Question:
A team has a player red carded in the first half. After 20 minutes of play in the second half, the referee is alerted by a coach that the offending team has 11 players on the field, clearly adding one at half time.

What is the call?

USSF answer (February 25, 2008):
While the fault certainly lies with the referee and the rest of the officiating team, who have failed in their duty to enforce the Law, something must be done about the extra player. You will find full details in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which may either be downloaded or purchased in soft cover form from the US Soccer Federation website at www.ussoccer.com. Here is a brief description of what must be done in the situation you describe:

In all cases, play must be stopped and the extra person identified and removed from the field. Other than through referee error, this situation can occur only if someone enters the field illegally. In addition to the punishment and restarts listed below, the referee must include full details in the match report. Furthermore, all actions by the team with the extra player which occurred prior to the stoppage for the extra player will stand, with one exception: If the game was stopped for a goal by the team with the extra player (who was then discovered at that stoppage), that goal is not scored.

If the “extra player” is an outside agent (such as a previously expelled player or a spectator), the game is restarted with a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when play was stopped.

If the “extra player” is a substitute (and on the team’s roster if rosters are required by the rules of the competition), that substitute (or substituted player) is cautioned for unsporting behavior and the game is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the place where the ball was when play was stopped.…

Question:
I’ve been looking through the “archive” but I haven’t found the answer to my question yet, so I thought I’d just write.

I realize that this is very trivial, but a U10 coach asked me (in order to properly instruct his players) about proper positioning of players for kick-off. Are they allowed to stand on the line or not?

Law 8 states “all players are in their half of the field”.

Without hesitation I said that you can treat the halfway line during kick-off like you would a throw-in—“has part of each foot either on the touch line or …outside the touch line” or in this case the halfway line.

To make sure of my answer I asked a fellow referee who I feel is very knowledgeable about the laws of the game but his reply was different. He said you need to look at the halfway line like offside—“any part of his head, body or feet is nearer…”, in this case, the halfway line.

I then went to a 3rd source that I felt confident about but ended up with a 3rd opinion. In this case they said “any part of the body, including the hands, over the halfway line would be an infringement.”

So now I’m not sure what the correct response is. What does USSF have to say?

USSF answer (February 13, 2008):
Our first reaction was incredulity that anyone would even ask, but this was tempered by the realization that the location is a point not really covered in the instructional program. Nevertheless, after a moment of reflection, the answer came readily to mind.

Law 1 tells us: “The field of play is marked with lines. These lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries.” Therefore, if the players stand on the halfway line they are in their own half of the field. If their heads or feet are slightly over the line, it makes no difference.…

Question:
I have been a volunteer referee for our league for two years, at the U-10 level, which means I have refereed maybe 20 U-10 games total. I know I have “blown” some calls and will probably make more mistakes in the future, fortunately most parents and coaches are kind and generally, it is all good fun.

In the last game of the season this year (a good close game) an attacker at midfield passed the ball forward. I checked downfield and was certain that the most forward attacker was a good six feet offside, with no other defender except the keeper between the attacker and the goal. The forward pass did a slow roll to the offside attacker about 4-5 seconds later and about halfway between the circle and the box. I blew the whistle and indicated for the IFK. When the coach realized what I was calling, loud protests erupted. The coach, the assistant coach, and at least one parent all yelled and pointed at a defender that to me, had materialized out of thin air in front of the goal box. In U-10, we rarely have linesman, much less ARs, so I was alone on this one. While I was moving towards the spot, wondering to myself how I could have missed a defender standing in front of the net and whether I could do anything about it, the coach marched out to the center of the field to discuss the call with me. I told him that I didnÕt see the defender he was pointing to at the critical moment, it was too late now, and even allowing for the possibility, or even the near certainty, that I had made a mistake, I couldnÕt and wouldnÕt change a call based on something that I did not see. I told him that the coach can’t walk onto the field to have a conference with the referee and that he should return to the sideline, which he did without further protest. I then restarted with an IFK for the defense. I did put a comment on my game card about the unusual on-field conference Ð first time that ever happened to me.

Two questions:
1. Is team official reaction a valid basis for changing a decision, where it is contrary to what you think you saw but you strongly suspect that you may not have seen everything?
2. If it is, when should you use this tool, since it also struck me that, if I start changing calls when the coach yells loud enough, the coach is going to yell more, not just at me but at other volunteers — and I don’t think we will get many volunteer referees if coaches spend the game pointing out the “facts of play” during the games.

USSF answer (November 6, 2007):
1. We normally counsel referees that they cannot call an infringement if they or one of their assistant referees have not seen it. Referees should certainly not take the advice of team officials, who are bound to be protective of their own team’s interests. In this case, it would appear that your first glance down the field missed the defender near the goal. If that is true, you would not be the first referee to which this happened and will certainly not be the last. If the defender was actually there when the ball was played — and you suspect that to be true — then the only correct restart is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was when you stopped play.

We suggest that the referee apologize for missing the defender when he or she looked downfield and let the teams know that the proper restart for this mistake is a dropped ball.

2. Very few coaches actually know the Laws of the Game (or even the rules of the competitions in which their team plays). Always acknowledge their “advice” with a smile and get on with the game. You do not have to put what they say into action. However, if the coach behaves irresponsibly, in other words, becomes abusive, you have the authority to expel him or her from the game and include all details in the match report/game card.…

Question:
I was wondering the correct restart for giving a warning for dissent. In hindsight, I should not have stopped play since the offense was not severe enough for a yellow card but I wanted to calm the player down before things escalated. I gave a drop ball at the site where the ball was when I blew my whistle, but I think I should have given an indirect to the opposing team at the site where the infringement occurred. The infringement was made by a player on the field of play.

Answer (October 15, 2007):
Ah, the beauty of hindsight! And the beauty of the dropped ball in cases of referee error.

In this situation you could not have restarted with an indirect free kick, because you stopped the play for a warning, not an actual infringement. We have covered this in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” ATR 5.7:

5.7 STOPPING PLAY
The referee has the power to stop the match for any infringement of the Laws, to apply advantage under the appropriate conditions, or to decide that an infringement is trifling or doubtful and should not be called at all. However, the referee also has the power to stop play for other reasons, including misconduct for which the referee intends only to warn the player regarding behavior and not to issue a caution. In these circumstances, the referee should take care that ordering such a stoppage would not disadvantage the opposing team. As the stoppage will not have occurred for a foul or misconduct, play would be restarted with a dropped ball*.

Question:
In a recent travel game, team A was awarded a DFK, one of the players from team A positioned himself to take the kick, then after a short period of time another player came to take the direct free kick. He took his time, in all about 30 seconds ran off the clock before the kick was attempted. After a warning to speed things up, the referee blew his whistle and awarded the kick to the other team. The were no substitutions made which would have given cause for the delay.

Is there a time limit on taking DFK? If it was deemed a delay of the restart should the player have been cautioned?

Answer (October 15, 2007):
This would be one of those cases where referees invent their own rules, rather than following the Laws of the Game. The referee in this situation had no authority under the Laws of the Game to take away the free kick from the kicking team, no matter how long they delayed the restart. In this case, the referee can only caution a player (or players) for delaying the restart of play. Then, despite the delay(s), the restart must be in accordance with the reason the ball was out of play, in this case a direct free kick for the “injured” team. The referee will then add time as necessary to make up for the delay.…

Question:
We have recently come across a situation in a game where an opposing coach and I are not in agreement on a call based upon our prior experiences as well as our interpretation of the laws of the game. I am hopeful you can clarify the situation and provide us with the correct decision. Below, please find a brief description of the incident and our two interpretations.

In the game a couple of weeks ago, a keeper was in the process of punting a ball to her team mates at the top of the penalty area. However, in the process of preparing to punt the ball, she took at least two running steps outside the penalty area while holding the ball. The referee immediately blew his whistle and awarded a direct free kick from the spot of the infraction, which was about one and one half yards outside the penalty area. The kick resulted in a goal scored by one of my players. However, the opposing coach did not agree with the call and felt our team should have been awarded an indirect free kick if any award was to be given for the infraction. The opposing coach felt a warning would have been a more appropriate call since he felt the steps taken by his keeper were not done intentionally. The game continued without any incident but we both felt our interpretation of the laws of the game were correct.

Since the incident occurred in the game, we have both reviewed the laws of the game and come up with different conclusions. We are very interested in finding out the correct decision, but please understand we are not involved in any contentious discussion over the situation now or at the time of the game. I will include both of our interpretations so you can share your thoughts regarding the matter and help educate two soccer coaches.

In my interpretation, I feel a direct free kick is the correct call based upon the laws of the game I have posted below as well as my previous experience with this type of call in prior years. Since the keeper handled the ball outside the box, I feel the laws related to a player handling the ball deliberately is the most relevant law associated with the situation especially since the goalkeeper was outside the penalty area.

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
//snipped//
– handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

The opposing coach feels first and foremost, the referee should have given the player a warning but if the referee felt compelled to award a free kick, the FIFA rule for an indirect free kick should have applied as follows:
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
– plays in a dangerous manner
– impedes the progress of an opponent
– prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
– commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player
The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

The opposing coach feels that the word deliberate in the laws related to the four offenses mentioned above means the player handled the ball with “intent” and since the opposing coach felt the player did not intend to gain an advantage, the rules for an indirect kick should apply.

I feel a keeper holding onto a ball is doing so deliberately and consequently should be called for the offense if they step out of the box.

Since we are bound to run into this situation again some time down the road, I would really love to hear the proper ruling regarding the matter. The opposing coach has a wonderful team and our players get along very well together, but we are both interested in seeking the proper ruling. Interestingly, he has asked officials from his town and they support the idea an indirect kick should have been awarded if the referee felt the need to make any call to begin with. I have sought advice from referees and the director of soccer in my town and received confirmation the correct decision was made and a direct kick should have been awarded. I find it amazing we can have so many differences in opinion over the same situation and am very hopeful there is a clear ruling on this matter. I would hate to feel this type of situation is subject to different interpretations to the laws of the game which quite frankly, would make it difficult for any referee to make a call.

Thank you in advance for your help with this matter and I anxiously look forward to hearing back from you.

Answer (October 12, 2007):
Under the Laws of the Game your interpretation is absolutely and indisputably correct: The proper restart would be a direct free kick for the opposing team just outside the penalty area, at the spot where the goalkeeper first deliberately handled the ball outside her own penalty area. So, having stated the facts and feeling very magnanimous, let’s look at the opposing coach’s side as well.

There is some merit in what the other coach says about the “intent” behind the ‘keeper’s infringement and the fact that the referee might have given her a warning to be more careful in the future. And that is something the referee might do, depending on what has been happening in the game up to this point — earlier actions of the goalkeeper, for example. His point about the indirect free kick, however, is a red herring and not apposite here as none of the points under Indirect Free Kick occurred.

While the referee may choose the best solution from among the possibilities available, in this case the only possibility under the Law is direct free kick. (This is clear from the two citations from Law 12, so nothing more need be said on that.) The word “deliberate” would not apply in any case, as the goalkeeper was indeed already DELIBERATELY handling the ball when she left the penalty area; the fact that she (possibly inadvertently) left the penalty area does not change that fact and the referee could punish her for it, as happened in your case. Again, if the referee believed that the goalkeeper’s departure from the penalty area while still deliberately handling the ball was inadvertent or trifling (i. e., it made no difference in the way play ran or continued), then a simple warning after play had next stopped would have been sufficient.

Remember that the “correct” solution is not always the “best” solution. The intelligent referee will know the difference.…

Question:
There was a situation in a game that I witnessed today that raised some concern.

Team B had scored a goal. At this point they were losing 5-2. Team A , (ahead), recovered the ball in order to kick off and restart the game. As the player from Team A was carrying the ball back to the center without unnecessary delay, a player from Team B punched at the ball in order to dislodge it from the player on Team A. The player from Team A was able to retain possession of the ball and continued to advance toward the center of the field. The player from Team B at this time punched the player from Team A in the arm, again attempting to dislodge the ball.

No fouls were called.

Two questions come up, does the team against whom the goal was scored have the right to advance the ball back to center, as long as it is done without delay of the game? Who legally has possession of the ball after the goal is scored. Obviously the player who threw the punch is in gross misconduct of the laws of the game and should have been sent off, but was not. Only wondering about who can legally advance the ball back to kick off.

Answer (October 9, 2007):
The reason no “fouls” were called during the movement of the ball back to the center of the field is that no foul may be committed when play has already been stopped. The referee should have punished both players for their misconduct.

After the referee has stopped play for the goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Team A). A player who provokes confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (See the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2007/2008.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (B) who was interfering with the Team A player carrying the ball to the center of the field.

The team which has possession (A) may “allow” the opposing team to hold/transfer/carry/etc. the ball by acceding to the action (i.e., not disputing it). However, the opposing team does this at its peril. In the incident cited, Team B, perhaps believing that A was moving too slowly to carry the ball back to the center circle for the kick-off, tried to take the ball that “belonged” to Team A. Team B has no right at any time to request that the ball be given over to it (including such childish behavior as attempting to punch the ball out of the Team A player’s control, and even less to punch the opponent’s arm directly).

The Team B player should have been cautioned for delaying the restart of play when he/she initially tried to take the ball away from Team A. If this had occurred, perhaps the subsequent punch by B would have been avoided. If the two actions happened so closely together that the referee had no time to issue the caution, then the Team B player should have been sent off for violent conduct and the attempt to delay the restart included in the match report as additional misconduct.…