• Home
• About
• Ask A Question

Question:
While watching the local sports highlights of the recent MLS game between Toronto and Dallas, it appeared that the Referee showed a red card to somebody on the sideline that obviously was not a player or substitute. I think it was in Toronto. Do the local youth leagues supply referees for MLS games in Canada? Seriously, what was going on there, or was the card for a player standing behind the technical area?

USSF answer (July 27, 2010):
The referee showed the red card to Dario Sala, reserve goalkeeper for FC Dallas, after he threw a ball on the field, for using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures. Hence, this instance was handled correctly by the referee.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

Question:
The Laws define the terms “careless, reckless and with
excessive force” for penal offenses:

1. Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent.
2. Trips or attempts to trip an opponent.
3. Jumps at an opponent.
4. Charges an opponent.
5. Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent:
6. Pushes an opponent
7. Tackles an opponent.

This makes it much easier for Referees to gauge the respective punishment when the force reaches a certain level. However, is it possible to do any of the above without a foul actually being called since it was neither careless, reckless, nor with excessive force?

A defender and attacker are running full speed, side-by-side shoulder-to-shoulder and stride-for-stride. The defender makes a cut and to make the cut he extends his leg outside his normal gait. The attacker’s leg clips the defender’s leg and the attacker goes down like a sack of potatoes. There is nothing to be considered careless, reckless or with excessive force. The referee considers the tripping to be unintentional and accidental and allows play to continue. But who on the field is going to accept that when the defender wins the ball? The attacking team is going to be irate and the defending team is going to think that they got away with one. The offense is “Trips or attempts to trip an opponent”. A trip is a trip, intentional or not. Should the referee call a tripping foul? Or does the brave referee make the non-call with the comfort in knowing that he’s the only one on the field that knows he’s right?

USSF answer (June 10, 2010):
You might wish to search through the archives to find this answer (only an excerpt given here) of April 15, 2010. It should answer all your questions on this matter.

12.3 CARELESS, RECKLESS, INVOLVING EXCESSIVE FORCE
“Careless” indicates that the player has not exercised due caution in making a play.

“Reckless” means that the player has made unnatural movements designed to intimidate an opponent or to gain an unfair advantage.

“Involving excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the use of force necessary to make a fair play for the ball and has placed the opponent in considerable danger of bodily harm.

If the foul was careless, simply a miscalculation of strength or a stretch of judgment by the player who committed it, then it is a normal foul, requiring only a direct free kick (and possibly a stern talking-to). If the foul was reckless, clearly outside the norm for fair play, then the referee must award the direct free kick and also caution the player for unsporting behavior, showing the yellow card. If the foul involved the use of excessive force, totally beyond the bounds of normal play, then the referee must send off the player for serious foul play or violent conduct, show the red card, and award the direct free kick to the opposing team.

And it is worth repeating — yet again — that the occurrence of contact between players does not necessarily mean that a foul was committed. Contact occurs and it is accepted and welcomed, as long as it is accomplished legally — and that includes most accidental contact.

And the referee can very effectively reinforce his or her conviction that no foul has occurred by shouting out “No foul!” Never leave doubt in the minds of the players as to your comfort with your decision.

Question:
Please provide the proper restarts for your answers on March 10, 2010 (text follows). I agree the goalkeeper cautioned, and the player or substitute is sent off for DOGSO – handling. In addition, would cautioning the substitute for unsporting behavior also be in the Spirit of the Game?

I believe the restart is a penalty kick if a player on the field exchanged places with the goalkeeper without informing the referee and committed DOGSO – handling,
but the restart is an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when play was stopped if a substitute came on the field and exchanged places with the goalkeeper without informing the referee and committed DOGSO – handling.

I appreciate your clarifications.

Q&A OF MARCH 10, 2010

ILLEGAL SUBSTITUTION FOR GOALKEEPER; DOGSO

Question:
What would you do if a goalkeeper ran off the field and another player took his place without the referee knowing it during play. Also, the other team shoots and the new goalkeeper blocks it over the goal. Then you realize the keeper change. What do you do?

Answer (March 10, 2010):

We have a problem here with the description of the situation. Was this a “player” who was already on the field in another position or was it one of the substitutes from the bench?

The decision would be easy if it had been a player on the field who exchanged places — without informing the referee — with the ‘keeper (who then remained on the field): Allow play to continue and then caution both at the next stoppage.

However, based on your description, it seems that a substitute (loosely called a “player”) came on the field and replaced the former goalkeeper. The presents the referee with a totally different set of circumstances:
1. The referee’s acquiescence was not requested nor given for any substitution or exchange.
2. The goalkeeper deliberately left the field of play without the referee’s permission, so he must be cautioned.
3. The new goalkeeper entered the field without the referee’s permission and is thus still a substitute who has entered the field without permission and then denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

That places the incident squarely under the sending-off offenses in Law 12: A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offenses:
//deleted//
* denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Therefore, because the substitute is not a player and certainly not a goalkeeper, he must be sent off in accordance with the Law.

USSF answer (May 31, 2010):
Don’t forget that we were dealing with two distinct possibilities in that scenario. We did not know if the “player” was a player already on the field who took over for the goalkeeper or whether it was a substitute who entered without permission.

IF IT WAS A FIELD PLAYER WHO ILLEGALLY CHANGED PLACES WITH THE GOALKEEPER
There are two choices here — because two persons committed misconducts (there would be no fouls here, and certainly not handling because the player with the keeper jersey has the power of the ‘keeper to handle the ball even if he made the swap illegally). What were the offenses? The field player and the goalkeeper each should be cautioned for the illegal swap and the proper time to do this is at the next stoppage, in this case due to the ball leaving the field last touched by the goalkeeper (therefore a corner kick). However, the original goalkeeper also committed misconduct by leaving the field illegally, which is normally an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped. Here, however, the play was stopped for the corner kick and, in any event, it would be more advantageous for the opposing team to retain the corner kick than to be given an indirect free kick. So, caution the field player and caution the original goalkeeper — a second caution for the illegal exit for the original goalkeeper is consistent with the Law but the referee could decide not to make this a second yellow and thus have to send off the original goalkeeper. Start with a corner kick.

IF IT WAS A SUBSTITUTE WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED THE FIELD AND ILLEGALLY ASSUMED THE ROLE OF THE GOALKEEPER
In this scenario, two players have committed five acts of misconduct. The substitute (1) entered the field illegally, (2) illegally changed places with the goalkeeper, and (3) prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball. The original goalkeeper (4) illegally changed places with the substitute and (5) illegally left the field. The Interpretation tells us, however, that the restart is determined by the illegal entry of the substitute onto the field, no matter what other offenses that substitute may commit thereafter. We also know that, although it would technically be correct to issue a caution for (1) or (2) to the substitute, the real (and most serious offense) was the prevention of the goal. So, send off the substitute for DGH and include a description of his other misconducts in your game report. Caution the original goalkeeper for the illegal exchange of places with the goalkeeper and, as above, decide whether a second caution for the illegal departure from the field would be in the best interests of the game as it would result of course in a red card. The problem here is the restart. Normally, this would be an indirect free kick for the substitute illegally entering the field placed where the ball was when play was stopped … but play wasn’t stopped for this offense, it was stopped because the ball left the field. However, Law 3 tells us that the illegal entry of a substitute doesn’t have to cause an immediate stoppage “if the substitute … does not interfere with play” — there are few more obvious or serious ways to interfere with play than stopping a ball from going into the net. Accordingly, play should be considered to have stopped when the substitute handled the ball and the opponents should be given an indirect free kick where the ball was when it was handled by the substitute.

Of course, the officiating team would not be facing such challenges if any of them had been more observant and caught the problem at its source instead of allowing it to expand past any easy solution.

Question:
I have a clarification question regarding the goalie pass back rule. I’ve always understood the rule to be based on intent.

Which would imply that a goalie is permitted to handle a ball that was unintentionally passed back to him/her.

To be an intentional pass back, does the intent have to be a pass back to the goalie, or simply the act of passing back.

Specifically, in a recent game the goalie was inside the goal box. A midfielder passed the ball back from near midfield to a defender at the top corner of the penalty box. The defender never touched the ball, but followed it along the inside outer edge of the penalty box.

The goalie then ran out of the goal box to call off the defender and picked up the ball.

The intent of the midfielder was not to pass back to the goalie, but it was an intentional backwards pass. Does this qualify as a pass back infraction?

USSF answer (May 24, 2010):
Your perception of the concept of punishment for the ball kicked to the goalkeeper is flawed but certainly understandable for anyone other than a referee — many of whom also seem to remain unaware.

The Law tells us that the goalkeeper may not pick up or otherwise play with the hands any ball deliberately kicked — as opposed to miskicked in an attempt to clear the ball — by a teammate. It makes no difference that this particular ball ran all the way from near midfield to the goalkeeper, it’s still a foul for him or her to pick it up.

Question:
A defender slides towards an opponent running with the ball. The defender’s tackling foot pushes the ball away from the opponent but the force of the defender’s momentum causes him to collide heavily with the opponent below the knees. The opponent tumbles to the ground. I adjudge the defender to have used excessive force and to have been reckless with regard to injury, and to have tripped the opponent (or attempted a trip) because the opponent’s feet were impeded in such a way that he fell heavily. I award a direct free kick.

I have been told by many players, fans, and coaches that this could not be a foul because the defender didn’t trip the player – he “got the ball”. I have heard commentators on TV say that a referee is wrong in calling a foul when a player “gets the ball”. I have never seen it written down in the Laws of the Game that if a player “gets the ball” he cannot at the same time be guilty of tripping or using excessive force. Am I missing some directive about the interpretation of Law 12?

USSF answer (May 18, 2010):
Saying that a player “got the ball” is meaningless in a tackle. What the referee must be concerned about is what happens during and after the tackle.

DURING
• If the tackler uses excessive force, he or she is sent off immediately for serious foul play and the game is restarted with a direct free kick or a penalty kick, if the foul and misconduct were committed in the tackler’s penalty area).
• If the tackler is reckless, he or she is cautioned and the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackler is careless, the game is restarted as above.
• If the tackle is committed fairly and there is incidental contact, there is no foul.

AFTER
If, after the tackle is fairly made, the tackler uses the foot or body in a careless or reckless way or with excessive force, see DURING.

Coaches will always protest an act that disadvantages their team, no matter that it was done legally. As for commentators on television, many of them actually know little or nothing of the game and how it should be played or refereed, no matter what their accent or “credentials.”

Only the referee on the game can make that decision, applying The Seven Magic Words, “If in the opinion of the referee, . . ..”

Question:
A referee brought up this question at our association meeting tonight. It started quite a debate and we would like to know the correct answer to put this to rest:
A shot on goal is made by an attacker. The goalkeeper is too short to stop the ball from entering the goal with his hands so he pulls on the back of the net thus preventing the ball from completely crossing over the goal line.
What should the referee do in this case? If he stops play, what action should he take and what is the restart?

USSF answer (May 6, 2010):
In using the net as an artificial aid (and extension of his hands), the goalkeeper has theoretically denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. However, as we know from Law 12, the goalkeeper is expressly excluded from the requirement for a send-off in this case, “(this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area).” Solution? After the caution is given for unsporting behavior, award an indirect free kick for the opposing team on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred.

Question:
In the April 16 question about failure to respect the distance, my question is how do we call this at the lower levels when it is not called at the higher levels? I don’t think I’ve ever seen failure to respect the distance enforced in a professional match in spite of it occurring on nearly every foul called.

USSF answer (April 27, 2010):
The argument given by those who are reluctant to enforce the distance at a free kick is that the players do not expect the rule to be enforced and are willing to put up with it. It is clear that this is not true and the Federation has launched a campaign on this problem. Ask your State Director of Referee Instruction to let you know when there will be a clinic on the “Managing the Free Kick” module.

In addition, please note that this is an important consideration at the professional level and is certainly called at every level of the professional game. However, we acknowledge that referees at all levels are sometimes a bit lax and need to be more forceful in enforcing the law.