Month: February 2011

"Inventive" Refs

DOGSO-F

Posted on by

Question:
I have a question about some wording in the ATR guide. We have a local facebook group where one of the guys posted this scenario:

A defender is taking a free kick outside of the penalty area and passes the ball back to where he thinks the goalkeeper is. The goalkeeper, in actuality isn’t there and now the ball is rolling towards an empty net. The defender realizes an attacker is charging at the ball with intent to score. Just before the attacker reaches the ball to shoot it in, the defender slides in a taps the ball away with his foot. The second touch by the defender is an infringement resulting in an IFK — Should it also be DOGSO-F? Should the defender be sent off?

In the ATR 12:37, it says a DOGSO when a player or substitute “(b) denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick”.

Is a second touch considered an offence or infringement? If it’s not a DOGSO, then perhaps the wording needs to be changed in the ATR so that this statement can’t be taken out of context.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
Please remember that the acronym DOGSO-F does not exist in the Laws of the Game. It is simply a device to aid the referee’s memory. In accordance with Law 12, sending-off offense 5, a player, substitute or substituted player may be sent off if he commits any offense “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.” The F in the acronym stands for “free kick or penalty kick,” not “foul.”

Is the second touch an infringement punishable by an indirect free kick for the opposing team? Yes, it is. May the defender be sent off for this infringement in the scenario you present? No, because there is no obvious goalscoring opportunity (as the ball going into the goal directly would result in a corner kick for the opposing team) and thus no obvious goalscoring opportunity has been denied.

There is no need to revise the Advice in this regard.

Further clarification:
Denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity in the express language of Law 12 requires that the offense be committed against an opponent who is moving toward the offender’s goal at the time of the offense. The offense which is central to this scenario was not committed against any opponent, much less one moving toward the player’s goal at the time. The language of Law 12 is very clear—we assume purposely—about separating out two different reasons for sending a defender off for a so-called tactical or “professional” foul: one is handling, which is not committed against any opponent but against the Spirit of the Game, and the second is any other kind of foul which IS committed against a specific opponent. One cannot help but conclude from this that a foul or misconduct, regardless of the circumstances, which is not committed against an opponent and which is not handling is therefore not a sending-off offense under Law 12 (at least not under reasons #4 or #5. If it was a tactical foul (which this was not) and was the offender’s second caution, then there would be a send-off, just not under sending-off reasons #4 or #5.

Nor is sending-off reason #4 at issue, because it is limited solely to a handling offense, not just touching the ball (which might include a second touch offense).…

"Inventive" Refs

MISUSE OF THE ADVANTAGE

Posted on by

Question:
situation: a forward was supposedly fouled outside the box but the ref played the advantage & allowed the forward to play on.

the fouled player maintained the ball & took an unimpeded shot on goal. he missed. the ref then called the ball back to where he said the foul occurred for a direct free kick. should the ref have called it back after he let the team play on til he shot on goal? the ref only made the call to bring the ball back after the player missed his shot.

USSF answer (February 22, 2011):
The referee cannot guarantee that a goal will be scored when he or she invokes the advantage. If this player had an unimpeded shot on goal, then the advantage has been fulfilled and the referee MUST NOT go back to the foul. Life is hard; shoot better next time.…

Law 18 - Common Sense

HELP IN RETRIEVING THE BALL OUT OF PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
What limits, if any, apply to participation of outside agents in retrieving a ball that has left the field of play and/or expediting the process of returning the ball to play?

Example: In a U-19 boys game the red goalkeeper collects the ball near the top of his own penalty area and kicks it high and long toward the blue goal. After the ball has been kicked, Red players R1, R2 and R3 streak across the halfway line into the blue half, hoping to collect the ball. They run past B1, the lone Blue defender (other than the keeper) in the Blue half. B1 manages to settle the kick from the red keeper, then kicks it sharply toward the touch line where the Blue substitutes, team officials and spectators are standing. B1’s intent is to give his teammates time to return to the defensive end while the Red team retrieves the ball and executes the throw-in. However, an outside agent (substitute, team official or spectator) catches the ball on the fly about 10 feet outside the touch line and chest-passes it briskly to R4 who has just left the field where the ball went into touch. R4 receives the ball and immediately executes a strong throw-in toward R1/2/3 who manage to score. What should the referee do?

Related question: Under what circumstances, if any, can/should an AR arrest a ball that has passed into touch in his immediate vicinity?

USSF answer (February 5, 2011):
Given the particular questions you ask, the answers are:
1. There are no limits unless the “helpers” are not helping expedite the restart. If the “helpers” are delaying the restart, the referee must step in and put an end to it. (Remember no cards may be shown to coaches or spectators unless the rules of the competition allow for that.) The referee must also add any time lost because of the delay.

2. Unless the ball is about to fall into the clutches of greedy alligators or disappear into a wormhole, there is no reason for the AR to touch the ball in any way. Seriously, the AR should act only if needed to protect himself from being struck. It is almost instinctive (particularly if the AR is a former or current player) to want to stop the ball in an effort to be “helpful,” but this is a misplaced act of good will,because in doing so the AR has actually helped the team with the throw-in to restart more quickly that might have otherwise been the case. And if the AR fails to do the same thing for the other team at any time for any reason, they may think the AR is favoring their opponents. Furthermore, stopping the ball draws attention away from the AR’s main, Law-mandated responsibilities.…

Indoor

KEEPING TIME IN INDOOR SOCCER

Posted on by

Question:
In indoor soccer, if a ball is struck BEFORE but crosses the goal line AFTER the final whistle, has a goal been scored or is the game over immediately upon the final whistle?

USSF answer (February 4, 2010):
We cannot speak to whatever rules may be played at the arena you use, but normally with indoor rules you have to live with the arena horn. The rule states: “. . . the whole of the ball must cross the goal line BEFORE the horn begins to sound for a goal to be scored.” We suspect that is why pro indoor uses goal judges, even though the referees on the floor have the final decision.  …

Indoor

TIME-OUTS IN FUTSAL

Posted on by

Question:
This is a question on a futsal game. If a coach ask for a time out does the timekeeper stop the clock?

USSF answer (February 1, 2011):
Yes, but not right away. In futsal, only one time-out is lowed to each team in each half of play. The time-out may be requested at any time, but is only given when the ball is out of play and the team that is requesting the time-out has possession on the restart. Only when the referee acknowledges and signals that a time-out has been granted to a team does the timekeeper actually stop the game clock. Once the one-minute time-out is over, the referees signals that the time-out is over and the players on both teams should return to the pitch. The clock then only restarts again after the referee signals the restart AND when the ball is correctly put back into play by the team that requested the time-out.…

"Inventive Coaches"

RETAKE OF A FREE KICK?

Posted on by

Question:
In a match this past weekend, our team committed a foul resulting in a direct free for the opposing team (about 30 yards from goal). The winds were roughly 20-30 miles per hour that day. In this case, the wind was at the kicker’s back. Our boys set up a wall and the opposing player kicked the ball harmlessly over the crossbar. The referee blew his whistle and showed the kicker a yellow (I’m presuming for kicking when directed to wait, but that was not clarified). The referee had him kick it again. It did not score, but was a much more exciting and potentially costly attempt. My question is even though he was cautioned, should he be given another attempt or should we have been given a goal kick? If it is a “do over”, it may be a strategy to teach since it is only a yellow and the player reaps the benefit of judging the weight and reaction of the ball in the types of winds we were experiencing. Thanks for your advice!

USSF answer (February 1, 2011):
Coach, you don’t give us enough information to give a quick answer, leaving us to go three ways, although it appears alternative 1 was operative in this situation.
1. If the referee had told the kicking team to wait for his whistle (generally done by holding the whistle up and pointing to it) before taking the kick, then his action in cautioning the kicker and ordering a retake was correct.
2. If the referee had not instructed the kicking team to wait for the whistle, then the caution and the retake were not in order.
3. If the caution was for something NOT directly related to the taking of the kick, then alternative 2 may be misleading. It is also possible that the caution might have been for something else entirely unrelated (e. g., maybe the kicker committed dissent or used unsporting language — short of a red card), though we cannot imagine what it could be along these lines that it would have made it necessary to order the kick retaken. (For example, if the kicker had dissented, the referee could have given the card at the next stoppage.)

If you start coaching this, most referees will figure it out and simply go with the first kick (provided it misses the goal).…