Month: September 2009

"Inventive" Refs

ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
Question for you on a discussion I am having with another referee on the advantage in the PA memo (4/11/08).

He claims that the memo implies that, in saying that the referee should wait 2-3 seconds to determine if advantage develops, should a DFK foul by the defense in its own PA occur, and in that 2-3 second interval the attacking gets a clean, uncontested shot on goal but misses the goal, the referee is entitled to go back to the original foul and award a penalty kick.

Using the video clip that accompanies the memo, the first blue player (Morsnik) is clearly the victim of a DFK foul after he passes the ball to Sealy. Sealy then cleanly plays the ball into a space where he gets a left-footed toe poke off on goal that hits the post.

The memo says the referee should have waited to see “what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.” Which is the crux of the disagreement. I read that as saying that advantage should have been applied, and Sealy’s opportunity to score was of enough quality that a PK did not need to be called.

Furthermore, the paragraph before says:

“The referee properly recognized the advantage but then whistled for the foul against Morsink after he decided that a goal would not be scored by Sealy. In fact, Sealy made a shot on goal just as the whistle sounded and the ball failed to enter the net.”

The wording here, to me, implies that advantage was recognized but then the foul was given before letting the play develop. My colleague believes that USSF claims that the memo says that once it is realized that blue will not score (i.e., when the ball rebounds from the post), the referee can then give the foul instead of the advantage.

I think as long as the referee has not indicated to the players he has given advantage, he is within his right to go back and give the foul. However, if an attacker, though the advantage gets off a clean uncontested shot and misses of no fault other than his own, going back and giving the PK in that situation will likely have a very negative effect on game control (because you will put the defense in double jeopardy and given the attacking two terrific scoring chances).

What do you think?

USSF answer (September 8, 2009):
When an offense is committed by a defender inside the team’s own penalty area, the definition of Potential changes from “probability” and “dangerous attack” to a goal actually being scored by the fouled team immediately following the foul or at most within another play. The “within a play” is not a hard and fast rule, but a “rule of thumb” subject to the opinion of the referee. The objective is to reward the attackers for scoring a goal despite the offense and not benefiting the defenders by replacing a sure goal with the roughly 70% probability of scoring a goal from a penalty kick.

Particularly when the offense involves violence, it becomes more important to stop play (and award the PK) than to increase the danger of further violence occurring. Even within the penalty area, the distance can still be greater (18 yards or more depending on the direction of the attack) or lesser (e.g., within the goal area) – in the former case, you might allow more play to occur before stopping for a penalty kick if a goal is not scored.

In short, if a goal is not scored right away, give the penalty kick.

In no case, however, is the advantage signal to be given for an offense inside the penalty area. The time is too short for you to divert your attention from the critical decision to be made. You are still applying the advantage concept but the terms of the advantage decision change and having to give a signal could detract from the accurate application of that decision.…

Advice to Referees

NON-REGULATION APPURTENANCES

Posted on by

Question:
I was posed this question that I didn’t honestly have the answer to. This is in regards to the portable goals with the tires on the sides to make moving the goal easy.

Everything has been set properly but during the course of play ball seems to go over the touchline close to the uprights, but hits the tire of the goal and bounces back in to play without the entire ball crossing the line.

The question is: Do we consider the tire part of the goal and let play continue or do we treat it simular to football field goal that hangs over the goal and if that is hit, the ball is out regardless if it bounces back into play?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
You are correct! Wheeled goals fall under the same category as football goalposts. This is covered in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

(b) Non-regulation appurtenances (see 1.7)
These include superfluous items attached to the goal frame (such as the uprights on combination soccer/football goals) and not generally subject to movement. If the ball contacts these items, it is deemed to be automatically out of play and the restart is in accordance with the Law, based on which team last played the ball.

…
Law 5 - Referee

SIMULATION AND THE UEFA RULING ON EDUARDO

Posted on by

Question:
I’m sure that you have gotten a number of these emails in recent weeks due to the Eduardo issue in the Champions League, and more particularly the ruling by the UEFA today. I would like to know what the rules are at the professional level on contact in the box by a keeper and what warrants a penalty and/or booking.

As I watch the limited replay views that I have of the Eduardo “Dive” I do understand that he went down exceptionally easy although at the same time I question whether the calf of his trailing leg was hit causing him to fall or at least causing him to have a warranted reason to attempt to dive. With that in mind I also notice that there was no Ball Contact by the keeper in the Eduardo case either. This makes me wonder does ball contact have anything to do with a ruling on whether or not a player should or should not be penalised?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
The following standard applies at all levels of the game: Simulation occurs when the player “attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled.” Whether the contact would or would not have caused the player to fall is relevant to a decision about a foul, but not to a decision about misconduct. In other words, the caution is for faking or exaggerating — where the faking is usually focused on whether a foul occurred whereas the exaggerating is often focused on whether a foul went beyond “careless” and should be carded. A player might well have been fouled (i. e., the contact did indeed unfairly cause him to fall), but if he then screams, moans, groans, rolls, etc. in an attempt to “sell” a card, then it is included as a cautionable offense. In all cases, we are punishing efforts to con the referee into a favorable decision — which could be to call a foul that wasn’t or to card for a true foul that didn’t involve misconduct. Of course no professional player would attempt to con the referee to gain a penalty kick from an opportunity that was clearly already lost, right?

The goalkeeper is liable to commit the same fouls as any other player on the field. If the goalkeeper trips or pushes or commits any other foul against an opponent, then he or she should be punished.

We could not possibly comment in any case on the UEFA ruling.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

FOUL OR NO FOUL? MISCONDUCT?

Posted on by

Question:
I was working a game over the weekend and an issue came up that we needed help on. I was one of the AR’s on this game and the attacking team was moving towards my side of the field. The ball had been kicked towards the goal. There was an attacker running towards the ball (she was onside) as was the goalie. As the goalie approached the ball she started to slide as they do. The attacking player also came in on a slide trying to kick the ball forward and missed, subsequently kicking the goalie in the stomach right above the groin area cleats up. The goalie had the ball in her hands when she was kicked. The game had to be stopped for about 4-5 minutes due to the injured goalie. Thank you very much. I can any questions you might have.

Actions?
Goalie free kick restart?
Yellow to the attacking player?
Red card for cleats up tackle?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Unless it was obvious that the attacker was playing the goalkeeper and not the ball, there is no clear reason to consider misconduct in this case. In your scenario the attacking player’s action was careless (hence the foul and direct free kick restart for the goalkeeper’s team), but it was neither reckless nor performed without regard for the safety of the opponent (hence no card). Direct free kick for the goalkeeper’s team.…

Coach

COACH INTERFERING WITH PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
I was watching a U-11 girls match last weekend. The red team was about to take a corner kick, one player (player 1) from the red team retrieved the ball and set it on the corner arc. As she was doing so the coach of the red team began to yell “NO I don’t want you to take the kick have (player 2) take it” Player one then apparently touched the ball with her foot and went into position while player 2 ran over and began to dribble the ball. The referee blew the whistle and indicated a IFK to the other team. The red coach began to scream at the referee that player one had touched the ball, and it was obvious that this was a designed strategy. The referee then changed his call and allowed the red team to retake the corner kick.

While the players certainly could have done this on their own, is the coach permitted to engage in intentional deception by his instructions as to who will take the kick? Would a caution to the coach have been proper?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
Under the Laws of the Game, no team official may be cautioned or shown any cards. However, the (unauthorized) rules of some competitions may allow this. You would have to check the rules of the competition to see if this is allowed. The IFAB, the body that makes the Laws of the Game, does not permit it. Nor does FIFA, the body that administers the game and publishes the Laws, nor the U. S. Soccer Federation. Leaving aside any (unauthorized) rules of competition, if, in the opinion of the referee, the coach interferes with the game, that act becomes irresponsible behavior and the coach should be expelled (not sent off and not shown the card, but expelled) from the field and its surroundings. We should note that most instructions from coaches are simply noise and can generally be disregarded. However, if the behavior of the coach clearly distracts and misleads the opponents, or is loud, sudden, or abusive to anyone (his/her team’s players, the opponents, or the officials), that is the time to deal with the action.

The tactic in your scenario might be legitimate if the players had come up with it themselves. The critical issue to be resolved is whether the first player merely touched the ball (no kick, no movement of the ball) or actually “kicked” it so as to put it into play. If it was simply a touch, then the second player is the one who put the ball into play and then played it a second time — this is a second touch violation, whistle, indirect free kick to the opposing team where the second touch occurred. If there was at least some perceptible movement to the ball as a result of the first player’s contact, then what followed was entirely lawful.

As to the restart, if the referee stopped play for what he thought was a second touch violation but was then advised by the assistant referee that the first contact did indeed result in “kick and moves,” then the restart must be a dropped ball.…

Law 11 - Offside

INTERFERING WITH PLAY?

Posted on by

Question:
OFFSIDE Relative to Memo of March 29, 2009

Please comment on the following thank you.

I understand the emphasis USSF is putting on the offside player actually touching the ball (to be guilty of ‘interferes with play’) before the AR raises the flag, or it is “clear no other attacker will play the ball”. Since that touch might occur many yards, (could be 30-40 yards) downfield from where the offside player was when the ball was played by his teammate.

Is this the correct mechanic?

1. The AR should follow the ball/second to last defender until a player in offside position is determined to be offside (by touching the ball or interfering with a defender.)

2. The AR raises the flag, and after the referee whistles, lowers the flag to the appropriate angle to indicate near, mid or far location.

3. The AR lowers the flag and moves quickly up to the touchline to indicate the location of the restart (where the player in offside position was located when the ball originally was touched or played by a teammate).

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
That is correct.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

RETAKE?

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question for you that I came across while reviewing “Laws of the Game”. In Law 17 “The Corner Kick” it says “In the event of any other infringement (other than the ones listed): the kick is to be retaken”. Does that mean that if a foul is committed by defense before the ball is touched, goes into the goal or goes out of bounds the corner kick is to be retaken?

USSF answer (September 2, 2009):
No, that is not accurate. All possibilities for infringements AFTER the ball is in play were covered in the preceding bullet points. This section refers to infringements that occur before the ball has been kicked and moved into play. That would be misconduct by one team or the other.

The same principle applies to all restarts: If something untoward occurs before the ball has been put into play and (1) the ball is subsequently put into play before the referee can stop it or (2) the ball is not put into play, nothing can change the original restart, which must be completed in order for the game to continue.…

"Inventive" Refs

TAUNTING?

Posted on by

Question:
U14 Boys game Played under FIFA Laws with modifications for time and substitution.
Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D standing on 18 yard line 6 yards away, yells SHOT. CR says stop. In second half Player O takes a shot from inside the 18 yard line. Player D, standing on the 6 yard line yells SHOT. CR referee stops game and gives Player D a warning for Taunting. Is this the correct call?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
“Shot”? What does that mean? Not sure how taunting would apply here. It seems to be essentially the same as yelling, “Ball!”

Players are allowed to communicate with one another, but not to act unsportingly. Yelling “Shot” would not seem to be unsporting, simply silly.…

Illegal Gamesmanship

FOOL ME ONCE, ETC.

Posted on by

Question:
Referee has stopped play for an injury and will restart with a dropped ball. A player from the Red team says, “drop it to me and I’ll kick it out of play” clearly in the interest of fair play. So the referee drops the ball to this player who then turns and mounts an attack on the opponents goal. That is to say, he doesn’t do what he told the referee he would do. I don’t think you can caution this player for USB even though he clearly HAS been unsporting. [A person from another country] says you absolutely caution the player for USB. I really don’t know. What sayest thou?

USSF answer (August 31, 2009):
Where the player kicks the ball is of no interest to the referee, whose sole job here is to get the ball back into play quickly and fairly to all participants. However, the fact that the referee was foolish enough to accept the word of a player that he would do thus or such is incomprehensible.

There is no basis for the referee to caution the player for unsporting behavior. However, the referee should quietly go soak his or her head and learn to face facts: All players will con the referee if given half a chance. In addition, we would further add a penance or two to the referee’s lot. We find it difficult to justify a caution for fooling the referee, but not if the player fools an opponent illegally.…