Question:
I am a new referee and worked as center in a tournament. One of my ARs is very experienced and was giving me an informal evaluation. As luck would have it there was a difficult decision to be made in the 3rd minute of the game.

Blue player dribbled into the box where red goalkeeper fouled him when diving for the ball. The ball continued to roll towards the goal and blue attacking player, trying to keep his feet, stumbled for a few steps before falling. I signaled for a penalty. There was another defender on the far corner of the goal, trying to race into position.

This was a U14 game. I did not card the gk, as I interpreted his play as a foul, nothing reckless or more.

After the game the experienced AR told me I should have sent off the GK because any DOGSO-F by a GK is a red card. I didn’t interpret it as a DOGSO-F because of the defender by the corner of the goal. He did because there was no defending player was between the ball and goal.

I interpreted it as he was still “between” the ball/player and the goal because he was still affecting play. By the way, during the stumbling of the attacker, the ball bounced off the goal post and stayed in play. Was I wrong? Thanks for your time.

USSF answer (December 10, 2011):
The AR’s apparent suggestion, as stated in your question, that a foul by the goalkeeper is automatically a send-off for DOGSO-F is not correct (see below). Your interpretation of the 4 Ds in denial of a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity could also use some review. The first D, number of defenders, states that there not be more than one defender between the foul and the goal, not counting the defender who committed the foul. That was the case in your situation (again see below).

The goalkeeper could have been sent off and shown the red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

Not only was the AR wrong about the alleged automatic red card nature of the situation, he was also wrong about there not being any defending player between the ball and the goal — there was, the defender whom you describe as “on the far corner of the goal, trying to race into position.” The AR was wrong about interpreting this D as requiring that the defender(s) be on some sort of geometric line drawn from the foul to the center of the goal. The only requirement is that there be no more than one defender “between the site of the foul and the goal who is able to defend”. This defender WAS … the only problem is that there was only one of him. In other words, he clearly “counted” but there were just were enough of them, one.…

Question:
During recreational tournament play, red team player A was within 10 yards of both the near touch line and midfield in a clearly offside position, returning to his half. Red team player B on the far touch line, on his own defending half of the field, took possession of the ball and turned down that line. As he approached the midfield line but before he crossed, he pushed the ball long, and blew past the blue defenders on the midfield line. His next touch on the ball was 25 yards later, stopping it from crossing the far touch line with a turn in on goal. There were no other red players in the vicinity.

Red player A had reversed course on the near touchline during this time and headed for the blue box, initially a little ahead of the ball, not interfering with any play or players, putting himself in a potentially advantageous position for a rebound off the keeper but not obstructing the keepers movement or view. Upon Red B touching the ball, the AR put his flag up, signaling an offside offense. The whistle was immediately blown, no shot was taken and the blue team was awarded a free kick from the spot that Red B touched the ball. The coach questioned the call from the sideline, and the center pointed to the red player A on the near sideline. The kick was taken by blue.

Well after the game, in the concession area well away from the field, the center explained to the coach in a friendly conversation that any touch of the ball that puts the ball outside a radius that is immediately playable without movement by the player in possession is a loss of possession and therefore a play or pass if touched next by the same team. Even in the case of a lone dribbler who is not careful to keep the ball at her feet, movement down the field would be considered a series of passes to herself. So regardless of Red A’s involvement or even position at the time of play, Red B had committed an offside offense by passing to himself.

My understanding is that 1) you can’t make a pass to yourself 2) if you could make a pass to yourself, making the pass from your own half would preclude any offside offense (absent other interference or advantage) 3) even if you are alone against an undefended goal in the attacking half of the field, there can’t be offside offense so long as you are behind the ball and playing forward to yourself 4) so long as any player in an offside position does not interfere with play or with players, and does not gain an advantage from his position, there is no offense.

Can you pass to yourself?

Is “loose dribbling” a loss of possession?

Stipulating to the description above, is there any interpretation of the scenario that is an offside offense?

USSF answer (December 6, 2011):
It would seem that your referee had visited a different sort of concession area before the game as well and had consumed some sort of illegal substance while there, as his/her judgment was clouded and a great lack of knowledge was on display for all to see. We do not need referees who make their own interpretation of the Laws.

Yes, a player can pass to himself and CANNOT and MUST NOT be called for offside in such a case. Passing to oneself is perfectly legal and within the Law: the Law specifies that the ball must be played to a teammate and a player cannot be his or her own teammate. “Loose dribbling” is not a loss of possession. No, there is no offside in this case.…

Question:
As a referee, I have always been told that the lines on a field are part of the area of which they “contain”. However, this seems to be in conflict with the law regarding throw-ins and the placement of the feet of the individual taking the throw-in along the touchline.

I recently had a game in which I had to explain the lines are part of the area of which they contain and he brought up the fact that on a throw-in as long as both feet are touching the touchline in some form that the throw-in is considered legal. However he then pointed out that by my description, would not that be illegal since in a throw-in the player must take the throw-in from outside of the field of play, however the line is considered in play?

The only reasoning I can come up with for this is that at its most basic form the throw-in is a method of restarting the match and thus follows a slightly different set of circumstances or rules than normal course of play.

But is there any further reasoning as to why a player is allowed to be completely in the field of play when taking a throw-in (in the case where they keep both heels on the inside edge of the touchline) and yet the throw-in is technically taken to put the ball back in to play?

USSF answer (November 24, 2011):
The answer to your question lies in applying Laws 1 and 15 as they are written, not in finding reasons to doubt them. “He,” whoever “he” may be, was totally wrong in suggesting that having one’s feet on the line had anything to do with a dichotomy in the Laws. Your original understanding is correct. Your interlocutor is talking apples and applesauce, two different things, and creating his own muddled version of the Laws.

Law 1:
Field Markings
The field of play must be rectangular and marked with lines. These lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.

Law 15:
Procedure
At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower:
* faces the field of play
* has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line

This is the Law and it is also tradition. Where the Law is clear, follow the Law; where it is not, do the best you can (including applying logic).…