Mark, a senior amateur player, asks:

When defending, can a referee ask me to move away from the ball during a free kick, only to have the attacking player perform a quick free kick? What if the referee moves me too far back? I was always under the impression that the attacking player needed to ask for 10 yards in order to have me physically moved but the referee instructed me otherwise.

Answer

CAN a referee do this?  Yes.  SHOULD a referee do this?  No.  It is contrary to standard management techniques for a quick restart.  It gets a little complicated but here is the short version.

Scenario 1: When there is a quick free kick pending, the referee should intervene only if an opponent is so close to the restart location that is it obvious the kick cannot be taken without hindrance.  In this case, the referee steps in and immediately states that the free kick is now a ceremonial free kick which cannot be taken until the referee specifically signals that it can be taken … and then the referee cautions the opponent for “delaying the restart of play” (in this case, the caution is not “fails to respect the required distance” but any caution given as part of Scenarios 2-4 would be given for this reason).

Scenario 2: When there is a free kick pending and one or more opponents are retreating the required distance but are not yet at the required distance when the attacking team takes the kick and one of those retreating opponents moves to and does in fact make contact with the ball, the referee halts play, cautions the opponent, and gives the attacking team a retake of the original free kick restart at the original location.  Note: the referee can decide not to stop play if the opponent’s contact with the ball results nevertheless in the ball returning to the attacking team’s possession and in an advantageous position for the attackers.

Scenario 3: When there is a free kick pending and one or more opponent are retreating the required distance but are not yet at the required distance when the attacking team takes the kick and the ball makes contact with one of those retreating opponents without that opponent making any move to the ball, the referee allows the contact (i.e., doesn’t punish it) and play proceeds without any stoppage.  The contact with the ball by the opponent who is closer than he/she should be was not the result of any effort by that opponent and is due solely to the attacking team’s wish to kick the ball despite the closenesss (except for Scenario 1) of the opponent.  In other words, the contact was not made as a result of any movement other than continuing to retreat by the opponent.

Scenario 4: When there is a free kick pending and an attacker requests that the referee enforce the minimum distance, this immediately leads the referee to convert the quick free kick to a ceremonial free kick which cannot be taken except upon a signal by the referee which is not given until all opponents are at/beyond the minimum distance.   The restart now can only occur by a signal from the referee.  If,  following this signal but before the kick is taken, an opponent moves inside the minimum distance and makes contact with the ball, the referee stops play, cautions that opponent who moved inside the minimum distance before the kick is actually taken, and then orders the kick to be retaken (ceremonially) once all opponents are at/beyond the minimum distance.  Repeat as and if needed.

Two notes about Scenario 4.  First, the referee can decide to deny the request if, in the referee’s opinion, all opponents are already at or beyond the minimum distance and the attacking team’s request is a delaying tactic.  Second, an attacking team’s request for a ceremonial restart is not the only reason for doing so.  For example, the referee can declare a ceremonial restart on his/her own initiative if, for example, there has been an injury, a card needs to be given related to the reason for the stoppage in the first place (e.g., a foul), or a substitution is being requested by the attacking team.

By the way, your “always under the impression” is incorrect.  In the absence of a specific request by the attacking team (other than in Scenario 1 conditions) to enforce the minimum distance, the Law assumes and expects that all opponents are retreating or already have retreated to the required minimum distance.  Each opponent is expected to retreat without any request by the attackers or the referee: their failure to do so could lead to a caution.

Referees step into this on their own initiative only in the case of a Scenario 1 – and this is true the older and/or more experienced are the players involved.  The only time we have ever stepped in on our own initiative (i.e., without a request by the attacking team) is if the players are young and/or inexperienced and clearly do not know what to do (and/or the attackers are equally young/inexperienced and do not know of their essential right to take the kick without any signal by the referee if that is what they choose to do).…

H. Gillan, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:

Foul or no foul?
Game: U14 boys, Division 2.
Scenario: a red defender makes a sliding tackle almost from behind (roughly thirty degrees angle from behind) outside the reds’ penalty box (between the touch line and the box). The red defender clearly gets the ball first. But immediately after getting the ball, he also gets the legs of the blue striker (who, at the time, is moving with the ball towards the reds’ left corner area). The blue striker collapses (not very seriously), and the ball goes out for a throw in.
My question is: did the red defender commit a foul? (He got the ball first, but he also got the legs).

Answer

We can’t tell you how many times over the years we have been forced to clarify once again the following principle.  It’s been a while and, even though everything that follows has been said many times on this website, perhaps it is time to go through it again.

It doesn’t make any difference whether a player “got the ball” if, thereafter, the player trips, kicks, tackles, runs into, runs over, or otherwise commits mayhem on an opponent.  “Getting the ball first” is irrelevant.  The decision you have to make in these instances is, did the player trip, kick, tackle, run into, run over, or otherwise commit mayhem on the opponent deliberately/intentionally?  If so, DFK and a caution if it was done recklessly or a red card if done with excessive force.  If the subsequent action is judged not to be deliberate or intentional, it is nonetheless unsafe play and merits an IFK for playing in a dangerous manner.  In making this decision, you need to take into account the age and experience level of the players as well as what has been going on in the game up to that point.

What you described is always a foul (DFK or IFK) but what you do about it is where the real decision-making occurs and demonstrates the art of refereeing.  You can, for example, decide that, though the action is a foul (particularly if the decision is that it was an IFK offense), circumstances are such that you feel it was doubtful or trifling, as a result of which you might only chew out the defender with varying degrees of growling, frowning, or forcefulness.

A long time ago and for a period of only two years, the Laws of the Game talked about tackling for the ball and making contact with the opponent’s leg(s) in a manner which might have given the impression (particularly for Americans who are not steeped in the traditions of the game) that making contact with an opponent’s leg(s) was ok so long as you got the ball first.  That was, is, and always has been sheer nonsense and it only took the International Board a relatively short time (given the 150+ years the game has been around in its modern form) to drop that language entirely.  Despite this, there remain referees who got their entry level training during that short period and then failed thereafter to realize that the Law on this matter had been modified.  Or they continued to listen to the out-of-date ramblings of referees who “learned” this untruth and passed it along to their referee friends like a cold or the flu.…

JM, a High School and College referee, asks:

What is a misplay?
What is the difference between deliberate play and deflection?

Answer

This is one of those apparently short and straightforward inquiries that turn out to be more complicated than expected, hence this answer which is many times longer and more detailed than the question.  Here goes.

We don’t understand your reference to “misplay” – the term doesn’t exist in the Laws of the Game (or any NFHS/NCAA Rules).  In general conversation, it could be used for what might be called an “oopsie.” (Sorry for this technical term.)  A player swung the leg to kick the ball and missed entirely.  A player was defending the net and attempting to head away a shot on goal  but slipped on wet grass or artificial turf and fell down. You were intending to challenge an opponent by a charge on his right shoulder because you guessed he would zig right but the opponent zagged left instead and you missed contact entirely.  Etc.

As for deliberate play versus deflection, it depends on the opinion of the referee.  A deliberate play is intentional (although that is little help because it simply replaces “deliberate” with “intentional”) because the player consciously intended/chose to do something.  It is applicable across all actions on the field – play of the ball, play of an opponent, direction of movement, etc.  Some things happen on the field on purpose and sometimes what happens is due solely to chance.  It is a broad concept relevant to lots of actions.  If a player runs down the field because she doesn’t want to be “here” but, instead, wants to be “there,” then that action by itself is a deliberate play.  From that simple, basic event, deliberate play becomes increasingly complex where the “play” includes a teammate, an opponent, the ball, or any combination thereof.

In soccer, however, “deflection” has a rather more limited meaning and context which almost always focuses on the ball.  A deflection can occur when the ball strikes any part of the goal frame – we call it a deflection because the resulting movement of the ball is from an inanimate object which causes the path of the ball to change resulting solely from the purely physical contact between two inanimate objects (e.g., the ball and, say, a goalpost), i.e., the subsequent path of the ball is determined solely by physics.  “Deflection” is therefore a value-based word – it is, in effect, a conclusion about a set of circumstances.  We all understand the kind of deflection associated with the ball bouncing off the crossbar.  The point, though, is that “deflection” can also apply meaningfully to the ball making contact with a person – attacker, defender, or even the referee.  The referee element is easy – long history basically defines any referee contact with the ball as a deflection … even if, in response to contact, the referee knocks the ball away as a conscious though unplanned action.  In effect, we count the referee as an equivalent of the goalpost when it comes to ball contact.

On the other hand, if a player makes hand contact with the ball entirely accidentally (i.e., not deliberately), the player may well be judged not to have committed an accidental handling offense depending on the specific behavior of the player but it is not ever considered a deflection if the hand/arm is above the head even if the player clearly made no deliberate, conscious move.  In short, in such an instance, holding a hand/arm above the body is taking a risk because any ball contact in such a scenario, accidental or not, is treated as though it was deliberate.

In between these polar opposite scenarios stands the referee who has to judge the context of any contact between the ball and the body of a player.  More often than not, it doesn’t make any difference to the game because, with the exception of hands/arms, any such contact presents no issues of Law.  There are exceptions, however.  One such exception is body contact with the ball by a defender who is between an opponent who last played the ball and a teammate of that opponent who is in an offside position.  If the ball contact with the defender is judged to be a deflection and the ball’s rebound takes it to the attacker who was in an offside position, then the Law says that the offside-position attacker is still in an offside position (with all that this entails).  If the ball contact with the defender is followed by what the referee judges to be a deliberate play rather than a deflection, then the offside-position attacker is (with some exceptions) deemed to no longer be in an offside position.

Also somewhat ironically is the fact that an attacker can play the ball intentionally (and legally) to strike the opponent in such a way that the ball is deflected off the field of play, thus resulting in the attacker’s team regaining possession of the ball.  For example, an attacker dribbling the ball down along the touchline who is faced by one or more opponents who appear likely to be capable of blocking the attacker’s path could deliberately kick the ball directly at the legs of one of those opponents such that the ball would be deflected off the field (the same ploy could be attempted to gain a corner kick).  Risky but effective.…

Max, a U13 – U19 player, asks:

If someone has tripped on the field, is it legal to jump over them in order to get the ball on the other side?

Answer

A qualified yes.  “Qualified” because the actual, on the field, answer depends on several specific measurements that have to be made in a fraction of a second (and the assumption that the jumper and the faller are opponents).

First, how “down on the ground” is the player who tripped?  Is he flat on the ground or just down on the elbows and knees, or higher.  Second, at the moment of deciding to jump over the downed player, does it look like it just happened or it was a hard fall such that the player is “down for the count” (i.e., not likely to get up until after the leap over him)?  Obviously the more “down on the ground” the player is AND the less likely it is that the downed player is likely to start getting up, the more reasonable it is for the player going for the ball to try a jump over.

However, jumping over a player on the ground (unless the fall to the ground happened immediately right in front of the not-down player), is a risky decision and the burden of proof is on the jumper, not the faller.  In other words, if the jumper either takes no heed of the player on or going to the ground or even if the jumper makes an erroneously-decided jump, causing contact with the player on the ground, particularly if it results in an injury, it must be judged as the jumper’s fault.  Depending on the circumstances, contact with the downed player would probably result in a decision that the action was a careless (no card) or reckless (caution) foul.

Of course, probably on the rare side, the foul could be charged against the player who fell IF the referee, given all the facts and circumstances, decided that the leap over was reasonable but the downed player “retaliated” against the leaper by deliberately and knowingly attempting to get up for the sole purpose of bringing the leaper down (and preventing him from getting to the ball).  Given the assumption that such a decision by the fallen player was deliberate, the foul (tripping or attempting to kick) would be charged against the faller with a potential caution (recklessness).

An event like this could be evaluated in several different ways depending on how the referee assesses  the actions of the two players involved.…

As sports organizations are preparing to evaluate the issues and options of re-opening their sport to public display, the question has arisen regarding the wearing of facemasks by soccer players.  We understand that the International Football Association Board (IFAB, the Board) is currently evaluating certain specific issues that might come under their purview as they are the organization responsible for creating, maintaining,  and interpreting The Laws of the Game at all levels.   No publication date for this has yet been announced.

A specific question has been directed to this website regarding soccer players wearing during a match the sort of facemasks which are currently recommended for the general population when international, national, regional, or local competitions are resumed.  After careful consideration and consultation with persons directly responsible for determining what requirements may be imposed under the Laws of the Game, we are prepared to offer the following advice on this matter.

Law 4.4 in the 2019-2020 edition of the Laws of the Game (and expected to remain unchanged in the as yet pending 2020-2021 edition) states that “Non-dangerous protective equipment, for example headgear, facemasks and knee and arm protectors made of soft, lightweight padded material is permitted … .” (Emphasis added) This language has been in the Laws of the Game since 2016-2017.  Although it is almost certain that “COVID-19 facemasks” would not likely have been in the minds of the members of the International Board when this section of Law 4 was crafted, it is also likely that the sorts of facemasks they did have in mind were more solid, complex, and aimed at protecting the wearer for dangers which did not include viruses. 

As with any other “protective equipment” encountered on the field, facemasks need to be inspected by the officiating team before the wearer engages with other players in active play.  The only aspects of a facemask relevant to such an inspection are (a) whether it is protective as opposed to decorative and (b) whether it is dangerous.  There is no reason to believe that the wearing of otherwise non-dangerous protective facemasks would not extend equally to substitutes, substituted players, or any other person normally allowed to be in the team area. 

In short, the Laws of the Game already allow but do not mandate the wearing of protective, non-dangerous facemasks by individual players as well as by the entire team.  Of course, if a local rule of competition requires the wearing of a facemask, this must be recognized and enforced by the referee as a condition of accepting the assignment to officiate a game in that competition.

Note that nothing offered here on this subject is necessarily also applicable to members of the officiating team – this issue will likely be addressed by the International Board or, if not, left to affiliated national organizations for resolution.  The advice is intended only to assist referees in handling the wearing of COVID-19 protective facemasks by players engaged in active play.  Note finally that nothing offered here allows the referee to order or require any player to wear a facemask unless such a requirement is directly imposed by the rules of competition.  It is up to individual officials decide if they wish to accept any assignment where the wearing or not wearing of COVID-19 protective masks is inconsistent with that referee’s preference.

Readers who are involved in soccer matches governed by NFHS or NCAA rules will need to research any comparable mask guidelines issued by these organizations.…

Kannan, an adult pro referee, asks:

A player handles the throw-in from his teammate and at the same time a spectator also blows the whistle from the stadium. How will play be restarted?

Answer

It really depends on your judgment and the critical question is whether the spectator whistled measurably prior to or after the ball handling.  By the way, we should add that, under the Laws of the Game,  you should always “know” which event happened first – “simultaneous”  is not in your vocabulary when it comes to such matters.

If the whistle occurred clearly prior to the handling, then the restart is a dropped ball (outside agent interference) where the ball was when the interference occurred (i.e., the whistle) and the handling is ignored.  If that location is in either penalty area, the drop is defended by the goalkeeper in that penalty area.  If not in either penalty area, the drop is for a player of whichever team last touched the ball prior to the interference.

If the handling occurred clearly prior to the spectator whistle, then the handling is an offense resulting in a direct free kick where the handling occurred.

If it is not immediately clear which event occurred first, then you must make a quick judgment as to which event caused or played a part in the other (e.g., did the spectator whistle to call attention to the foul on the field or was the handling a player misjudgment that the whistle came from the referee and the player was simply getting the ball?).  All data, no matter how secondary to the event itself, must be considered.  For example, what was the player’s demeanor immediately afterward?  How did the player act? If the sequence of events is still not clear, then you must nevertheless make some judgment, announce it clearly, and manage the correct restart accordingly.

All other things equal, it seems to us that a player catching and holding the ball directly from a teammate’s throw-in would not make much sense unless the player was convinced that the whistle was a spectator interference because, if not, what benefit is achieved for the player’s team?  None, and indeed the team will be punished for it.  Further, the overwhelming number of players who would seek to handle the ball during play (goalkeeper excepted, of course) are more likely to attempt to hide the action rather than display it publicly.

Nevertheless, based on the events in the game so far, which of the above decisions best supports the game?  The one thing you absolutely cannot do is order the players to just keep playing!  And you should have a quiet word with the player during the stoppage to make the point that, while you understand the player grabbed the ball for apparently good reasons, try not to do it ever again – the next referee might not understand.

Regardless of the above issues, you should advise both coaches that the offending spectator be removed from the field by whichever coach has responsibility for the spectator (or by both of them if the spectator is not apparently associated with either team) and that the game is suspended until this is done to the referee’s satisfaction.…

Daniel, an adult amateur referee, asks:

Direct free kick for the attackers 18 meters in front of the goal. After the ball has been released by the referee, an attacker shoots the ball towards the goal. A defender runs 3 meters ahead of the wall forward and fends off the shot with a deliberate handball. Referee’s decision? Please motivate the disciplinary sanction.

Answer

Your description of the scenario is incomplete in several potentially important areas.

First, what do you mean by “after the ball has been released by the referee”?  Referees don’t “release balls” on any kind of free kick.  Indeed, there is only one restart that involves the referee releasing the ball and that is the dropped ball.

Second, if it is a direct free kick (DFK) restart (and thus there is no “referee releases the ball” component), there nevertheless is the major issue of whether this DFK restart is ceremonial or not.  If it is ceremonial, then the DFK cannot occur unless and until the referee signals with the whistle that the kick can be taken.  If the DFK is not ceremonial, then it means that the kick can be taken immediately by the attacker.

The third incomplete information issue is when did the defender run “3 meters ahead of the wall”?  If the defender was in the wall at the time of the kick and then ran forward before the attacker kicked the ball, that is an offense by the defender – carries a caution and a retake of the DFK.  If the defender began to move closer than the wall after the ball was kicked (assuming it was no closer to the DFK location than the minimum required distance), then no encroachment offense was committed even if that defender made contact with the ball well within the minimum distance requirement.  What is interesting about this scenario element is that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter because, if the defender actually ran forward before the ball was kicked, this retake is overtaken by what is discussed below under the fourth element and the misconduct is overtaken by what is discussed below in the fifth element.

Fourth, several different issues arise when you state that the defender then handled the ball.  Based on your scenario, the DFK restart was 18 meters from the goal which puts the restart just 1.5 meters from the top of penalty area.  The minimum distance for the defenders was 9.15 meters from the ball.  Assuming all lines are straight, 90 degrees from the goal line, and not beyond the sidelines of the penalty area (if any of these three requirements is not met, the issue of where the defender made contact with the ball is impossible to determine in relation to the penalty area.  All that can be said unequivocally is that, if all three are true, then the defender handled the ball inside the penalty area.  Accordingly, if that is the case, the restart becomes a penalty kick.  To understand this element, you will probably need to draw a field diagram and mark up the pertinent distances (that’s what we did to make sure we understood the scenario!).

The fifth and last incomplete information issue relates to whether any misconduct occurred and, if so, what color card.  If, in the opinion of the referee, the ball was going into or it was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (high likelihood inside the penalty area), then the card color is red (denied goal by handling).  If, in the opinion of the referee, the defender handled to ball merely to interfere with or stop a promising attack (a less likely possibility inside the penalty area), the card color is yellow.

As far as motivating the disciplinary sanction, that’s easy.  It’s what the Law calls for.  The really critical motivator is that, based on your stated distances and making a necessary assumption about lines being straight and perpendicular to the goal line, the offense was committed in the penalty area.…

In case you were thinking about this, given the times we are going through, the askasoccerreferee website remains live and well, free of COVID-19, and observing all rules of social separation and self-isolation.  We are happy to report that we ourselves are well and safe, if a bit stir-crazy, and remain as ready as ever to respond to your questions.

So, should you find yourself getting bothered by some situation or scenario you saw while watching a replay of a match between Iceland and Latvia in the 1969 World Cup, first check your schedule because there was no WC in 1969 and, even if there had been, we can just about guarantee neither country played a game in it.  If you paid for the replay, you just got scammed!  Can’t help with that.  If, however, you were watching an actual game with actual players under the Laws of the Game and still want an answer to your puzzlement, drop us a Q&A and we’ll be happy to answer, privately or (if it’s really a dilly) with a published answer suitable for framing.

Stay well, stay safe, and stay away.  Social separation is the best contribution you can make to the players, coaches, referees, and spectators that we will need again soon enough.…