Month: April 2008

Law 11 - Offside

SOME OFFSIDE HISTORY

Posted on by

Question:
What year did the IFAB change Law 11 whereas a deflection off a defender no longer put (or played) an attacker, standing in an offside position, onside?
This mis-application of Law 11 continues to this day and I want to know when the law was changed, for reference purposes as I will keep a copy of your response with me in order to enlighten those who continue “not to get it.”
Thank you.

USSF answer (April 16, 2008):
The change was made in the Laws of the Game for 1978-1979.

Prior to 1978, Law 11 read:

A player is offside if he is nearer his opponents’ goal line than the ball at the moment the ball is played unless:
(a) He is in his own half of the field of play,
(b) There are two of his opponents nearer to their own goal-line than he is.
(c) The ball last touched an opponent or was last played by him.
(d) He receives the ball direct from a goal kick, a corner kick, a throw-in, or when it was dropped by the referee.

Punishment: For an infringement of this Law, an indirect free kick shall be taken by a player of the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred.
A player in the offside position shall not be penalized unless, in the opinion of the referee, he is interfering with the play or with an opponent, or is seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position.

As of 1978-1979, the Law read:

(1) A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than the ball, unless:
(a) he is in his own half of the field of play, or
(b) there are at least two of his opponents nearer to their own goal line than he is.

(2) A player shall only be declared offside and penalized for being in an off-side position if, at the moment the ball touches, or is played by, one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee
(a) interfering with play or with an opponent, or
(b) seeking to gain an advantage by being in that position.

(3) A player shall not be declared offside by the referee
(a) merely because of his being in an offside position, or
(b) if he receives the ball, direct, from a goal kick, a corner kick, a throw-in, or when it has been dropped by the referee.

(4) If a player is declared off-side, the referee shall award an indirect free kick, which shall be taken by a player of the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred. unless the offense is committed by a player in his opponents’ goal area, in which case, the free kick shall be taken from any point within that half of the goal area in which the offense occurred.

The following notes were supplied for proper interpretation of the changes in the Law:

The FIFA Referees’ Committee, in making this proposition, felt that the new wording is an improvement on the previous text. You will note that any reference to the ball last touching an opponent, or last being played by him, has been omitted from the new text.

The improvement brought about by the new wording clarifies the situation in that a player remains offside when the ball is played by a member of his own team even if the ball strikes an opponent in flight. The only factors determining whether a player is given offside are whether or not he is in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a member of his own team AND is seeking to gain an advantage or interfering with play by an opponent. The fact that the ball later strikes an opponent does not negate the original offside.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a member of his own team cannot be given offside if he is not, in the opinion of the referee, seeking to gain an advantage or interfering with play or an opponent, even though the ball might strike an opponent in flight.

…
Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

PREVENTING THE GOALKEEPER FROM RELEASING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
A situation came up tonight in an Adult league came that caused a great deal of discussion amongst our group of referees.

Team A shot on Team B’s goal. Team B’s goalie caught the ball in both hands and was walking forward, presumably to prepare to release it.

One of Team A’s forwards (who was BEHIND the goalie) ran around the goalie and headed the ball out of the goalie’s hands and onto the ground where he then kicked it into the goal.

Goal or no goal?

The center referee called the goal back on the grounds that heading the ball out of the keeper’s hands was not allowed.

Team A was livid and insisted that HEADING the ball out of the keeper’s hands was a valid technique, not like KICKING the ball out of a goalie’s hands, and that the goal should have stood. The center referee stood by his decision (as he should have).

After the game though, in discussion with his A/R’s, the center ref rethought his decision & now believes that he should have allowed the goal to stand, that there may be some validity to the argument that heading the ball is indeed different from kicking it.

I have read (and reread) the Laws of the Game and agree with the center ref’s initial decision. I can find nothing that would support the premise that heading the ball away from a goalie is allowed, much less from this position. (If he came from BEHIND the goalie, wouldn’t he have been offside?)

Is this correct? Or should he have allowed the goal to stand? If so, why?

USSF answer (April 16, 2008):
Law 12 states quite clearly:
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
//deleted//
– prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

The referee’s initial decision was correct. No one is allowed to interfere with the goalkeeper’s ability to put the ball back into play.

The USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” defines goalkeeper possession:

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in possession of the ball while bouncing it on the ground or while throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, while throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to strike the ground.  While the ball is in the possession of the ‘keeper, it cannot be lawfully played by an opponent, and any attempt to do so may be punished by a direct free kick.

If it is any consolation to the referee in question, much of the world got this wrong until FIFA finally clarified the interpretation.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

ADVANTAGE OR PENALTY KICK

Posted on by

Question:
4.9.08
Yesterday’s MLS match up between NE & KC saw referee Terry Vaughn award KC a penalty kick in the 27th minute. KC’s player was clearly fouled inside the penalty area by a late challenge from NE’s defender. However, the ball made its way to a KC player right in front of the net who had a good scoring opportunity. You can see that Vaughn blew his whistle before the KC player was able to get his shot off on goal. Fortunately for Vaughn the ball went off the goal post and no goal was scored. Even if a goal had been scored, it would have not counted b/c Vaughn had stopped play before the shot.

Here’s my question. Did Vaughn do the right thing? Should Vaughn have called for advantage and allowed the KC player to take the shot on goal? Now, if the player is allowed to take the shot and the same result occurs, the ball goes off the post (no goal), can you then go back to the foul inside the box and award a penalty kick? Or is it simply one or the other?

I know that with the advantage you have a few seconds to see if the play will develop so as to become an advantage if the foul is not called. On the first goal of the game, Vaughn did just that. A foul was committed, he waited a few seconds to see if NE would gain an advantage from no foul being called, the play never developed, so he awarded the foul and NE scored on the free kick. But here, it appears the advantage did develop by the KC forward receiving the ball at his feet right in front of the goal. If advantage is given and the shot is taken, I would think, even if the shot is missed, the foul cannot then be called as if the advantage did not develop, but I’m really not sure. I realize Vaughn did not do this, that he called the foul before the shot was taken, but I’m just speculating what is the right thing to do in these types of situations.

USSF answer (April 16, 2008):
The game at the professional level is usually played and refereed at a much faster pace than our typical games at the school or neighborhood park. Critical refereeing decisions must be made in an instant, with little time to reflect on what might have been. That is one reason that we see the advantage signaled in professional games only after it has already been realized. Sometimes the referee gets it exactly right and sometime he or she does not. The important thing is that the referee at the top levels knows he or she has to make that decision, and does so, rather than dithering.

This position paper issued by USSF on April 11, 2008, may be of interest to you:

From the U.S. Soccer Communications Center:

To: National Referees
National Instructors
National Assessors
State Referee Administrators
State Directors of Instruction
State Directors of Assessment
State Directors of Coaching
From:  Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject:  Advantage in the Penalty Area
Date:  April 11, 2008

Special circumstances govern the application of advantage for offenses committed by defenders inside their own penalty area. Although the basic concept of advantage remains the same, the specific decision by the referee must be governed by both the close proximity to the goal and the likelihood of scoring from the penalty kick restart if play is stopped instead of applying advantage.

The basic elements of the decision are straightforward:

Advantage is a team concept and thus the referee must be aware not only of the fouled player’s ability to continue his or her attack but also of the ability of any of the player’s teammates to continue the attack themselves.
Advantage has been applied when the decision is made, not when the advantage signal is given. The signal itself may often be delayed for 2-3 seconds while the referee evaluates the advantage situation to determine if it will continue.
Where it does not continue, the Laws of the Game provide for the referee to stop play for the original foul.
If the original foul involved violence, the referee is advised not to apply advantage unless there is an immediate chance of scoring a goal.
Inside the penalty area, the competitive tension is much greater and the referee is called upon to make quicker decisions. The time during which the referee looks for advantage to continue becomes defined by the probability of scoring a goal directly following the foul or from the subsequent play.

In the attached clip of an incident occurring in the 27th minute of a match on April 9 between New England and Kansas City. NE defender #31 (Nyassi) fouls KC attacker #11 (Morsink) near the top of the penalty area. Just as Morsink is fouled, however, he passes the ball to his teammate #19 (Sealy).

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.

In the absence of a whistle stopping play and if the ball had entered the net, the advantage would clearly have continued and the goal would be counted.
If, in this case, the ball had entered the goal after the whistle had sounded, the goal could not be counted.
Ideally, the referee in this incident should have delayed stopping play for the original foul until he saw more concretely what Sealy would have been able to do with the ball.
In this incident, the penalty kick for the original foul was successful.

…
Law 18 - Common Sense

CHOOSING THE BALL

Posted on by

Question:
At a youth soccer game, the coach of one team questioned the ref if the game ball was the correct size and weight since he seemed to think it was not. The ball was like playing with a rubber kick ball with a lot of bounce. The ref answered the coach that both sides have the same advantage and disadvantage with this ball and he was not going to change it, even though there were plenty of balls on the sidelines to choose from.
Should a ball be marked somehow showing that it is the proper size and weight for a game? And if so, then it would have been easier for the ref to point this marking out as proof that the ball is correct.

USSF answer (April 16, 2008):
Although the referee has the final decision, the players deserve to play with the best ball available. There are standards for all balls, specifying circumference, weight, and air pressure. A proper soccer ball should be marked with its size (based on the circumference). The referee should guarantee that the weight and air pressure are sufficient for a good contest.…

Law 10 - Scoring

OWN GOAL ON HANDLING?

Posted on by

Question:
Here is my question, this occured during a U14 game. Team A keeper has possession of ball. As Team A keeper is punting the ball, Team A player (his own team) turns around and gets hit by the keepers kicked ball in the arm (visible direction change of ball) inside the penalty box. The ball rebounds off Team A players arm and directly into their own goal. Team B is awarded the goal.

Is this own goal accurate? The referee stated that he allowed the goal since he gave Team B the “advantage” for the handling of Team A in the penalty box. If the ball had not entered the goal, referee would of called handling on Team A player and awarded a penalty kick to Team B.

Did the referee properly apply advantage in this case? if advantage was properly applied by the ref, is properling the ball with the hand/arm a legal method of scoring in this case? Would this be any different if the keeper was actually performing a restart vice a punt, as in this case? As I understand that no team may score on themselves from a properly completed restart.

Thank you for your assistance in clarifying this.

USSF answer (April 15, 2008):
By your own description, the Team A player was “hit in the arm” by a kick from his goalkeeper. There was no attempt by the player to play the ball and likely could not have been, as he would have had very little time to react if he was just turning around. If the act was not deliberate, and your description tells us that it was not deliberate, then there is no infringement of the Law. If there was no infringement of the Law, then the advantage clause could not be applied. In addition, there would have been no reason for the referee to say anything but, “No foul! Play!”

The goal would be scored as an “own goal,” as the opposing team had no “hand” (pardon the pun) in it.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

“PASS BACK”?

Posted on by

Question:
I recently stopped play to issue a caution for unsporting behavior, the ball was in the possession of the goal keeper at the time of the foul. While I used to simply do a “drop ball” to the keeper to restart play, allowing him/her to pick it up (it only seemed fair…), I realize that the correct restart is an indirect free kick. I instructed the keeper that he needed to put the ball down and restart with an indirect free kick, a teammate of the keeper decided that since his keeper had the ball and was going to punt it until I had stopped play, he would have the keeper ‘flick’ the ball to him as a restart and he would simply head it back to the keeper. I explained that would be a violation of the ‘pass back’ rule – using trickery to circumvent the law – and he would not be permitted to do that. After reading the laws a little closer, I’m not sure I was correct…

Can a keeper ‘flick’ the ball to a teammate on a restart, have the teammate head the ball back to the keeper, then the keeper can catch it and punt it away??

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
We will not go into your former way of restarting play, other than to say that it is certainly not correct now.

If play was stopped for a caution, then
(1) there was no foul;
(2) it doesn’t matter whether the ball was just laying there, being played by someone, or being held by the goalkeeper;
(3) giving the restart to the goalkeeper was (a) valid only if it was an opponent who committed the misconduct and (b) beyond the referee’s authority since the indirect free kick restart can be conducted by anyone on the GK’s team (assuming the offense was by an opponent).  The questioner’s scenario makes it appear that he believes the GK must perform the IFK (because he was holding the ball at the time?).

Explaining about pass backs and trickery etc. is also beyond the referee’s authority unless the players were very young (of course, the referee could respond to a brief, direct question about the Law if asked by a player).

Finally, if the restart is any sort of kick by the goalkeeper (DFK, IFK, GK, or CK — we exclude penalty kicks solely for practical reasons), “flicking” the ball to a teammate who then heads it back to the ‘keeper cannot be considered trickery since there would be no possibility of a so-called “pass back” offense occurring anyway.  The trickery rule has to be based on the restart of kicking the ball deliberately to the goalkeeper. If there is no possibility of the offense by the goalkeeper handling the ball after it has been kicked deliberately kicked by a teammate, then there is also no possibility of the misconduct.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

TRICKERY?

Posted on by

Question:
I am returning back to refereeing after a 16-year absence. I am currently taking the Grade 8 course, and at our last meeting we were discussing Law 12 regarding infractions requiring a re-start with an IFK. You have to remember that 16 years ago, a ball played back to the keeper in the penalty area (who subsequently handled the ball) was not an infraction. Therefore, I was paying particular attention during this segment of the class. We discussed a throw-in to the keeper who handles the ball “directly” from a teammate would be considered a violation, and restarted with an IFK.

The instructor then gave the following scenario:

A throw-in is taken, and “flicked” by a teammate to the Keeper who subsequently handles the ball inside his penalty area.

What is the violation, if any, asked the Instructor.

My response was, No violation. My belief was that since it did not involve a “deliberate kick” to the Keeper that no violation had occurred.

The Instructor’s interpretation was that this was an effort to circumvent the law, and would therefore constitute trickery. IFK to the other team.

I continued to disagree, and was referredd to “Advice to Referees”. 12.21 of the ATR specifically states that “Referees should take care not to consider as “trickery” any sequence of play that offers a fair chance for opponents to challenge for the ball before it is handled by the goalkeeper from a throw-in”.

Could you please give me some direction, because I plan on revisiting this subject at our meeting tonight.

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
First, the situation involving a throw-in directly to a goalkeeper by a teammate of the goalkeeper is not an example of the so-called “pass back” to the goalkeeper, it is an entirely separate indirect free kick foul which is listed in Law 12.  The only things they have in common is that the action starts with a teammate, followed by the ball going directly to the hands of the goalkeeper, and that it is one of several indirect free kick violations by a goalkeeper designed by the Laws of the Game to discourage instances when, because the ball is being held by the goalkeeper, opponents cannot legally challenge for control.

Second, the “trickery” issue is misconduct, not a foul, and is therefore governed by a different set of requirements (in fact, the misconduct itself is being committed by the teammate, not the goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper does not even need to touch the ball in order for the misconduct to be committed).

Third, as a foul, the “pass back” or the “throw back” offenses are rare; as misconduct, “trickery” is even more uncommon.  Whereas the foul only requires the referee to see where the ball came from (kick from a teammate, throw-in by a teammate), the trickery offense requires evaluating what is going on around the play in question and why (in the opinion of the referee) the play was performed this way.

The ATR which you cited makes it clear that “trickery” should not be considered if the opponents had a fair chance to challenge for the ball.  If the referee decides they did not and that is why this sequence was performed, then “trickery” should be considered.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

SHINGUARDS

Posted on by

Question:
While doing  a pre-game inspection of players prior to a game, I noticed that one of the boys was wearing shin guards that were totally inadequate to protect more than a few inches of his shin — they were about the size of a mens’ wallet. I told him that I would not allow him to play until he found some larger ones, and lo and behold, he did. I later mentioned this to the referee,but he told me that I had no authority in the matter, and if the player wanted to risk his legs, so be it. I disagreed, pointing out that the law prohibits a player from wearing anything that presents a danger to himself, or others, but the man doing the center replied that this referred to items other than mandatory uniform.
Does the U.S.S.F have any guidance as regards this?

p.s. I think that laws or no, I was right- I want no broken legs on my watch!

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
USSF guidance follows Law 4:
Shinguards
– are covered entirely by the stockings
– are made of a suitable material (rubber, plastic, or similar substances)
– provide a reasonable degree of protection

If, in the opinion of the referee, the shinguards do not “provide a reasonable degree of protection,” then they should not be allowed.…

Coach

DENIAL OF OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY?

Posted on by

Question:
In a U15 game the keeper made a play for the ball and went to ground at the edge of the box. She fumbled the ball with her body, and both she and the ball slide outside of the box. By the time she finally grabbed the ball with her hands both she and the ball were about a foot or so outside the box, and about two-thirds of the way up from the goal line. The lead attacker had run past the keeper and the ball at this point. There were other defenders in the box, but roughly in-line with the keeper and not deep in front of the goal. As center I called a direct kick, which the attackers took immediately while the keeper with still trying to get up (no resulting goal). The attacking team’s coach was insistent that the goalkeeper should have gotten a red card. In fact he stated at halftime that a red card was “automatic” in that situation. The goal scoring opportunity did not seem “obvious” to me at the time, and in looking at 12.37(b) in the “Advice” I don’t believe that all four conditions where firmly in place, although they were certainly on the margin.

I had two very experienced refs as ARs. One (on my end of the field but on opposite side of the play) agreed with my call. The trailing AR thought I should have at least shown the keeper a yellow card but did not want to second guess the details given his position.

(a) Should I have ejected the keeper in this case? (b) Would a yellow card been appropriate and why (the keeper appeared to have made an error in confusion)? (c) If the keeper is ejected at this point is it appropriate to allow the defenders time to designate and suit up a replacement before the direct kick?

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
(a) No.
(b) No.
(c) Yes; and not only would it have been appropriate, it would have been MANDATORY. Law 3 requires the team to have a goalkeeper.

And some answers to unposed questions:
(d) No matter what coaches say, there is no such thing as an “automatic red card.”
(e)  The keeper’s violation was trifling under virtually all possible readings of the circumstances.
(f) There is no need to assess the “4 Ds” for the obvious goalscoring opportunity, because there was no offense in the first place.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

QUESTION FROM A GRADE 9

Posted on by

Question:
If the ball is in play at one end of the field and I see a foul or a misconduct  at the other end or away from the play how should be ruled

USSF answer (April 14, 2008):
Thank you for an excellent question. You should stop play and deal with the infringement in accordance with the Law, even if that means, for example, awarding a penalty kick at the far end of the field. Now, if only some of our more experienced referees would recognize this fact, we would all be better off.…