Shielding

SHIELDING VS. IMPEDING (THE BASICS)

Posted on by

Question:
My understanding is the “shielding” is special case of impeding, and is legal only when the ball is going to cross a touch or goal line. My questions: a) is shielding also legal anywhere on the field, to keep the opponent from playing the ball; b) can the shielding player use his rear-end, arms, or contort his body in ways not associated with a natural upright playing stance, to achieve the shielding?

Answer (October 20, 2012):
Your current understanding regarding impeding and shield is slightly flawed. Fortunately, we can fix that. Let’s start with a quote from this year’s Laws of the Game and go on from there.

From “Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees” (back of the book):

Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offense as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

Shielding (a) is not “impeding” in any form and (b) it can occur at any spot on the field, not only when the ball is about to cross a boundary line.

If the player can legally play the ball and the ball is within playing distance, the player may shield as a tactic to prevent an opponent from getting to the ball (provided, of course, that the shielding does not involve holding). If the player cannot legally play the ball or if the ball is not within playing distance, such shielding becomes “impeding the progress of an opponent” and should be penalized by an indirect free kick.

In response to your query part b (unnatural positioning), one way of attempted cheating during shielding is “making oneself bigger,” the same sort of action used in some cases of deliberately handling the ball. An example of this would be a player shielding the ball and extending his arms straight from the shoulders or moving them around, an unnatural thing to do. No player shielding the ball from another is allowed to use his (or her) arms or any other part of his body for other than maintaining balance — which does not include pushing off or holding the opponent. If the player is simply maintaining balance — in the opinion of the referee — then an opponent who initiates contact with the player who has the ball is guilty of charging illegally. If the player with the ball is holding out his arms or a leg not to maintain balance but to obstruct the opponent, the player has committed an indirect free kick offense, provided no contact occurred. However, if the player with the ball initiates any contact, then he or she has charged, held, or pushed (all direct free kick fouls) and must be punished accordingly.…

Procedure-Ref

FAILURE TO TRACK WHO IS ON THE FIELD CAN RUIN A GAME

Posted on by

Question:
Blue defender #6 fouls Red attacker #9 in the penalty area and the center referee whistles and signals for a penalty kick. Before the PK is taken, one of the assistant referees signals the center referee for a conference and informs him that the Red team has too many players on the field, and that Red #9 was supposed to have substituted out of the game at the last substitution break but came back onto the field.

1. What is the proper restart? What if any disciplinary action should
be taken?

2. What restart is proper if the extra Red player is not discovered by
the referees until after Red #14 had taken and scored on the penalty
kick but before the ensuing kickoff?

3. Same as #2, but the extra Red player is not discovered by the
referees until after the ensuing kickoff? What should the referee do
then?

Answer (October 17, 2012):
Law 3 (in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game in the back of the book) tells us:

Substitute or substituted player
If a substitute or a substituted player enters the field of play without permission:
• the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the player in question does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)
• the referee must caution him for unsporting behavior
• the player must leave the field of play
If the referee stops play, it must be restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the position of the ball when play was stopped (see Law 13 – Position of free kick).

In question 1, the referee did not stop play for player #9’s entry without permission, but because he was “fouled” by defender #6. Because #9 was NOT a player, no foul could be called for #6’s “foul”; however, #6 may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Player #9 must also be cautioned for unsporting behavior (entering without permission) and removed from the field, and the game will be restarted with an indirect free kick for #6’s team from the position of the ball when play was stopped for the “foul” (see Law 13 — Position of free kick).

In question 2, the goal is disallowed and the indirect free kick (as in Q1) is the restart. There can be no penalty kick for a “foul” against a non-player, which is what a substituted player is.

In question 3, the goal is allowed to stand. The assistant referee ought to be removed from his/her duties for gross negligence in not bringing the matter to the referee’s attention immediately, but this will likely not happen. The referee must stand in shame, as he/she has also neglected his/her duties in keeping track of who should be on the field. Full details of the fiasco must go in the match report, with both officials sharing in the blame for poor performance of their duties.…

Outside Interference

DEALING WITH "EXEMPLARY" PARENTS

Posted on by

Question:
To what degree should a referee protect players on the field from harassment from their own parents? Or is this a coaches job as well as a referees job?

Example: This past Saturday, a 9 year old keeper missed a ball on the ground, resulting in a goal. Her father berated her from the sidelines. She was upset…I told my wife that she would miss the next ball that came to her. Sure enough she did, likely as a result from her tears blurring her vision. Her mother then berated her from the sidelines.

I played keeper growing up and realize the physical and psychological components of the position and part of my concern is one of empathy with the player. Is such an incident in the realm of the local youth club jurisdiction in so far as a parent conduct issue only or have the laws of the game been violated by a spectator interfering with the the game by harassing a player on the field?

Answer (October 10, 2012):
Unfortunately some soccer parents just do not know when enough is enough. In theory such people as this exemplary mother should be controlled by the coach and other team officials, as the referee has no jurisdiction or specific authority to deal with spectators’ behavior — unless it brings the game into disrepute or puts participants in danger. Unless leagues set rules of behavior for their spectators, such as making the coach and other team officials responsible, there is little that can be done other than to warn the coach about his spectators’ behavior. Most coaches are good about this, but some, eminently regrettably, are even worse than the mothers and fathers.

The Laws of the Game do do cover spectators to any particular extent. In fact, the referee cannot be faulted for a decision to stop or not to stop a match due to spectator interference or any problem in spectator areas — this is not defined to any degree whatsoever, but left to the referee’s discretion — or for a decision to abandon a match for whatever reason — again discretionary.

If the actions of the spectator(s) or team officials do bring the game into disrepute (a wonderful collective term for all sorts of irresponsible behavior), the referee can warn the team(s) that he or she will abandon the game if the actions continue, or may directly abandon the game. (The referee can also expel team officials for any act he or she deems to be irresponsible behavior.) If the actions do continue, the referee must then follow through.

I would recommend that you speak to the league regarding its rules of competition and how they may affect the behavior of the spectators.…

Management tools

SUB DENIES OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY

Posted on by

Question:
What should the ref do when a player comes off the bench and denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

Answer (October 1, 2012):
Send him off for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity. It’s in the Law. Restart with an indirect free kick for the opposing team from the position of the ball when play was stopped (see Law 13 — Position of Free Kick). Indirect free kick is for the offense of unsporting behavior (sub enters without permission). The caution could be shown first, before the red card for denying the opportunity, but that might be overkill.…

Law 3 - Players

COLLEGE FIASCO? NOT QUITE CLEAR, BUT . . . (AMENDED)

Posted on by

Question:
At a Division III college women’s soccer game, a Red team player tried to keep the ball from going out of bounds. The line judge ruled that she had stepped out while touching the ball and put up his flag indicating that the Blue team should have the throw in. Play continued, however, and the center judge did not see the line judge’s flag, even after 10-15 seconds when the line judge was vigorously waving the flag. After about 20 seconds, he put his flag down as play continued on the field. About 25-30 seconds after the out of bounds was initially called, the Blue team scored a goal. The Red team coach protested that the goal should be disallowed because of the out of bounds call.

What is the correct call in this situation?

(In the game, the center judge did disallow the goal and gave the Blue team the throw in.)

Answer (September 25, 2012):
Nothing you have described about the woman who stepped outside the field is illegal. Nothing you have described about the woman who stepped outside the field was illegal. The “line judge,” actually called an assistant referee, was TOTALLY INCORRECT, even under college rules, and so was the”judge,” actually called the referee, provided the ball remained on the field during this action. It is not an offense to leave the field during the course of play to keep the ball in play inside the boundaries of the field. The correct call would have been no call at all, based on the scenario you gave me.

AMENDMENT: The questioner now informs me that the ball did indeed leave the field. In that case, the AR was correct in waving the flag and the referee was correct in disallowing the goal.…

Trickery

REFEREE ALERT: AN INTERESTING SITUATION–AND ITS POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS

Posted on by

Question:
Should this (please see video…Newcastle v Tottenham on 18 Aug 2012) be considered trickery? [Note, it was not called in the EPL match]. Not too different from flicking the ball in the air in order to head it to keeper.


http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-best-back-pass-ever-steven-taylor-for-newcastle-v-tottenham/
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b88k1ZxDuQ&feature=youtube_gdata

I imagine we’ll see kids imitating this move. This has many tactical and skill implications for those of us who coach. I guess I will stop having players shield the ball while the keeper comes out for it, and instead teach them to bend one knee and use the other thigh to pass it back to the keeper and therefore alleviate pressure more easily.

Goal kicks are now easier. The keeper kicks to the side of the PA and a runs out to the line (or stands there while a back kicks it), a player stationed at the side gets down on the ground and heads it to the keeper just inside the area.

Innovation will abound. Not sure I like it, but, as they say, change is the only constant. The game could change a bit because of this, I can’t be the only one whose brain started to whirl when I watched the match.

Answer (August 23, 2012):
The play itself was perfectly legal. If, as sometimes happens, this link has disappeared from the original site, the situation was that Newcastle player Steve Taylor stopped with his foot a ball going over the goal line and, knowing his his ‘keeper could not play the ball with his hands if Taylor deliberately kicked the ball to him, Taylor dropped to the ground and headed it to his ‘keeper, who could then play the ball with his hands within both the letter and spirit of the Law. One cannot and must not call this perfectly legal act “trickery” or trying to circumvent the Law.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

JUMPING BY THE WALL

Posted on by

Question: Acceptable behavior on a free kick?

How much movement are the players in a defensive wall allowed leading up to a free kick. Where does it cross the line from acceptable to misconduct?

It seems players are allowed to jump up and down, but what about waving arms or other physical behavior apart from simply jumping up and down with arms at sides?

Answer (July 23, 2012):
Prior to 1997, the Law required that if “any of the players dance about or gesticulate in a way calculated to distract their opponents” at a free kick they should be cautioned and shown the yellow card for unsporting behavior (then called “ungentlemanly conduct).” This is no longer true. Jumping by members of the wall is common practice throughout the world. The referee should allow this activity unless it goes to extremes. Examples of extremes would be members of the wall jumping forward and back — and thus failing to respect the required distance from the ball — or doing handstands or other acts designed to bring the game into disrepute.…

Kicks from the Mark

PLACEMENT OF THE BALL AT A PENALTY KICK OR KICK FROM THE MARK

Posted on by

Question:
A couple of months ago, I was watching the UEFA U-17 Championship final, and it went to kicks from the penalty mark. It seemed like every single player was trying to place the ball at the very edge of the mark in order to have the ball a few inches closer to the goal. And every single time, the referee intervened. He made every player reposition the ball, and it seemed he wasn’t satisfied until the ball was at the center of the mark. To me, the referee was wrong.

Law 14 says the ball must be placed on the mark. And Law 1 says that the lines are a part of areas which they define. I know the penalty mark isn’t a line, but doesn’t the same principle apply to it? Just as a ball that is touching the imaginary plane above the touchline or goal line is in play, shouldn’t a ball that is touching the imaginary cylinder above the penalty mark be considered on the penalty mark?

Answer (July 22, 2012):
In order to ensure uniformity in penalty kicks and kicks from the penalty mark, the IFAB established the penalty mark in the form of a circle 9 inches in diameter; not a box or a simple line. The Law specifies that the ball “must be placed on the penalty mark” and “the ball is properly placed on the penalty mark,” not elsewhere.…

"Inventive Coaches"

COACHING TRICK AT KICKS FROM THE PENALTY MARK

Posted on by

Question:
A coach I know recently thought up a strategy for giving his team an advantge that should win if the game goes to penalty kicks in the very final game of a tournament. Theory goes like this, after the initial five pk takers are designated and before the first player on his team, who is his best penalty taker, takes the pk, he will have every one of the 10 remaining players eligible to take penalties step up to the official and insult him sufficiently to be red carded and dismissed from the game. This will insure that his best penalty taker will take all of the pks while the other team will have their lesser skilled players taking kicks.

What would you do as it seems to be perfectly suited to exploit the reduce to equate as currently practiced?

I could only state that while technically accurate and seemingly legal, I would disqualify his team for prolonged and repeated infraction of the laws.

Answer (July 13, 2012):
We have seen similar questions in the past (e.g., the coach simply declared these players “unable to play” due to injuries or whatever) but the principle is the same: There are things that can happen on a soccer match which are “wrong” (against the Spirit of the Laws), but over which we have no authority to fashion a correction. Another example would be the situation that occurred in Asia some years ago where one team TRIED to lose by scoring against itself and then the other team, because of what such an outcome would mean (it had to do I think with determining a field site for the next round of competition), began matching the opposing team’s goal for goal by doing the same thing. The referee does not have the authority to prevent this. In fact, the referee cannot make anyone play nor force any substitution.

Accordingly, the coach’s ploy will succeed and his team will be reduced to 1 player. However, (1) the opposing coach could do the same (or have the other ten players become injured and unable to participate in the kicks) and then ultimately there would be Kicks done 1 v. 1 (with the nonkicking player serving as the goalkeeper); and/or (2) the Kicks could proceed with 11 v. 1, but the ploy could backfire since the one player would have to kick each time against a new and fresh opposing kicker; and (3) the referee would include full details (facts and reasonable inferences from those facts) in his game report (which is what the referee in the Asian game did) and let the competition authority decide if the behavior of the team should be allowed — the action was not upheld in the Asian case, and there were fines and/or suspensions involved.

And lest we forget, under the Laws of the Game kickers are never “designated” nor put on a checklist for the referee. Players go to take the kick as a slot is available.…