Question:
In clause 12.20 of the ATR, is the operative interpretation “deliberately kicked” or kicked “deliberately to the goalkeeper” by a teammate?

In one of my recent games, white attacker in possession of the ball is moving toward blue’s goal, with blue defender challenging shoulder to shoulder. Blue defender wins possession and kicks the ball away from the white attacker. Blue goalkeeper, while still in her own penalty area, moves toward the ball and picks it up. Clearly the blue defender “deliberately kicked” the ball. But she didn’t necessarily kick the ball “deliberately to the goal keeper”.

Has the goalkeeper committed an infraction?

USSF answer (February 12, 2009):
We think the Advice is quite clear as it stands but will address the matter here.

Two answers to the first question: (a) Both. “Deliberately kicked” or “kicked deliberately” mean that there was some forethought to the player’s action; the player knew where he or she wanted the ball to go and kicked it there. On the other hand, an obvious attempt to clear the ball that happens to run to the ‘keeper is not punishable, nor is a ball that is obviously miskicked. (b) “To the goalkeeper” means directly to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can conveniently play the ball.

Second question: If, in the opinion of the referee, … .

We add a final note, meant solely to clarify for referees (and, unfortunately, many instructors, too) that the phrasing MUST NOT be interpreted as “kicked with the intent that the ball go to the goalkeeper.” “Deliberately” modifies “kick” and not the direction (meaning the totality of the direction “to the goalkeeper”) which is why the kick must be deliberate and the direction must be deliberate (i. e., not a miskick) but the direction itself doesn’t have to be the specific direction of “to the goalkeeper.”…

Question:
There was a karate kick to the lower back of player in a Premiership game recently (Liverpool vs Chelsea). Transfer that scenario to USSF territory in our minds so you can comment on the happenings. The refs missed the kick, oops. The Liverpool player was holding the corner flag before the kick. Isn’t that not allowed to hold the flag? Could this assault possibly be avoided by penalizing the Liverpool player for holding onto the corner flag? What level of play would that call be considered trifling?

USSF answer (February 7, 2009):
The referee in this game was most likely unable to see the play, but it occurred directly in front of the assistant referee. We need to remember that, just like the goalposts, the corner flagposts are considered to be part of the field. Players routinely make contact with both the goalposts and the flagposts. Doing so is not an infringement of the Laws. If you need a reference, see the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which says:

1.8 DEALING WITH APPURTENANCES TO THE FIELD AND OUTSIDE AGENTS
(a) Required appurtenances
These are the goals, corner flags, and flagposts required by Law 1. Contact between these appurtenances and the ball or players is a normal part of play and requires no special consideration in determining the restart.//rest snipped//

We cannot comment on the apparent foul and misconduct by the Chelsea player; however, we would agree with you that making contact with the corner flag for nefarious purposes would be just as illegal, say, as throwing a rock, and for the same reasons and judged on the same standards. But the thought of punishing the sort of actual contact with the post in this case, a means of forestalling being charged by one opponent and kicked by another opponent, is just plain weird.…

Question:
I saw an interesting situation recently in an international Friendly (Germany-England). The ball had been pushed forward by a German midfielder, and was being shepherded by an English defender to the goalkeeper. A German attacker, who had been in an offside position when the ball was pushed forward, “interfered with play” – he reached between the defender’s legs and played the ball, eventually eluding the goalkeeper and scoring. I originally assumed the AR made a mistake (it was an off&on offside situation). I later considered, however, that “possession and control” by an opponent will “reset” the offside condition, which leads me to ask whether shielding/shepherding the ball counts as “possession and control” in terms of resetting offside.

USSF answer (December 9, 2008):
As you note, the attacking forward’s offside position could still come into play here. If, as pointed out in Advice to Referees 11.14 (Becoming “Onside”), the ball is played (possessed and controlled, not simply deflected) by an opponent, including the opposing goalkeeper, then the offside position must be reevaluated. If, in the opinion of the referee, the defending player had established possession, then the forward is relieved of the burden of the former offside position and may play the ball. However, if the defender is not in possession — in the opinion of the referee — the forward must be called for the offside.

In this case, for purposes of deciding if the defender’s actions constitute “possession and control” and thus reset the offside position decision, we believe the defender cannot be “in possession” if he is merely shielding the ball, assuming that by “shielding the ball” you mean nothing more than interposing the body without making any contact with the ball.  In short, shielding the ball does not mean “in possession” in this specific context and thus the terms of Advice 11.14 have not been fulfilled. Decision: Offside.…

Question:
This came out of a recent tournament. U12B game; young referee in center; myself and a very experienced referee as AR’s.

The players had been getting a little out of hand, with several instances of late charges„ shoulder of the defender to the back of shoulder of the attacker, after the defender was beaten, rather than shoulder to shoulder. At the half-time break I suggested to the CR that he should watch for these, calling them to help calm down the game.

The other AR agreed, but also asked the question (teaching mode), When is shoulder to back contact allowed? The CR and I thought that this was never allowed, although the foul might be trifling and therefore not called.

The other AR gave as his answer that when the ball is on the goal line, and a defender is legally shielding the ball, an attacker can initiate shoulder to back contact to move the defender off the ball.

I asked for a reference and later (after the game), he told me it was either in the ATR or a memorandum. I have been unable to find this interpretation.

This is important to me because, as I progress up to calling older players, I am seeing this situation. I don’t want to award a DFK (or a PK!) for a legal charge.

Also, where does the “shoulder” stop? I know that sounds funny, but the ATR in Section 12.5 refers to “the area of the shoulder” as opposed to “toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area) .” Is a charge with the shoulder of one player making contact with the shoulder blade of the opponent legal? I had always thought not.

USSF answer (November 18, 2008):
We are always pleased to give anatomy lessons. In the “shoulder-to-shoulder” charge, the shoulder is indeed composed of “the area of the shoulder.” In other words, the shoulder blade or the front part of the body where the arm and the upper chest meet. All of this is spelled out quite carefully in the Advice to Referees, as you note:

12.5 CHARGING
The act of charging an opponent can be performed without it being called as a foul. Although the fair charge is commonly defined as “shoulder to shoulder,” this is not a requirement and, at certain age levels where heights may vary greatly, may not even be possible. Furthermore, under many circumstances, a charge may often result in the player against whom it is placed falling to the ground (a consequence, as before, of players differing in weight or strength). The Law does require that the charge be directed toward the area of the shoulder and not toward the center of the opponent’s back (the spinal area): in such a case, the referee should recognize that such a charge is at minimum reckless and potentially even violent. (See also Advice 12.14.)

That is the traditional area of “the shoulder” in soccer, as defined since time immemorial.…