• Home
• About
• Ask A Question

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:
I am a grade 8 assistant referee with two grade 7 referees, one as the other assistant and the other a center. In the pregame I was given two main instructions, “wait on offside calls, and call what you see,” from the center. I have two questions in regards to this game.

A player from Team A attempts to deliver a ball to a teammate in an offside position around midfield on the far side of the field. A player from team B intercepts it, the player in the offside position begins to approach the player now in possession of the ball and is promptly within 2 yards of the player, and the player in possession wiffs the ball out. This happened within about one second. I kept my flag down, thinking it wasn’t an offense itself to be in an offside position and it isn’t an excuse for the player to wiff the ball out.

The coach disagreed, and so did the center at halftime. Who is right?

My second question is referring to call at the end of the second half.

The center is at the top corner of the 18-yard box about 15 yards away from me. There was, in my opinion, a foul against the defending team and when I looked at the center he might have had his back turned to the play. (Afterwards he said he saw it in the corner of his eye but let it go because it was the end of the half.) I signaled a foul, the flag in the hand in which the direction was going, and the referee blew the whistle. The center seemed to regret the decision, placed the ball at the spot of the called foul, then blew the whistle as the end of the game (by my watch exactly 1 second after full time) instead of letting the attacking team have a chance for the goal. The other AR said that was a bad call on my part, that it was solely the center’s. I said that I saw a foul, I had a reasonable belief that the center couldn’t have seen it because of his position, and if the the center did see it he could have waved off my flag if he didn’t think it was a foul. In my opinion a AR never makes a call, every call is the center’s.

Do you think my call was correct, or at least, close to call?

USSF answer (May 12, 2010):
Please, please, please! Coaches are not entitled to provide input on any decision made by a referee or an assistant referee.

Question 1:
If it is clear that the player from team B has possession of the ball, then there is no offside. This excerpt from the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game (2009/2010) may be helpful.

11.14 BECOMING “ONSIDE”
The possibility of penalizing a player for being in an offside position must be reevaluated whenever:
1. The ball is again touched or played by a teammate,
2. The ball is played (possessed and controlled, not simply deflected) by an opponent, including the opposing goalkeeper, or
3. The ball goes out of play.

The result of such a reevaluation, of course, may be that the player remains in an offside position based on still being beyond the second-to-last defender, the ball, and the midfield line. Referees must remember that a player cannot simply run to an onside position and become involved in play. The player’s position with relation to the ball and the opponents must change in accordance with the Law.

In the case of the ball leaving the field in favor of the team whose player was in an offside position and actively involved in play (e. g., a corner kick or throw-in for the attackers), it is traditional to call the original offside offense. If the restart would be in favor of the opposing team (e. g., a goal kick or throw-in for the defenders), it is usually preferable to ignore the offside infringement, as the defending team’s restart gives them the possession under circumstances not much different than the indirect free kick for offside-and often with less controversy.

Most likely no offside in this case.

Question 2:
Referees must sometimes act on the advice of the referee when they might otherwise not do so. The rule is that the AR flags for an infringement only if positive that it occurred out of the sight of the referee. From your description of the incident, it does seem that you were correct to flag. The problem appears to us to be that the referee REACTED to your flag and then regretted it (for whatever reason — maybe he did indeed see it out of the corner of his eye or — and here is something for you to think about, as only you can know — perhaps you had previously flagged for offenses that the referee HAD seen and wouldn’t have stopped play for. This might have made him have second thoughts afterwards.

If we are wrong, then please accept our apologies.

Question:
I was centering an Academy game and the away team was deep into their offensive penalty box with an attack. They took a shot at the goal which the keeper stop but did not gain immediate control of the ball with his hands. The keeper fell to the ground (on his back) and managed to trap the ball under his legs. For the that instant the ball was fully in control by the keeper with his legs. The attacker was kicking at the ball and managed to get it out from under his legs and shot and the goal and it went in. I did not allow the goal and felt I had 2 rational reasons. My first thought was the keeper did have “control” of the ball with his legs and therefore the attack should have been stopped. The second thought was that it was dangerous play to try and kick the ball out from his legs (especially considering it was lodged under them) and an indirect free kick should have been awarded.

My question is this, does a keeper have to control the ball with his hands for it to be considered under control or if he or she has definite control with other parts of his body (legs, stomach) is that considered control?

USSF answer (April 16, 2010)
While we agree with your notion that the referee should have stopped play immediately, it would not have been because the goalkeeper had possession of the ball. Possession by the goalkeeper requires “hands-on” control of the ball, something he did not have. Here is an excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” that spells out goalkeeper possession:

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.

While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety.

We see no offense by the goalkeeper. If, as it appears, the goalkeeper had the ball between his legs and did not delay unduly in attempting to extricate himself from this predicament, he did not play dangerously and the opponent was wholly at fault for taking unfair advantage of his situation. Merely making kicking motions would constitute the dangerous play offense, but actually making contact with the kicking motion turns it into a direct free kick offense plus a card (the referee would normally think red — due to “kicking,” but this could possibly be downgraded to a yellow if there were mitigating circumstances.)

Question:
The April 13 question about a possible foul committed by the keeper after failing to block a shot revealed a common confusion among inexperienced referees distinguishing dangerous play, careless play, reckless play, and serious foul play. Maybe you can help clarify this matter.

As I understand the rules, dangerous play is a separate offense defined in the laws. This foul is called if a player plays in a dangerous way that denies an opponent a fair chance to participate in play, but NO CONTACT has occurred. Examples could be high kicks,low headers, playing on the ground, or playing with the cleats up provided these actions do not make contact but cause an opponent to refrain from a legal challenge for the ball because of perceived danger to themselves or the opponent. Dangerous play is always an IFK because no contact is involved. What is dangerous for young inexperienced players may not be dangerous of advanced players – hence “high kicks” or “playing on the ground” is not automatically dangerous play.

Careless, reckless, and serious fouls refer to the degree a contact foul is committed. Careless contact fouls (a routine foul) are always a DFK (or PK). If the foul was also reckless (or tactical/deliberate) then a yellow card is required. If the foul was also serious (endangered opponent) then a red card is required.

The same contact distinction separates impeding (no contact – IFK) from holding (contact – DFK).

Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks.

USSF answer (April 15, 2010):
Far be it from us to pass up an opportunity for education and clarification. Thank you for asking.

Your concept of “dangerous play” is close, but not totally accurate. You will find the following in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” available for download from http://www.ussoccer.com:

12.13 PLAYING IN A DANGEROUS MANNER
Playing “in a dangerous manner” can be called only if the act, in the opinion of the referee, meets three criteria: the action must be dangerous to someone (including the player committing the action), it was committed with an opponent close by, and the dangerous nature of the action caused this opponent to cease active play for the ball or to be otherwise disadvantaged by the attempt not to participate in the dangerous play. Merely committing a dangerous act is not, by itself, an offense (e.g., kicking high enough that the cleats show or attempting to play the ball while on the ground). Committing a dangerous act while an opponent is nearby is not, by itself, an offense. The act becomes an offense only when an opponent is adversely and unfairly affected, usually by the opponent ceasing to challenge for the ball in order to avoid receiving or causing injury as a direct result of the player’s act. Playing in a manner considered to be dangerous when only a teammate is nearby is not a foul. Remember that fouls may be committed only against opponents or the opposing team.

In judging a dangerous play offense, the referee must take into account the experience and skill level of the players. Opponents who are experienced and skilled may be more likely to accept the danger and play through. Younger players have neither the experience nor skill to judge the danger adequately and, in such cases, the referee should intervene on behalf of their safety. For example, playing with cleats up in a threatening or intimidating manner is more likely to be judged a dangerous play offense in youth matches, without regard to the reaction of opponents.

You have the difference between impeding and holding (or pushing) down just right. And just so others will know the distinction between careless, reckless, and involving the use of excessive force, here is the appropriate information from the Advice on CRIEF:

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.

Question:
I have a point to make about arm extension and ball control with regard to handling the ball, and my question will be “does my argument hold any water.” I’m aware by the answers to numerous questions on the subject that the call is made based on “deliberate” or “not deliberate”. I contend that the reason that there are numerous questions on the subject is that there is such difficulty in determining what is deliberate and not. I’m aware that there is a list of items to look for in determining the call, but it seems to me that arm extension and advantageous ball possession are key elements in determining whether the action may be deliberate. Otherwise, its just too difficult to make that call consistently. I’m speaking of occasions where it is not absolutely clear that the action is non-deliberate, but there is otherwise a difficulty in determining that the “handling” meets the specificity of what is deliberate. And for the most part, we’re talking about bang-bang plays.

The rule’s words are “deliberately handle” which implies control.

The point of the game is to control the ball – which hopefully leads to more goals for your side – and as such, would be the point for any action in the match. Therefore, unless it is clear that the handling action was not deliberate, then control of the ball should be a determining factor in deciding to make a call for deliberate handling (handball). In my opinion, same difficulty can be applied to arm extension, and since arm extension can be a form of ball control, should be applied in the same manner.

p.s. a true “deliberate” handball is a potential send-off, but of course, it is typical for many handball calls to be made during a match that are technically then “deliberate”, but for which it would be foolish to warn on each, much less send off for the infraction.

Maybe we can change the terminology on the greater infraction to “intentional”, similar to basketball’s intentional foul?

USSF answer (March 31, 2010):
You are trudging a well-worn path, but it leads you in the wrong direction. First, watch out for the notion of “unnatural position,” because what is natural for a female player maintaining balance is not natural for a male player maintaining balance under the same circumstances. The mere fact that a player, regardless of age or gender, may have an arm/hand raised does not magically transform accidental contact with the ball into a foul — it is only one factor to be considered. Next, where does the notion come from that a “deliberate handball is a potential send-off”? Nonsense! No more so than any foul is a potential send-off if the conditions are right.

Our perception is that most whistled handling offenses are not deliberate handling. And many that ARE called could be considered trifling or have advantage applied to them. Unfortunately, many referees who otherwise understand doubtful/trifling and advantage seem not to want to apply either of these concepts to a handling offense.

There is perfectly good and clear guidance out there in the USSF publications “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as “handling the ball” involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player’s hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). “Deliberate contact” means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player’s arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).

NOTE: In most cases in the Laws of the Game, the words “touch,” “play,” and “make contact with” mean the same thing. This is not true in the case of deliberate handling, where the touch, play, or contact by the offending player must be planned and deliberate.

and in the Directive on Handling the Ball:

Handling The Ball
2009 Referee Program Directives
February 2, 2009
Keys to Identifying Handling the Ball
There are several key criteria referees should use to determine whether contact between a player’s hand/arm and the ball constitutes a foul for handling. Many of the criteria have formed the foundation of referee identification of handling offenses for years. Despite this foundation, handling criteria continue to be applied inconsistently.
Going forward, additional criteria will need to be considered by officials in determining if contact by the ball with the hand/arm is, in fact, a handling offense. For example: Did the player make himself bigger?
The following 3 criteria should be the primary factors considered by the referee:
1. Making yourself bigger
This refers to the placement of the arm(s)/hand(s) of the defending player at the time the ball is played by the opponent. Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling. Referees should interpret this action as the defender “deliberately” putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent (like spreading your arms wide to take away the passing lane of an attacker).
• Does the defender use his hand/arm as a barrier?
• Does the defender use his hand/arm to take away space and/or the
passing lane from the opponent?
• Does the defender use his hand/arm to occupy more space by extending
his reach or extending the ability of his body to play the ball thereby benefiting from the extension(s)?
2. Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?” Is the arm or hand in a position that is not normal or natural for a player performing the task at hand.
3. Did the player“ benefit?” In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offence has been committed.
After applying the aforementioned criteria, if the referee is still uncertain as to whether handling the ball has occurred, the referee should then incorporate the following two criteria as part of his decision making process:
4. Reaction Time The less time a defender has to react, the less likely there has been a handling offense. For example, a ball struck from a close distance, or a very fast moving ball, or a ball coming in from a direction which is outside the defender’s view gives little or no time for the defender’s reaction to be “deliberate.” The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face. Distance is a factor in determining “reaction time.” The further the ball, the more reaction time a play may have.
5. Hand/arm to ball Referees must be ready to judge whether the player moved his arm to the ball thereby initiating the contact. Additionally, the referee should evaluate whether the player deliberately readjusted his body position to block the ball thus intentionally playing the ball with his hand/arm.

We strongly urge that you not allow the word “benefit” in item 3 of the Directive to confuse you. It clearly states in that paragraph that this benefit can only result from a deliberate action. Any “benefit” that accrues to a player who has NOT deliberately handled the ball is purely and simply a serendipitous event and must not be confused with a planned action. And also review the guidance in our first two paragraphs.

Question:
Situation: There’s a 12th player that a coach snuck onto the field at a water break. A goal is scored but after being notified about the extra “player” by the fourth official you ask the coach which player is the extra one and the coach refuses to tell you. I thought it standard answer dismiss the coach and if no one will tell you, you pick one, caution him and get him off the field and get on with the game. Almost everyone says can’t do this and the game must be abandoned. Seems abandoning a game is drastic but they may be right as I guess you can’t arbitrarily caution a player. Help me!!

USSF answer (March 31, 2010):
The Advice to Referees tells us:

3.17 MORE THAN THE CORRECT NUMBER OF PLAYERS
If, while the game is in progress, the referee finds that a team has more than the allowed number of persons on the field, play must be stopped and the extra person identified and removed from the field. If the referee stops play for that purpose, the game is restarted as specified in the Law; if the game was stopped for some other purpose, the game is restarted for that particular reason. Other than through referee error, this situation can occur only if someone enters the field illegally. The “extra player” can include an outside agent (such as a previously expelled player or a spectator); a player who had been given permission to leave or been ordered off by the referee for correction of a problem, but re-entered without permission; or a substitute or substituted player who enters without permission and/or during play.

In all competitions, especially those that allow substituted players to return, the officials must be extremely vigilant in counting the number of players who leave and substitutes who enter to prevent problems of this nature. Similarly, players off the field temporarily who require the permission of the referee to re-enter must be monitored to ensure that they do not participate in play until this requirement and any others (e. g., inspection to confirm the correction of the equipment or bleeding problem) are met.

The referee will allow the captain to select the player to be removed. (The captain may wish to consult with the coach, but the referee will not do so — under the Laws of the Game, the coach has no input in the process.) If the captain and anyone whom he/she consults refuse to identify the extra player, then there is no choice left to the referee but to actually makes a decision and select the player to be removed. The goal must be canceled if any player on the team with the illegal player scored it (and the goal is counted if any player on the opposing team scored it)., If the goal is canceled, the restart must be a goal kick. The referee must submit full details in the match report, including the coach’s action in putting the extra “player” into the game illegally.

Incidents like this make a clear case for not restarting the game without confirming with each assistant referee and the fourth official that the appropriate number of players is on the field. The failure of the referee, the ARs, and the fourth to take immediate action by counting and doing their jobs before the restart casts doubt on the ability of the officials to manage the game wisely and correctly.

Notice that we do not recommend cautioning anyone here, because the players were simply obeying the instructions of their coach — and in all events, as mentioned above, it is the responsibility of the match officials to keep track of the number of players on the field.

Question:
I have a question concerning when a player, who has been instructed to leave the filed by the referee for an equipment problem, can return to the field.
LOTG law 4, page 19 states that the player can only re-enter the field when the ball is out of play.
Advice to referees, par 4.6 page 20 states that the player can re-enter the field when the ball is in play as long as the player enters from the touchline. I don’t understand what to do if faced with this situation.

USSF Answer (March 25, 2010:
Several years ago the Federation decided to support a slight divergence between itself and FIFA on this matter, based on a related instruction from FIFA which emphasized the importance of bringing teams back to their full strength as quickly as possible when one of the players was off the field, without substitution, for an injury and, in such cases, the referee could beckon that player to return to the field during play rather than having to wait for a stoppage. Your question inspired us to revisit the matter. The result is that as of this date Advice 4.6 has been amended to read as follows (all original text following the first paragraph remains as it was):

4.6 INCORRECT UNIFORM OR EQUIPMENT
Instructing a player to leave the field to correct an illegal uniform or equipment does not require a report by the referee as this is not a “send-off” for misconduct. The inspection to confirm that the correction has been made is conducted by the referee or, if delegated by the referee in the pregame conference, by the fourth official or an assistant referee if a fourth official has not been appointed. The player must receive a signal from the referee before actually re-entering the field and may do so only during a stoppage.

Question:
At our USSF recertification class we were instructed that we now have up to six or seven restarts to “take a missed call back” to the original foul. Example given at class – Assistant Referee signals offside on white & center referee does not see nor acknowledge the offside call due to lack of focus. The AR maintains his/her position of offside during which time 1.)a goal kick took place for red, 2.) then a direct kick for white 3.) a throw-in for red 4.) PK for red resulting in a score 5.) ensuing kickoff 6.) ball out of bounds; at which point center referee now notices the AR still at attention for the original offside 6 restarts past. We were told the Referee should honor the call by the AR and award an IFK to the red team for the original offside infraction. I would not want to be the center referee in that game! Then a few weeks later this situation occurred at the college level. While there were only three restarts in between, the referee went back to the original call by the AR. Seems like a powder keg to me.

USSF answer (March 22, 2010):
You are absolutely correct. The Federation has never issued any instruction that ARs keep their flag raised through up to six or seven restarts. The Federation’s guidance has been published in the Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game. Here is a quote from the 2009/2010 edition:

6.4 MISSED ASSISTANT REFEREE SIGNALS
If the assistant referee signals a ball out of play but the referee does not see the signal for an extended period, during which play is stopped and restarted several times, the assistant referee should lower the flag.  The FIFA Referee Committee has declared that it is impossible for the referee to act on the assistant referee’s signal after so much play.

If the referee misses the assistant referee’s signal for offside, the assistant referee should stand at attention with the flag raised until the defending team gains clear possession or until a goal kick or throw-in is awarded to the defending team.  

Although the general rule is that a card for misconduct must be given at the next stoppage of play and that, if this does not occur, the opportunity to punish the misconduct has passed, the International Board’s “Interpretations” section has stated that this does not apply to serious foul play.  However, in order to make handling such incidents credible, certain conditions must apply.  The most important requirement is that the assistant referee must have signaled the original misconduct and maintained the signal despite it not being seen by the referee.  USSF has indicated that this requirement should be discussed thoroughly in the pre-game and that the referee should clearly indicate what sorts of misconduct would qualify for this treatment.  The International Board spoke specifically of “serious foul play” but USSF guidelines include any form of violence (including “violent conduct”).  If the referee becomes aware of the assistant referee’s signal for misconduct at a subsequent stoppage of play, the restart (after the misconduct is handled) would remain the same based on what stopped play in the first place.  If, upon becoming aware of an assistant referee’s signal for misconduct, play is stopped solely for this reason, the restart is a dropped ball where the ball was when play was most recently stopped*.

To avoid such situations, the referee should make eye contact with the assistant referees as often as possible.  In addition, the assistant referees must be alert for and mirror each other’s signals if needed to assist the referee.

NOTE:The final sentence of the third paragraph of Advice 6.4 has been corrected to match equivalent information in Advice 5.13: The correct restart is a dropped ball, rather than the indirect free kick formerly included there. We apologize for the error, which did not in any way affect the misinformation that raised the original question.

Question:
During a recent U9 Boys Championship Match I was working, one end of the field was very muddy. On several instances, players would kick at the ground before a corner or goal kick, like they were attempting to tee the ball up. I gave a warning to both teams to stop. Of course neither coach agreed with this warning, saying their players needed the extra leverage due to the poor field conditions (although they players did stop). Does this fall under the ATR related to modification of the field? Thanks!

USSF answer (March 10, 2010):
By allowing play to begin following your inspection of the field, you accepted the condition of the field as safe and usable. To then punish the players for trying to do their best under those conditions is not entirely within the Spirit of the Game. However, the fact that the field is muddy should not be used to protect behavior which, if performed on a pristine field, would be worth a warning to stop it. Teeing the ball up is not permitted if it involves creating hills by scuffing the field. We would certainly warn a goalkeeper who is marking the field to HIS advantage — muddy or not. Exercise common sense in this situation.

Question:
I have a question involving the 2009/2010 ATR vs 2009/2010 FIFA Laws and interpretation of the laws. In the ATR 13.6 in reference to free kicks awarding to a defending team in their own penalty area. In the second paragraph it says that all opponents must remain outside the penalty until the ball has gone into play. And I believe that into play means leaving the penalty. But in the FIFA law book in the interpretation of the laws section for free kicks on page 123. Under the “Distance” heading the third paragraph talks about opponents being in the penalty, and the defending team takes a quick kick the referee must allow play to continue.

My question is this, what happens if the defending team kicks the ball to the opponent in the penalty area before the opponents have left the penalty area? Would the kick be a retake for the defending team or is it similar to a regular quick kick where it is taken at the risk of the team taking the kick. Or should I pretend I never saw the part in the FIFA law book.

Thank you for your insight

USSF answer (March 9, 2010):
In your comparison of one section of the Advice to a section of the Laws covered in the Interpretation section of the Laws, you are comparing apples and applesauce. Advice 13.6 simply repeats what is already in the Law:

Free Kick Inside the Penalty Area
Direct or indirect free kick to the defending team:
* all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball
* all opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play
* the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty area
* a free kick awarded in the goal area may be taken from any point inside that area

The information on p. 123 of the Interpretation states that the same principle that applies to free kicks outside the penalty area applies to free kicks for the defending team within the penalty area:

“If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team from inside its own penalty area, one or more opponents remain inside the penalty area because the defender decides to take the kick quickly and the opponents did not have time to leave the penalty area, the referee must allow play to continue.”

There is no dichotomy here, as any kicking team surrenders its right to opponents remaining at the required distance if it takes the free kick quickly, without waiting for the referee to remove any opponent who has remained too near to the ball. What this means with regard to your question is that the restart should not be held up by the referee solely because there may be one or more opponents still within the penalty area. In short, the goal kicking team has the right to kick immediately (not with a ceremony) even though there are opponents within the minimum distance.

However, at this time a major difference arises between kicks from within the penalty area and those taken outside the area. This involves what happens if one of those opponents makes contact with the ball while both are still within the penalty area. For a goal kick or a free kick, because the ball is not in play until it leaves the penalty area, there is no distinction between interception and interference — it’s all interference before the ball has been put in play (just as it would be if the contact had been made by a teammate rather than an opponent). If there is interference within the penalty area by an opponent on this sort of kick, the kick must be retaken.

Question:
An attacker A1 shoots the ball toward the goal and the ball is handled by defender D in the penalty area preventing a goal. As a result of D’s handling, the ball is deflected to another attacker A2 with a possible shot on goal that is at least as good an opportunity to score as a penalty shot. Say, no real challenge by a defender on A2. The referee allows advantage, and A2 shoots toward the goal but misses. The ball goes directly over the goal line after A2’s shot.

Q1.What is the restart? Penalty kick or goal kick ?

Q2. Does D get a caution or a send off? Note that according to 12.39 of “Advice…”, if A2 had scored, then D would be cautioned and the restart would be a kick off.

Game level: To the extent that the answer is level dependent, I would appreciate a response reflecting that up thru adult pro.

USSF answer (March 1, 2010):
According to the Laws of the Game 2009/2010 (Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, p. 122), “If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.” In this case, the referee applied the advantage, which was realized, in that the attacking team was able to shoot, but failed to score a goal. Decision? See below.

You cited Advice 12.39, but apparently did not consider its second paragraph:

In cases where a goal or goalscoring opportunity has been denied by handling (DGH) or by a foul (DGF), but advantage has been applied, it is advisable to stop play as soon as possible once it becomes clear that the offended team has not been able to benefit from the advantage. This would be the case when, after roughly 3-5 seconds and at least one subsequent play, the team was not able to maintain a successful attack. In such cases, of course, the referee should return to the original foul and, additionally, show the red card for the denied opportunity associated with the foul. Because circumstances vary from game to game, there is no single mandatory decision that would be universally correct. The referee must use discretion in making the decision, based on experience, game circumstances, and common sense.

Question:
Player leaves without permission and commits obvious violent conduct that referee is going to punish. Does he first caution for leaving and then send-off for VC and show yellow/red? Or is it ok to go to straight red? I know if it’s not VC it’s yellow/yellow/red. My gut says who cares if he left during normal course of play, it’s VC so just go straight to that.

USSF answer (February 11, 2010):
The referee’s decision in this case rests on the needs of the game and how the referee must manage the game. While it may seem natural simply to reach for the red card and send off the player who has left the field without permission, that player has committed a cautionable offense prior to the violent conduct — and the cautionable offense governs the restart if the violent conduct occurs off the field of play: if the player leaves the field of play to commit the offense, play is restarted with an indirect free kick from the position in which the ball was located when play was stopped (see Law 13 — Position of Free Kick).