Question:
I have a question regarding Law 4, specifically as it pertains to shinguards. It is probably easiest to present a scenario and ask for your respone. For example, a player places socks on, shinguards placed on over socks, sock pulled down completely over shinguards and tucked into the shoes. This seems to me that, assuming the shinguards are constructed of a suitable material, and covered entirely by stockings and still provide a reasonable degree of protection this would indeed comply with law 4 of the FIFA Laws of the Game. I would appreciate any further clarification of this rule. Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.

Answer (September 27, 2007):
As you describe it, the shinguards are not covered by the socks within the meaning of the Law. They must be placed totally beneath the socks to comply with Law 4.…

Question:
The following situation has been a subject of debate among a few of us here in [our state]: At the kickoff, a player rests his foot on top of the ball and rolls it forward, but then without lifting his boot from the ball rolls it backward to a team-mate behind. The question is whether this is a valid restart. On the one hand, the ball is in play because it has been touched and moves forward into the opponents’ half, and is not played twice because the ball was never released. On the other hand, the ball changes direction 180 degrees, as it would do with a second touch, thus violating the spirit of the law.

This has been happening with more frequency here in amateur league games. The first time I saw it I made the players restart and told them to forget about the ‘trickery’. I’m not sure this was correct, but it was accepted. I then brought it up in a group of very senior referees, including a national referee of longstanding. Basically everyone stood around scratching their heads, so we agreed it should be presented to you for your opinion. As a final note, on Sunday, a kickoff was taken as above, but instead of releasing the ball backwards, the player, again without releasing it, or in any other way making a second touch, brought the ball forward again into the opponents’ half (thus, I suppose, complying with the spirit of the law as well as the letter, so I let it go).

It’s probably not a big deal, but we would appreciate some guidance.

Answer (September 27, 2007):
While the procedure you describe, rolling the ball forward, etc., is not what we would allow on a free kick (see below) and certainly not what is required by Law 8, it is commonly accepted practice for kick-offs at all levels of soccer. We have seen it allowed even at the current Women’s World Cup in China and in other high-level competitions throughout the world.

The kick-off, like the throw-in, is simply a way to get the game restarted when the ball has left the field. It is, and should be, regarded as a relaxed and less tense way of doing so. We allow trifling infringements of Law 15 in this regard, and we should do the same in the case of the kick-off.

What you describe does not meet the requirements of Law 8 for a kick-off. As always, however, the issue is indeed whether the action is a violation (it is), but we must consider whether the violation should/must/needs to be handled by a stoppage and a retake of the restart. Unless the player performing the kick-off incorrectly gains some unfair benefit, we are inclined to consider the violation trifling (on par with a teammate illegally standing just over the midfield line on a kick-off to “receive” the ball). As it occurs at the very highest levels on a routine basis, you might, at most, warn the kicker that what just happened was a technical violation of the Law. However, we would recommend that you consider it trifling and punish it only if the players begin to take even greater advantage of the referee’s kindness.

If we are dealing with a free kick, the requirements of Law 13 would apply completely: When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being “moved” does not, for example, include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly.…

Question:
The situation is that a penalty kick has been taken and you blow your whistle because you deemed the kicker to have taken excessive or unnatural movements on his approach to the ball. In a discussion with other referees, it was agreed that the proper procedure for a missed goal was an IFK for the defense, but there was disagreement on the restart if a goal was scored. While everyone agreed that the laws state that you must do a retake of the kick, one referee–who happens to be a USSF instructor — insisted that he would not allow a retake because it would be unfair and would simply do the IFK for the defense regardless of the outcome of the kick. I told him that in such a situation, he could put the game in jeopardy of being protested. He felt it was “a referee decision” and not open to protest. I feel he is giving bad advice.

Thank you for help. Your website is a great source of information.

Answer (September 17, 2007):
According to the Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees in the back of the 2007 Laws of the Game, your instructor friend is in error. The document states:
LAW 14- THE PENALTY KICK
Procedure
Feinting to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football. However, if in the opinion of the referee the feinting is considered an act of unsporting behavior, the player shall be cautioned.…

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.…

Question:
This may seem like an obvious question. I have been a referee for many years and I always believed that a ball is not out on the touch line unless no part of the ball is touching the line.

At a recent “A” division soccer tournament game that I was coaching, a veteran AR strongly insisted that the correct interpretation of the rule was that a ball is out if 3/4 of the ball is outside the touch line. He then proceeded to call approximately 20 balls out of which about half were still touching the line. Being a fellow referee, I did not make much of an issue of it at the game, other than to ask that he confirm the rule with the CR, which he did not.

Has FIFA recently altered the interpretation of when a ball is considered out?

Answer (September 12, 2007):
No, there has been no change. As long as any part of the ball breaks the vertical plane (we are talking outer side here) of the touchline, the ball is in play. Unfortunately, many “veteran” referees start coming up with their own rules. It beats reading the Laws each year.…

Question:
I was center at a game today where both goals were set up (and securely anchored) about 2-3 inches behind the goal line. There was no way to correct the situation, as the anchors were deep in the ground and no one had proper tools available.

In theory I should probably have refused to start the game. But that is simply not a realistic option, especially if one team has traveled to the game from a significant distance.

My question is this: we are normally taught to call the game “as the lines are drawn,” that is, even if the lines are crooked or the areas measured incorrectly (one exception would seem to be an incorrectly marked penalty spot). How should this case be handled? I would assume that a goal could still only be scored if the ball had entered the goal and fully crossed the “imaginary” line between the goal posts. Correct?

Answer (September 12, 2007):
In a non-competitive atmosphere, it MIGHT be all right to play this game “as the lines are drawn,” but if this is a competitive league or tournament, then the requirements of Law 1 must be applied strictly.

In a non-competitive game, the “line” that counts is that which runs between the goal posts, not the marked line.…