Question:
We have recently come across a situation in a game where an opposing coach and I are not in agreement on a call based upon our prior experiences as well as our interpretation of the laws of the game. I am hopeful you can clarify the situation and provide us with the correct decision. Below, please find a brief description of the incident and our two interpretations.

In the game a couple of weeks ago, a keeper was in the process of punting a ball to her team mates at the top of the penalty area. However, in the process of preparing to punt the ball, she took at least two running steps outside the penalty area while holding the ball. The referee immediately blew his whistle and awarded a direct free kick from the spot of the infraction, which was about one and one half yards outside the penalty area. The kick resulted in a goal scored by one of my players. However, the opposing coach did not agree with the call and felt our team should have been awarded an indirect free kick if any award was to be given for the infraction. The opposing coach felt a warning would have been a more appropriate call since he felt the steps taken by his keeper were not done intentionally. The game continued without any incident but we both felt our interpretation of the laws of the game were correct.

Since the incident occurred in the game, we have both reviewed the laws of the game and come up with different conclusions. We are very interested in finding out the correct decision, but please understand we are not involved in any contentious discussion over the situation now or at the time of the game. I will include both of our interpretations so you can share your thoughts regarding the matter and help educate two soccer coaches.

In my interpretation, I feel a direct free kick is the correct call based upon the laws of the game I have posted below as well as my previous experience with this type of call in prior years. Since the keeper handled the ball outside the box, I feel the laws related to a player handling the ball deliberately is the most relevant law associated with the situation especially since the goalkeeper was outside the penalty area.

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences:
//snipped//
– handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

The opposing coach feels first and foremost, the referee should have given the player a warning but if the referee felt compelled to award a free kick, the FIFA rule for an indirect free kick should have applied as follows:
An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
– plays in a dangerous manner
– impedes the progress of an opponent
– prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
– commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player
The indirect free kick is taken from where the offence occurred.

The opposing coach feels that the word deliberate in the laws related to the four offenses mentioned above means the player handled the ball with “intent” and since the opposing coach felt the player did not intend to gain an advantage, the rules for an indirect kick should apply.

I feel a keeper holding onto a ball is doing so deliberately and consequently should be called for the offense if they step out of the box.

Since we are bound to run into this situation again some time down the road, I would really love to hear the proper ruling regarding the matter. The opposing coach has a wonderful team and our players get along very well together, but we are both interested in seeking the proper ruling. Interestingly, he has asked officials from his town and they support the idea an indirect kick should have been awarded if the referee felt the need to make any call to begin with. I have sought advice from referees and the director of soccer in my town and received confirmation the correct decision was made and a direct kick should have been awarded. I find it amazing we can have so many differences in opinion over the same situation and am very hopeful there is a clear ruling on this matter. I would hate to feel this type of situation is subject to different interpretations to the laws of the game which quite frankly, would make it difficult for any referee to make a call.

Thank you in advance for your help with this matter and I anxiously look forward to hearing back from you.

Answer (October 12, 2007):
Under the Laws of the Game your interpretation is absolutely and indisputably correct: The proper restart would be a direct free kick for the opposing team just outside the penalty area, at the spot where the goalkeeper first deliberately handled the ball outside her own penalty area. So, having stated the facts and feeling very magnanimous, let’s look at the opposing coach’s side as well.

There is some merit in what the other coach says about the “intent” behind the ‘keeper’s infringement and the fact that the referee might have given her a warning to be more careful in the future. And that is something the referee might do, depending on what has been happening in the game up to this point — earlier actions of the goalkeeper, for example. His point about the indirect free kick, however, is a red herring and not apposite here as none of the points under Indirect Free Kick occurred.

While the referee may choose the best solution from among the possibilities available, in this case the only possibility under the Law is direct free kick. (This is clear from the two citations from Law 12, so nothing more need be said on that.) The word “deliberate” would not apply in any case, as the goalkeeper was indeed already DELIBERATELY handling the ball when she left the penalty area; the fact that she (possibly inadvertently) left the penalty area does not change that fact and the referee could punish her for it, as happened in your case. Again, if the referee believed that the goalkeeper’s departure from the penalty area while still deliberately handling the ball was inadvertent or trifling (i. e., it made no difference in the way play ran or continued), then a simple warning after play had next stopped would have been sufficient.

Remember that the “correct” solution is not always the “best” solution. The intelligent referee will know the difference.…

Question:
There was a situation in a game that I witnessed today that raised some concern.

Team B had scored a goal. At this point they were losing 5-2. Team A , (ahead), recovered the ball in order to kick off and restart the game. As the player from Team A was carrying the ball back to the center without unnecessary delay, a player from Team B punched at the ball in order to dislodge it from the player on Team A. The player from Team A was able to retain possession of the ball and continued to advance toward the center of the field. The player from Team B at this time punched the player from Team A in the arm, again attempting to dislodge the ball.

No fouls were called.

Two questions come up, does the team against whom the goal was scored have the right to advance the ball back to center, as long as it is done without delay of the game? Who legally has possession of the ball after the goal is scored. Obviously the player who threw the punch is in gross misconduct of the laws of the game and should have been sent off, but was not. Only wondering about who can legally advance the ball back to kick off.

Answer (October 9, 2007):
The reason no “fouls” were called during the movement of the ball back to the center of the field is that no foul may be committed when play has already been stopped. The referee should have punished both players for their misconduct.

After the referee has stopped play for the goal, the ball, although “dead” until play is restarted with a kick-off, does belong to the team against which the goal was scored. Traditionally the ball is carried back to the center spot by the team against which the goal was scored (Team A). A player who provokes confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play may be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. (See the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the Laws of the Game 2007/2008.) This would be the case of the player from the scoring team (B) who was interfering with the Team A player carrying the ball to the center of the field.

The team which has possession (A) may “allow” the opposing team to hold/transfer/carry/etc. the ball by acceding to the action (i.e., not disputing it). However, the opposing team does this at its peril. In the incident cited, Team B, perhaps believing that A was moving too slowly to carry the ball back to the center circle for the kick-off, tried to take the ball that “belonged” to Team A. Team B has no right at any time to request that the ball be given over to it (including such childish behavior as attempting to punch the ball out of the Team A player’s control, and even less to punch the opponent’s arm directly).

The Team B player should have been cautioned for delaying the restart of play when he/she initially tried to take the ball away from Team A. If this had occurred, perhaps the subsequent punch by B would have been avoided. If the two actions happened so closely together that the referee had no time to issue the caution, then the Team B player should have been sent off for violent conduct and the attempt to delay the restart included in the match report as additional misconduct.…

Question:
Today I was playing in a game it was roughly the 50th minute. I had been in my opinion fouled outside the box I was minorly injured on the play so I stayed down for a few seconds then the ref came over to me as I was trying to get up and resume play he told me “You should pull your shinguards up” in an agressive tone as I was trying to get up and keep playing I told him to “Shut Up” and I was immediatley shown the red card and I had had no previous infringement the rest of the game prior to that. What would be the referee’s correct action?

Answer (October 2, 2007):
This is a trick question, right? You are pulling our leg on this one, right?

Let’s get two things straight from the start: (1) The only opinion that counts in this game is that of the referee. If he believed that you had been fouled, he would likely have called it. In this case he chose not to believe that. (2) The referee’s primary job in the game is to protect the players, especially from physical injury, but in some cases also from psychological injury. It would seem that the referee discerned that you were suffering from a temporary mental problem and he chose to remind you that your health comes first.

As to the punishment: What you did is called using “offensive or insulting or abusive language and/or gestures,” and it is indeed a send-off offense. By your attitude, from which he was trying to protect you in the first place, you forced him to send you off. Please remember this in the future.…

Question:
In a youth soccer match, a player from Team A is cautioned and leaves the field for a substitute. He immediately desires to return to the game and goes to the halfway line to await the next substitution opportunity. During subsequent play the ball crosses the touch line. Thinking that it is now a substitution opportunity for Team A, the assistant referee raises his flag to signal substitution. Prior to being beckoned by the center referee, the substitute runs onto the field. The throw-in has been awarded by the referee to Team B. Team B takes the throw-in. With the ball back in play, the center referee notices that there are now 12 men on the field. He stops play and issues a caution to the player who left the field after he stopped play rather than the substitute. Is this correct procedure?

Answer (September 14, 2007):
This is one of those problems that could be fixed easily if the officials would only pay a bit more attention to their responsibilities and communicate better with one another. In fact, because of the officials’ errors, both players should be cautioned: the player who was on the field left without the referee’s permission and the substitute who came in entered the field without the referee’s permission.

However, a grain of intelligence might force the referee to use common sense to caution neither player and simply have them resume their original places and then conduct the substitution correctly.…

Question:
Suppose a team begins engaging in persistent and organized misconduct. At every stoppage in play the team delays the restart by either picking up or kicking away the ball. Obviously, players engaging in delay should be cautioned, but this team is sophisticated enough to ensure that only players who have not yet been cautioned cause the delay. It is further complicated because it is a youth match with free substitution (and a deep bench) so that the pattern can continue for quite some time before players begin being sent-off for a second caution.

One local (and highly respected) referee suggests that upon recognizing the pattern of persistent/team misconduct, the referee can immediately issue two cautions to the next player who delays a restart (and send him off) — the first caution for the delay and the second for persistent infringement — thus thwarting the organized misconduct. I disagree, and I base my disagreement on the idea that you can ever punish the same player twice for the same offense. Respected Referee, however, counters that the second caution is not really given to the player, but rather “to the team” for their persistent infringement. I cannot find any support at all for cautions being issued “to the team.”

Any advice?

Answer (September 13, 2007):
There is no such thing as a “team caution” under the Laws of the Game. It is certainly possible to caution any player who participates in misconduct. Howwever, it is not clear that if there is a pattern of infringement, such as the pattern of delay you suggest, the referee could also apply the principle of persistent infringement as outlined in the Laws of the Game under Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees:
Persistent infringement
Referees should be alert at all times to players who persistently infringe the Laws. In particular, they must be aware that even if a player commits a number of different offenses, he must still be cautioned for persistently infringing the Laws.

There is no specific number of infringements which constitutes “persistence” or the presence of a pattern — this is entirely a matter of judgement and must be reached in the context of effective game management.

In the situation you and “Respected Referee” have discussed, it is not clear that the referee can apply the principle of persistent infringement.

However, as a pattern appears, the referee could certainly take the opportunity at one of the stoppages for misconduct and speak to the team captain or coach or both, stating that if this pattern continues, the referee will expel the coach for irresponsible behavior. If the pattern continues beyond that stage, the referee can then terminate the game. In all cases, the referee must include full details in the match report.…

Question:
I attended a U13 Class 3 boys game today and an attacker in a break-away with only the goalkeeper between him and the goal appeared to yell something like “HAH!” while pressing his attack. It was not clear if this yell was an attempt to distract the opponent. He beat the goal keeper and scored the goal but the referee blew his whistle, denied the goal and gave the attacker a yellow card for unsporting behavior. I can find no literature to support the finding of unsporting behavior in this circumstance. Also after the call there were many who thought it was the goalkeeper who had yelled this. Either way is there any support for this type of behavior being classified as unsporting behavior?

Answer (September 12, 2007):
Yes, yelling at an opponent is traditionally considered to be unsporting behavior. However, in this case there is no clear indication here that the yell was directed at the goalkeeper (or at the attacker).

In the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” you will find these citations:
– Commits an act which, in the opinion of the referee, shows a lack of respect for the game (e.g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting). (Better known as “bringing the game into disrepute.”)
– Verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart

Either could include yelling. However, we also need to remember that under the Laws of the Game the attacking team is entitled to somewhat more lenience that the defending team in this regard. Unless the yelling is clearly intended to distract the opponent, such as a goalkeeper yelling at the player about to take the penalty kick, it is usually considered trifling.

With regard to yelling as a form of misconduct, the referee is obliged to be satisfied that the shouting was indeed intended to distract and in fact had the effect of distracting the opponent. The referee should look for some element of deception–i. e., performing the shout from out of sight or very close (to startle), deceiving an opponent as to the shouter’s identity (to obfuscate the status as an opponent), etc.…