Search Results for: dropped ball

Advice to Referees

WHISTLE FROM ADJACENT FIELD (CORRECTED)

Posted on by

Question:
When playing at a site where there are adjacent fields, could a whistle from a neighboring field be considered outside interference, especially if players on the field where it wasn’t blown react to it? If so, what criteria should be applied by the referee to determine whether it is outside interference? For example, a defender lets up on a play because he hears a whistle, thinking it is from his field, resulting in an attack and maybe a scoring chance for the other team.

USSF answer (May 23, 2009):
Follow the excellent guidelines given in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

9.2 PLAY THE REFEREE’S WHISTLE
If a whistle is heard as a result of spectator action or of activity on a nearby field and if a player, thinking that play had been stopped by the referee, then illegally handles the ball, the referee should treat this as outside interference and restart with a dropped ball*. The referee must nonetheless be aware of the possibility that a player has committed unsporting behavior (pretending unawareness that it was not the referee’s whistle) and must be prepared to deal properly with this misconduct.

…
"Only in America!"

PROTECTING THE GOALKEEPER; PITCH INVASION

Posted on by

Question:
hi, i have two question. The first questionis which rule protects the goalie. I know there is a rule that says that nobody should touch the goalie when he has possession of hte ball. The second question is about parents invading the field. Is there any rules that says anything about parents invading the field and insulting the players. IS because i had a problem on a game of boys from 7 and 8 graders, were one player from the opposite team would kick or use exesive force towards the goalie when he had the ball. After a play were one of the other team player was down, parents from the opposite team enter the field and yelled and insulted my player. I need the laws or rules that have to do with these two problems to be able to send a letter. Thank you.

USSF answer (May 14, 2009):
1. Protecting the goalkeeper:
There is no rule that “protects the goalie” from contact initiated by other players — as long as that contact is not against the requirements for a fair charge and does not happen when the goalkeeper is attempting to release the ball for others to play — in other words, to punt or throw the ball out of the penalty area.

2. Pitch invasion by parents:
No person may enter the field without the permission of the referee.

Law 3 tells us:
“Anyone not indicated on the team list as a player, substitute or team official is deemed to be an outside agent as is a player who has been sent off.

“If an outside agent enters the field of play:
– the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the outside agent does not interfere with play)
– the referee must have him removed from the field of play and its immediate surroundings
– if the referee stops the match, he must restart play with a dropped ball in the position where the ball was at the time when the match was stopped, unless the ball was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.”

However, please note that as a practical matter where rosters are not provided, anyone permitted to be in the technical area (other than substitutes, of course) is to be considered a team official.

Law 5 tells us:
The referee may stop, suspend or abandon the match for any infringements of the Laws or because of outside interference of any kind. The referee also provides the appropriate authorities with a match report, which includes information on any disciplinary action taken against players, and/or team officials and any other incidents that occurred before, during or after the match. This includes any other decision that the referee may take in accordance with the Laws of the Game or in conformity with his duties under the terms of FIFA, confederation, member association or league rules or regulations under which the match is played.

Also note that the actual entry of the outside agents (spectators) is not the only — or even the most — important issue — it is that the invaders are yelling at and berating players.  In instances of this sort of behavior, the referee would not simply drop the ball for a restart, but would would terminate the match for “grave disorder.”…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

POSSIBLE OFFENSE OFF THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
A goalkeeper and an attacking player on a fifty /fifty ball collide and slide over the goalline some 10 feet into the area inside the netting between the goal posts. The ball is stopped on the goal line.The attacker attempts to reach his leg out, intending to draw the ball back over the goalline. The keeper scambles over top of the attacker in an attempt to grab the ball pinning the attacker’s legs preventing him from doing so. A defender then manages to clear the ball from the area.

USSF answer (May 14, 2009):
Both players left the field during the course of play and thus have the permission of the referee to be where they are.  Working with your statement that the ball was still on the goal line and the goalkeeper and attacking player were fully off the field when the goalkeeper did what he did, we would suggest that the decision to be made (which only the referee on the spot can make) is whether the goalkeeper was holding the opponent back rather than merely trying to play the ball.  Your description suggests a tussle in which either could be occurring.  If both players were simply trying to disentangle themselves in a scramble to get to the ball, then what is happening is ordinary play and, although needing to be watched carefully, it should be allowed.  If the referee decides that the goalkeeper is holding the opponent to prevent him from playing the ball, then the goalkeeper is guilty of misconduct.  Since this is occurring off the field, the goalkeeper would be cautioned and play restarted with a dropped ball on the goal area line straight up from where the ball was when play was stopped (this is an example of the “special circumstances” involving restarts in the goal area).…

Advice to Referees

INTERFERENCE BY AN OUTSIDE AGENT?

Posted on by

Question:
Several of us were discussing recent games and the subject of outside agents came up. Most of us have seen banners, umbrellas, seagulls, and the occasional dog on the field. Normally these situations take care of themselves, with the exception of the dog who wants to grab the ball and run with it.

One situation we encounter is when a ball comes onto the field from a neighboring field. Usually a player just kicks it back at the first opportunity.

We saw a situation in a game where a ball comes into the penalty area. Play is not very close, so the keeper picks up the ball and kicks it back to the neighboring field. However, as she is doing so, play in her game turns around and her opponents take a shot and score.

Is this a goal or interference from an outside agent? And why?

USSF answer (May 6, 2009):
This is interference by an outside agent. To quote the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:
An “outside agent” (under any portion of the Laws of the Game) is anything that enters the field without the permission of the referee and plays or misdirects the ball or otherwise interferes with the game. This means that outside agents can be dogs or coaches or spectators. Interference by any outside agent will result in the referee declaring a stoppage of play, restarting with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped*.

If the referee was not observant enough to do what the Advice recommends, then he or she was negligent. If the nearer assistant referee did not provide assistance in this situation, then he or she was also negligent.

And then we come to the issue of terminal stupidity: We cannot help feeling that, in this case, the ‘keeper shares some culpability.  In point of fact, it could be argued that the presence of the ball by itself did not interfere with play; it was the goalkeeper’s error in deciding that she should divert her attention from her main job to do something that wasn’t strictly necessary.  We must repeat the old saying that the Laws of the Game are not intended to compensate for the mistakes of players.…

Coach

GOALKEEPER CHANGE

Posted on by

Question:
Attacking team had possession of the ball near the defending team’s goal. Meanwhile, way back at the attacking team’s goal area, with play still in progress, the attacking team’s coach had come onto the field and helped his GK take off his shirt and put it on one of his defenders

USSF answer (April 23, 2009):
And where were the referee and the assistant referee(s) and fourth official (if assigned) while all this was going on?

Law 3 (The Players) tells us what to do if a team official enters the field of play without permission:

Team Officials
If a team official enters the field of play:
– the referee must stop play (although not immediately if the team official does not interfere with play or if the advantage can be applied)
– the referee must have him removed form the field of play and if his behavior is irresponsible the referee must expel him from the field of play and its immediate surroundings
– if the referee stops the match, he must restart play with a dropped ball in the position where the ball was at the time when the match was stopped, unless the ball was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was when play was stopped.

We must emphasize how significant a factor in this is the age of the players.  No need to get upset about this, but we suggest “educating” the coach at the first opportunity) for kids in the below 8 or 9 year age range.  We might be tolerant eveh at an age level 1-2 years older than this if it was apparent (out of the corner of my eye) that the GK had become so hopelessly entangled in his jersey that he was virtually wrapped up in a straight jacket.  Anything older than this or short of these circumstances, the players get cautions, the coach is informed that it is entirely his fault, and full details of the incident are included in the game report.

We also suggest that the nearer assistant or fourth official commit seppuku for allowing this to happen.…

"Inventive" Refs

INEFFECTUAL REFEREE

Posted on by

Question:
High level U15 girls national championship series preliminary match. To set the scene – Game is tied 0-0 in the second half. White goalie comes out to near 18 and makes a save. Ball comes loose and blue forward hits ball off goalie. Goalie jumps on ball outside the 18 and is called for handling. Goalie then proceeds to argue with CR for 30-45 seconds (I believe stating that she had control when the blue player hit the ball which is not what I saw or what the CR saw). CR does not issue caution and says after the game that “this was a high level state cup game and emotions were high” so she did not issue a caution (AR stated during game that he would have cautioned keeper).

With 4 minutes left in game and white winning 1-0, white keeper makes another save and trips blue player just inside the 18. CR blows whistle and issues keeper (who is still holding the ball) a caution.

After a short discussion with keeper, CR backs off and allows keeper to punt. After the game, CR states that caution was for dissent and that she would have just dropped the ball to the keeper and allowed her to punt and since there was not much time left, she just allowed the keeper to punt.

How should this have been handled?

USSF answer (April 21, 2009):
While we might agree with the referee’s initial decision not to caution the goalkeeper for dissent because of the high emotional level of the game, we do not recommend allowing protracted sessions of “discussion” with any player. The referee should state her decision, take care of business (if any), and get on with the game. (And the AR should have kept his mouth shut unless speaking directly to the referee.)

The second decision raises three areas of concern.
– First, the caution for dissent may or may not have been correct, but if the referee saw it that way, then it was correct. We wonder if it should not have been for unsporting behavior (reckless play in tripping the opponent).
– The second area of concern is the possibility that there was an obvious goalscoring opportunity — we don’t have any details to determine one way or another.
– The third area of concern is the way the game was restarted — or “continued,” as a punt is definitely not a way to restart the game. A dropped ball is not possible. A punt is clearly an abomination. If the caution was for dissent, the only legal restart is an indirect free kick (not a dropped ball) for the opposing team where the goalkeeper committed the dissent.  However, if the caution was for the goalkeeper tripping the opponent, then the correct restart is a direct free kick or, in this case, a penalty kick.…

Advice to Referees

THROW-IN AT FACE OF OPPONENT

Posted on by

Question:
The following two clips are generating a lot of discussion among some referee groups. The two clips are very similar and seem to have the same issues.

How should the referee address these situations?

USSF answer (April 19, 2009):
Note for clarity in answer:
Situation 1 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVAD8Zl5ngg&NR=1 (White throw)
Situation 2 = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewqy5EDrenw&NR=1 (Blue throw)

You indicate that these games are being played at college level. We could not possibly comment on how the game is officiated under NCAA rules, but, if these games were being played under the Laws of the Game, we could say several things about the acts of the throwers and the opponents and the officiating itself.

First, players at this level know the tactics of their opponents, especially of the throw-in specialists, and in these two games they were seeking to negate the thrower’s skills by placing a player at a spot to interfere with the thrower’s ability to gain distance. In addition, there is the added element of coaching: In the game (Situation 1) in which the White player throws the ball at the Blue player, one can clearly hear the coach telling the Blue player to “Move up, move up!” The coach is obviously asking his player to distract and impede the thrower.

Nevertheless, we cannot condone the tactics of the throwers in either situation. In both cases, the throwers have committed violent conduct and must be sent off. Note in Situation 1 that in the second throw-in the thrower elevates his throw so as to miss the Blue opponent, as well as a coach or other person advising the Blue player to cover his face.

Second, although it is not required at a throw-in, the referee and the AR could have been proactive and moved the player who was attempting to unfairly impede the thrower back the required two meters from the point of the throw-in. (The referee could, in addition to sending-off the throwers, have cautioned the opponents for unsporting behavior, but that would depend on factors not in evidence in these clips.)

We are puzzled by several aspects of officiating in the first situation: Play is stopped following the ball in the face.  For what?  If the whistle was blown for a “serious injury” to the opponent but the throw was deemed good and legal, then (a) the opponent should have been required to leave the field and the restart should have been a dropped ball.  If play was stopped because the throw was deemed legal but striking occurred, then the restart (after a red card for the thrower) should have been a direct free kick.  If play was stopped because the opponent failed to respect the required distance, only then could the throw-in be retaken but again the opponent should have been cautioned.  (And it is likely that the opponent would have been struck in the face even if he had been the required distance away.)

in both cases, the matter should have handled in accordance with 15.8 of the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

15.8 THROW-IN STRIKES AN OPPONENT
A throw-in taken in such a way that the ball strikes an opponent is not by itself a violation of the Law. The act must be evaluated separately as a form of striking and dealt with appropriately if judged to be unsporting behavior (caution) or violent conduct (send off from the field). In either event, if deemed a violation, the restart is located at the place where the throw-in struck the opponent. If the throw-in is deemed to have been taken incorrectly, the correct restart is a throw-in.

…
Interpretations/IFAB

MISCONDUCT OFF THE FIELD

Posted on by

Question:
An attacker goes down the wing, cuts in very close to the end line, enters the box, evades a defender and then the keeper comes to challenge along the end line. The attacker slips the ball between the keeper’s legs and runs around him off the pitch with the intention of collecting the ball on the other side and tapping it into the net.

However, the keeper grabs him by the ankles and brings him down (off the pitch). Is it a penalty (and a red card) or since the offence took place off the pitch is it a hop ball and a caution for the keeper for ungentlemanly conduct? Anyone know?

USSF answer (March 18, 2009):
Coach, if a player leaves the field to commit misconduct, the minimum punishment is a caution for unsporting behavior. We responded to this problem back on 24 February and what follows is a slightly modified version of that response, designed to answer your question. One caveat: It is not clear to us where the ‘keeper grabbed the attacker by the ankles. If it was while the player and the ‘keeper were on the field, but the player fell off the field, then the restart would be a penalty kick.

Regarding misconduct off the field of play: In its guidelines for 2008/2009, the International Board in effect created two scenarios for when the referee stops play for misconduct committed off the field by a player. In the first case, the referee must decide if the player left the field in the normal course of play and, while off the field committed the offense. In this case, after dealing with the misconduct, the referee will restart play with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area). However, if the referee decides that the player left the field for the purpose of committing the offense and after dealing with the misconduct, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area).

In the first case, a dropped ball is the correct restart, based on the fact that misconduct was committed off the field. In the second case, an indirect free kick is the correct restart because the player has illegally left the field before committing the restart.

One must remember that the indirect free kick restart is not for the misconduct committed off the field, but for the illegal exit from the field.

That, of course, opens up an interesting discussion of whether, since misconduct was committed in the departure as well as in the conduct off the field, then it would follow that the referee could also give a second yellow and then a red. But that decision would be up to the referee on that game, at that moment, with those players, and in that specific situation.

Not dealt with here is the matter of whether or not this act of misconduct involved the use of excessive force, which would result in a sending off of the goalkeeper.

We hope this answers your question.…

Interpretations/IFAB

LEAVING THE FIELD AND COMMITTING MISCONDUCT

Posted on by

Question:
Today at a referee clinic, we discussed the new memorandum about when players leave the field to commit misconduct. Unless I understood incorrectly, I believe that they said that if a player is running and leaves the field of play to strike an AR, it would be a dropped ball. They said that since the misconduct was not against an opponent, a dropped ball is the only possible restart.

However, looking at the memorandum now, it does not specify whether or not that misconduct must occur against an opponent, just that the intent to misconduct was the reason for leaving the field of play. By this logic, wouldn’t there be a IFK for the opposing team?

Additionally, if a player left the field to strike a substitute on his/her own team, would that also be an IFK?

USSF answer (February 24, 2009):
We assume you refer to Supplementary Memorandum 2008/2009, which contains this information:

Law 12
In its guidelines, the International Board has in effect created two scenarios for when the referee stops play for misconduct committed off the field by a player. In the first case, the referee must decide if the player left the field in the normal course of play and, while off the field committed the offense. In this case, after dealing with the misconduct, the referee will restart play with a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area). However, if the referee decides that the player left the field for the purpose of committing the offense and after dealing with the misconduct, play is restarted with an indirect free kick for the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped (except for the special circumstances involving restarts in the goal area).

In the first case, a dropped ball is the correct restart based on the fact that misconduct was committed off the field. In the second case, an indirect free kick is the correct restart because the player has illegally left the field before committing the restart.

Please remember that misconduct is misconduct, not necessarily involving any foul, and may be committed by a player, a substitute, or a substituted player against anyone, anywhere, and at any time. A foul, on the other hand, is any unfair or unsafe act committed ONLY BY A PLAYER, against an opponent (or the opposing team), on the field, and while the ball is in play.

We hope that your instructor had the knowledge and wisdom to explain to everyone in the clinic that the indirect free kick restart is not for the misconduct committed off the field, but for the illegal exit from the field.

That, of course, opens up an interesting discussion of whether, since misconduct was committed in the departure as well as in the conduct off the field, then it would follow that the referee could also give a second yellow and then a red. But that decision would be up to the referee on that game, at that moment, with those players, and in that specific situation.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

WHAT TO DO?

Posted on by

Question:
[I and a friend] were discussing testing questions and the famous ‘opponent entangled in the net’ scenario came up.

==
” opponent enters the goal during dynamic play and becomes entangled in the net …. keeper then steps into the goal and punches opponent ”    ….

The question is whether, after the well-deserved Send-Off, the correct restart is a Dropped Ball due to action off the field …. or an Indirect Free Kick due to the fact that the player [ GK ] left the field to commit the misconduct -as indicated by  note 5 under 12.35 in current versions of ATR.

At some point in time, we were taught that the restart was a dropped ball. We are guessing that under the current interpretation, the correct restart is now IFK    …. this would make sense to keep things consistent.

If there are any exceptions, please explain.

USSF answer (December 11, 2008):
In cases like this, the restart is governed by what occurred first. As we all know, players are permitted to leave the field during the course of play to avoid obstacles or to show that they are not involved in a possible offside situation, so the player who left the field has done nothing wrong — unless there is some evidence that he or she was taunting or using inappropriate language against the goalkeeper. The new supplemental memorandum (commenting on this year’s Interpretations section of the Lawbook) makes it clear that leaving the field for the purpose of committing misconduct is by definition NOT “leaving the field in the normal course of play” and therefore the goalkeeper’s act of leaving the field without permission to attack the player in the net governs the restart, an indirect free kick from the place where the ball was when that occurred (keeping in mind the requirements of Law 13). The restart cannot take place until the goalkeeper has been shown the red card and dismissed for violent conduct (and the other player has been punished, if that is warranted by what went on).…