Question:
If a goalie and an attacking opponent arrive to the ball at the same time with the opponent diving feet first without any kicking motion but merely poking the ball loose with their foot, is this allowable or does the opponent clearly have to touch it first?

Answer (October 29, 2007):
(With sincere apologies to the person who sent this; we lost the e-mail address. Darn!)
While the referee must always remember that the goalkeeper’s position is a particularly dangerous one, there are times when the onus for fair play falls squarely on the opponent. This is one of those times. If a player dives feet first at an opponent, that is usually considered a form of “jumping at” at opponent.

It is a general principle underlying the Law that players are not permitted to “play” the opponent rather than the ball. That is enshrined in the concept of “jumping at an opponent.” “Jumping at” means precisely that: launching one’s body toward the opponent. It can be from a standing or “flying” position. It can be done in two ways: (1) to intimidate or (2) in a feigned (really meant to distract or intimidate the opponent) or genuine but unsuccessful attempt to gain the ball. It is most often seen under the pretext of heading the ball, but may also be seen when a player launches himself through the air, feet first, to “tackle” away the ball.

Example: A8 is running upfield with the ball. Defender B3 jumps at A8 to startle him, causing A8 to flinch and lose possession.

What to do? B3 has committed the foul of jumping at an opponent if he does it in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. If the foul was careless, the result would be a direct free kick (or penalty kick if committed within B’s penalty area) for team A. If the foul was reckless, the result would be a caution/yellow card to B3 for unsporting behavior and a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for team A. If the foul involved excessive force, the result would be a send-off/red card for B3 and a direct free kick (or penalty kick) for team A.

Normally contact is not required, as specified by the word “at” in the name of the foul. However, another form of “jumping at” an opponent is the two-footed tackle, which by definition has to be a jump – launching one’s body toward that of the opponent. If that two-footed tackle is for the ball, it is likely fair, but if the jumping player lands on the ball just as the opponent’s foot is kicking it, the referee should consider the tackle dangerous and punish it with an indirect free kick. If contact is made with the opponent, give a direct free kick. If it is reckless, caution it. If it is done with excessive force, send the player off.

Faking: Another form of “jumping at” is to make the foul appear to have been committed by the opponent when the player with the ball has actually committed it. That sort of foul is common in youth soccer, where some players jump into an opponent and, while doing so, turn their back. Since that essentially makes them an unguided missile, it highlights the danger of jumping at an opponent with the back turned. Direct free kick for the opponent’s team.

Where to punish: At the spot where the opponent was affected by the jump. If a player starts his jump outside the penalty area but completes it inside, the referee must give the direct free kick (or penalty kick, if applicable) inside the penalty area.

There are two things to remember about “jumping at” an opponent. First, contact is not required for the foul. The foul is in the intimidation or distraction of the opponent by the jump. Second, this is one of those fouls where the “rule of thumb” about “playing the player rather than the ball” is particularly apt as a shorthand way of viewing the offense — the foul is almost certain when the offending player is looking at the opponent rather than the ball.…

Question:
This question concerns an event during a competitive U17B match for which I was the center. During the run of play, team B crosses the ball into the box. The A team goalie comes out, jumps with his hands up, and “flaps” at the ball making just enough contact to spin the ball backwards to a waiting team B player who heads the ball into the net. The B player was in an offside position at the time of the cross.

I ruled this a good goal on the basis that the goalie had made a play on the ball which effectively changed possession. Since the ball played back from a defending player, the B player could not be offside and was free to attack the ball.

I will add that the goalie had made previous successful clearances of crosses and corners with his hands in addition to catching the ball.

Follow up question (which depends on the answer to above). If the keeper had attempted to catch the ball but just missed it off his finger tips, would this be the same as a deflection and, hence, offside judged against the B player?

Answer (October 29, 2007):
Deflections by any opposing player do not affect the status of a player in an offside position; the attacking team’s player must be called offside if he or she becomes involved in play (as defined in Law 11). Unsuccessfully “making a play” for the ball does not establish possession. Nor, for that matter, does successfully “making a play” for the ball if it then deflects to the player in the offside position who becomes involved in play.

Note that there are differences here between “being involved in play,” “playing the ball,” and “making a play” for the ball. (As noted above, see Law 11 for involvement in play.) “Playing the ball” in these circumstances means that the defender (in this case the goalkeeper) possessed and controlled the ball. However, if the defender possessed and controlled the ball badly, it’s still “making a play,” but if it wasn’t possessed and controlled, it wasn’t played in the sense you suggested in your scenario.

A rule: Being able to use the ball subsequent to contact equals possession; deflection is not possession.…

Question:
I know this has been addressed previously but I just can’t seem to locate the answer. I award a free kick and one or more defenders runs over and stands directly in front of the ball about a foot away. I actually hear their coach telling them to do so. (The coach later tells me that he coaches his players to do this so as to make the attacker ask for the 10 yard “cushion.”) It is my understanding of the laws that this is a violation of the letter and spirit of Law 13 and that the player are interfering with the restart of play and could, perhaps should, be cautioned. Notwithstanding what we see in the EPL and MLS, what is the position of USSF on this scenario?

Incidentally, I did caution the player who did this.

Answer (October 24, 2007):
Coaches will do almost anything that aids their team, including teaching the players to cheat in this and other ways. There is only one way to stop it and the Law is quite clear on what should be done. Every player who “fails to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in” should be cautioned for that offense. That applies to your current situation; however, very often minor transgressions of this requirement can be taken care of by talking to or warning the player, but violations as blatant and cynical as this one call out for an immediate, no-questions-asked caution.…

Question:
This issue came up during a BU16 game recently. Blue team subs in 4 players at a stoppage of play in second half. Only 3 players come off, leaving blue with 12 players on the field. Game is restarted and within two minutes or so, a blue attacker is fouled by red team player in the penalty area. The referee blows his whistle and signals for a penalty kick. The fouled player was not one of the four players who came on the field at the previous stoppage in play.

While the players are in position to take the penalty kick, the Referee notices the extra player on the field. The Referee cautions the player who should have come off the field (not the player who improperly came onto the field) and that player leaves the field. The Referee changes the restart from a penalty kick to an indirect free kick from the goal area for the red team.

After the game, it is suggested that the proper restart should have been the penalty kick. The Referee insists at first that there is an express ATR mandating a restart by an indirect free kick. When that mandate cannot be found, the Referee insists that ATR 3.20 instructs that if a goal is scored when the team has too many players on the field, that goal should be disallowed and the game is restarted with indirect free kick from the goal area. Because a penalty kick is similar to a goal, the indirect kick was mandated by the spirit of the game, if not the laws of the game. The Referee also concedes that logically, any other restart should be changed to a indirect free kick if, during stoppage in play,

Questions: What is the proper restart when, during stoppage in play other after the scoring of a goal, it is discovered that one team has too many players on the field? Does it make any difference ifÊplay was stopped to award a penalty kick to the team with more than 11 players on the field? How important is it to identify and caution the correct player — the substitute who came onto the field to give a team a twelfth player? Whose responsibility is it to assure that too many players do not come on the field, the AR or the CR?

Answer (October 23, 2007):
The only reason for the entire problem was lack of attention to detail by the entire officiating crew, who failed completely to do their duty. In this case, it is impossible to know which player to caution and the referee and assistant referees must bear the blame for that. There are too many imponderables: The player who was already on the field at the substitution is not at fault, nor is the substitute who came on as a new player, clearly expecting that his/her teammate had left the field. The only possible solution is to remove the additional player (as determined by the referee) from the field.

The correct restart is the penalty kick. Play was stopped for the penal offense, not for the additional player on the field, who was discovered only accidentally.

The error lies entirely with the referee and the assistant referees, all of whom should have monitored the substitution process more carefully, as directed by common sense and the Advice to Referees:

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. 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.

And some advice that every referee should now know by heart, but obviously these officials did not:

3.4 SUBSTITUTION PROCEDURE
After the player being replaced has left the field, the referee must signal permission for the substitute to enter. A substitution is not complete and the substitute may not take part in the game until he or she has entered the field of play. Referees who deviate from the formal process by which a substitute becomes a player — whether in the interest of saving time or because the steps are thought to be too complex and cumbersome — do so at their own peril and will eventually discover that the Laws of the Game specify the procedure for very good reasons. Deviations may lead to situations that the referee cannot settle within the Law.//rest snipped//

How much trouble would have been saved if the officiating team had followed this advice and done their jobs correctly?…

Question:
During a recent adult match, a player from the losing team at the 85th minute after the 7th goal is scored decides to sub. While on the middle of the field, removes his jersey and starts to walk off the field. Should he be cautioned for this behavior? if only a caution can be issued during the celebration of a goal then what is the difference between this player and the celebrating one? Both remove article of their equipment while on the field. Please clarify.

Answer (October 23, 2007):
The reason for the restriction on removing the jersey after the scoring of a goal is that removing the jersey is considered to be excessive celebration and is usually also considered to be an act that is provocative, derisory or inflammatory and thus could cause problems with the opposing team. Unless the referee is CERTAIN that the player who removes his jersey while walking from the field is making a “statement” against the other team, that is not an offense — but see below.

As points to ponder, consider using common sense in these cases. “Excessive celebration” equals playing time lost. In addition, some cultures do no accept displays of body skin; in such a place the referee would take that into consideration when a player removes his jersey while leaving the field. The referee must use common sense.…