Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Coach

COACHING ILLEGAL GAMESMANSHIP

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question about a restart off a free kick.

Recently, I was coaching a game and a young referee called a hand ball right outside the penalty area. My players lined up a wall right behind the ball so the other team could not take a quick free kick. The referee was moving back the wall when the other team set the ball and scored while the referee was moving back the wall. I quickly yelled and protested to the referee that a whistle was needed because he was moving the wall. He agreed and a re-kick was ordered and the other team did not score. The opposing coach protested saying a whistle was not needed.

USSF answer (September 4, 2008):
Let’s do a little analysis here on the true state of the situation that concerns you.

First, if your team actually “lined up a wall right behind the ball so the other team could not take a quick free kick,” this is a blatant violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Laws of the Game. The referee should immediately have indicated that the restart could not occur, cautioned one of your players, advised the other players to quickly retreat to the required minimum distance, and then signaled for the restart. There would then have been no question that the kick could not be taken until the referee signaled — your team would have (as it did) successfully prevented a quick restart, but it would have paid at least some price for this obvious misconduct.

Second, assuming the referee failed to understand the need to deal with the misconduct and proceeded to move the wall back, the attacking team was still free to take an quick kick because they had not been ordered by the referee to wait. Clearly, the referee was distracting the opponents but, frankly, this was their own fault. None of this would have happened had they not violated the Law by being closer than the minimum distance. In short, what the referee did was bad mechanics but not a violation of the Laws of the Game.

Lessons to be learned from this:
The defending team has only one right at a restart, not to be distracted by the referee. They have no right to form a wall nor to prevent the opponents from taking a position anywhere on the field. In this case, you are correct about the referee: Because he was pushing your team back, this required a clear indication to the kicking team to wait for his whistle to restart. The referee should have called the kick back and had it retaken, but the referee should have been astute enough to notice that the kicking team wanted to take a quick free kick. That would have solved every problem.

If your team insists on engaging in illegal gamesmanship, they must be prepared to assume the consequences, regardless of whether the referee uses recommended mechanics or not.
Who is correct? What is the correct ruling?…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER FOULS (?) OPPONENT WHILE HOLDING BALL

Posted on by

Question:
A GK makes a save and falls on his back within the penalty area. As he is getting up he kicks an opponent – non violently – while still holding the ball and within the 6 seconds he has to release it. Is the ball still in play? Or is it out of play while the GK holds onto it? If it is in play and the referee blows his whistle to address the kicking of the opponent by the GK would not the restart be a PK and possibly caution of the GK?

USSF answer (September 3, 2008):
If the goalkeeper has not risen fully, the six-second period has not begun. It begins only when the goalkeeper is upright and in a position o assess the situation and judge where to play the ball. However, the matter of the six seconds is irrelevant if the referee decides that a foul has been committed by the goalkeeper.

The referee must decide whether this was a deliberate act or simply an accident. If a deliberate act and thus a foul, then the restart is a penalty kick and the punishment would be either a caution or a send-off,depending on what the referee saw. It makes no difference whether the goalkeeper has used the allotted six seconds.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

COMMUNICATE!!! WITH YOUR ASSISTANT REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
Near the end of the first half, an attacker with the ball is clearly tackled from behind in the penalty area. However the referee is screened at that moment and thinks the attacker merely tripped, so there is no whistle. The AR, who has a good view of the play, pops his flag, but the ball is immediately booted upfield and the CR turns to follow the play and never sees the flag, which continues to be raised.

Seconds later, the CR blows the whistle for half-time. At that point he sees the AR with flag raised and consults with him. He accepts the AR’s view that there was a trip but says that because the whistle has been blown to end the half, there can be no penalty kick.

He does card the defender who tackled from behind however.

Is this ruling correct?

(Note: it might have helped if the second AR had mirrored the flag but unfortunately that did not happen.)

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
Whenever the assistant referee signals for a foul and the signal is not seen immediately and play continues for several seconds, the restart, when taken, must be in accordance with the Laws (free kick, penalty kick, etc.). In this situation play had not stopped and been restarted since the flag was raised, so, when the referee acknowledges the flag and accepts the assistant referee’s information, the correct thing to do is to send off or caution (as appropriate to the act) the player involved and restart with the penalty kick.

In addition, the assistant referee should maintain a signal if a serious foul or misconduct is committed out of the referee’s sight or when a goal has been scored illegally. This and the original situation (above) should be covered by the referee during the pregame conference with the assistant referees.…

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY FROM AN INDIRECT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I noticed in one of the current issue responses “Putting the ball into play from a kick restart” that the situation is very similar to an indirect free kick restart. While the response was clear that it must be the decision of the referee as to what is a “kick” and what is not, ATR 13.5 makes it clear that “Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient”. It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion. My question is this…should the correct call be to (a) stop play for an improper restart, warn the players about the proper restart procedure (and subsequent caution for delay or persistent infringement if continued) or (b) allow play to continue, ignoring the tap, treating the subsequent kick as the “first touch” and maintain the indirect signal until a true second touch happens, thereby calling back any goal that might be scored directly from the improperly taken restart and continuing play with a goal kick restart?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The Law is clear: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves.” We have stated clearly in Advice 13.5 that there must be some “kicking motion” to put a kicked restart into play. The referee is the sole judge of what constitutes a kick.

Another point in your question needs to be cleared up: We would dispute that “It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion.” Some players may do it and some teams may use that as a tactic, but this does not mean that the definition in the Laws of how an indirect free kick (or any other kick restart) should be taken has changed. It is only referees who are reluctant to enforce the Law who have allowed this tactic to become “commonly accepted.” If the kicker fails to follow the Law and it makes a difference, then the referee must uphold the Law. If it didn’t really matter, then let it go (or perhaps give a warning). This is only common sense.…

Advantage

ALLOW SUBSTITUTION OR QUICK RESTART?

Posted on by

Question:
If Red Team Player gets fouled by Green Team on a breakaway in the attacking 1/3, just outside the penalty box and Red Team has a clear opportunity for a quick restart….BUT, there is a substitute waiting at the halfline. He/she has been checked and meets all the criteria to be waved into the game.

Should the referee stop play and allow the substitution or allow the quick restart? Let us assume that all 4Ps are in place. I am seeking clarification on whether allowing a substitute overrides the advantage and clear attacking opportunity.

I eagerly await your response

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The referee is not required to stop a quick restart by a team simply because the other team wants to make a substitution. In fact, there is no substitution possibility until the referee recognizes it. This has nothing to do with the advantage clause, which concerns only infringements of Law 12, but is simple common sense: The referee must not interfere with a team’s legitimate opportunity to score a goal.

There is always the possibility that, if it is a youth match using standard youth rule exceptions regarding substitutions, a stoppage for a foul is not a substitution opportunity.…

Law 1 - The Field

FIELD MARKINGS

Posted on by

Question:
If the markings of a field are incorrect, in this case, specifically the penalty mark, should the existing mark be used, or should the referee mark off the correct distance? This is on an artificial field, so it cannot be covered or moved easily.

USSF answer (August 5, 2008):
If the penalty mark is in the wrong place and cannot, for whatever reason, be changed, the referee must ensure that any penalty kicks are taken from the correct distance from the goal line and in the correct location in relation to both goal posts. Possible mismarked lines can be worked with, but the penalty kick occurs so rarely and can be so decisive, that the distance MUST be correct.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

RECOVERING FROM ACCIDENTAL ENTANGLEMENTS

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent U14 boys game, an attacker and a defender were “tangling” one-on-one, with the attacker bringing the ball down the left side of the field and into the penalty area while the defender ran on his inside, contesting for the ball.  As they arrived just outside the corner of the goal area, their forward motion stopped abruptly and in the process the players became entangled and both fell to the field, with the attacker outside of the defender in relation to the goal area. In the referee’s opinion, there has been no foul.

Still in a one-on-one situation (the goalie had stayed on his line and neither player’s teammates had arrived on the scene), the attacker scrambles to get to his feet, ostensibly planning to step or jump over the defender on the ground and shoot the ball, which is now just inside the corner of the goal area. As he attempts to stand up, the defender rolls back and forth a little, perhaps in an attempt to get up himself, or perhaps in an attempt to delay the attacker until help can arrive.

The attacker manages to get on his feet and as he steps over the body of the defender, he ends up slightly stepping on and pinching the side of the defender between his foot and the turf, leaving the defender in some pain. He manages to get to the ball, but by now the goalie has come out to defend and his shot goes wide for a goal kick.

My question is to what degree the attacker must take care not to step on his opponent in this situation?  In the opinion of the referee, the attacker did not intentionally injure his opponent; however could it be dangerous play on the attacker?  How much responsibility does the attacker have to not step on his rolling-around opponent as he attempts to get up and put the ball in the goal, especially given that in the opinion of the referee it was reasonably likely that the defender was rolling in a way that would help prevent his opponent from getting up (although certainly not definite enough to call a foul on the defender and award a penalty)? Is this an outcome based situation, that since the defender was injured that by definition the attacker’s lack of care resulted in a dangerous play? If so, could one also argue that the player on the ground was also at fault for dangerous play or impeding by rolling around a little and making it difficult for his opponent to get up (even if he was not intending to delay his opponent, just like the attacker wasn’t intending to step on the defender)?

USSF answer (July 23, 2008):
Of course the attacker should exercise due caution in getting up from the original accidental spill, and the opponent must exercise precisely the same due caution. If the opponent — whether deliberately or through simple lack of awareness — interferes with the attacker’s ability to play the ball afterwards, the possibility exists for the fouls of tripping (unlikely unless the referee deems the act to be deliberate), impeding the progress of an opponent, or playing dangerously. It is also possible that there is no foul at all.. Only the referee on the spot can make this decision.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“PICKS” AND IMPEDING

Posted on by

Question:
X has the ball. Teammate Y provides square support. Defender is containing X only. There’s a lot of open space in front of Y.

Situation 1: X cuts toward Y, winds up to pass to Y, defender runs toward the passing lane, Z cuts in front of defender. = Clearly impeding the progress.

Situation 2: change the order of events.

Teammate Z runs forward and stops, about 3-4 feet from defender, between defender and that open space. Z then passes, and Y runs to, the open space in question. Y receives the pass, and carriers, shoots, whatever – and has an extra second or so to play the ball.

Defender has to run around Z to get to either the pass or Y – – there is enough room to do this but the extra second or two it takes is all that Y is looking for.

By the time defender chose what direction to go in and began to progress in that direction, Z, stationary, was already an obstacle is there an obligation to move?

To be clear, yes, the reason Z chose that spot to occupy was that it was in between the defender and a passing lane. Z didn’t just happen to be standing there and X wasn’t just being opportunistic.

But at the time, it wasn’t a passing lane being used and defender was not moving toward it, and had not decided to move toward it.

I’ve had my youth players do this countless times, and it’s been effective – usually the defender is so agitated at falling a step behind the play that he or she races after the pass, leaving Z uncovered.

They’ve never been called for impeding the progress when they’ve done this.

Last week in an adult pick-up game I was the Z – – it was a hot day and toward the end of the game, the defender just kind of stumbled into me, which I didn’t expect, as I’d been a good 3-4 feet away definitely not trying to invite contact or positioned closely enough that contact would have been the likely result.

The defender thought I’d committed a foul.

By the letter of the rule, when Z chose the spot to occupy, that spot didn’t obstruct or impede the defender’s progress – the defender wasn’t running to what would a few seconds later become the passing lane, thus Z’s going to that spot can’t be impeding the progress.

Thus it can only be impeding the progress if there’s an affirmative obligation, if you’re stationary, to move out of a player’s way.

Also, there are 9 other defenders – Z doesn’t know for a fact that defender would choose that path, defender could retreat or stay and cover Z, trusting another defender to come over. But Z knows that that defender would have the best chance of intercepting the pass.

I’m thinking that the fact that I’ve never seen that called in a refereed game means there’s no such obligation to move – that if you’re standing already in a spot that becomes tactically advantageous, not offsides, on the field, etc….., you can keep standing there.

Can you confirm that?

USSF answer (July 21, 2008):
Simple answer covering all eventualities: A player is allowed to occupy space but is not allowed to move into space that an opponent is actively using with the result that the opponent is forced to stop, swerve, or slow down to avoid contact. Under normal circumstances, “impeding” does not involve physical contact (which is why it is a “lesser” offense) — if contact occurs, the impeding player is now guilty of a direct rather than an indirect free kick offense.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

DISSENT OR FOUL/ABUSIVE LANGUAGE? REF’S DECISION!

Posted on by

Question:
What does a player have to say to be sent off and shown a straight red card for the “use of offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures”?

I watched the New York at Colorado game on MLSLive.tv and in the 81st minute Colorado defender (and USA National Team player) Pablo Mastroeni felt AR1 Bill Dittmar missed a clear offside call and began screaming at Dittmar from across the field, and clearly saying (from the replay) “F#@# You!” directed right at Dittmar. Dittmar does nothing. Only after the next minute or so when Mastroeni continued to scream at him for the “missed call” did Dittmar finally get Weyland’s attention and indicate to him that Mastroeni needs to be cautioned for dissent. Caution? So what does a player have to say to actually be sent off for the language they use toward officials?

Is USSF reviewing this and punishing Mastroeni further? And how could the CO coach protest and give the 4th official an earful after Mastroeni was cautioned? My question is why wasn’t Mastroeni sent off?

Do players cuss on the field? Of course. But directed toward an official!? That shouldn’t be. I’m reading a book by former English Premier League Referee David Elleray and I know by the things he’s said in his book that Mastroeni would have been sent off right away.

Have things changed that much since the early to mid 90s when Elleray was around?

USSF answer (July 8, 2008):
One of the things we need to remember when watching professional and international games is that the game is called differently at every level of play, whether it is the pros, top senior amateur, other amateur, top-level youth play, lower-level youth play, etc. The pro players are more experienced and are willing to put up with and dish out more than the referee will allow at the senior amateur level of play (and so on down the line) and a lot more than referees should or will allow for younger, less experienced and conditioned players. In any event, the MLS looks at all instances of this nature and deals with them through its disciplinary process.

The matter of dissent and how the professional-level referee should judge it was covered in the “Referee Week in Review 14,” under Dissent, which you can find at this URL:
http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_14_2008.htm

When deciding whether a player’s actions are cautionable for dissent (by word or action) or can be red carded for offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures apply the following criteria:
〈        Public
Are the player’s actions public in nature? From a visual perspective, can others see it and, if so, what message is the player sending? Verbally, who can hear the comments (other players, spectators, television) – consider the volume of the comments? Are the actions or comments meant to “show the referee up?” Consider whether the actions/comments create a negative impression/attitude towards the referee in general.

〈        Personal
Are the comments directed at the referee or just said as a reasonable emotional reaction to a poor play? Consider the tone of voice and the derogatory content of what was said. Are the actions of the player aimed at the referee or merely personal frustration?

〈        Provocative
Are the comments or actions intended to incite further misconduct or heighten the tension level? Do the comments elicit anger and potentially provoke further conflict on the field? Consider the ramifications of racial or gender based comments.

Overall, are the comments and actions disrespectful to “any referee” – not just to the referee to whom they were addressed? Officials must be aware of actions/comments that undermine the position of the referee and must take the appropriate action that matches the actions of the player.

As to Mr. Elleray’s book, we do not comment on the works of retired referees from other countries.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

FOUL OR NO FOUL?

Posted on by

Question:
situation: girls age14/16 rec game.
tight game 2- 1 going into 4 period (extremely hot that day, halves broken into periods). last 30 sec. of game a corner is awarded to the team down by one. goes of defending team, down team awarded another corner. kick is good this time. there are probably 12 to 15 players in front of the goal. in the melee the ball is almost caught by a member of defending team and immediately dropped out of surprise by the action. parents and spectators witnessed the infraction. I was out of position and had no idea that anything had happened. nothing was called by the referee. the game ends.

upon shaking hands with the ref at centered field, he tells me,”i know your parents are going to complain, but with that many players in the box, you are not going to get that call.” I still had no clue what he ws talking about. after talking to parents and other spectators and hearing about what they saw, i put two and two together.

Question:
Did the ref see something and not call it because of the situation?
Wouldn’t a valid hand ball be a valid hand ball regardless of the situation?

USSF answer (July 7, 2008):
Girls 14-16 rec game? Hot day? The referee probably saw the possible infringement as an accident.

However, let’s look at the possibilities. If it was seen and:
– if a defender “caught” the ball and then, in surprise/shock/embarrassment, dropped the ball, it should have been a penalty kick (and a red card if, but for the handling, the ball would have gone in the net).
– if the ball was kicked into the crowd of assorted attackers/defenders and struck the hand of a defender who pulled her hand back in surprise/shock/embarrassment, there was no foul or misconduct and the match ended properly.…