Month: September 2008

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY FROM AN INDIRECT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I noticed in one of the current issue responses “Putting the ball into play from a kick restart” that the situation is very similar to an indirect free kick restart. While the response was clear that it must be the decision of the referee as to what is a “kick” and what is not, ATR 13.5 makes it clear that “Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient”. It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion. My question is this…should the correct call be to (a) stop play for an improper restart, warn the players about the proper restart procedure (and subsequent caution for delay or persistent infringement if continued) or (b) allow play to continue, ignoring the tap, treating the subsequent kick as the “first touch” and maintain the indirect signal until a true second touch happens, thereby calling back any goal that might be scored directly from the improperly taken restart and continuing play with a goal kick restart?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The Law is clear: “The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves.” We have stated clearly in Advice 13.5 that there must be some “kicking motion” to put a kicked restart into play. The referee is the sole judge of what constitutes a kick.

Another point in your question needs to be cleared up: We would dispute that “It has become commonly accepted for teams to restart from indirect kicks without the appropriate kicking motion.” Some players may do it and some teams may use that as a tactic, but this does not mean that the definition in the Laws of how an indirect free kick (or any other kick restart) should be taken has changed. It is only referees who are reluctant to enforce the Law who have allowed this tactic to become “commonly accepted.” If the kicker fails to follow the Law and it makes a difference, then the referee must uphold the Law. If it didn’t really matter, then let it go (or perhaps give a warning). This is only common sense.…

Law 14 - Penalty Kick

INFRINGING PROCEDURES FOR PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
On a penalty kick; the shooter is ready to take the kick, just as he is about to kick it his teamate commits a foul by running into the penalty area before the shooter makes contact with the ball… He shoots the ball, it goes in the goal but the point is not rewarded because of the foul commited by the teamate. Is appropriate restart of play a Indirect free kick from where the foul was commited, a goal kick or do they just retake the kick???

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
What you describe as a “foul” is not a foul; it is a violation of the procedures for the taking of a penalty kick. In this particular case, Law 14 (The Penalty Kick) tells us that if a team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
• the referee allows the kick to be taken
• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred.…

Advantage

ALLOW SUBSTITUTION OR QUICK RESTART?

Posted on by

Question:
If Red Team Player gets fouled by Green Team on a breakaway in the attacking 1/3, just outside the penalty box and Red Team has a clear opportunity for a quick restart….BUT, there is a substitute waiting at the halfline. He/she has been checked and meets all the criteria to be waved into the game.

Should the referee stop play and allow the substitution or allow the quick restart? Let us assume that all 4Ps are in place. I am seeking clarification on whether allowing a substitute overrides the advantage and clear attacking opportunity.

I eagerly await your response

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
The referee is not required to stop a quick restart by a team simply because the other team wants to make a substitution. In fact, there is no substitution possibility until the referee recognizes it. This has nothing to do with the advantage clause, which concerns only infringements of Law 12, but is simple common sense: The referee must not interfere with a team’s legitimate opportunity to score a goal.

There is always the possibility that, if it is a youth match using standard youth rule exceptions regarding substitutions, a stoppage for a foul is not a substitution opportunity.…

Handling

GOALKEEPER DROPS BALL, PICKS IT UP

Posted on by

Question:
Today’s question involves the goalkeeper releasing the ball from their possession.

Situation is U15Gs, travel, but really just above recreational in skill. Early morning game, grass is wet, ball is wet. Goalkeeper is wearing gloves and long sleeve jersey.

Goalkeeper picks up a ball, is moving towards edge of penalty area to release. In some combination of fumbling, squeezing, and the ball being slippery, the ball slips out of her possession and onto the ground. Goalkeeper picks the ball back up immediately.

Does this constitute a second touch by the goalkeeper?

My first thought is I’m asking a question with an obvious answer — yes, this is a second touch. Accidental or deliberate, the ball was released, and picked back up again without an intervening touch by another player.

If so, can you then explain the rationale that allows the goalie to toss the ball into the air and catch it, or bounce it and catch it, and not count as a second touch? I certainly understand why we dont allow the opponent to challenge in those conditions, being potentially dangerous. But why cant we expect the goalkeeper to just put the ball back into play without any intervening tosses or bounces?

And does this not then put us referees in the position of judging a deliberate, allowable “second touch” vs. an accidental release and recovery, which is not allowed? Why cant it just be a release is a release is a release?

USSF answer (September 2, 2008):
Of course there was a foul, but read on. There is no analogy with tossing the ball up in the air and catching it, because that action has ALWAYS excluded the ball hitting the ground (which is what happened here). All the offense takes is deciding that the goalkeeper had possession in the first place.

The entire refereeing system puts referees in the position of judging whether or not an offense has occurred. We make thousands of decisions of this nature during a game, even those involving “Under-tinies.” In this particular situation, the referee must make the judgment based on the skill level of the players, the conditions on the field, and any other considerations that occur during the game.

Of course, the referee could always decide that there wasn’t any initial possession (i.e., control) and so there wouldn’t be an offense, but the scenario says that the ball “slips out of her possession” so, again, obviously there was a “second touch” offense.

But deciding there was an offense is only the first (though necessary) step in deciding if the offense should be called by stopping play and punishing the foul with an indirect free kick. For that, the referee must decide that the offense was not trifling — in other words, wasn’t important, didn’t affect the course of the game, didn’t unfairly prevent an opponent from challenging for the ball by taking possession a second time. Given the description in the scenario, this seems very likely.…

Handling

THROWING OBJECTS AT THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
hi hope you can help.
1, a goalkeeper in his area is beaten, the ball is heading towards the goals, he takes his boot of and throws it a the ball taking it away from goals, what do i do ?
2, what happens if he does the same thing outside his area?
3,what happens if a player other than the goalkeeper does it, inside and outside the penalty area?
i do hope it’s not to much to ask and i do appreciate your time.
regards matt.

USSF answer (September 1, 2008):
1. The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behavior and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick to be taken from the place where the ball was when it was struck by the boot or similar object (see Law 13 for position of free kick).

2. We are unclear on your meaning in the second question, whether you mean (a) that the ‘keeper throws his boot at the ball while HE is outside the penalty area but the ball is struck by the boot inside the penalty area or whether you mean (b) that the ‘keeper is inside the penalty area and throws the boot outside to hit the ball.

The correct action for the referee depends on where contact with the ball occurred, not where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was inside the penalty area, caution for unsporting behavior and indirect free kick where the goalkeeper was when he threw his boot. If the place of contact was outside the penalty area, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity and direct free kick where contact with the ball was made. If it was a defender other than the ‘keeper, red card for denying the obvious goalscoring opportunity regardless of where contact was made and a direct free kick if that location was outside but a penalty kick if inside.

3. The boot or similar object is considered as an extension of the player’s arm. Play would be stopped. If the boot struck the ball inside the penalty area, a penalty kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball. If the boot struck the ball outside the penalty area, a direct free kick would be awarded and the offending player would be sent off for preventing a goal by deliberately handling the ball (see Law 13 for position of free kick).…