POSITION FOR RESTART ON OFFSIDE

February 25, 2009February 25, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have a question about the placement of the free kick following an offside infringement.

Law 10 states “In the event of an offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick).”

Advice to Referee’s (section 11.13) says the restart should be where the offside player was when his teammate played the ball. The kick should not be taken from the position of the second to last defender.

OK – here’s my question. Why is the kick always taken at the position of the second to last defender? Granted, sometimes the offside player and the second to last defender are very close so it doesn’t matter. But when they are not close – one always sees the ball moved up to the position of the AR.

Isn’t this wrong? It seems to me the general practice and the laws are not in synch. Comment?

USSF answer (February 25, 2009):
You quote correctly both the Law (though you should be citing Law 11, not 10) and the Advice, and then ask why is the kick always taken at the position of the second-last defender. In point of fact, the kick is indeed taken from the place where the player was when his teammate played the ball, even though the player may have moved elsewhere by the time he becomes involved in play.

If the kick is taken from the place where the second-last defender was, that is because of sheer laziness on the part of either the assistant referee or the referee. The AR is expected to stay with the second-last defender or the ball, whichever is nearer to the goal, but must remember where the player in the offside position was when it comes time to flag for the offense. Too many ARs take the easy way out, but you should not allow that to influence how you officiate the game.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

MISTAKENLY EXTENDED TIME

February 24, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Situation: USSF sanctioned match. In the second half, the referee allows the match to continue past the standard (sanctioned) length of the half as adjusted for time lost based on his error as to the proper duration of the half for a particular age group (eg., in a U12 match, the referee runs a 35 minute half instead of the standard 30 minute half). During this unauthorized extension, one team scores a goals which proves to be the winning goal. Aditionally, the referee adminsters a card (caution or send off). This fact situation presents the following two questions/problems:

Question # 1: Does the goal stand?

This question presents two subquestions depending on the timing of the referee’s recognition of his error:

Subquestion # 1a: After the goal is scored, but before the restart, the referee realizes that he has improperly extended the match. Can the referee disallow the goal and end the match as a tie immdiately (and describe these circumstances in his match report)?

Scenarioi # 1b: The referee allows the goal and restarts the match but, at a later point (but prior to blowing the whistle to end the match), the referee realizes his error. Must the referee allow the goal to stand, end the match immediately, and describe his error and the consequences in his match report to the competition authority?

Question # 2: Does the card stand?

This question also raises two subquestions depending on the timing of the referee’s recognition of his error:

Subquestion # 2a: The referee administers a card, but, prior to the restart, he discovers his timing error. May he rescind the card and end the match immediately as a tie (and describe these circumstances in his game report)?

Subquestion # 2b: The referee administers a card, restarts play, but at a later point (but prior to blowing the whistle to end the match) realizes his error. Must the referee let the card stand, end the match immediately, and report the circumstances in his match report to the competition authority?

Applicable Laws:

Law 5 Denotes that the referee is the official timekeeper for the match

Law 7: The referee may add time for time lost

The referee may not arbitrarily shorten or lengthen the duration of the halves where the competition authority has specified the duration of the halves

Asked for further information, the questioner stated that he “should have said something to the effect of ‘mistakenly extended’ time. In the case which prompted my questions, the referee simply made a mental error and ran a 35 minute second half having run a 30 minute first half. However, . . . in this case, both AR’s were inattentive and of no help to the referee and both coaches (including the coach whose team was ahead) did not question the referee about the time during the running of ‘extended time’.”

USSF answer (February 24, 2009):
1. Does the goal stand?
1a. The goal may be disallowed once the referee realizes his error.
1b. The goal must stand.
In both of these situations the referee must provide full details in the match report.

2. May the referee rescind a card? The card stands and the referee must provide full details in the match report.
2a. The referee COULD rescind the card, but SHOULD the referee do it? Probably not in this case, since the player’s misconduct is cautionable whether committed during play or (if time has run out) during the period immediately following the end of play.
2b. No, in this case the he card stands and the referee must provide full details in the match report.

To sum it up: The referee ran an overly long second half. If he had been smart and quick on his mental feet, he would have simply described the extra time as “taking into account time lost” — not true, of course, but an overly long half is easier to “explain” than a half which is short by any amount.

In a different situation, it might have been that the referee hit the 35th minute in the second half and said “Oh my God! I forgot that the half for this age group is 30 minutes long. I got it right on the first half but was so absorbed in the game and the players were playing so much above their age level that I let the half go too long.”

The match is not over until the referee says it is over. If the error is realized during a stoppage (e. g., for a goal), the goal can be cancelled and the match ended. If it is not realized until after play restarts after the goal, it stands and the match ends when the referee stops play. The same principle applies for the card shown at a stoppage — it can be cancelled if play has not resumed, it stands if play has resumed.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY? WHAT TO DO?

February 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I am a coach of 12 years and encountered a situation during a game last season and would like your input as to the correct call for the situation.

Here is the setup; the attacker is heading towards goal followed closely by a defender, the only player between the attacker and goal is the keeper, the attacker has entered the area and is about the 15 when the defender reaches forward and gives a slight tug (hold or grab) on the left shoulder of the attacker trying to slow down the attacker’s progress, the attacker feels the hold and lunges forward through the air as if he were pushed.

Would you send off the defender for a deliberate hold in the area that denies an obvious scoring opportunity and award a pk, or would you caution the attacker for unsportsmanlike behavior, or both, or neither?

If both, what would the restart be?

USSF answer (February 20, 2009):
There are various possibilities for punishment, depending on the referee’s perception of the situation.

Was the attacking player simulating? If so, the referee needs to decide exactly WHAT was being simulated. Was it the foul itself, or was the attacker fouled but the simulation was an attempt to get the referee to add misconduct to the punishment (i. e., a card)?

If it was the foul itself that was being simulated, then the attacker needs to be cautioned for this and the opposing team given an indirect free kick where the simulation occurred.

If the defender committed a foul (holding or pushing) and the simulation was an attempt to get the referee to show a yellow or red card, then the attacker must certainly be cautioned for this but we are still left with the fact that the attacker was fouled inside the opposing team’s penalty area by a defender — which means a penalty kick restart.

In this case, the only question remaining is whether the defender’s foul also involved misconduct and thus the defender must be shown a card as well. What are the only possibilities for carding the defender based on the foul? The referee might decide that the foul itself was reckless (yellow card) or involved excessive force (red card), but the referee must be careful not to be influenced by the attacker’s simulation. The other possibility is that the referee might decide that the foul interfered with an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (OGSO). Assuming all the “4 D” elements were met, the referee must take into account whether the interference was actually caused by the defender’s foul or whether the attacker contributed to the interference by the simulation. In other words, if the “falling down” hadn’t occurred when the attacker simulated, would the attacker’s OGSO have been interfered with by the original foul?

Only the referee “on the spot” can make these determinations.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

CHARGING AN OPPONENT

February 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
If a person is dribbling, is the defense player allowed to lean almost like being ridden of the puck in hockey. Is this obstruction? No tackle for the ball is attempted it.

USSF answer (February 20, 2009):
All is in the eye of the beholder, and in this case the only beholder who counts is the referee. Yes, players are allowed to charge an opponent, using their shoulder against the area of the shoulder of the opponent. We hesitate to make any analogies to the sport of ice hockey lest we be attacked by someone’s father or mother.…

"Only in America!"

RE: WEARING THE U. S. FLAG PATCH

February 20, 2009February 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
This is in regards to the previous question regarding the wearing of American flags on referee’s shoulders. According to the United States Flag Code, “The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, firefighters, police officers, and members of patriotic organizations.”

Does the USSF constitute a patriotic organization (a la the US Olympic team) and is thus exempt from this provision?

USSF answer (February 20, 2009):
Thank you for the email. U.S. Soccer considers itself a patriotic organization.…

Interpretations/IFAB

GOALKEEPER LEAVING FIELD FOR TREATMENT

February 13, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
have [an] interesting question for you, one that had senior instructors in animated disagreement. We know that:

(a) A team has 11 players, one of whom must be the goalkeeper.

(b) With permission of the referee, a player may leave the field temporarily for treatment of an injury and not be replaced. Play continues.

(c) In the case of (b) above, with the referee’s permission the player may return to the field during play over any touch line, or if play is stopped, over any boundary line.

The question is, if the injured player is the goalkeeper and that team wishes to continue play while the GK is being treated, if this allowed or must one of the other players (or a sub) be designated as GK?

This situation could conceivably arise, for example, in the last few minutes of a 2-1 game when Red is down but has been pounding away at Blue’s goal trying to tie it up. The Red GK gets injured and must be assessed for a possible concussion, the team has no more subs and is reasonably sure the GK can return, so they want to continue playing while momentum is on their side (perhaps also due to concern about game time remaining).

We recognize that in normal circumstances the right thing to do is to wait for the GK to return and add the time lost. But the question is: If the team wants to continue, must we force them to wait?

The referees on one side of this argument point out that no Law is being violated just because the GK happens to be off the field. The referees on the other side think the spirit of the Law (and maybe somewhere, the letter) requires that the GK be on the field. It’s been an interesting discussion.

Would you like to weigh in with your thoughts and/or an official answer?

USSF answer (February 13, 2009):
There is no written requirement that the goalkeeper MUST remain on the field of play. However, The goalkeeper cannot leave the field with the referee’s permission specifically for treatment unless he or she is either substituted or exchanges places temporarily with a field player (following the guidance in Law 3). The clear intent of the Laws is that the goalkeeper remain on the field of play. That is demonstrated through the provisions in the Law that the goalkeeper may be treated on the field, even though (with some specific exceptions) others must leave. (For the exceptions, see Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, Injured Players.)

However, the goalkeeper is permitted to leave the field during the course of play, just as are all players. A statement in the 2008-2009 Laws of the Game (Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees) demonstrates that: “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.”
An earlier question and answer (2006 IFAB Q&A, Law 3) also illustrates the point:

20. During a match, the goalkeeper sprints from the goal to stop an opponent. He kicks the ball out of the field of play and a throw-in is awarded to the opposing team. The momentum of the goalkeeper takes him off the field of play and before he can return, the throw-in is taken and a goal is scored. What action, if any, should the referee take?
A goal is awarded since no offence has been committed.

A goalkeeper may be treated just off the field while play continues — we often see this in higher-level games — but must return as quickly as possible.

When the ball is out of play, the goalkeeper may gain the permission of the referee to leave the field specifically for treatment, but play cannot be restarted until that goalkeeper has returned to the field, been substituted, or exchanged positions with one of the field players.…

Advice to Referees

“DELIBERATELY KICKED”

February 12, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
In clause 12.20 of the ATR, is the operative interpretation “deliberately kicked” or kicked “deliberately to the goalkeeper” by a teammate?

In one of my recent games, white attacker in possession of the ball is moving toward blue’s goal, with blue defender challenging shoulder to shoulder. Blue defender wins possession and kicks the ball away from the white attacker. Blue goalkeeper, while still in her own penalty area, moves toward the ball and picks it up. Clearly the blue defender “deliberately kicked” the ball. But she didn’t necessarily kick the ball “deliberately to the goal keeper”.

Has the goalkeeper committed an infraction?

USSF answer (February 12, 2009):
We think the Advice is quite clear as it stands but will address the matter here.

Two answers to the first question: (a) Both. “Deliberately kicked” or “kicked deliberately” mean that there was some forethought to the player’s action; the player knew where he or she wanted the ball to go and kicked it there. On the other hand, an obvious attempt to clear the ball that happens to run to the ‘keeper is not punishable, nor is a ball that is obviously miskicked. (b) “To the goalkeeper” means directly to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can conveniently play the ball.

Second question: If, in the opinion of the referee, … .

We add a final note, meant solely to clarify for referees (and, unfortunately, many instructors, too) that the phrasing MUST NOT be interpreted as “kicked with the intent that the ball go to the goalkeeper.” “Deliberately” modifies “kick” and not the direction (meaning the totality of the direction “to the goalkeeper”) which is why the kick must be deliberate and the direction must be deliberate (i. e., not a miskick) but the direction itself doesn’t have to be the specific direction of “to the goalkeeper.”…

"Only in America!"

AR FLAGS

February 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Is there a standard design for the Assistant referee flags?
I see many different designs and would be interested in having a unique one.

USSF answer (February 11, 2009):
No, there is no standard design for these flags, other than that they are square or rectangular.…

"Inventive Commentators"

FOULS AND MISCONDUCT CAN OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY

February 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Could you explain the decision in the following scenario. It caused a lot of controversy in a recent match and teams still expect an explanation from me:

A player shoots towards goal, first time, as soon as he receives the ball from a team-mate. Just as he shoots, an opposition player tackles him very hard. The tackle deserves either a red, or a yellow card, but the player’s shot goes in (ie. he scores but is left injured). In either situation, whether the tackling player deserves a red, or a yellow card, does the goal stand? Would an advantage be allowed in any case (red or yellow)? Does this apply to all outfield players and the goalkeeper or are there slightly different rules regarding the keeper (committing the foul)?

My thoughts would be since its a “dangerous” tackle, advantage should not be allowed, and the very second the tackle was made, the game stops immediately, therefore, the player who fouls receives a red/yellow card, and the fouled team get a free kick/penalty.

Alternatively, the goal stands and the player is not cautioned or sent off at all. One thing I thought definately shouldn’t happen is for the goal to stand AND the player cautioned/sent off using the “advantage” rule. I thought this is not permitted since the game should immediately stop from the second a dangerous foul is committed, regardless of whether the subsequent shot ends up in goal or not.

USSF answer (February 11, 2009):
Yes, the goal stands, because the referee will sensibly have waited a moment or two to see what happens, applying the advantage but waiting that moment or so to see what happens before announcing it.

The same rules apply to goalkeeper and outfield players for such an infringement. Why would they differ?? In this case, if the referee decides that the tackle was excessive and that it was delivered with no intent to play the ball (e. g., late or from an angle opposite to the ball), then it is and should be reported as violent conduct. If the referee decides that the player was attempting to play the ball with excessive force, then it is and should be reported as serious foul play.

If there is a chance of a goal, the referee will wait that extra second or so to declare the decision already made: That the tackle was done with excessive force and is therefore serious foul play or violent conduct. The referee must NEVER take away a deserved goal, no matter that the player has been injured. If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee will stop play, send off the opposition player for serious foul play, and restart with a penalty kick or a direct free kick, whichever is correct for the place where the foul and serious misconduct took place.

The referee must make the decision as to what he or she will do at the moment the particular infringement occurs. That will not change for whatever else may happen after the infringement. In this case, the goal was scored and the rest follows automatically.…

Advice to Referees

CONTACT WITH THE CORNER FLAGPOST

February 7, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
There was a karate kick to the lower back of player in a Premiership game recently (Liverpool vs Chelsea). Transfer that scenario to USSF territory in our minds so you can comment on the happenings. The refs missed the kick, oops. The Liverpool player was holding the corner flag before the kick. Isn’t that not allowed to hold the flag? Could this assault possibly be avoided by penalizing the Liverpool player for holding onto the corner flag? What level of play would that call be considered trifling?

USSF answer (February 7, 2009):
The referee in this game was most likely unable to see the play, but it occurred directly in front of the assistant referee. We need to remember that, just like the goalposts, the corner flagposts are considered to be part of the field. Players routinely make contact with both the goalposts and the flagposts. Doing so is not an infringement of the Laws. If you need a reference, see the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which says:

1.8 DEALING WITH APPURTENANCES TO THE FIELD AND OUTSIDE AGENTS
(a) Required appurtenances
These are the goals, corner flags, and flagposts required by Law 1. Contact between these appurtenances and the ball or players is a normal part of play and requires no special consideration in determining the restart.//rest snipped//

We cannot comment on the apparent foul and misconduct by the Chelsea player; however, we would agree with you that making contact with the corner flag for nefarious purposes would be just as illegal, say, as throwing a rock, and for the same reasons and judged on the same standards. But the thought of punishing the sort of actual contact with the post in this case, a means of forestalling being charged by one opponent and kicked by another opponent, is just plain weird.…