SUBSTITUTE ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT GOAL

Question:
A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play, touches the ball and tries to prevent the ball entering the goal with his foot. The ball, however, enters the goal.

What action does the referee take?

USSF answer (August 23, 2011):
The referee should play the advantage and award the goal. The referee should then caution the substitute for unsporting behavior for entering the field of play without the referee’s permission, including all details in the match report. (The referee could also consider a second caution for unsporting behavior for interfering with play and thus send off the substitute for the second caution in a match.) Finally, the referee should prevent substitutes from warming up behind the goals. However, in some stadiums warm-ups are allowed behind the goal (because there is no space along the touchlines).…

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Question:
What is the rules for talking to a referee? Does a player have a right to ask a referee what he was penalized for or is there a strict ‘no talking to the referee’ policy?

My main question is about two incidents I was involved in the following two incidents at a recent game and I disagree with both of the refs decisions. In the first half while I was in an offside position, the oppositions defender turned to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper without realizing I was behind him. I intercepted his pass and scored but the referee said I was offside, surely I’m not offside if I didn’t receive the ball from a team mate?

The second incident happened with ten minutes left and the game all but over as we were leading 4-0. A team mate played the ball up the line too far ahead of me and left the oppositions defender with plenty of time to deal with it. He controlled the ball, took 3 small touches and brought the ball to the sideline where he deliberately hit the ball with force into a group of spectators on the sideline who were having a picnic and drinking from glasses. It was lucky nobody was hurt. He stood about 5 meters away from me as I took the throw in and I directed the ball straight at his face. The red sent me off for this. Should I have received a red throwing the ball at his face (I threw the ball correctly) and should he have been punished for almost injuring spectators?

USSF answer (August 23, 2011):
A player is certainly permitted to ask about the reason for an infringement being called, but the referee is under no obligation to respond with more than a general comment. Some competitions do have a no-talking-to-the-referee policy, simply to prevent problems on the field.

1. No, the referee should not have called you offside in this situation — if all is as you describe it.

2. in the first instance the opposing player should have been sent off for violent conduct for kicking the ball at the spectators. However that does not give you the right to take revenge on him for his act. Yes, you should have been sent off for violent conduct for throwing the ball in your opponent’s face.…

GOALKEEPER OUT OF THE PLAY? TOO BAD

Question:
The goalkeeper is forced to come to the edge of the penalty area on the left side to clear a ball away and in doing so has to slide outside the area to clear the ball into the stands.

An attacking player quickly grabs a new ball from a ballkid and throws it in while the goalkeeper is caught way out of position.

As a referee, I would make the attacking player retake the throw-in, giving the keeper time to get back to his penalty area.

(My rule of common sense) These extra balls certainly speed up the game but are increasingly used to gain advantage.

Especially with home teams.

Is there a memorandum regarding this or is it a referee judgement call?

And what should the ruling be?

USSF answer (August 23, 2011):
The Law does not ask us to compensate for the mistakes of players. Indeed, the Law clearly instructs us NOT to compensate for such errors. However, the referee might be more sympathetic in some cases, based on the age and experience level of the teams. This Q&A from the IFAB’s “Questions and Answers” 2006 (Law 3) provides the information you need:

“20. During a match, the goalkeeper sprints from the goal to stop an opponent. He kicks the ball out of the field of play and a throw-in is awarded to the opposing team. The momentum of the goalkeeper takes him off the field of play and before he can return, the throw-in is taken and a goal is scored. What action, if any, should the referee take?

“A goal is awarded since no offence has been committed.”

As for procedure in replacing a ball that has left the field , the referee should ensure throughout the game that the ball boys and girls provide equal service for both teams.

In addition, there is always the possibility that the referee COULD question the legality of the new ball (“Did I really check this one before the game or is this a different one?”) while, of course, requiring a ceremonial restart..…

TWO QUESTIONS RE THE WEEK IN REVIEW

Question:
Question 1:
In your report on Week 21, Colorado was not penalized [at least announced in the stadium], but I believe that the Union player was carded for dissent and then red carded for continuing the dissent. That does not match with your analysis. Why?

Question 2 –
In the 90th minute of the Colorado Rapids vs. Isidro Matapan [August 17]

There is a tug by the left hand of the defender from behind which impedes the striker from continuing his run toward the opposing goal.

Why is that not a foul?

USSF answer (August 22, 2011):
Answer 1:
You appear to have confused what may have happened in the Colorado-Philadelphia game with what the Week in Review is intended to cover: how referees should make their calls equate with what the players are doing on the field. The text in Week in Review 21 addresses what should have been done in the two situations involving foul tackles and how other referees can profit from that. Your situation was not covered.

Answer 2:
Our officials were not involved in the match between Colorado and Isidro Matapan. That is why we cannot make that judgment and why that matter was not covered in the Week in Review.…

“DIRECTION” AS A FACTOR OF DENIAL

Question:
I have a question about how to decide whether a red card should be issued for denying a direct goal-scoring opportunity. I have done some research on the “4 D’s” after having a disagreement with another referee, but I am still not 100% certain about how to apply the rule.

The aspect of the rule that causes our disagreement is the requirement that the attacking player must be “moving toward goal” at the time of the defender’s foul. I interpret these three words to imply intent and general direction regarding the attacking player’s run, but I’ve been told it simply means exact body position. He says that an easy way to understand the rule is to extend an imaginary laser beam from the attacker’s chest, and see whether the laser beam ends up in the goal. He says that if the “laser beam” does not point straight into the goal, the defender has NOT denied a direct goal-scoring opportunity. I disagree and think that a player can still be running toward goal even if the angle is technically to the side, or if he momentarily shifts body position to shake off a defender or to get into a better spot to shoot.

For example, here are a few situations that we have discussed. I myself would send off the defender in each situation, whereas my friend disagrees and thinks yellow is the correct decision.

1. A player has beaten all the defenders, except the goalie, and is about to be 1-on-1 with the keeper. As the keeper comes out to make a challenge, the attacker pushes the ball diagonally past the keeper in order to go around him. The keeper has no chance of reaching the ball first, and the attacker is about to shoot into an open net, so the keeper reaches out and trips the forward as the forward strides past him. Or, if a chasing defender trips the attacker, rather than the keeper.

I would send off the keeper for tripping the attacking player when he is about to score, but my friend would only give a yellow card because the attacking player’s body is still pointed diagonally toward the goal line, rather than straight at the goal. I argue that the forward is making an even better chance to score, merely shifting his body position as he continues a constant run toward goal, but my friend thinks the attacking player is no longer “moving toward goal” at all. Of course, I disagree.

2. Again, the attacking player has beaten the defenders and is running at pace for a 1-on-1 with the keeper. The attacking player starts off at a point slightly to the left of the exact center of the field, therefore causing him to run at a slight diagonal toward goal. As he nears the penalty area, a chasing defender reaches out in desperation and trips the forward from behind. Technically, the attacking player’s body would align 6 inches to the right of the right post, because his run is slightly diagonal, if you applied my friend’s “laser beam” analogy. There is no shift in body position, and the attacking player clearly intends his run toward goal the whole time, there are no more defenders but the goalie….so I would send off the defender for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity, whereas my friend would give a yellow card because the attacker’s body points just right of the goal instead of directly at the goal. He says the attacker is not “moving toward goal,” but rather to the side of the goal, which I think is much too strict of an interpretation.

3. Similar idea to #2. The attacking player runs onto a ball past the defenders, straight down the field a little off center, but this time NOT diagonally. The defenders are trying to catch up to him, thinking they might be able to cut him off from the inside if he shifts his run toward the middle. So the forward stays a couple feet to the left of the goal, enters the penalty area, before the chasing defender lunges at the attacker and trips him from behind. The attacking player intended his run to be in the general direction of the goal, and he had a clear shot before being tripped. It’s just that his his torso pointed a couple feet to the left of the goal instead of straight at the goal, so my friend would give a yellow. I would give red because I still think the attacker is essentially moving toward goal with his run, even if he keeps his run slightly to the left, and he has a clear shooting chance when he is fouled.

So I guess what it all boils down to is whether the “laser-beam” concept is the only way a goal-scoring opportunity has been denied, in reference to the quote “moving toward goal.” I think “moving toward goal” is a fairly general phrase that could be interpreted “in the general direction of the goal” or a run that is aimed “toward” scoring on the opposing goal….rather than the strict meaning of “lined up directly with the goal.” I would very much appreciate if you could tell me how this rule should be interpreted and enforced.

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
The “D” involving direction of play was never intended to be applied according to a “laser beam” analogy. In other words, we do not ask that referees use a surveyor’s transit theodolite to judge a player’s direction. The IFAB’s intent was that the general direction of play be toward the goal. An attacker who was moving toward the goal but has had to take a momentary change in direction to avoid an opponent at the precise time he was fouled is still moving in the direction of the goal for purposes of the “4 Ds.” Any greater effort to “slice the baloney” thinner is neither necessary nor likely to be fruitful because, at heart, the decision remains with the referee who sees the precise event and determines what should be done for the good of the game. Moreover, it is not the orientation of the player’s body that determines the 4th D, it is the direction of “play” — however that may be defined by the referee.

In Situations 1 and 2 the defending player (whether goalkeeper or field player) should be sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the defender’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

Situation 3 might or might not be DOGSO: Player intent means nothing.. We judge the result of the actions by both victim and perpetrator. There can be no DOGSO here, no matter what the “intent,” if the attacking player deliberately deviates from the direction to goal and is then fouled by an opponent while running in that new direction. Nor is there a caution to accompany the penalty kick in that case.…

MUTUAL (BUT NOT SIMULTANEOUS) FOULS PLUS MISCONDUCT

Question:
Blue and Red player have been challenging pretty hard during the game….all fair, a little tugging on the jerseys in close. Referee has made a verbal to them both during play…ie hands down, etc. Nothing real major.

Second half, blue is a little upset as red starts to tug on the jersey a little excessive from behind. Referee is about to whistle for red holding, but blue player, before the referee can blow the whistle…sticks his arm out and with a backwards motion strikes the red player in anger for retaliation against the hold. Neither has had a foul called on them in the match.

My question is since the intent of the referee was to call a holding foul on red, and just the delay to bring the whistle to the mouth does not negate that…..the initial foul would be holding on red. Then the follow up misconduct would be the strike by blue as in this case it happened after the referee intended to stop play, so it can’t be a foul. Restart with DFK blue as it was the natural restart Or Just call the foul on both and as both are penal and one is not greater than the other, drop ball (hate having to do that)

Now, with that said What if the same scenario, but the strike was reckless but occurred as retaliation for the hold. Although you verbally admonish the hold, you enforce the strike as it was more severe, show the yellow, and DFK Red for the blue reckless strike.

USSF answer (August 18, 2011):
Once the referee has determined that a non-trifling foul has been committed and the referee is about to blow the whistle to stop further action, play has already stopped as far as the restart goes. Any infringements that follow the foul to be called are thus treated as misconduct. Only the referee knows how it went down, at least until he or she writes the match report, so there is no need for explanation of the decision to anyone but the competition authorities and the assessor, if there is one (and only if he or she asks).

Given the situation as you present it, the referee should stop play as quickly as possible and get to the spot of the incidents. Deal with each of the two fouls and/or acts of misconduct as the Law prescribes. If the holding foul by Red was NOT blatant, award the direct free kick to Blue and do not caution the Red player. If the holding foul WAS blatant, caution the Red player. If the Blue player’s act of striking was not done with excessive force, it must, by definition, have been done recklessly, and thus the Blue player must be cautioned for unsporting behavior. If the striking was done with excessive force, the Blue player must be sent off for violent conduct, not for serious foul play (because the ball was already out of play based on the referee’s decision to stop for the original holding foul by Red), as the two players were then not contesting for the ball (a requirement for SFP).…

GOALS THAT DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW 1

Question:
Law 1 tells us that goalposts and crossbars must be white and that they must be shaped a certain way (e.g., if the goalposts are rectangular or elliptical, the longer axis must be perpendicular to the goal line).

In Tennessee, we have goals that aren’t white (they’re bare metal), and it’s not uncommon to see portable goals that aren’t shaped as now specified in Law 1. For example:
http://www.hayneedle.com/sale/alumagoal7x21rectangularsteeljrgoalspair.cfm?srccode=cii_10043468&cpncode=00-36212823-2&source=channel_intelligence_shopzilla

If a referee notices unsanctioned goals (wrong color, wrong shape, or both), does US Soccer really want that referee to mention this in his/her referee report? Also, should goals that are the wrong shape be treated the same way as goals that aren’t white?

Should these two parts of Law 1 be ignored (by referees)? After all, neither infraction is a safety issue, and neither should be the reason for preventing a match from being played.

I’m asking how we should handle such goals because my instructors are asking me how they should teach the material and how they should respond to “What do I really do” questions.

USSF answer (August 12, 2011):
The safety of the players and other participants always comes first. Referees should conduct a complete inspection of the field and its appurtenances before every game (and again if something happens to endanger a participant). If there is a problem, such as the goal made of steel 2 x 4s in the hotlink you provided, the referee must judge whether or not the item is truly safe for the players. If the referee decides that the goal or any other appurtenance is unsafe — and there is no viable alternative — then the game cannot be played.

IN all such cases, the referee must include full details in the match report.…

FEINTING AT A PENALTY KICK

Question:
During a penalty kick, the kicker taking the kick runs up and fakes a kick which fools the goalkeeper, quickly takes the kick, and scores and scores a goal. I know that would be unsporting behavior. What’s the correct restart if no other infringement happened? IFK for the opposing team?

USSF answer (August 10, 2011):
Law 14 tells us:

Infringements and Sanctions If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
* the referee allows the kick to be taken
* if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
* if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred

To this the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidance for Referees (back of the book) tells us, under Law 14:

LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
Procedure
Feinting at the run-up to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, feinting to kick the ball once the player has completed his run-up is considered an infringement of Law 14 and an act of unsporting behavior for which the player must be cautioned.

In brief, no, an indirect free kick is incorrect. It is a retake of the penalty kick (or the kick from the penalty mark) after the referee issues the caution. And a different member of the kicking team may take the kick.…

SPECIAL RULE FOR GOALKEEPERS AND ATTACKERS? NOT!

Question:
I recently attended an ODP camp as a referee. I was told by a National Assessor at the camp that there was a rule concerning attackers and goalkeeper interactions inside the goal area. I don’t remember the specifics exactly and I don’t want to say that I was told something that I wasn’t. Could you please clarify if there are any laws/advice/interpretations on this subject?

USSF answer (August 3, 2011):

We have absolutely no idea what the assessor was talking about. There is nothing in writing that we are aware of.…

NOT ENOUGH TIME PLAYED IN FIRST HALF

Question:
This situation occurred in an Over 30 match involving my club. The referee blew the halftime whistle at 38 minutes, according to my watch. When my captain asked the referee about the shortened half, the referee insisted that it had been 45 minutes. OK, that’s that, you can’t win an argument like that, so you move on. When the teams were ready to take the field to begin the second half, the referee announced that he had inadvertently shortened the first half by five minutes. He said that he would make up the lost time as follows:

1.He instructed the teams to set up for a kickoff as they did to start the match.

2.They would play five minutes.

3.He would blow the whistle at five minutes and the teams would change ends and play 45 minutes in the second half.

Everyone involved was confused, but nobody knew enough to dispute his remedy. None of this sounds like the correct protocol for this situation. Any help would be appreciated.

USSF answer (August 3, 2011):
According to the Laws of the Game, the referee must not compensate for a timekeeping error during the first half by increasing or reducing the length of the second half. So far, so good. Unfortunately, your referee handled the situation incorrectly. The amount of time remaining the first half should have been played, as the referee finally came to realize, but the correct restart would have been for the reason the ball was out of play when the referee stopped the game short. If the ball was off the field, then the game should have been restarted for the reason the ball had left the field. If it was in play, then the correct restart would be a dropped ball at the place where it was when the referee stopped play. If any time is lost during the remaining amount of time, then the referee must also add that time.…