Law 4 - Equipment

COLOR OF PLAYER UNDERGARMENTS

Posted on by

Question:
I am a Referee Instructor. After watching the Seattle vs Colorado match, a student asked me if MLS does not follow Law 4 in dealing with undershorts. Seattle’s shorts are blue and yet several of their players were wearing knee length green sliding shorts and one player was wearing white. Since they were knee length, it was obvious even on TV that they were not following as we are teach. Not wanting to get into my opinion of the Referee, I answered that I was not intimate with MLS’ Rules of Competition and it could be waved in those. Can you clarify this?

USSF answer (July 26, 2010):
The requirements for the pros are precisely the same as those for all other players. This was an oversight by the refereeing team.…

Guide to Procedures

AR GOAL SIGNALS

Posted on by

Question:
In the past couple of months I’ve noticed a trend among some of the ARs I’ve worked with. I was taught that when a goal is scored into the goal on my side of the pitch, as an AR I should sprint briefly along the touchline toward the center circle. This is also how I’ve always seen it done at the professional level. Several of the ARs I’ve worked with recently have, instead, walked or stood still and motioned downward with both hands along the touchline. It’s the motion you’d make if you were insisting that someone go ahead in front of you. Is this an alternate form of this signal or just laziness? I’ll admit it’s been very hot in SoCal these last few months so I understand the desire to conserve energy, and I’m one who usually abhors officiousness for its own sake, but it seems a tad unprofessional. Am I being the over-officious official I’ve always detested on this one or can I, in good conscience, correct ARs working with me who do this?

USSF answer (July 21, 2010):
We are unaware of any changes to the procedure outlined in the USSF publication “Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials”:

Lead Assistant Referee
• If the ball briefly but fully enters the goal and is continuing to be played, raises the flag vertically to get the referee’s attention, and then after the referee stops play, puts flag straight down and follows the remaining ;procedures for a goal
• If the ball clearly enters the goal without returning to the field, establishes eye contact with the referee and follows the remaining procedures for a goal
• Runs a short distance up the touch line toward the halfway line to affirm that a goal has been scored
• Keeps moving to avoid confrontation if approached
• Observes the resulting player b behavior and the actions in ad around the penalty area
•Takes up the position for a kick-off
• Keeps players under observation at all times
• Records the goal after the trail assistant referee has recorded it.

…
Advice to Referees

GOALKEEPER PARRIES

Posted on by

Question:
Situation: Attacker takes a shot on the goal. Keeper blocks the shot with his hands, and the ball bounces out of the penalty area.

Keeper runs after the ball, and plays it back into the penalty area (with his feet).

Question: If the keeper then picks up the ball with his hands, does this constitute illegal handling, punishable by IFK?

My understanding is that this question hinges on whether this was “deliberately parrying the ball”, in which case the keeper is considered to have possession and is not allowed to play the ball back into the penalty area and pick it up, or “the ball rebounds accidentally from him”, in which case the keeper does not have possession of the ball and is allowed to pick up back up inside the penalty area.

My interpretation is that this case (where the keeper intentionally moved his hands towards the ball to keep it from crossing the goal line) would fall under “deliberately parrying”.

USSF answer (July 21, 2010):
What you describe sounds more like a good defensive move than a parry, but only the referee on the game can decide for certain. Parrying is no longer seen at the higher levels of play, because it is no longer an effective tool for the goalkeeper, who has only six seconds to distribute the ball after achieving possession. “Parrying” should not be confused with making a “save.” “Parrying” occurs when the goalkeeper knowingly controls the ball with the hands by deliberately pushing it to an area where it can be played later. By parrying the ball, the goalkeeper has done two things simultaneously: (1) established control and (2) given up possession. The ball is now free for all to play and the goalkeeper may not play it again with the hands. Referees must watch carefully to see that the goalkeeper does not use a parry (disguised as a “save”) in an attempt to hide the fact that he or she has established possession.

This excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful:

12.19 SECOND TOUCH BY THE GOALKEEPER
After relinquishing control of the ball, a goalkeeper violates Law 12 if, with no intervening contact, touch or play of the ball by a teammate or an opponent, he or she handles the ball a second time.  This includes play after parrying the ball. Referees should note carefully the text in the IGR, which defines “control” and distinguishes this from an accidental rebound or a save.

In judging a second touch with the hands by the goalkeeper, referees must take into account tactical play which may seem unsporting but is not against the Laws of the Game or even the spirit of the game. If a goalkeeper and a teammate play the ball back and forth between them, the goalkeeper can handle the ball again legally so long as the teammate has not kicked the ball to the goalkeeper.  However, of course, an opponent can challenge for the ball during such a sequence of play.  The players are “using” but not “wasting” time. The referee’s goal under these circumstances is to be close enough to manage the situation if the opposing team decides to intervene.

The “second possession” foul is punished only by an indirect free kick from the place where the goalkeeper handled the ball the second time*. Please note: A goalkeeper may never be punished with a penalty kick for deliberately handling the ball within his or her own penalty area, even if the handling is otherwise a violation of another restriction in Law 12.

…
Law 18 - Common Sense

NO EPL SHIRTS FOR USSF GAMES!

Posted on by

Question:
A back-door uniform question.

I purchase all my equipment from OSI and noticed they are offering English Premier League referee shirts and international shirts for purchase, as well as the standard USSF fare.

As OSI is the official provider for USSF uniforms, are these legal for use by USSF referees? I cannot believe they would be, but thought I would ask.

USSF answer (July 14, 2010):
Your intuition is correct: The EPL shirts may not be worn by referees working games affiliated with the U. S. Soccer Federation.…

"Inventive Instructors"

REFEREE UNIFORM SLEEVES

Posted on by

Question:
I was at a high level youth tournament this summer and we had an interesting discussion amongst the referees, as one of the referees had an affinity for the long-sleeved jerseys. My understanding up until now had been that the referee crew was to be wearing sleeves of the same length, all long, or all short. (This is frequently not the case in other matches I have seen such as EPL and some WC matches, and I believe possibly on a MLS match or two.) When I looked at the most recent Administrative Handbook edition under the uniform, I found no such direction. The referee I worked with at this tournament said a recent memo/position paper had just come out from US Soccer saying referees could wear whichever sleeve length they wanted, and just be comfortable. Can you confirm or put to rest the rumors that any such memo exists? Thanks.

USSF answer (July 14, 2010):
No, there is no such memo. Here is the reply from the authority at U. S. Soccer:
“We have never sent a position paper on sleeves. It is up to each person to decide and they do not all have to match.”…

Kicks from the Mark

MANAGING FEINTS (POSITION PAPER)

Posted on by

Question:
The [recent] memo [on managing feinting by the kicker at a penalty kick or kick from the penalty mark] says that, if a kick from the penalty mark needs to be retaken, a teammate of the original kicker may take the kick if he/she is eligible. The memo goes on to say, ‘The kicker is, however, credited with having taken the kick….’ Does the blue wording refer to the original kicker? If so, this is a new interpretation, right? (I say that because our kicks-from-the-penalty-mark checklist says that the original kicker whose kick is retaken by a different eligible player is not counted as having taken a kick.)

USSF answer (July 13, 2010):
We regret any possible confusion. The source for the information is the checklist for kicks from the penalty mark:

“The original kicker whose kick is retaken by a different eligible player is not counted as having taken a kick.”

The language in question is in footnote 2 of the position paper and refers to a situation in which there is no retake. Therefore, “the kicker” in this case means the player who actually performed the kick, not the player who originally took the kick that had to be retaken. …

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

GOALKEEPER PARRYING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
The following situation transpired in a competitive youth game at a regional tournament:

An attacker makes a shot towards goal from 20 yards out from and to the left of goal. The ball travels on the ground with more than enough pace to make it into the opposite side of the goal across the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper intentionally bends over (does not dive or leave his feet) and pushes the ball forwards and to his left with one hand (presumably to then play the ball with his feet). He does not stop the ball’s momentum but does change its direction from towards goal to away from it. The goalkeeper then realizes that an onrushing (onside) attacker is about 3 yards away from the ball and aiming to challenge for it, and therefore dives on the “parried” ball handling it “again.” The goalkeeper’s actions take place in the goal area immediately in front of goal and there are no defenders capable of defending the goal if the onrushing attacker beats the goalkeeper.

According to the Interpretation of the Laws the “goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hands inside his own penalty area… if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player: …possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately *parrying* the ball.”

Did the goalkeeper in the situation described “parry” the ball and therefore commit a violation of Law 12? If not, what would constitute “parrying?” If so, assuming the 4Ds were present, does this warrant a send-off for DOGSO? The referee awarded the IFK outside of the goal area, but did not treat it as misconduct, while the assessor for the match said it was and should have resulted in a send-off for the goalkeeper

USSF answer (July 9, 2010):
If the goalkeeper deliberately parries the ball, which would seem to be the case in this scenario, then the following excerpt from the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees 2010/2011 applies:

A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own penalty area in the following circumstances:
• If he handles the ball again after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player.
– The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from him, for example after he has made a save
– Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball,
• If he touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate.
• If he touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a thrown-in taken by a team-mate

Restart of play
• Indirect free kick from the position where the offense occurred (see Law 13 — Position of Free Kick)

As to your final question regarding DOGSO-H, the answer is emphatically no, because the Law clearly excludes the goalkeeper from being sent off for deliberately handling the ball within his/her penalty area:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

‘KEEPER SITS ON BALL

Posted on by

Question:
Watching a girls U12 game, the ball was passed to the keeper from her own teammate with an attacker bearing down on the keeper. As the ball, and the attacker, got closer to the keeper she fell to her knees. As she landed, the ball was trapped between between her knees and under her butt (she was sitting on the ball). It wasn’t clear if she stumbled or dropped to block the impending shot, but it was pretty obvious that she didn’t intend to trap the ball on purpose.

The attacking team had not touched the ball yet and the keeper has not handled the ball.

The ref quickly (and correctly, I think) blew the whistle to stop play so the attacker wouldn’t kick at the keeper. But then the keeper was allowed to pick up the ball and send it out to her team, same as if she had just saved a shot on goal.

What should the ref have done to restart in that situation? Can the keeper stop the ball and guard it (either accidentally or purposefully) with her body so the ref will stop play to prevent a dangerous situation?

USSF answer (July 7, 2010):
If it was obvious that the ‘keeper did not purposely trap the ball in the way you describe, then no foul was committed. The referee’s quick thinking was laudable, but the restart was totally wrong. Once the referee has stopped play for something that was not a foul or an act of misconduct, the only proper restart is a dropped ball.

If, on the other hand, the referee believes that the goalkeeper purposely sat on the ball to prevent others from playing it, then the correct restart is an indirect free kick for the opposing team.…

"Inventive Assessors"

NO GOAL FOR DENYING A GOAL BY DELIBERATELY HANDLING THE BALL?

Posted on by

Question:
hi my question is this if the player is on the line and puts his hands up to stop the ball from crossing the line in what happen.

I thought it was called a goal and a red card is given .

USSF answer (July 6, 2010):
You are not alone in your wish that this was true, but not in soccer, or at least not yet. There is a rule in both forms of rugby that allows the referee to award what is called a “penalty try” when an opponent commits misconduct, and thus prevents a try — the equivalent of a goal or touchdown in rugby — being scored. However, there is no such rule in soccer. The referee sends off the player who prevented the goal or the obvious goalscoring opportunity and restarts in accordance with the nature of the foul that led to the misconduct. In the situation you describe, that would be a penalty kick.…

Disciplinary Matters

“CURSING” AND OVERSENSITIVE REFEREES

Posted on by

Question:
I was recently officiating a U12 boys match (as an assistant referee) and I encountered a situation that was very conflicting for me as a referee.

An attacking player was making an advancement on goal when he was cut off by a defender and the ball was played in the opposite direction.

As play moved downfield, the attacker stayed behind (about 6 yards from my position) and he was obviously mad about his performance. I then heard him mutter the “s” word under his breath.

From what I could tell, he uttered the word simply because he was upset with his own performance. He was not directing the word towards any opponent, referee, coach or fan, and as I mentioned it was “under his breath” (yet still audible by myself).

Now I am aware that the FIFA Laws of the Game insist that a player is to be shown the red card and sent off for using abusive language. My question is though, if the abusive word is not directed towards anyone and is simply used out of frustration, is the player still to be sent off?

As you can imagine, red carding a player in a U12 game is a fairly big deal. Although as a referee, I did not think I could let this go. So after hearing the abusive word, I signaled the center official over and explained to him what happened. He proceeded to show the yellow card and caution the player in question.

I am very conflicted with what happened. In a way, I think a yellow card was the more appropriate form of punishment (I support my center referee!), but at the same time, I cant help thinking that this situation was not handled as it should have been under FIFA law.

So basically my question is, should a player be red carded and sent off for using any curse word, at any time, under any circumstances, period? And did the center official make the correct decision in giving a caution in ths game?

Thank you for the help.

USSF answer (July 2, 2010):
This excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” may be helpful:

The referee should judge offensive, insulting, or abusive language according to its content (the specific
words or actions used), the extent to which the language can be heard by others beyond the immediate
vicinity of the player, and whether the language is directed at officials, opponents, or teammates. In
other words, the referee must watch for language that is Personal, Public, or Provocative. In evaluating
language as misconduct, the referee must take into account the particular circumstances in which the
actions occurred and deal reasonably with language that was clearly the result of a momentary
emotional outburst.

Referees must take care not to inject purely personal opinions as to the nature of the language when
determining a course of action. The referee’s primary focus must be on the effective management of
the match and the players in the context of the overall feel for the Spirit of the Game. “

Beyond that, one of the first lessons a referee should learn is that he (or she) should hear only what needs to be heard to do one’s job well. In other words, the referee should only “hear” what is vital to good game management. All the rest is simply background noise, to be shut out and not processed.

What possible harm has this player who used the “s” word done? None. He was not cursing another player, a team official, a spectator, the referee, or you,

Could the word be heard by spectators or others? Probably not.

There are too many referees who look for reasons to punish players for totally unimportant and inconsequential events. Let it go.

So your answers are these: No, you should not have brought this matter to the referee’s attention. No, the referee should not have cautioned the player.

Let it go.…