Question:
I was working a tournament and the field that I was on had the temporary style goals. Because of the style of goals and the way the ground was the top right corner of the goal was leaning back from the field. We had a player come down the left side of the field and at about 5 feet off the end line took a shot. The ball crossed the opening of the goal and hit the inside of the upright near the top on the right side. Due to the angle of the shot the ball then bounced back toward the player that took the shot. With the amount that this corner was leaning back when the ball hit the inside of the post the ball had fully crossed the line. My A/R was right on the line and put his flag up. When I looked at him he sprinted up the field and I awarded the goal.

Some referees say this is a good goal and others say it was not. In your opinion did we call this correct?

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
The Law requires that the ball cross the entire goal line, below the crossbar and between the goal posts. If that was the case in your game, then the goal was legal.

Your question brings up an important point regarding the pregame inspection: If the referee inspects the field and finds it meets the standards required by Law 1, when in fact it does not, then he or she places his or her authority and credibility in danger when a situation like this occurs. Lesson to be learned: Be certain that both teams know of the condition and how you will call goals. This, of course, violates our general instruction that referees not lecture the players or make “promises” as to what they will do, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

Even if the referee has inspected the field before the game, this sort of thing could happen if a player had run into the temporary goal just a moment before the situation you describe occurred. We believe that the whole of the ball crossing the whole of the goal line between where the goal posts SHOULD be is enough to call it a goal.…

Question:
Defender in effort to clear the ball from the penalty area trips all on his own. He falls forwards and intentionally puts out his arms ahead of him to break his fall. His hand lands on the ball and pushes it out of the penalty area. Fair or foul? Is the intent to put his hands out sufficient to constitute intent to handle though he had no apparent intent to handle the ball. It is surely hand to ball, not ball to hand.

USSF answer (June 23, 2008):
A player attempting to break his fall must put his hands somewhere. If they simply happen to touch the ball that is already in the spot, no infringement of the Law has occurred. Do not make trouble for yourself by inventing fouls. It will only injure your credibility with the players.…

Question:
Several referees were discussing a general offside situation where a ball is headed backward by a defender. For example assume A1 sends a high diagonal ball towards the 18 yard line. D1 heads it only to have it go backwards to an attacker behind him in an offside position.

These refs believe that, because the act of heading the ball is a “deliberate act, not a deflection”, that it will automatically reset the offside situation, regardless of where the ball ends up. Thus the attacker who ends up with the ball behind the defender is not offside, regardless of whether it was the defender’s intent to play the ball backward and regardless of whether the header was controlled or if it simply skimmed of the very top of his head.

While I realize the final judgement is always itootr, I think that most of the time when a defender heads a ball backwards to an attacker, giving the attacker a good scoring opportunity, that this is not a controlled play but rather the equivalent of a mis-hit kick.

In that case, if my judgement is that the ball was mis-hit by the defender and hence accidentally went backwards, I don’t believe it would reset the offside situation.

Could you please clarify this situation. Thanks.

USSF answer (June 18, 2008):
Looking solely at your direct question, the fact that the act of heading the ball is “deliberate” has no bearing on the matter. If the opponent (D1) did not establish full control of the ball originally played by A1 toward his/her teammate, then the heading of the ball is a deflection or touch, not possession or control. Therefore, the attacker in the offside position to whom the ball was headed by D1 is offside if he becomes actively involved in play.

There are, however, other aspects to be considered. The defender could be deliberately heading the ball back (say, to his keeper so that the keeper could handle it) and not know that there was an attacker back there also. In such a case, it is a deliberate play and the attacker should not be punished for the defender’s error by being called for offside if he then gathers the ball and attacks the goal.

A defender might also deliberately play (possess and control) the ball by heading it but misdirect the ball so that it goes to this attacker … and again the attacker should not be called for offside.

Why should a defender gain the benefit of an offside call against this attacker simply because the defender didn’t play the ball accurately or well — he still played it. Deflections, ricochets, bounces, and the like would not of course constitute a play.

In closing, we need to remember that officials, whether referees or assistant referees, should not defend for the defenders.…

Question:
Player’s foot slides over the top of the ball as his opponent tries to kick the ball.

Player’s cleat is over the ball while the opponent’s leg is swinging toward it. Contact is made, unavoidably by the opponents ankle to the first player’s cleat. Had the opponent’s timing been better the contact (cleats to ankle) would have still occurred.

I felt the first player was careless allowing his foot to go over the top of the ball and awarded a DFK against him. Nobody liked my call. The sore ankle team thought a caution / send-off was in order, the cleat over ball team went to the “I got the ball first”. I get 50/50 opinions on this situation. Can you give me any easy guidance?

USSF answer (June 18, 2008):
“Cleats up” means little if that is the only way the player can play the ball. What the referee must be concerned about is the nature and result of the play.

Referees should pay particular to the actual foul here, the “over the top” (of the ball) tackle. Unless the referee on the spot detects some malice in the play, this is a simple foul. However, if it is done other than through accident — and “accident” would appear to be the case here — it is the sending-off offense of serious foul play. The final decision must rest with the referee on the spot.…

Question:
In your response to the question about wearing a shin guard on the arm where you said that this should not be allowed because it is “likely to be used as a weapon”.

Assuming that this is in addition to the normal shin guard on the leg, it seems your answer is conflicting with the directive that head padding and other such protective gear must be allowed if they are not, by themselves, dangerous. If used as a weapon, we must deal with that during the game.

Is there an inconsistancy here?

USSF answer (June 16, 2008):
No, there is no inconsistency at all. Shinguards are to be worn on the shins, not on the calves, not on the arms, not anywhere but on the shins. Players may wear reasonable equipment to protect themselves from injury, but may not wear anything that could cause injury for themselves or any other participants, including “body armor.”

In other words, shinguards may not be worn on the arms, nor anywhere save the shins.

For further information, see the USSF position papers of March 7, 2003 . . .

Subject: Player’s Equipment

Date: March 7, 2003

USSF has received a number of inquiries recently about how officials should handle situations where players wish to wear equipment that is not included in the list of basic compulsory equipment in FIFA Laws of the Game. Referees are facing increased requests from players for permission to wear kneepads, elbowpads, headbands, soft casts, goggles, etc.

The only concrete guidance in the Laws of the Game is found in Law 4:

“A player must not use equipment or wear anything which is dangerous to himself or another player.”

This is followed by a list of required uniform items: jersey, shorts, socks, shoes, and shinguards. Obviously, this language is quite general. USSF suggests the following approach to issues involving player equipment and uniforms:

1. Look to the applicable rules of the competition authority.
Some leagues, tournaments, and soccer organizations have specific local rules covering player uniforms and what other items may or may not be worn on the field during play. Referees who accept match assignments governed by these rules are obligated to enforce them. Note, however, that local rules cannot restrict the referee’s fundamental duty to ensure the safety of players.

2. Inspect the equipment.
All items of player equipment and uniforms must be inspected. However, anything outside the basic compulsory items must draw the particular attention of the referee and be inspected with special regard to safety. USSF does not “pre-approve” any item of player equipment by type or brand — each item must be evaluated individually.

3. Focus on the equipment itself — not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player.
Generally, the referee’s safety inspection should focus on whether the equipment has such dangerous characteristics as: sharp edges, hard surfaces, pointed corners, dangling straps or loops, or dangerous protrusions. The referee should determine whether the equipment, by its nature, presents a safety risk to the player wearing it or to other players. If the equipment does not present such a safety risk, the referee should permit the player to wear it.

The referee should not forbid the equipment simply because it creates a possibility that a player could use it to foul another player or otherwise violate the Laws of the Game. However, as the game progresses, an item that the referee allowed may become dangerous, depending on changes in its condition (wear and tear) or on how the player uses it. Referees must be particularly sensitive to unfair or dangerous uses of player equipment and must be prepared to order a correction of the problem whenever they become aware of it.

The referee also should not forbid the equipment because of doubts about whether it actually protects the player. There are many new types of equipment on the market that claim to protect players. A referee’s decision to allow a player to use equipment is not an endorsement of the equipment and does not signify that the referee believes the player will be safer while wearing the equipment.

4. Remember that the referee is the final word on whether equipment is dangerous.
Players, coaches, and others may argue that certain equipment is safe. They may contend that the equipment has been permitted in previous matches, or that the equipment actually increases the player’s safety. These arguments may be accompanied by manufacturer’s information, doctor’s notes, etc. However, as with all referee decisions, determining what players may wear within the framework of the Laws of the Game and applicable local rules depends on the judgment of the referee. The referee must strive to be fair, objective, and consistent ˆ but the final decision belongs to the referee.

and September 3, 2003 . . .

Subject: Players Wearing Non-Compulsory Equipment

Date: September 3, 2003

On August 25, 2003, FIFA issued Circular #863, regarding the legality of players wearing non-compulsory equipment.

FIFA notes that, under the “Powers and Duties” of the referee in Law 5 — The Referee, he or she has the authority to ensure that the players’ equipment meets the requirements of Law 4, which states that a player must not wear anything that is dangerous.

Modern protective equipment such as headgear, facemasks, knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight, padded material are not considered dangerous and are therefore permitted.

FIFA also wishes to strongly endorse the statement on the use of sports spectacles made by the International F.A. Board on March 10, 2001, and subsequently in FIFA Circular #750, dated April 10, 2001. New technology has made sports spectacles much safer, both for the player himself or herself and for other players. This applies particularly to younger players.

Referees are expected to take full account of this fact and it would be considered extremely unusual for a referee to prevent a player taking part in a match because he or she was wearing modern sports spectacles.

Referees are reminded of the following points which can assist in guiding their decisions on this matter:

– Look to the applicable rules of the competition authority.
– Inspect the equipment.
– Focus on the equipment itself – not how it might be improperly used, or whether it actually protects the player.
– Remember that the referee is the final word on whether equipment is dangerous.