OFFSIDE AND THE HALFWAY LINE

Question:
Law 1 states that “the field of play is divided into two halves by a halfway line”.

Law 11 states that a player is not offside if “he is in his own half of the field of play”.

I assume that I was correct when I flagged two players this past year for having a foot on the halfway line (but not over), since the player (technically) was not in his/her half of the field. However, some seasoned refs told me that having a foot on the half way line should not result in being called offside when that player received a pass.

Help!

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
Technically, if any part of a player that can legally play the ball is past the midfield line, they are in the opponents’ end of the field and could be in an offside position — depending on the positioning of the opposing players.  That counts head, feet and any other part of the player that can legally play the ball — but certainly not the hands. If the referee finds that this player is in an offside position and becomes actively involved in play from that position after a teammate plays the ball in his or her direction, then he or she should be declared offside.…

“USING” TIME

Question:
When the ball is shot or pass back to the keeper who plays it with his feet what is the rule for keepers (if he keep the ball at his feet), When does the time start for the keeper to release the ball I notice in games , that the keepers team doesn’t pick up the ball and lets the clock run, How much time does the keeper have to release the ball after he get possession of it?

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
There is no time limit. As long as the ball is at the goalkeeper’s feet, the goalkeeper may play it there for as long as he or she wishes. This is a traditional and normal way of using time and should not be considered as time wasting. “Possession” in the case of the goalkeeper means simply that the goalkeeper has control of the ball with the hands, not with any other part of the body.…

HANDLING AN INDIRECT FREE KICK AT THE GOAL LINE

Question:
Team A is awarded an IFK at the 12 yard line, and Team B sets up a wall just in front of their goalkeeper. Team A’s kicker hits a hard shot towards the upper corner of the net and a defender (not the goalkeeper) reflexively reaches up well above her head to deliberately deflect the shot over the top of the goal.

1. Can DOGSO be called in this situation, given that the goal would have been disallowed if the ball went directly into the goal?

2. Does the situation change if the defender who handled the ball was standing directly in front of the goalkeeper, who was reaching up for the ball and theoretically might have mishandled it – leading to a legal goal – had the defender not illegally handled the ball first?

My view is no DOGSO in either case, but I’m not certain. Thanks for your help.

USSF answer (April 3, 2008):
1. While the goal would have counted if the ball had entered the goal, the player did not prevent an obvious goalscoring opportunity, because, as you suggest, the goal would not have counted if the Team B player had not touched the ball. Caution for unsporting behavior and restart with a penalty kick for the Team A.

2. No the situation does not change.…

REFEREE ATTIRE

Question:
On occasion, especially during difficult weather conditions, players are allowed to wear additional clothing, such as long pants in cold weather, or a sweatshirt under their uniform. The league or tournament usually tells the referees to allow this, or sometimes I do this on my own if I feel it’s appropriate. But what about the referees? I’m talking about such things as long pants or a hat in cold weather, or more importantly for someone like me who wears eyeglasses, wearing a cap in the rain so that I can actually see the play! Who has the authority to allow or deny deviation from the official uniform? Is it the SRA, the SDI, the referee assignor for that particular leagure or tournament?

USSF answer (April 2, 2008):
As to caps or other hats, Federation policy on hats was published in the October 1999 issue of Fair Play and has been reiterated several times in this venue:

Q. May referees wear caps and sunglasses?
A. With regard to caps, the policy of the United States Soccer Federation was stated in the Spring 1994 issue of Fair Play magazine: “Under normal circumstances, it is not acceptable for a game official to wear headgear, and it would never be seen on a high level regional, national or international competition. However, there may be rare circumstances in local competitions where head protection or sun visors might sensibly be tolerated for the good of the game, e.g. early morning or late afternoon games with sun in the officials’ line of sight causing vision difficulties; understaffed situations where an official with sensitive skin might be pressed into service for multiple games under strong sunlight or a referee who wears glasses needing shielding from rain.” Sunglasses would be subject to the same considerations. In addition, we ask referees to remember that sunglasses have the unfortunate side effect of suggesting that the referee or assistant referee is severely visually impaired and should not be working the game. They also limit communication between the officials and the players by providing a barrier against eye-to-eye contact. Sunglasses, if worn, should be removed prior to any verbal communication with players.

We know from Law 4 and “Law 18” (Common Sense) what equipment the players may wear. We also know that the intelligent referee will try to make an exception for players due to severe weather conditions, such as knit caps or gloves on very cold days. This would even extend to tracksuit pants, provided everyone on the team wears the same color — which need not be the same as the color of the shorts. The same is true of the officiating crew.

There should be no need for a written statement regarding referee attire. Referees are expected to look professional for every game they do, regardless of the level of play. Referees should exercise good sense in choosing what to wear — and what not to wear. Indeed, they should be certain to take care to protect themselves from severe weather conditions just as the players do. However, the intelligent referee will ensure that the officiating crew is not dressed more warmly than the players for whom they are officiating the game.…

ADVANTAGE

Question:
Thanks for your previous clarifications, but (perhaps) I didn’t understand.

I quote FIFA “Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees” 2007/08

Law 3 – The Number of players

Team Officials
If a team official enters the field of play:
• the referee shall stop play (although not immediately if the team official does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)

Player outside the field of play
If, after leaving the field of play to correct unauthorised equipment or kit, to be treated for an injury or bleeding, because he has blood on his kit or for any other reason with the referee‚s permission, a player re-enters the field of play without the referee‚s permission, the referee shall:
• stop play (although not immediately if the player does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)

Substitute or a substituted player
If a substitute or a substituted player enters the field of play without permission:
• the referee shall stop play (although not immediately if the player in question does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)

Should a Referee only apply the advantage clause for Law 12 infringements? No, any Laws?

USSF answer (April 2, 2008):
There is little that can be done about the IFAB’s interesting use of the language. There is advantage within the technical meaning of Law 5 (which can only be used with respect to violations of Law 12) and the general concept of advantage in the sense of “a benefit” could apply to any situation much the same way that the concept of ‘trifling’ does. So, in this framework, let us suppose that a team official enters the field. The referee is not obliged to stop play immediately not because of the application of advantage-in-Law-5 but if the entry of the person has no impact on the play — i.e., it doesn’t matter, and won’t really matter until and unless the team official does something to affect play by interfering with the ball or a player.…

Denying a Goal Scenerios

Question:
I have a question about judging denying a goal or obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball: ATR 12.37 (a) states in part “but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling”.

What if the deliberate handling by a defender prevents the ball from reaching an attacker who would be able to simply put the ball into an unprotected goal (no other defenders or the goal keeper to prevent the goal)?  In this situation, the handling prevents an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but this does not seem to meet the criteria as stated in ATR 12.37 (a) “the ball would have likely gone directly into the goal”.

Thank you for your help.

USSF answer (April 2, 2008):
The information in Advice 12.37 applies only to situations in which, but for the handling, the ball would have gone into the net (in the opinion of the referee, of course).  What you are asking about is at least one step removed from that and would require the referee to decide that, but for the handling, the ball would have gone to another attacking player who, maybe/possibly/perhaps, would have made a shot on goal which, maybe/possibly/perhaps, would have gone into the net.

Your scenario, rather than applying under Advice 12.37, is a perfect example of handling as a tactical foul — breaking up attacking play — and thus merits no more than a caution, followed by a direct free kick or penalty kick (if applicable). The referee cannot spend valuable time dithering over whether or not a player might/could/should/would have done something, but must decide what has happened now. We judge an offense on its own, not on action extended into the future.

For information on dealing with the tactical foul caution, see Advice 12.28.1.…

Penalty Kicks

Question:
I know that stutter steps, etc. are allowed by players performing a PK, but what if something excessively elaborate happens (player is bringing the game into disrepute),

e. g.,

On the way to take the PK, the penalty kicker does a back flip or hand stand, etc. Obviously this is a cautionable offense, but what is the restart?

??? – Stop the taking of the kick, caution, and then have the kick taken correctly?

??? – Stop the taking of the kick, caution, and then award an IFK for the defense?

??? – another scenario?

This is probably in the Advice booklet but I thought I would get an expert opinion.

USSF answer (April 2, 2008):
You will find it in Advice 14.9. Summed up, in this situation we try to stop the kick from occurring but, if this turns out to be not possible, we follow the same rule governing other infringements of Law 14 by the attacking team (retake penalty kick if the ball goes into the net, indirect free kick if it does not).…

UNDERGARMENTS

Question:
With the new requirement for undergarments being the same color as the uniform, is it required that all players wear undergarments or can some players wear undergarments and others not wear undergarments.

USSF answer (April 1, 2008):
The requirement for matching colors between undergarments applies only to those players who actually wear the undergarments in question. One would assume that all players wear some sort of undergarments, but we are concerned only with those that show.…

AVAILABILITY OF REFEREES

Question:
If the Home team of a scheduled competitive league match fails to provide referees, is there a time limit the visiting team has to wait for referee’s to arrive? And if they are not provided does the match end with a draw or forfeit for either team.

USSF answer (March 31, 2008):
This is not covered by the Laws of the Game. It is a matter for the competition authority to determine.…

PAIN AND THE USE OF OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE

Question:
Red attacker with ball avoids a slide tackle by jumping over tackler (no contact), but lands akwardly on his ankle twisting it (later determined to be broken). This occurred close to the bench-side touch line. Red attacker, in obvious pain, is yelling profanities.  In this moment, the newer referee was not sure what to do–whether to card for the offensive language or not.  Fellow referees in our area disagree–some say card, others no card. What’s your view and recommendation?

USSF answer (March 31, 2008):
If, in the opinion of the referee, . . . with that opinion formed by some standards.  We already allow for momentary outbursts of frustration and should probably allow the same for momentary outbursts of pain, but not if they continue beyond the moment, not if (other things equal) they are shouted at the top of the lungs, and not if (other things being equal) the language itself is patently offensive (based on the audience and/or by being directed at someone — e. g., the opponent over whose leg the player jumped or the referee whose fault all this clearly was).…