Lisbette, a high school and college fan, asks:

What happens if the referee is uncertain of which player last touched the soccer ball that traveled out of play?

Answer

Your question seems simple but carries a lot of significance for the referee.

Don’t take this the wrong way but “the referee always knows who last touched the ball” and proclaims his/her knowledge clearly, strongly, and with no debate.

The only exception to this is that a good referee will always accept information from an AR (if there is one) who might have had a better view (or is frantically waving the flag to catch the referee’s attention) and, if this seems needed, consults with the AR before making a public announcement (if possible).  However, any unnecessary delay in announcing a decision carries the potential for trouble.

It is important to remember in all this is that, except for the ball going out of play across the goal line (where the difference between a corner kick and a goal kick can be important), it is rarely significant in the case of a throw-in restart – statistics indicate that, on a throw-in, the ball is often taken by the opposing team within 2-3 “plays” following the throw (of course, it can be more significant either way the closer the restart is toward either goal).

It does the referee no good to dither about ball possession: the response must be firm and clear because, if players become aware of indecision, a large chunk of the referee’s reputation is gone and increasingly constant arguments from the players will be the result.  Indeed, this is true for virtually every decision the referee makes.  Players “smell” indecision (much as predators “smell” fear in potential victims) and will use that to their advantage whenever possible.  This is not a matter of Law but of officiating techniques developed over many years.  Obviously, it is better to make the right decision: the problem is that making no decision, hesitating too long and/or too often, or becoming embroiled in debate is deadly.…

We don’t normally do this but, based on some recent conversations, we think advising you of the following official clarification of the 2019-2020  Laws of the Game that was issued by the International Board (IFAB) last August deserves some space here.  Interestingly, it is not actually a “clarification” but a new interpretation or practical guideline.  Either way, it clearly directs referees to make a change in how they handle one specific violation.

There is a very useful table at the end of Law 14 which summarizes penalties for various violations connected with performing a penalty kick (not all, but the most common ones).  The third one down from the top involves what to do if the goalkeeper violates Law 14 by not having at least one foot on the goal line between the goal posts (technically termed “an encroachment”).  If a goal is scored, the violation is ignored and the goal counted but, otherwise, the goalkeeper is cautioned and the penalty kick is retaken.

The IFAB issued a Circular (#17) on August 21 last year which introduced (as a “clarification”) a change under certain circumstances in the referee’s response if a goalkeeper lunges or steps entirely off the goal line before the kick is taken.  Instead of retaking the penalty kick and cautioning the goalkeeper, the referee should ignore the foot placement violation if the ball leaves the field or rebounds from the goal frame unless the goalkeeper’s violation “clearly impacted on the kicker.”

While the IFAB provided only one clear example of impacting the kicker (the goalkeeper prevents a goal), the interpretation seems clear that the goalkeeper making any contact with the ball should result in a retake (and caution) but the goalkeeper’s “encroachment” where no contact with the ball occurs should usually result only in a continuation of play (a goal kick if the ball leaves the field, a resumption of regular play if the ball stays on the field as, for example, if the kick rebounded from the goal frame).

To the best of our knowledge, neither the NFHS nor the NCAA picked up this IFAB change and applied it to their 2019-2020 season, though either organization may do so for 2020-2021.…

Shawn, a U13 – U19 coach, asks:

After a goal is scored, may the scorer or a teammate of the scorer’s team retrieve the ball from the goal?  It is my understanding that the scored ball belongs to the conceding team. If the scorer retrieves the call and carries it to midfield, it shall be a caution for that player.  Please reference the law regarding this judgment.

Answer

Only at their peril ….

Under the Law, after a goal is scored against Team A, the ball “belongs” to Team A (because that is the team which has the restart) and any action by Team B seen by Team A (and concurred in by the referee) as an attempt to “take charge” of the ball can result in a yellow card to any Team B player who, regardless of a claimed motive, makes such an attempt.

Among the elements that the referee would consider in deciding if a caution is needed would be a “tug of war” between a Team B player (often the goal scorer) and a Team A player (often the defending goalkeeper or a fullback) or whether there was any proximate effort by a defender to prevent a Team B player from getting the ball.  The Team B player may claim that all he is doing is “helping” (particularly if it would be in Team A’s advantage to delay or slow down the kick-off restart).

The referee must read the game at that moment and decide if Team B’s action is an unsporting attempt to interfere with Team A’s ball possession.  Often, this sort of scenario quickly but obviously builds and can reach a flash point within seconds – the referee can loudly (with or without a hard-blown whistle) order the Team B player to leave the ball alone or it may be necessary to jump immediately to a caution if Team B’s action is sparking possible retaliation from Team A (as would be the case if there were an actual physical struggle for the ball).

The bottom line for this is to prevent the scoring team from taking an unfair advantage, either in fact or in the minds of the opposing team’s players, by wresting possession of the ball from the team that owns it.  If Team B unduly delays the restart, that is a separate problem but the scoring team has no right to step in to “help” in ways that will result in bad feelings.  If Team B has no problem with Team A (as evidenced by complaining to the referee or attempting to take matters into their own hands), then the referee should stay out of things.

By the way, this scenario is not limited to player behavior after a goal has been scored.  Indeed, you asked for a Law citation (see below) and that citation is not limited to the scenario we have been discussing.  In fact, the principle applies to any restart performed by a player (thus excluding a dropped ball).  We suspect that it happens more often on free kick restarts, followed by throw-ins, and then by goals — it’s rare on goal kicks and completely impossible on kick-offs and penalty kicks.  The citation is in Law 12 (page 110 in the 2019-2020 edition of the Laws of the Game): “Referees must caution players who delay the restart of play by … kicking or carrying the ball away, or by provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play“.…

Reuben, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:

I am confused by the following provison of Law 16: “If a player enters the penalty area before the ball is in play and fouls or is fouled by an opponent, the goal kick is retaken and the offender may be cautioned or sent off, depending on the offence.”

I understand from the reference to “fouls or is fouled” that the offending act happened after the ball was put in play, since otherwise it is not a foul.  If so, why is the restart a goal kick instead of the restart appropriate to the foul?

Answer

We would suggest that you read the language very closely.  Red team has the goalkick restart. Blue team is technically required by Law 16 to withdraw from Red’s penalty area.  Prior to this year, the ball on a goal kick restart is not in play until it leaves the Red penalty area but, as of this year, it is in play the moment it has been kicked and clearly moves.  Now, a Blue player enters (not fails to withdraw, but enters) the Red penalty area before the ball is put into play and that Red player fouls, or is fouled by, a Blue opponent inside the penalty area.  Although it is not specifically stated as to exactly when the GK was taken, it is clear that it was taken after the Blue opponent entered the penalty area.

It is also the case that, in various places in the Law, the International Board (IFAB) uses the term “foul” in circumstances that seem unusual.  The general explanation is that IFAB differentiates between “a foul” and “an offense.”  All fouls are offenses, but not all offenses are fouls.  We take the use of the term “foul” in this case to specifically refer to offenses defined in Law 12  rather than any non-foul offenses described elsewhere in the Law (e.g., offside, wearing illegal jewelry, or failing to exit the penalty area prior to the taking of a goal kick).

Accordingly, the fact situation is that, technically, the Blue team has committed a Law violation before the ball was put into play, even in terms of this year’s new definition.  It is also a fact, though not expressly stated in the Laws of the Game, that the referee can decide ex post facto that play was dead at that moment of entry and can act on that basis even though the whistle had not yet been blown.  So, this could result in the referee nullifying the goal kick that was taken and treat the Blue opponent’s offense as having occurred when the ball is not in play, which means in turn that, after dealing with the Blue violation, the goal kick would be retaken by Red (see p. 114, 2019-2020 Laws of the Game).

There is a certain symmetry with this solution because otherwise, if the intruding Blue player committed a foul against a Red player,  Red would get a direct or indirect free kick but, if Red committed a foul against the intruding Blue player, Blue would get an indirect free kick or a penalty kick against the Red team.  We think either result falls fairly easily into the mantra the Board has injected into the Law regarding “what does soccer want?” and we think the answer would be no free kicks (much less a penalty kick) for either Red or Blue out of this — hence, retake the goal kick.…

Stuart, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:

Can an opposing player stand in front of a goalie attempting to punt the ball?

Answer

No.  It is a violation of the Law to interfere in any way with the goalkeeper’s release of the ball from his/her hands.  This obviously doesn’t apply if the goalkeeper’s control is, say, only with the feet.

Note that we didn’t say “release the ball into play” because, technically, the ball is and remains “in play” even while in the hands of the goalkeeper —  it’s just that both the ball and the goalkeeper holding it are protected from challenge by an opponent.  This balances, in part, the four specific offenses that apply only to goalkeepers and are designed to limit the amount of time opponents cannot attempt to challenge for the ball while it is in the hands of the goalkeeper.

That said, we try to train referees to be proactive about this.  It is always a good idea, for example, to keep an eye on such a situation as it develops and to step in before it runs it’s course into a scenario in which there is no option other than to stop play.  This usually can be achieved by clearly giving a verbal warning to any opponent who is too close or not clearly backing away that they need to get out of there.  Sometimes a baleful stare at the potential miscreant will be sufficient to do the job.  If it becomes necessary for you to actually step in if actual interference occurs (e.g., a concrete attempt to challenge for a ball held by the goalkeeper or an attempt to challenge for the ball while the goalkeeper is in the physical process of releasing it, or bumping into the goalkeeper), then play must be stopped.   If this occurs, it is recommended that the opponent also be cautioned (for unsporting conduct).

Why a caution?  For game control and player management purposes.  All players (particularly the goalkeeper), need to appreciate that the referee will not allow this sort of behavior.  Goalkeepers are strange folks (we know based on personal experience) who feel that, once they have the ball in hand, it needs to be their choice as to how and when they release it because they are God’s gift to soccer.  If the referee is forced into stopping play for interfering, we add a caution to sweeten the pot for the goalkeeper who now, instead of his/her brilliant release of the ball causing gasps of amazement from players, coaches, and spectators all, is forced to restart play with a plain, boring IFK.

It also has a deterrent effect and reduces the likelihood of seeing something like that develop again.…

Gabriel, a High School and college player, asks:

Can a referee use inappropriate language towards a player?

Answer

Umm, that’s a short, interesting, and loaded question.  If the language is “inappropriate,” by definition it would be wrong to use it.  It comes down to your (and the Law’s) definition of “inappropriate.”  It can’t be “anything that I don’t like” because that definition leaves no room for debate.

It is probably safe to say that, in general, it would be inappropriate for a referee to say anything to a player that it would be inappropriate for one player  to say to another player … with two important provisos.  First, players know each other (even if between opponents) and thus are in a better position to judge the intent and content of anything one says to another.  Second, while it is common in general for one player to speak to another (even an opponent) because they are engaged in a common endeavor, this is not the case with a referee and players – even if they happen to know each other outside the immediate game.  Referees have an obligation to limit their communications with players – even immediately before and after the game – to the specific performance of the referee’s duties.

As we have noted, a referee has no more (and arguably much less) right, for example, to use “offensive, insulting or abusive language” toward a player than a player has toward another player.  The big difference, of course, is that a player cannot red card a referee.  We can tell you, however, with great assurance, that virtually all referees have stored up many sharp-edged, brilliant, and wholly inappropriate things they would like to say to players, coaches, and spectators.…

Marc, a high school and college parent, asks:

In a recent game, the goalie had possession of the ball while standing with both hands on the ball.. As the ball was held at about hip level waiting for the defense to move out, a player on the opposite team jogging by the keeper kicked the ball out of the keepers hands by hitting the keepers hands with the studs of his cleats.  This caused both teams to come together almost resulting in a fight. The referee cautioned the player who kicked the ball out and ended up red carding the goalie for dissent . Did the referee make the correct call?   Everybody at the match felt the player should have been sent off for violent conduct.

Answer

In general, kicking, striking, and spitting are considered red-cardable offenses unless there is clear evidence to mitigate the response to the offense down to a caution. This is opposite to the approach to all other direct free kick offenses where the referee starts with “careless” (no card at all) and then needs concrete evidence to justify treating them as “reckless” (a caution) or “excessive force” (a red card) events. It is possible that the referee (incorrectly) showed only a caution because he or she thought that this came under the special circumstances of “denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity” but this doesn’t even come close to applying because (a) the perpetrator was an attacker rather than a defender, (b) the action of kicking an opponent (as I mentioned) starts as a red card offense and then requires special circumstances to do anything less serious than a red card, and (c) the attacker was not “competing for the ball” because, while in the hands of the goalkeeper, the Law does not allow for an attacker to challenge in any way.

We can’t speak to the issue of the red card to the goalkeeper for “dissent” because, without more information, this is contrary to the Laws of the Game on its face.  Under Law 12, dissent is cautionable misconduct, and a red card would be correct only if the dissent included language which was abusive, insulting, or offensive OR the referee correctly cautioned the goalkeeper for dissent but this was the goalkeeper’s second caution in the game, in which case the red card would NOT be for dissent but for having received a second caution.

The opponent should have been shown a red card because the kick involved excessive force, the goalkeeper could be shown only a caution if the GK’s actions involved only dissent, and play should be restarted with a direct free kick coming out from where the kick occurred.

The above observations are sufficiently fundamental to the sport of soccer that they would apply regardless of whether the game occurred rules other than the Laws of the Game (e.g., NFHS/highschool or NCAA/college rules).…