Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Coach

“PROTECTING” THE GOALKEEPER

Posted on by

I am a fairly new referee (since July 2007), but I have worked and enjoyed about 100 matches this year in youth select soccer. I have been coaching soccer for about 6 years, but I was never actually a soccer player, which has left me with a few holes in my soccer knowledge at times.

I was a center referee on an 11 year old premiere level boys game recently and I would like some clarification about the goalie position in regards to the laws of the game.

Please note that I had previously spoken with a goalie coach who had told me that the goalie was not considered to have control of the ball until he had pulled the ball into his body or until his hand (or hands) were on the ball and the ball was between the goalie’s hand and the ground. I am not sure if this information was correct or not.

In my game situation, the ball had been kicked towards the goalie by an attacker and the goalie was jumping for the ball in the goal box. Another attacker had entered the goal area and was following the trajectory of the chipped ball. Just prior to the goalie making contact with his hands; the attacker headed the ball and subsequently ran into the goalie while scoring a goal. The goalie was not injured on the play and I awarded a goal. The goalie’s coach became very upset and began screaming at the midline that I had not protected his goalie, until I finally warned him that he was showing dissent. The coach quieted down after that, but his body language made it quite obvious that he was very angry.

I am assuming that I made the correct decision, and my AR’s, who were experienced referees, stated that they believed that my call was the correct one, but I want to add some additional questions to this scenario because this is an area that I feel a bit unsure about. I am assuming that the collision between the goalie and the attacker was legal as this was an obvious goal scoring opportunity and I don’t believe that either player was attempting to do anything but play the ball.

1.) Assuming the ball would have struck the goalie’s outstretched hands in the air prior to the attacker arriving – would it had then been appropriate for me to call a penal foul?

2.) Assuming the ball was headed into the goalie’s hands and then rolled into the goal with a collision between the players still occurring – would this had also been an instance appropriate for a penal foul?

I understand that we as referees have a duty to ensure each player’s safety, but I don’t want to stifle or take away what would otherwise be deemed a fair challenge.

Thank you in advance for any information you can provide.

USSF answer (October 2, 2008):
Just so you and the coach both know what is correct, here is the guidance we give to all referees, taken from the 2008 edition of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control 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. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

1. No, not if it was clear that both were playing or attempting to play the ball.

2. No. See 1.

All players are entitled to the same protection under the Laws of the Game. The goalkeeper has no right to special protection. The goalkeeper’s role is, by the very requirements of that role, inherently dangerous. Goalkeeper’s know this going in and most operate accordingly.

The coach’s outburst was, as you note, an expression of emotion, but without foundation in the Laws. (And coaches all work to exert influence on your calls, so we might suggest that there might also have been that factor at work.)

Note: We regret and apologize that we have lost the email address of the person who sent this question.…

Law 15 - Throw In

THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
Have had some discussions recently in regard to one of the more simple components of play which is the throw-in. The discussions always seem to migrate to the rear foot and contact with the ground and generate a number of differing views. Primarily the rear foot coming up at the end of the motion and is it after the throw or during the throw? Obviously the younger the age group the more latitude you work with for the players so my reference is the competitive levels from U11 thru U18.

So the question is, at what point during the execution of a ‘throw-in’ does foot contact with the ground no longer matter?

Thanks!

USSF answer (October 1, 2008):
The throw-in is completed when the thrower releases the ball. If the foot was lifted after the throw-in, there is no infringement. If the foot was lifted during the throw, then it is an infringement. We must remember is that the point of the throw-in is to get the ball back into play quickly. Most infractions of Law 15 are trifling at best.…

"Inventive" Refs

HANDS AND ARMS DO NOT COUNT FOR OFFSIDE

Posted on by

Question:
I have been refereeing for about 4 years now. I now referee using both high school and FIFA laws of the game, and came upon a difficult call the other day. Basically what I would like to know is whether the defender’s arms and hands can be counted in the offside call. Here is the situation explained the best I can without a drawing.

While I was refereeing a game, there was a corner kick, which was passed back to the kicker, who I thought was in an offside position, standing just inside the goal line. I called the player offside, and then I thought about the call after the game. The issue was that there were two defenders standing about a foot and a half from the goal line with their arms fully extended and resting on the goal post. I was (and still am) under the impression that the defender’s arms and hands should not be used in determining whether the attacker is offside or not. If the attacker’s arms and hands are not a contributing factor in the decision, I believe that the defender’s arms and hands should not be either.

After this game, and reviewing the laws of the game and advice to referees a few times, I emailed the interpreter for the high school association that I referee through. (This was a high school game.) He replied to me and said that the player that I called offside was in fact onside. I did not agree with that, so I started asking other officials that I worked with. I asked another official that I officiate with at the high school level and he agreed with me. I also asked the head referee for the recreational league that I officiate through, and he agreed with me as well. (The recreational league follows FIFA LOTG)

I would simple like some clarification as to whether I made the correct call or not. I am aware that the game was a high school game, and the rules are slightly different, but the offside call is very similar.
If this were a game using FIFA LOTG, would that have been a correct call?

USSF answer (October 1, 2008):
The Law is quite clear about this. Any part of the body that can LEGALLY play the ball is considered when the referee looks for offside. That excludes the hands and arms, as they cannot legally play the ball. The same is true of the hands and arms of the opposing players.…

Kicks from the Mark

FEINTING AT A PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
This is a question regarding Law 14. While I know the kicker can stutter step or even change direction as they approach the ball, I believe that the kicker cannot come to a complete stop and then proceed to continue to approach the ball for the kick. Is this correct or have I misinterpreted something?

USSF answer (September 28, 2008):
According to the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the 2008/2009 Laws of the Game:

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
Procedure
Feinting to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the feinting is considered an act of unsporting behavior, the player must be cautioned.

Feinting at a penalty kick is allowed, including a brief stop along the way to the ball.

The issue of “feinting” underwent a significant change in 2000. Prior to that time, the kicker was expected to make one continuous, uninterrupted move to the ball; in and after 2000 (based on the FIFA Q&A), certain forms of deception were allowed.

FIFA clarified in 2002 that the kicker may seek to misdirect (or feint) at the taking of a penalty kick. USSF, in a memo of October 14, 2004 on this subject, identified four specific actions by the kicker that could constitute misconduct:

– he delays unnecessarily after being signaled by the referee to proceed,
– he runs past the ball and then backs up to take the kick,
– he excessively changes direction during the run to the ball, or
– he makes any motion of the hand or arm which is clearly intended to misdirect the attention of the goalkeeper.
In such cases, the referee should suspend the procedure, caution the player involved, and then signal once again for the kick to be taken. If the kick has already been taken, the referee should order it retaken only if the ball enters the goal. The player must still be cautioned for his misconduct regardless of the outcome. If the kick is not to be retaken (see above), the game is restarted with an indirect free kick for the defending team where Law 14 was violated.
As to the goalkeeper leaving the line early, all referees are expected to order a retake of a penalty kick or a kick from the penalty mark if the ‘keeper’s movement off the line has interfered with the kicker’s ability to score the goal.

Referees should watch for the sorts of feinting described in the position paper of October 14, 2004, but should not consider all deceptive maneuvers to be a violation of Law 14 or of the guidelines on kicks from the penalty mark in the section of the Laws pertaining to “Procedures to Determine the Winner of a Match or Home-and-Away.” They should ensure that the run to the ball is initiated from behind the ball and the kicker is not using deception to delay unnecessarily the taking of the kick.  The kicker’s behavior must not, in the opinion of the referee, unduly delay the taking of the kick in any feinting tactic. Others would include changing direction or running such an an excessive distance such that, in the opinion of the referee, the restart was delayed; or making hand or arm gestures with the intent to deceive the kicker (e .g., pointing in a direction).

The referee should allow the kick to proceed. If the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken.  If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team.

To this we can add only that more and more liberal interpretation is taking place throughout the world. The kicker is permitted to approach slowly, stop, take few quick steps, and shoot.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

NUMBER OF PLAYERS

Posted on by

Question:
This subject has become a debate between coaches and referees. Perhaps you can shed some light on it.

At the beginning of the game, and at the beginning of the second half the referee will normally count the number of players on the field to ensure they have enough players to begin a game. So question #1, if there are less players than the max allow, but enough players to meet the min requirement, does the referee need to say anything to the coach?

Question #2 In some leagues, they do not allow free subs, but rather break half way through each half to allow subs. In a case where a team has been signaled to return to play, and a coach does not respond by allowing his players to return to the field of play ( without addressing delay of game here ) and the referee decides to signal to begin play… hence the coach now scrambles to release his players, who fault is it that the correct number of players are not on the field of play? If the coach had kept the time to substitution the referees could have confirmed the number of players on the field. But in this case, the ball had been put into play and it was discovered after the restart that the team was short a player ( or in other cases had too many players ).

Is this not the fault of the coach for not communicating to his team properly?

USSF answer (September 28, 2008):
1. The referee should tell the coach that there are enough players to begin and to get them on the field. The referee should also tell the coach that when more players arrive, they should get the attention of the assistant referee on that side of the field, so that the players, their passes (if necessary), and their equipment can be checked for entry into the game.

2. It should never come to this. The referee must manage the break and alert the coaches and captains that the time for restarting is near. Any numbers under the allowed maximum limit of players on the field are the fault of the coach; any numbers over the allowed maximum are the fault of the referee.…

Interpretations/IFAB

NO JEWELRY FOR REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
I am almost certain that I have seen somewhere that referees should not wear jewelry.
Can you tell me where that information is at so that I can pass it along to a few of my referees?

USSF answer (September 24, 2008):
You saw it in the 2008/2009 Laws of the Game, the INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF THE GAME AND GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES, which begins on page 55. It’s there under Law 4.

Jewelry
All items of jewelry (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands etc.) are strictly forbidden and must be removed.
Using tape to cover jewelry is not acceptable.

Referees are also prohibited from wearing jewelry (except for a watch or similar device for timing the match).

…
"Inventive" Refs

HIP CHARGES; REFEREE COWARDICE

Posted on by

Question:
I have seen this similar situation at least 4 times in the last year – with the same results. An attacking player is dribbling from a wing area (left or right of the goal) in the defenders penalty area. A defender takes a hard and late hip charge into the offensive player. Enough to move them 2 – 4 feet off the ball. The offensive player maintains balance and control. But either immediately or within 1 or 2 seconds loses the ball to the second or third defender (in each situation the defense outnumbers the offense in the immediate vicinity of the play). No whistle and actually no play on is verbalized or signalled. In all cases after the game the referee informs the offensive team/player that if the player had been knocked to the ground a penalty would have ensued. I love a good physical game and in some cases I could easily argue that advantage was the call. But the seemingly late nature of the hit bothers me. Myself, as a ref I’m loath to call a PK but worry about benefiting the defensive team with questionable play and penalizing the offensive team for not flopping. These hip charges are hard, from the side or slightly behind the offensive player. If the offensive player went down I don’t think anyone would have been suprised. But with them not falling I can’t see a foul being called. So, there are a couple parts to my question. 1.) using the four P’s the call seems rather legitimate but it seems to me that the defense gained advantage using a questionable tackle. Could this be whistled as a foul? 2.) even if it is not a foul could this warrant a caution?

USSF answer (September 24, 2008):
We cannot make any definitive comment on a game played under high school rules, as it would not have been played under the Laws of the Game. However, if the game had been played under the Laws of the Game, we can make some definite statements:

1. What you describe has nothing to do with advantage, but is strictly a matter of a referee afraid to make a call. There is no room for cowards in the refereeing corps.

2. In general we can say, without fear of being incorrect, that hip charges at any level of play (male/female, young/old, skilled/unskilled, etc.) are unfair and thus not allowed. Charges must be shoulder to shoulder, with both players having at least one foot on the ground. However, we must consider some allowance for differences in height and weight and bodily proportions. In other words, we must not forget that both the laws of physics and Mother Nature can overrule the Laws of the Game, in that women are usually wider at the hips than men and men are usually wider at the shoulders than women. What we judge is how those bodily characteristics are used. If they are used unfairly — and only the referee on the spot can do that — then a foul should be called.

3. Referees who do not call unfair charges should consider two courses of action: Either call fouls correctly or stop refereeing, as they are doing the rest of us no favors. Simply because a player was fouled but not knocked to the ground is not a valid reason not to call a foul. A foul is a foul is a foul.

4. Referees MUST make the same call in the penalty area that they would make on the rest of the field. If they cannot do that, they must consider those same two courses of action, because their failure to call the game correctly makes problems for all referees.

5. If the referee chooses to make a decision — which each of us must do thousands of times in a game — then it had better be for the good of the game. The decision to award the advantage must be based on the four Ps, but in that case the referee must follow through and speak to the miscreant afterwards. There may be no need for a caution on the first offense, that is up to the referee, but if the player or the team contnues to do that, the referee must punish the misconduct.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

HEARING AIDS AND LOST SHOES

Posted on by

Question:
1a. What kind of hearing aids are permitted by players with hearing disabilities? b. Can a mini-receiver with a short, flexible antenna be worn, with or without headware that could hold the device in place?
2. A player kicks a ball while the ball is in play. His/her shoe comes off, but doesn’t go near or hit anyone. The player kicks the ball again, into the goal. While shoes are required equipment, may a goal be allowed?

USSF answer (September 24, 2008):
1, The referee is the sole judge of the safety and suitability of any player equipment. Something that is permitted in one game may not be permitted in the next.
2. The player is expected to replace the lost shoe as quickly as possible. If the amount of time between loss of shoe and shot on goal is minimal, then the goal should be allowed.…

Assignments

DO NOT REFEREE GAMES IN WHICH FAMILY IS INVOLVED

Posted on by

Question:
Is it ok to referee a game of a family member so long as it is fairly administered etc.?  If so, are there any disclosures recommended or required prior to the match to allow the coaches to make the call?

USSF answer (September 24, 2008):
The referee (or assistant referee) should turn down the assignment to such a game as soon as it is offered. To referee such a game other than in the most dire emergency is a violation of the Referee Code of Ethics.

That said, we understand circumstances may call for someone associated with the team to fill in as an assistant referee and, as long as both teams are aware of the situation and do not object, this may be the only practical way of ensuring full coverage on a match.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO MAKEUP CALLS!!

Posted on by

Question:
I recently attended a soccer match where the following occurred:

A player on the attacking team was injured in the penalty area of the defending team during a corner kick. The center referee only noticed the injury after it occurred due to the number of players in front of the goal. Both the center referee and the AR did not call a foul. It was realized after that the girl had been kicked in the throat during a scramble for the ball. The injury was tended to, but no foul was indicated and the restart was a free kick to the defending team, which she was instructed to kick directly to the opponent’s goalie as a sign of sportsmanship.

Later in the match a corner kick was taken by the other team. A defender stopped this ball by actually catching it with her hands (in the penalty area). No foul was called and the coach went ballistic (understandably). The Center referee indicated that he did not call a foul (which would result in a penalty kick, i.e. a sure goal) because he did not call a foul in the previous incident… in essence he was calling it a “wash”.

Is this something that referees do? Can they have discretion when calling fouls if they feel a mistake has been made in a previous call?

USSF answer (September 19, 2008):
We are stumped on this one, because you have not told us how play was stopped. If the game was not stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — and referees should stop the game ONLY for SERIOUS injuries — and no foul was called, then the correct restart is for the reason that the ball went out of play. If the game was stopped by the referee to deal with the injury — see above — then the restart would be a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped. The indirect free kick might have been correct under high school rules, but certainly not under the Laws of the Game. Another inventive referee at work.

Yes, a very inventive referee — and a referee who cheats on the Letter of the Laws and the Spirit of the Game. Soccer referees do not do “make-up” calls. This referee should be reported to the competition authority and to the referee authorities in your state, so that he can undergo some additional instruction.

If a referee makes a mistake, he or she should NEVER do a “balancing of calls” by making another bad call for the opposing team. Two wrongs do not make a right and the referee must always make the best possible decisions within the framework of the Laws.

Nor do mistakes by referees give the coaches permission to rage at them. We are concerned about you (and others, you are not alone) saying that the coach “went ballistic” and then in this case adding “(understandably).” No coach has a right to “go ballistic” — if they have a concern about a referee’s decision, they should suck it up and follow through with the sort of report we described above. We don’t want anyone believing that we would condone such behavior (any more than we condone the referee’s egregious errors in this situation).…