Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Advice to Referees

REFEREE ERROR?

Posted on by

Question:
Situation- the keeper comes out of the penalty area prior to releasing the ball from his hands. The AR & Center Referee Both signal a foul- the Center Referee signals a indirect free kick which a attacking players puts the ball into play & another attacker shoots the ball into the net. This is a direct kick violation however the defending coach complians that it confused his players. What is the correct action after this takes place?

USSF answer (February 2, 2009):
While we could understand the coach’s complaint if the ball had gone into the goal after touching one of his players, that did not happen here and no harm has come from the referee’s error. It’s a nice talking point for referee discussions and for complaining coaches, but worth considering only if the ball was actually played by or made contact with one of the defending team. Now, if the offense had been an indirect free kick offense and the referee signaled for a direct free kick and the ball went in directly, that would be a different matter, one which required a retake of the kick.…

Law 17 - Corner Kick

CORNER KICK TACTIC

Posted on by

Question:
I have stumbled upon a few videos on the internet about “tricks” on how to play a corner kick.

This one specifically leaves me with quite the bitter taste…as a player but also as a Referee)

All that gesture to make everyone think he’s calling a teammate to take the corner kick (and then takes it while starting to go away from the corner kick) can it fall under the “unsportsmanlike behavior” ?

It sincerely doesn’t look/appear like a “Fair Play” at all as the only intent is to deceive the opponents in a way that only make me think of “cheating”.

There is no “technical” infringement as the ball is played according to the LOTG.

Now, according to the USSF “CAUTIONS AND CAUTIONABLE OFFENSES” memo of 2006 :

< A player commits an act deemed by the referee as bringing the game into disrepute (also known as showing a lack of respect for the game, e. g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting) >

Can this sort of ‘act” be considered as an offense (as outlined by the memo) ?

If yes, it should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct therefore the “guilty” player should also be cautioned.

USSF answer (January 30, 2009):
It is perfectly legal to do this. How could anyone object to this tactic? The player has put the ball in play in accordance with the Laws of the Game. The kicking team is allowed to use such deceptive tactics and SHOULD NOT be punished for them. However, if the kicking player had merely stepped on top of the ball and then left it for the next player, who dribbles it away, that would not have been a legal restart. But even that is not punished with a caution, as it is not misconduct; in that case, the referee would call the second player for a double touch and award an indirect free kick to the opposing team.…

Guide to Procedures

RUN THE BALL TO THE GOAL LINE, PLEASE

Posted on by

Question:
I was wondering why the linesman in USSF are instructed to run to the corner spot to give the signal for a goal kick when in the EPL and most European games I watch on TV they go to the six to signal the goal kick. When a shot taken at the 18 or beyond and is well clear of the goal line my assessor still wanted me to run to the corner spot before signaling. I just think that holds up play and not all centers are going to wait for you to get their before they make there signal.

USSF answer (January 29, 2009):
The assistant referee’s standard position throughout the world is in line with the second-to-last defender or the ball, whichever is closer to the goal line. There is no need to run all the way to the goal line if there is no player within playing distance of the ball, but there is clearly a need for the AR — there have been no linesmen since 1997, either in the UK or elsewhere in the world — to run with the ball as far as necessary to be certain where it will go.

While the AR should follow the ball to the goal line in most cases, he or she should not remain dead on the flag to make the signal, but should come back a yard or so to make the correct signal. This allows the flag to be visible to the referee, who must make the final decision. The referee who fails to wait a reasonable time for the AR’s signal before announcing his/her own decision is demonstrating a lack of trust in the AR and the concept of teamwork.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DIVING TO HEAD A LOW BALL

Posted on by

Question:
Green team is attacking blue’s goal, the ball is bouncing in the penalty area between knee- and waist-height. Green forward dives at the ball to head it into goal and is kicked in the head by the blue defender a.) before b.) after the defender’s foot makes contact with the ball to clear it. What would be the proper call in this case?

USSF answer (January 28, 2009):
That decision can be made only by the referee on the game, who has seen all elements of the play. However, a general guideline is that a player who dives to head the ball below the waist that another player is attempting to kick has not exercised good sense and may be considered to have placed both players in a dangerous position. If there is contact, the foul would normally be called against the player who was trying to head the low ball. If there is no contact, the player attempting to head the low ball would likely be called for playing dangerously.…

Guide to Procedures

READ THE GUIDE TO PROCEDURES!

Posted on by

Question:
I have been asked 2 questions…and I’d like to know the “real” answers to them…

The first question is…

At what 3 instances does the AR stand at attention with no flag signal? Explain each…
1. When a goal is scored with someone in the offside position (potentially shielding the keeper)
2. ?
3. ?

The 2nd question I have is…

An AR witnesses a foul not seen by the referee. What 5 steps are required by the AR to communicate this offense?

1. Determine whether or not the referee possibly saw it and is playing the advantage,
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?

I’m not sure If I’m on the right track with both of these, and would appreciate your help. I’m hoping that I know these but am just having a case of mental block!

USSF answer (January 21, 2009):
You will find your answers in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials” 2008-09 edition.

Standing at attention:
p. 27: If an apparent goal is to be disallowed because of a foul by an attacking player.
p. 27: If an apparent goal is to be disallowed because a player other than the goalscorer was in an offside position and interfered with play or with an opponent.
p. 28: If a foul observed by the referee occurs OUTSIDE the penalty area.

p. 29 Foul not seen by the referee but indicated by the Lead Assistant Referee:

Lead Assistant Referee
• Determines that the infringement was not or could not be seen by the referee and that, per the pregame conference, the referee would likely have stopped play for the infringement if it had been seen
• Signals with the flag raised vertically in the hand appropriate for the restart direction and, after making eye contact with the referee, gives the flag a slight wave
• If the referee stops play, signals with the flag held 45 degrees upward in the direction of the restart if the foul was committed by any player outside of the penalty area or by an attacker inside the penalty area
• If misconduct is observed associated with the foul, makes eye contact with the referee and advises either a yellow card by placing the free hand over the badge on the left jersey pocket or a red card by placing the free hand on a back pocket on the shorts
• Indicates the location of the restart if necessary
• If the referee does not see the signal, continues to hold the flag straight upward in accordance with the pregame conference
• Per pre-game conference, assists in enforcing the required minimum distance if closer to the restart location
• Takes position to assist with offside on the free kick and monitors other player actions in accordance with the pre-game conference

Trail Assistant Referee
• Mirrors the lead assistant referee’s flag signal if this is not seen by the referee and, upon making eye contact with the referee, directs the referee’s attention to the lead assistant referee

p. 30 Foul not seen by the referee but indicated by the Trail Assistant Referee:

Trail Assistant Referee
• Determines that the infringement was not or could not be seen by the referee and that, per the pregame conference, the referee would likely have stopped play for the infringement if it had been seen
• Signals with the flag raised vertically in the hand appropriate for the restart direction and, after making eye contact with the referee, gives the flag a slight wave
• If the referee stops play, signals with the flag held 45 degrees upward in the direction of the restart if the foul was committed by any player outside of the penalty area or by an attacker inside the penalty area
• If the referee does not see the signal, continues to hold the flag straight upward in accordance with the pregame conference
• Takes position to assist with offside on the free kick and monitors other player actions in accordance with the pre-game conference Lead Assistant Referee
• Mirrors the trail assistant referee’s flag signal if this is not seen by the referee and, upon making eye contact with the referee, directs the referee’s attention to the lead assistant referee

…
"Inventive" Refs

REFEREEING REQUIRES ANALYSIS AND DECISION MAKING

Posted on by

Question:
If an action is deemed a foul and except for that action a goal would likely have been scored, and whistle is blown and free kick or PK given, MUST the offending player be sent off if the 4D’s are satisfied?
Does score, time left, severity of foul, etc enter into the thought process?
U19 boys game, score is 6-0 late in second half… another breakaway by the team ahead, who happen to be far superior in skill level. The last defender is chasing the striker and trips him about 12 yards from mouth of goal. Only frozen Keeper to beat. Center blows whistle and awards PK. Looks to AR and pats right hip with questioning look. AR shakes head no. (FYI, he missed the PK)
In the Spirit of the Law this is the correct decision in my opinion. But the Letter of the Law seems very clear on this matter. It was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity with a penal foul. no doubt about it.
It didn’t appear to be a tactical foul, it wasn’t reckless, but was careless. If the foul is given isn’t the red card almost mandatory? Is the only way to avoid the send off to not call it a foul?
Is there something in the Laws that allows for leniency? A send off and missing next game seemed too harsh in this situation. If the game were tied and hotly contested would that make a difference? (I probably would have sent offender off in this case). Does asking AR for opinion show indecision and little courage or good team work?
I’ve seen this breakaway situation several times and most of the Center Referees I’ve asked admit they didn’t even go through the thought process of a send off. Does anything in the Laws support that? Is it the standard, unwritten law to only send off for severe or tactical fouls, or game changing fouls, or worse when the coach yells for a red and reminds the CR to consider a send off? Thanks for your answer.

USSF answer (January 21, 2009):
The only possible response to the question posed in the first paragraph is yes. If a player, through carelessly fouling an opponent, has, in the words of Law 12, denied “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick,” then the player must be sent off for that reason. There is no room for dithering or taking counsel or pushing the decision off onto another person.

We are concerned about what appears to be the central assumption of your questions — that the determination of misconduct is based on how the referee feels about the severity of the foul.  This is very dangerous thinking and can lead to exactly the sort of issues you describe, none of which are relevant to the discussion.  A foul is a foul and misconduct is misconduct.  These are two separate things which only occasionally intersect.  In the case of “OGSO,” the only place they intersect is that a decision about a send-off for OGSO requires first that a defender has committed an offense (not even necessarily a foul, and certainly not necessarily what you call a “penal foul” — we stopped using this term a long time ago) inside the penalty area which is punishable by a free kick or penalty kick.  Once that has been decided — and the requirements for committing a foul are well known — the referee need only turn to the entirely separate question of whether the “4 Ds” requirements for the misconduct were also present.  It is a serious mistake to mix these requirements, for example to apply any of the “4 Ds” to the issue of whether a foul should be called or to apply the requirements for a foul to the issue of whether a defender should be sent off for OGSO.  The only other issue that might arise here is if the foul itself warranted a red card, in which case the red card for SFP or VC takes precedence over the red card for OGSO.

All decisions of the nature you have described must be made “in the opinion of the referee.” However, the referee him- or herself must make this decision; it CANNOT be left to the opinion or discretion of the assistant referee. Referees must have the courage to make the correct decision immediately and then live with it. If they cannot do that, they might consider getting into officiating tiddlywinks.…

"Inventive" Refs

REFEREE DECISION MAKING

Posted on by

Question:
I have become frustrated on many occasions when an opposition player, after going down feeling he was fouled, has place his arms around the ball to stop it from moving. It often seems to be the case that before this happens, the referee allows play to continue, but when the player handles the ball, gives the free kick in that players favour.

Recently in a game I was watching, the opposite of this happened, and when the player handled it, a free kick was given the other way. The only obvious reason for this would be hand ball. In this case, why was a yellow, or even red card not given, since it was a deliberate hand ball?

The only other reason that a free kick was given was because of simulation, and in that case, what could be the reason for a yellow card not to be given?

USSF answer (January 18, 2009):
Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees. It would appear that there is a vast difference between what you see happening on the field and what the referees see.

In the first case you cite, it would seem that the referee him- or herself was not certain what was happening and allowed the player to determine the call. We do not like this.

In the second case, it would seem that the referee made a partially correct decision. Several possibilities exist for solutions to this situation: (a) The referee decides it was deliberate handling, pure and simple, and awards the direct free kick. (b) The referee decides it was deliberate handling and dissent, and cautions the player and then restarts with the direct free kick. (c) The referee decides it was dissent and cautions the player and restarts with an indirect free kick.

As to simulation, there is no reason not to give a caution, unless the referee decides that he or she knows better than the Law Givers and flouts their instructions in the Laws of the Game.

Strange and mysterious are the ways of referees.…

"Inventive Instructors"

RESTARTS AFTER INFRINGEMENTS OF LAW 14

Posted on by

Question:
We are having problems with instructor interpretations again and responses to referees in clinics. A thought-when the new laws/interpretations come out, could the federation send out “Official Interpretations” to the instructors/assessors to be used for the standardization of teaching throughout the country. I know these problems happen other areas besides ours.

Question:
Kick taken on a penalty kick and the offensive team encroaches. GK makes the save and controls the ball. What is proper re-start?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
We cannot see this item needs any special “official interpretation”; the answer is clearly spelled out in the Laws of the Game and officially interpreted in the Advice to Referees (14.9).  Any instructors who are providing interpretations other than this answer would not likely be helped by some new statement from USSF.

If the referee chooses to recognize that the infringement of Law 14 occurred, then the Law spells out the procedure completely:

a team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
• the referee allows the kick to be taken
• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred

However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the infringement was trifling, the referee may allow the goalkeeper to retain the ball and release it into play for everyone within the six-second period allowed after the goalkeeper has established possession.…

"Inventive" Refs

MINE!

Posted on by

Question:
My players have recently been getting technical fouls called on them for saying “I go” or “Mine”. The referee was very unclear as to what can be said instead of “I go”. So my question is : What can be said? Is there a website where I can go to see official FIFA rules regarding proper and improper word usage?

USSF answer (January 6, 2009):
It is not clear why any referee would caution your players if they are indeed saying what they are saying and then following through. The only matter of concern here would be verbalizations intended to deceive the other team into misidentifying the miscreant as one of their teammates instead of a player on the opposing team. The reason “Mine” would be unobjectionable (unless screamed in the ear as a means of distracting rather than misidentifying) is because it is “team-neutral” — anyone who, upon hearing this, decides to back of from taking the ball deserves whatever happens next.

And referees do not — or certainly should not — call “technical fouls” in soccer. Those are reserved for basketball referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

YOU MUST CALL FOULS THE SAME EVERYWHERE ON THE FIELD!!

Posted on by

Question:
Do indirect free kicks in the penalty box still exist? So often penalties are awarded for fouls in the area that do not deny goal-scoring opportunities (players going away from goal etc), this leaves the ref in a catch 22 as if it is either/or as the punishment will not fit the crime. It seems that in taking subjective judgement away from the ref the laws tie the hands of the official, who sometimes even yellow-card an attacker for simulation when they were in truth fouled, but rather than give a soft pen the ref cards the striker for diving. Using the indirect free-kick in the box would empower refs to deal with the pushing etc from set-pieces, instead of forcing them to turn a blind eye on defensive cheating unless it is really flagrant and can justify a near-certain goal.

USSF answer (December 30, 2008):
Wherever did you get the idea that the award of a penalty kick is limited to situations in which an obvious goalscoring opportunity is involved?!?!?! That is completely wrong!

The Laws of the Game have not changed in this regard for over one hundred years. There is no such thing as a “soft penalty.” If a direct free kick foul, in other words a “penal” foul, is committed on the field, it should be treated exactly the same in the penalty area as it would be at midfield. There is no “either / or,” there is only the correct call.

You will find a similar question and answer on the website now, dated December 17. The answer states:

“We always encourage referees to use their discretion in making any call, based on the factors that went into making the decision in the first place. However, too many referees blur the lines between the various fouls, particularly the clear difference between playing dangerously and committing a direct-free-kick foul. In most cases this is done because the referee doesn’t want to appear too harsh or, much worse, because the referee is afraid to call a foul a foul. How many referees have you seen who say that the same foul they would have called a direct-free-kick foul at midfield is not a penalty-kick-foul when committed in the penalty area? They then chicken out and call it dangerous play, depriving the offended team of a fully justified penalty kick.

“You have to make the decision and stick with it. The offense in this case is not simply against the Laws of the Game, but against the whole tradition and spirit of the game.”

Why is it so difficult for referees to understand that a penalty kick does not have to be “earned”? it is sufficient that a penal foul is committed in the penalty area against the attacking team.…