Category: Law 18 – Common Sense

Law 18 – Common Sense

Advice to Referees

OFFSIDE: DEFENDER OFF THE FIELD

Posted on by

Offside: Defender Off the Field
By now, many of you have seen and/or heard about the controversial goal in the Holland vs. Italy match in Euro 2008 this past week. Despite its controversy, the referee team was correct in allowing the goal and in their interpretation of Law 11, Offside. Below, we will review the decision and explain why many announcers were doing the game a disservice by providing incorrect information to the fans.
• The Situation
During a free kick by the Dutch team, the Italian goalkeeper pushes his own defender out of the way and off the field, where the defender and a Dutch attacker are both down. The Dutch attacker rises quickly and returns to the field. The Italian defender remains off the field. The ball is played away from the goal and is kicked back to a Dutch player who has the Italian goalkeeper between himself and the goal line and the Italian defender lying on the ground outside the field.  The ball is crossed and redirected into the goal by the attacker.
Video Clip 5:  Holland vs. Italy (25:17)
Review the video clip and ensure you clearly see the situation as it develops. At the end of the clip, there is a better graphical display of the position of the players. Then, ask yourself the question that follows below.
• The Question
Should the Dutch attacker who scored the goal have been called offside? He had only one opponent between himself and the goal line. There was an opponent lying on the ground just across the goal line.
• Clarification
If a defending player deliberately steps behind his own goal line in order to place an opponent in an offside position, the referee shall allow play to continue and caution the defender for deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission when the ball is next out of play. That did not happen in this situation.
However, in this case the defender left the field of play as a result of being pushed aside by his goalkeeper. Players in either of these situations – whether they left the field during the course of play or stepped off to place an opponent in an offside position – are considered to be part of the game and thus accountable when determining offside position by their opponents. The only difference is how these players would be treated from a disciplinary point of view (no yellow card was warranted in this case).
• Summary
There were two Italian defenders to be calculated into the equation, the goalkeeper and the player on the ground just outside the goal line. The referee’s interpretation that the player off the field of play was still involved in the game was correct.
If this interpretation did not exist, then defending players would use the tactic of deliberately stepping off the field of play to put their opponents in an offside position and that is both unacceptable and counter to the Spirit of the Laws of the Game. Unless a player has the permission of the referee to be off the field (in the case of an injury), they are considered to be on it, involved in active play, and deemed to be part of the game.
The Law was applied correctly and the Dutch attacker was not in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball. Hence, the referee was correct in allowing the goal to be scored.
The situation above raises many related questions regarding offside and defending players leaving the field. The following examines a few of these common questions and scenarios.
• Different Scenarios
1. The Italian defender left the field deliberately to place the Dutch attacker in an offside position
Play would continue and the defender would be cautioned at the next stoppage of play for leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission.
Video Clip 6:  Colorado at Kansas City – 2001
This video clip provides a visual example of scenario 1 above in which a defender deliberately attempts to leave the field of play to place an opponent in an offside position. In this case, the defender would not be cautioned because he is not all the way off the field at the time the ball is played by the attacker. If he were fully off the field at the time of the initial shot/pass to goal, the referee would be required to caution the defender for leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission. For further explanation of the events in this clip, referee to U.S. Soccer’s August 23, 2001 position paper entitled, “Offside and Misconduct by a Defender.” <(Click on the link to access the paper) 2. The Dutch attacker pushed the Italian defender thereby forcing him off the field of play
Play would be stopped for the foul committed by the Dutch attacker against the Italian defender.  The restart would be a direct free kick for the defending team from the place of the infringement, keeping in mind the special circumstances involving offenses within the goal area.
3. While off the field of play, the Dutch attacker, as he was getting up after having fallen, held down the Italian defender
Play would be stopped; the Dutch attacker would be cautioned for unsporting behavior and the game would be restarted with a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.
4. While off the field of play, the Italian defender held down the Dutch attacker
The referee would invoke the advantage and play would continue. At the next stoppage the referee would caution the Italian attacker for unsporting behavior.
5. The Italian defender is clearly injured and off the field of play
The referee makes a decision that the defender is seriously injured and cannot return to play by himself. Once the referee has acknowledged the seriousness of the injury, the player may not participate in the play and must not be considered to be in active play (at this point, he would not be considered in determining offside position and should not be considered in the equation as either the first or second last opponent). For purposes of Law 11, the defender is considered to be on the goal line for calculating offside position. This player, however, may not return to play without the referee’s permission. Remember, the referee is instructed in Law 5 to stop the game only for serious injury.
• Other References
U.S. Soccer has published “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game.” Within this publication, refer to sections: 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, and 11.11.

The entire item, including URLs for the two video clips, can be found at http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_11_2008.htm…

"Inventive" Refs

SHINGUARDS ARE FOR THE SHINS, NOT THE ARMS (OR THE CALVES)

Posted on by

Question:
Can a shinguard be used as an arm protector? I saw that in a U13 girls game and the referee said it was OK because the shinguard did not have any metal in it.

USSF answer (June 12, 2008):
A shinguard is meant to protect the shins. However, even faster players, who are able to pass their opponents, are not allowed to wear them on their calves, the back of the shin, to protect them from the rear. Shinguards are meant to be worn to protect the shin, not the arm, where they are more likely to be used as a weapon.

NOTE: We apologize to the person who asked this question; we have lost his e-mail address.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SECOND CAUTIONABLE OFFENSES AND PERSISTENT INFRINGEMENT

Posted on by

Question:
I do not understand something in the MLS Lessons Learned for Week 9 of 2008. It contains instructions on Second Cautionable Offenses and Persistent Infringement. Part of it says that the player who repeatedly fouls a single opponent will be cautioned for persistent infringement. It then goes on to say that when a team ‘s members engage in a series of fouls against a single opponent, one after another, the final player who is called for this offense is cautioned not for persistent infringement but for unsporting behavior, and that unsporting behavior is reported in the match report as the reason for the caution. That seems strange. What’s the deal here?

USSF answer (June 10, 2008):
The pertinent section in the memorandum (http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/LessonsLearnedWeek_9_2008.htm) reads:
Note: When a referee identifies a case of persistent infringement that falls under category 2 above (“Players who are repeated fouled”), the game report should list the caution as being issued for “unsporting behavior.” This should be the case as this is more of a philosophical approach to persistent infringement.

From this we learn that a player who personally persists in infringing the Law by fouling one or more opponents is cautioned for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game. However, the player who is the final person in a series of fouls against a single opposing player has committed only the single foul against this person and may not be cautioned for persistently infringing the Laws of the Game. Instead, that player is cautioned for unsporting behavior and that is how the caution is reported.…

Advice to Referees

“SPIKING” THE THROW-IN

Posted on by

Question:
Today I was refereeing a recreational game. There was a throw-in where the thrower essentiall spiked the ball hard just inside the field of play (it bounce 20 feet up).
There was no player near by, however, I called an incorrect throw. Of course the Coaches complained.

The basis for my call was the guidance in the USSF “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”, section 15.3. However, at half-time, I looked again at the Rules of the Game booklet. It is silent on the spiking of the ball. With no mention in the Laws Booklet, I am inclined to not make such a call in the future.

Please Clarify whether spiking is really ever grounds for ‘improper throw-in’, and if so, why and under what circumstances.

USSF answer (June 10, 2008):
While the act spiking the ball is not mentioned in the Laws of the Game, it is traditionally forbidden because putting the ball in that manner is disrespectful of the Game and of the opponents. It attracts attention to the player and brings the game into disrepute.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SHIRT PULLED OVER FACE, DC UNITED VS. CHICAGO FIRE

Posted on by

Question:
I watched the highlights for this game on the MLS website. In the highlight video for the MLS game on June 7th between DC United and Chicago Fire a DC United player (Luciano Emilio) scores a goal at the end of the game (92+minute) and then the video shows that he covers his face with his jersey while celebrating his goal. I thought this was a Cautionable offense in accordance with the Laws of the Game but the misconduct summary does not indicate that a Caution was given. Why was no Caution given in this case? In the 2007/2008 FIFA Laws of the Game page 117 shows this exact misconduct (with picture) and says that the player must be cautioned. 

USSF answer (June 9, 2008):
Your interpretation of the Law is correct, but we referees are human beings, just like the players, and sometimes we “blink” when something happens.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FIRST FOUL

Posted on by

Question:
My question is about the concept of punishing the “first foul.” Situation: a player goes up for a header, using the shoulders of an opponent to launch himself. No horizontal movement, just vertically up. The opponent, sensing this, bends over and causes the opponent to fall over him (“tabletop”). Should the resulting DFK be for the team of the player who went up for the ball (ignoring the shoulder-push and punishing the tabletop) or for the team of the player who had his shoulders pushed on in the first place (with a possible caution or chewing-out for the tabletop)?

Would it change if the original shoulder-pusher had horizontal motion over the player who decided to bend over so he fell?

USSF answer (June 9, 2008):
Why worry about “problems” over what the Laws tell us to do? In situations like this the referee can and must punish both offenses — provided, in his or her opinion, they are indeed both offenses.

The first offense, using the opponent’s shoulders as a support, is an old and time-honored way of cheating. It is called holding and is punished with a direct free kick AND a caution for unsporting behavior. The tactic of using a teammate’s shoulders is not a foul, but is certainly misconduct and would be punished by a caution for unsporting behavior and an indirect free kick for the opposing team at the place where the offense occurred.

The second offense, in which the opponent bends over and thus trips the initial offender, might ordinarily be called a foul, but that cannot happen in this case, because the foul has already occurred and whatever follows it can only be misconduct. If, in the opinion of the referee, this is indeed an offense, rather than the natural aftermath of having extra weight and leverage applied to one’s shoulders by an outside force, then the referee must punish it with a caution for unsporting behavior. However, the restart would still be for the first offense.…

Advice to Referees

BALL IN PLAY FROM KICK RESTART; ADVICE 13.5 FOR 2008

Posted on by

Question:
The 2007 ATR is quite specific that a tap on top of the the ball, stepping on the ball, or dragging of the ball does not count as the first touch for an indirect free kick – the ball must be touched in a kicking motion. So far this season I have refereed mover 50 games and have talked to thirty or more referees. Not one coach, or even one referee has been aware of this ATR. I have taken the tack this season to inform both teams during equipment check that I would be following the ATR and then giving the coach a copy, so that they would know where I was getting my information from. I have had now problems. However, this does require a little “speech” to the players, a luxury one does not always get.

At the recent [local] tournament I had the opportunity to talk to several level 5 referees about this ruling – they were unanimous in telling me that you don’t tell teams about this ruling and you certainly don’t follow it – if you disallowed a goal because the only touches were a tap on top of the ball and a kick that put the ball in the goal you wouldn’t make it off the field in one piece.

I’m now in a quandry – do I follow the ruling – if so, do I tell the teams before the game. Imagine this situation – League tournament finals, score tied, one minute to go, defender makes a high kick – IDFK just outside, or inside, the penalty area. Kicking team lines up four players who run at the ball in turn. The first player jumps over the ball, the second player taps the top of the ball, the third player kicks it, loops it over the wall tough play for the keeper. The keeper, following the ATR, knows that a goal cannot be scored, and not risking touching the ball, backs away from the ball and lets it go untouched into the goal. What’s my call? Do I follow the ATR and signal for a goal kick, following a ruling that NOBODY else in the stadium knows, risking major mayhem, or do I make the easy call – GOAL penalizing the goalie for knowing the rules?

That raises a second question – why isn’t a ruling that makes such a fundamental change in how what can be a critical play is judged, better advertised?

USSF answer (June 3, 2008):
It is not surprising that many State-level referees, no matter which state they come from, do not follow the instructions in the Advice to Referees. We find this to be the case throughout the United States, because so many “senior” referees and assessors seem to know more than the Federation about how games should be refereed.

No matter what your colleagues may tell you about what is in the Advice to Referees, it is the interpretation of the U. S. Soccer Federation and should be followed by all referees, assessors, and instructors. Anyone who troubles to read the introduction will find that the Advice is intended to be read by referees, instructors, assessors, players, coaches, parents, and anyone else wants to know what to expect from the officials in a game.

Section 13.5 of the Advice has been changed for 2008, but only “gently.” It now reads:

13.5 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the “kick” need only be a touch of the ball with the foot in a kicking motion. Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient.

When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot.  The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match.

The referee must judge carefully whether any particular kick of the ball and subsequent movement was indeed reasonably taken with the intention of putting the ball into play rather than with the intention merely to position the ball for the restart. If the ball is just being repositioned (even if the foot is used to do this), play has not been restarted. Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish for “failing to respect the required distance” when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart.

The referee must make the final decision on what is a “kick” and what is “not a kick” based on his or her feeling for the game-what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefühl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”).

The intelligent referee will do at least two things here:
1. Recognize the situation for what it is and deal with it correctly.
2. Not to explain all this to players or coaches or spectators either before the match or at the time of the first indirect free kick (which is the only situation where the distinction is important).

We continue to emphasize to new referees that, for example, the “captains talk” (the coin toss) is not the time to lecture on the Law.…

Kicks from the Mark

KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK

Posted on by

Question:
This situation happened in a recent tournament (thankfully I was not involved in it!):

With 3 minutes left in the second OT of a tournament final and the score tied, one of Team A’s strikers (A1) is injured and is subbed out (unlimited subsitution rule in effect). He is thus not one of the 11 players on the field for Team A when time expires and the winner must be determined by kicks from the mark.

However, one of the AR’s does not properly do his job and Player A1 ends up going onto the field to replace the player who subbed in for him minutes before. (There is nothing particularly sneaky about this, and A1 may not have been aware of the USSF rule for kicks from the mark. In HS, of course, he could have legitimately taken one of the kicks.)

The kicks then proceed beyond the fifth players into “sudden death”, where A1 makes the kick that theoretically wins the match. However, the opposing coach immediately objects – stating correctly that A1 was not on the field at the end of the game. The CR, remembering the injury substitution, recognizes that the coach is correct.

So the question is:

1. Does the kick count, based on the theory that play has “resumed” since the illegal entry by A1, or is the goal negated, or does Team A get to re-do the kick with a legal kicker? Also, should A1 and his coach be cautioned?

2. Would there be any difference if A1 converted the first kick of the shootout, but his being on the field illegally was not noticed until several other players had taken their turns?

As always, thanks for your input.

USSF answer (June 3, 2008):
Other than the clear requirement that only players who are on the field or off temporarily with the permission of the referee are allowed to participate in kicks from the penalty mark, this situation is not covered in the Laws of the Game. The kicks may go no farther and the referee must include full details in the match report. The competition authority must determine what happens to this game.…

"Inventive" Refs

ADDING TIME

Posted on by

Question:
After a recent game, the coach of our team was told that extra or stoppage time was added for three injuries during the second half and that additional stoppage time was added whenever the ball was kicked out of bounds. Is extra time allowed to be added for the ball rolling out of bounds? By our watch, there was 10 additional minutes added for out of bounds balls (the ball never crossed a fence or any other obstacle but simply went out of bounds.) The opposing team scored twice during the last 4 minutes of the stoppage time and we lost the match. We have not heard of time being added for routine out of bounds.

USSF answer (June 2, 2008):
Time is not usually added routinely for balls that go out of play under normal circumstances. if the referee is certain that a team is wasting time by constantly and deliberately kicking the ball out of play, then the referee should add time to make up for this loss of playing time.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

THE “PASS BACK” RULE

Posted on by

Question:
Re U12G 11v11 rules for a Keeper picking up a ball that has been kicked.

My Keeper recently picked up a ball that was kicked by her team.

The situation was as follows. It was a rainy day, the ball was wet, a defender was taking a goal kick to restart the game. By all observations the defender intended to kick the ball down the right flank, but she sliced the ball and it went across the goal mouth in the 6 yard box. The Keeper picked it up based on the fact that the ball had not been deliberately kicked to the Keeper. The Keeper contends that the “pass back” rule for lack of a better description has a double test; one, the ball must be kicked by the foot of a team mate and; two, the ball must be kicked deliberately to the Keeper. She got called for a hand ball.

Can you comment on this situation?

USSF answer (May 29, 2008):
Based on the information you give us, there was no infringement to be punished. The ball never went into play and the only correct solution was for the goal kick to be retaken.

Even if the ball had gone into play — i. e., left the penalty area — the goalkeeper could not have been called for “hand ball.” That suggests the direct free kick/penalty kick foul of deliberately handling the ball; for a goalkeeper, this could occur only if the goalkeeper had left the penalty area. At best, the goalkeeper simply touched the ball with her hands within her own penalty area, an offense punished by an indirect free kick.

Again, if the ball had been properly put into play — and it was not — and if the referee had not called whatever offense occurred a “hand ball,” then there could have been solely the technical offense described above. All of this, of course, depends on how the referee sees the incident. All decisions of this nature are called according to the opinion of the referee on the game.

This excerpt from a recent U. S. Soccer Federation position paper should be of some help in describing the basis for the infringement of the goalkeeper playing the ball kicked deliberately to him or her by a teammate:

This rarely seen infraction came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6 second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate.

The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate rather than a deflection, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)

When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.

…