PLAYER OFF THE FIELD

November 20, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
A winger dribbles the ball in the opposition half, directly down the touchline. He is tackled fairly off the ball by a defender and exits the field of play. The defender passes to a forward teammate who passes straight back; the first defender slips over; the ball continues directly down the touchline. The fallen winger meanwhile, noticing this, sprints down the touchline – still off the field of play – and onto the field to take the ball, alone, and score.

Goal?

USSF answer (November 20, 2009):
A player who has left the field in the course of play is expected to return as quickly as possible to a position on the field. The legality of the goal would depend on the referee’s perception of two things: Whether this player’s return occurred quickly enough and whether the player stayed off the field accidentally or to deceive the opponents.…

Advice to Referees

UP-TO-DATE MATERIALS ON THE LAWS AND REFEREEING

November 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
How can a referee determine what is the most current standard for a particular topic, given that there is a mound of reference material on the USSF website? Are we to rely on the most recent “Advice to Referees” as being the final word on every topic, or do we also need to search through historical memos, directives, etc?

The current USSF website has numerous memos that date back many years, some of which are duplicative (ie, 2004 Advice, 2005 Advice, etc).

For example, is it necessary to read the 2007 Law Changes Memorandum or are these law changes incorporated into the 09-10 Advice? Where there are conflicts, which document prevails?

Second but related topic, which is organization of the ussoccer.com webpages for referees. Why isn’t there one page that is kept current and represents the current definitive body of laws, directives, advices, etc. As of this date, the laws are on one page, along with a long list of documents, and the advice is on another page. This is confusing. It would be better to have a section called “Current Laws and Interpretations” which contains the FIFA LOTG, the Advice, and any of the historical memos which aren’t incorporated in the Advice that still apply. There should be another page titled “Historical Documents” that contain all other documents, with language that these have been supplanted by more current interpretations.

Thanks!

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
Your suggestion for improving the utility of the webpages has been passed along to the appropriate people. Thank you.

As to which document “trumps” the others, this excerpt from the Introduction to the Advice to Referees should prove helpful to you:

This book of Advice to Referees is specifically intended to give USSF referees, assistant referees and fourth officials a reliable compilation of those international and national guidelines remaining in force, as modified or updated. It is not a replacement for the Laws of the Game, nor is it a “how to” book on refereeing: It is an official statement of Federation interpretations of the Laws. However, the referee, coach, player, team official and spectator should remember that there are also other sources of information:

* the Laws of the Game, published annually by USSF from the text provided by the IFAB through FIFA;

* the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees, which replace the former Questions and Answers;

* annual FIFA Circulars, as republished in designated USSF annual Memoranda;

* USSF Referee Program Directives, the Week in Review, and podcasts;

* the USSF Guide to Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials;

* entry-level referee clinics, in-service clinics and referee recertification clinics taught by USSF instructors;

* other official publications from the USSF instructional program, including articles in Fair Play and specific subject memoranda (position papers).

In general, one can say that the 2008/2009 and earlier editions of the Advice is nice for historical purposes, but are no longer applicable in many situations. The same is true of the older memoranda and Laws of the Game. They are all included in the collection because many referees, instructors, and assessors like to be able to follow the history and development of the Laws and their interpretation. In all cases, the most recent document (on the particular topic) in any of these series is the one with the current information. The Advice is kept as much up to date as possible, including all documents published in the period since the last revision, but any document is “outdated” the moment the ink hits the paper. This means that the reader should look to the Advice plus all recent memos (with the latter eventually to be incorporated into the next revision).…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

BALL DELIBERATE KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER (YET AGAIN)

November 16, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Defender under pressure kicks the ball back to the keeper, it is a crappy rainy day, the keeper misplays the ball trying to kick it away but it bounces up an into the air only a short distance away where it bounces and as attackers and other defenders are now close at hand the keeper chooses to grab this ball with the hands.

Is this an INDFK offence?

Can it be ignored as the keeper tried to do the right thing the first time but failed?

Should it be ignored if a pursuing opponent was there to challenge but prevented because the keeper WAS able to use the hands?

Is the ONLY reason to make this call if time wasting was the reason?

Does the intention of the passer or the intention of the keeper matter?

USSF answer (November 16, 2009):
There is no issue here at all if the scenario is to be given its face value meaning. A teammate kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper — no violation.

The goalkeeper kicks the ball (badly, but that doesn’t matter) — no violation. The goalkeeper subsequently handles the ball — since this occurred directly (no intervening play of the ball by anyone ELSE) — violation.

In short, there is no issue that a violation has occurred. The only question is whether it was trifling or should be whistled. This HAS to be decided by the referee based on the circumstances of play, taking risks, maintaining flow, etc. The only fact bearing on the matter is that the goalkeeper DID illegally take hand control of the ball under pressure from the opponents. In other words, he illegally withheld the ball from challenge, which is what this infringement is all about. Accordingly, although the decision must be up to the referee, the scenario tends to favor whistling this indirect free kick foul.

Referees often make the mistake of treating this as an issue involving time-wasting when, in fact, the central issue is unfairly withholding the ball from challenge.

And, no, the “intention” of the passer is not relevant to this decision because that was resolved when the action was determined to be a violation.…

Advice to Referees

TRIFLING INFRACTIONS

November 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I’d like some guidance on what fouls or infractions should be considered trifling.

For example, in your July 9, 2009 question on the AR signal for a PK, you said how the AR was to determine and signal “if the goalkeeper has moved illegally AND IT MADE A DIFFERENCE.” (your ALL-CAPS). Does “MADE A DIFFERENCE” mean, for example, that if the keeper leaves the line early, but the shot misses the goal (no keeper save), that leaving early made no difference in helping a save, so no foul? Or did it mean that if a goal was scored anyway, leaving early “MADE no DIFFERENCE”, so no need to signal?

It seems that the first option makes sense as being trifling leaving early had no impact upon play since the shot missed the goal.

But the LOTG and ATR seem clear that it does not matter if the shot is saved or misses when calling this.

Similarly with trifling – players that enter the penalty area on a PK slightly before the kick seem to have “no significant impact upon play” [ATR 5.5] in almost all cases. Yet much of Law 14 addresses this infraction. If the ball enters the goal on a PK, how could an attacker’s pre-kick entry into the penalty area not be considered trifling?

There seems to be consensus that things like 6-second rule violations, and keeper handling slightly outside the area when punting are trifling offenses. Right? But why are foul throw-ins not almost always trifling?

Thanks for providing “the answer” to so many important questions.

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
1. Goalkeeper leaving the line early:
The original meaning was that the goalkeeper’s leaving the line early may be disregarded if the ball enters the goal. If the kick missed, then it COULD have made a difference and the kicking team gets another “shot” at it. The final decision here is made by the referee on the game, not those of us who are watching (and adding up the “mistakes” by the referee).

2. Trifling infringements
For those who have not yet downloaded this year’s edition of the Advice to Referees, here is the text referred to in the question, Advice 5.5:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators.”

This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision 8) was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee’s fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to. Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players. However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. Further, the referee may wish to talk to or warn a player regarding infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

With regard to entering the penalty area early, we can say that if it had no effect on play, then it need not be punished, as this would disrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.

However, if, in the opinion of the referee, a kicking team player’s early entry into the penalty area had some effect on the play, it would not be trifling and would have to be punished in accordance with the Law.

Infringement of the six-second rule is sometimes misinterpreted. The count starts when the goalkeeper is preparing to release the ball, not when he or she actually gains possession. Why? Because very often the goalkeeper has to disentangle him-/herself from other players or move around fallen players, and it would be unfair to begin the count in such a case.

The goalkeeper’s handling of the ball “outside” the penalty area by crossing the line when punting the ball is clearly trifling, particularly if it occurs only once in a game and is only VERY slightly beyond the line. The referee should first have a word with the goalkeeper, warning him or her to watch the line in the future or risk consequences. No referee should rush into danger of losing control by punishing any trifling matters.

Foul throw-ins are generally trifling. What should be our primary concern is having the throw-in taken from the proper place, within one yard/meter of the point where the ball left the field. A throw-in is simply a way of putting the ball back into play quickly and efficiently.

Finally, please remember that such matters should be covered in the pregame conference between the referee and the other assigned officials.…

"Inventive" Refs

TOUCHING THE CORNER FLAG

November 11, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
At my daughter’s game a player on her team was setting up to take a corner kick. As she approached the ball she lost her balance. She made the kick but her momentum actually carried her sideways and she brushed into the flag as she was making the kick.

The referee stopped play and stated she was not allowed to touch the flag. He then awarded the other team an indirect kick from corner area. The only ruling I could find regarding touching flag deals with players adjusting a flag TO a vertical position or FROM a vertical position prior to the kick. The referee was extremely professional, had perfect mechanics, and was obviously extremely competent. I know I was wearing my parent hat for this game, not my badge, but the ruling on touching the flag puzzled me. Is there a law, or directive that I have overlooked?

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
The referee may have been “extremely professional,” but he was also EXTREMELY PETTY.

The corner flags are not to be moved, but not in the sense for which the referee punished the player on your daughter’s team. We instruct our referees (and anyone else who cares to read the document cited below) that this sort of movement of the flag is not against the Law; such movement must be corrected, but not punished.

This statement is included in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

1.6 NO PLAYER MODIFICATIONS TO THE FIELD
Goalkeepers or other players may not make unauthorized marks on the field of play. The player who makes such marks or alterations on the field to gain an unfair advantage may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Players may return bent or leaning corner flags to the upright position, but they may not bend or lean them away from the upright position to take a corner kick, nor may the corner flag be removed for any reason.

…

"Inventive" Refs

WHEN IS OFFSIDE CALLED?

November 9, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I have read the laws, and am a big fan of your site and clarifications. I think I understand offside, and the critical aspect of “involved in the play” that takes being in an offside position to that of being a penalty. But I am unclear on two things:

First, am I correct that the AR or CR should only signal for a stoppage due to offside when that attacking player becomes involved?

Second, if so, why does it seem (at least to me, after watching hundreds of premier games at the u14 and higher level) that refs don’t seem to understand that critical aspect? By that I mean that the second they see any player past the second to last defender when a ball is played, UP GOES THE FLAG!!! Play stops, and a free kick is given to the defending team. No attempt is ever made to see if the player in the offsides position stays out of the play!

No one at this level seems to recognize that a player can be offsides and not result in a foul. Certainly not parents screaming “offsides” on the sidelines.

Am I alone is seeing this glaring misunderstanding by officials (and fans) at this age/play level?

USSF answer (November 9, 2009):
Offside should be called only when the player in the offside position becomes involved in play through interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in the offside position.

The reason why some ARs flag early and some referees call for offside early is because they pay no attention to the Laws of the Game or to the instructional materials distributed by the U. S. Soccer Federation and so carefully and fully enunciated and disseminated by their state directors of referee instruction.

No, you are not alone. We, too, despair in company with you.…

Coach

COSTA RICA COACH USE OF RADIO IN WC QUALIFIER

November 2, 2009November 12, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I didn’t think a coach was allowed to use a radio on the bench. If you look at the espn video of the US-Costa Rica match at the 70:30 point, you will see the coach of the Costa Rice team speaking into a microphone on the collar of his coat.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
We supplied this answer to another questioner back in June. We believe it will apply to your question as well.

Under FIFA rules of competition, suspended coaches are neither forbidden nor allowed to communicate with their teams via mobile phones during FIFA matches. FIFA will not take any action. Nor is there anything in the Laws of the Game or Q&A to cover this. Accordingly, subject only to the requirement that the team official behaves in a responsible manner, mobile phones, headsets, walkie-talkies, and other similar communication devices may be used in the technical area.

To ensure better compliance from its teams, perhaps the league should provide more complete rules and guidance to the teams as to what constitutes “suspension” and what a coach or other team official who is under suspension may and may not do. It is not up to referees to police disciplinary rules of a competition.

To this we can add only this further clarification: The coach may not communicate with his players via a telephone of any sort.…

Advice to Referees

“BENEFITS” TO HANDLING THE BALL

November 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I guess I missed the Feb. 2009 Directive on “Handling the Ball”. I suppose that’s a good thing, because one section seems to directly contradict all my training as well as Section 12.9 of “Advice to Referees”.

In the Directive, one of the things the referee is supposed to consider in determining a handling offense is “Did the player ‘benefit’?”.

My understanding is that whether or not a player benefits from incidental arm/ball contact is irrelevant; it is either deliberate or not, and what happens afterwards is immaterial. “Advice” states unequivocally: “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.”

Can you please clarify? If I’m misunderstanding the directive (as others have too), what is it supposed to be conveying?

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You would seem to be misreading Advice 12.9 and confusing its text with that of the Directive, rather like confusing apples with applesauce. They speak of two different things.

Advice 12.9 addresses the “benefit” an attacking player might achieve in the sense of attack, while the Directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The Directive on “Handling the Ball” does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled intentionally or not. The “Directive” states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling the ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence is of (3) is key (quoting from the “Directive”): “In considering all the ‘signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence the the handling of the ball was intentional. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.

In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offense has been committed. …

Law 13 - Free Kicks

INDIRECT OR DIRECT FREE KICK IN THE PENALTY AREA

November 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
Does the ball have to leave the area on every free kick? For example: Offside is called and the ball is in the area coming out. I play the ball to a teammate who is also in the area. Is this legal? Or, my keeper makes a save and he rolls the ball to me and I am in the area, can I collect it or does it have to leave the area.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You have actually asked two completely different questions. We will rephrase them and answer each separately.

1. Must a free kick taken by the kicking team from within its own penalty area leave the penalty area to be in play? The answer is yes. If the ball does not leave the penalty area and enter the remainder of the playing field directly, the kick must be retaken.

2. If the goalkeeper makes a save in his/her own penalty area and then releases (rolls, throws, or kicks) the ball to a teammate who is inside the penalty area, may the teammate play the ball? The answer is yes.…

Handling

GOALKEEPER HANDLING

November 2, 2009 by Jim Allen

Question:
I read the question and answer in the FAQ area [of the US Soccer website], but would like some clarification. Can the goalie go outside the goal area to retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the area to pick it up? I see this the same as a team mate passing it to the goalie and the goalie picking it up. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
The goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i. e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.…