that the referee in the video never exhibited the ‘advantage’ signal. What we are asking is if the referee had moved his arms in an upward manner and shouted “advantage” and then the play continued exactly like the video in that the teammate received the pass and did not score. Is the advantage finished with the missed shot or can the referee then go to the penalty spot with the explanation that the advantage never occurred because the shot was missed? We have a group of officials that referee from the lowest levels of youth games all the way up to the collegiate level and the room was pretty evenly divided on when the advantage ended. We need your help.

USSF answer (March 7, 2009):
We believe you will find your answer at the bottom of this excerpt from the position paper:

The basic elements of the decision are straightforward:

– Advantage is a team concept and thus the referee must be aware not only of the fouled player’s ability to continue his or her attack but also of the ability of any of the player’s teammates to continue the attack themselves.
– Advantage has been applied when the decision is made, not when the advantage signal is given. The signal itself may often be delayed for 2-3 seconds while the referee evaluates the advantage situation to determine if it will continue.
– Where it does not continue, the Laws of the Game provide for the referee to stop play for the original foul.
– If the original foul involved violence, the referee is advised not to apply advantage unless there is an immediate chance of scoring a goal.
Inside the penalty area, the competitive tension is much greater and the referee is called upon to make quicker decisions. The time during which the referee looks for advantage to continue becomes defined by the probability of scoring a goal directly following the foul or from the subsequent play.

While the decision lies solely in the opinion of the referee on the particular game, the thrust of the excerpt above is that giving the advantage within the penalty area means there is some definite reason to expect a goal will be scored immediately (within a play or, at most, two) if play is allowed to continue.  If a shot is taken — after the foul — by the player who was fouled or by a teammate, and a goal was not scored, then in most cases the advantage has not been realized and the original foul must be penalized.  That is why the referee must make the initial decision to invoke the advantage clause very carefully.…

Interpretations/IFAB

LEAVING THE FIELD AND COMMITTING MISCONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
Today at a referee clinic, we discussed the new memorandum about when players leave the field to commit misconduct. Unless I understood incorrectly, I believe that they said that if a player is running and leaves the field of play to strike an AR, it would be a dropped ball. They said that since the misconduct was not against an opponent, a dropped ball is the only possible restart.

However, looking at the memorandum now, it does not specify whether or not that misconduct must occur against an opponent, just that the intent to misconduct was the reason for leaving the field of play. By this logic, wouldn’t there be a IFK for the opposing team?

Additionally, if a player left the field to strike a substitute on his/her own team, would that also be an IFK?

USSF answer (February 24, 2009):
We assume you refer to Supplementary Memorandum 2008/2009, which contains this information:

Law 12
In its guidelines, the International Board has in effect created two scenarios for when the referee stops play for misconduct committed off the field by a player. In the first case, the referee must decide if the player left the field in the normal course of play and, while off the field committed the offense. In this case, after dealing with the misconduct, the referee will restart play with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area). However, if the referee decides that the player left the field for the purpose of committing the offense and after dealing with the misconduct, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area).

In the first case, a dropped ball is the correct restart based on the fact that misconduct was committed off the field. In the second case, an indirect free kick is the correct restart because the player has illegally left the field before committing the restart.

Please remember that misconduct is misconduct, not necessarily involving any foul, and may be committed by a player, a substitute, or a substituted player against anyone, anywhere, and at any time. A foul, on the other hand, is any unfair or unsafe act committed ONLY BY A PLAYER, against an opponent (or the opposing team), on the field, and while the ball is in play.

We hope that your instructor had the knowledge and wisdom to explain to everyone in the clinic that the indirect free kick restart is not for the misconduct committed off the field, but for the illegal exit from the field.

That, of course, opens up an interesting discussion of whether, since misconduct was committed in the departure as well as in the conduct off the field, then it would follow that the referee could also give a second yellow and then a red. But that decision would be up to the referee on that game, at that moment, with those players, and in that specific situation.…