PLAYING DANGEROUSLY

Question:
I saw this situation in the recent Far West Regionals during pool play.

One defender and one attacker are battling for the ball. The defender slips and falls with her legs over the ball. Defender tries to get away from the ball and does not attempt to play the ball. The attacker holds her down by her shoulder and jersey not allowing her to get away from the ball. Referee calls dangerous play on defender. The sideline discussion: is the girl allowed to hold the defender down (some argued this is a smart play) and others argued she was holding and that the call should have been holding versus dangerous play. What do you think?

Answer (June 25, 2009):
Based solely on your description (the only evidence we have), we suspect that the referee has no courage and blew the call. It should have been called holding and the restart should have been a direct free kick for the defender's team.

Some referees still seem to have the wrong idea about playing dangerously; to wit, they wanted a call for playing dangerously (and the referee on this game obliged, albeit erroneously). Nothing in the Laws of the Game forbids a player on the ground from playing the ball. As long as the player on the ground does nothing to endanger herself or other participants, there is no dangerous play. Let it be clear that it is dangerous for a player to hold the ball (lying on top of it, holding it with the legs, etc.) when on the ground. But it is not dangerous to make a legal play of the ball.

COACH'S COMPLAINTS VS. REFEREE'S DERELICTION OF DUTY

Question:
In a penalty shoot out the referee places the ball for the first kick, blows the whistle, the kick is taken and saved. The field is muddied up and the penalty spot is not clearly marked. One coach complains that the ball was not placed in the correct position, the referee paces out and finds the correct spot is actually 1 yard closer to the goal. He makes the first kicker retake the kick. 1) Should the first kick have counted - if not what if the complaint about the ball position been made after, say, 3 kicks, would all 3 kicks have to be retaken. Perhaps the referee should have had the opposing player take from the incorrect spot to equalize the situation and then all other kicks should have been from the correct position.

My sons team lost on the penalty shoot out, it is too late now but I was curious what the correct decision should have been.

Answer (June 25, 2009):
The coach has no right to complain about the distance of the kick. But the referee bears the responsibility -- under the Laws and in the spirit of the Game -- to ensure that the distance is correct. Yes, the decision to retake the kick was correct, but it would not have been necessary if the referee had done his job correctly.

NO OGSO POSSIBLE WHEN BALL OUT OF PLAY

Question:
In a fast break away one player with the ball makes an attack. About two yards outside the top of the penalty area the goal keeper fouls the attacker. Advantage is not applied. In the opinion of the referee, the foul (a DFK) does not merit a card of any type. The whistle is blown, the restart of a direct free kick is announced by the ref, the ball is placed, and the whistle is blown to restart play. Before other defenders can arrive the attacker starts to take what seems to be a certain goal scoring opportunity at an unguarded net.

Before the shot is taken the goal keeper places his foot on the ball, stopping any chance for a quick shot. Other defending players then arrive, making an advantageous quick restart impossible.

In the opinion of the referee the keeper has clearly denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be sent off. The referee believes that by every standard of common sense and of Fair Play the goal keeper has breached the Spirit of the Laws, and that the Laws were written to prevent and to punish this very type of misconduct.

But by the letter of the Law, the referee is not sure that he has the power to do so. As the ball was not in play when the event took place, there was not & could not be an "opponent moving towards the player's goal". Although the goal keeper's action will cause him to be cautioned, he will not have caused "an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick". Because the ball was not in play when the keeper broke the Law(s), his act of misconduct will not nor could not cause a free kick or a penalty kick to be taken. That is, when the ball is out of play the restart will always remain unchanged.

The referee knows that the world is an imperfect place, that life can be hard, and sometimes bad things happen to good people; but it seems egregious if the LOTG allow the keeper to remain in the game.

Your views?

Answer (June 25, 2009):
No view, simply the Law: The goalkeeper cannot have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as the ball was not in play when he committed his misconduct. Sometimes life is not fair. Caution the goalkeeper for failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a free kick; show the yellow card and restart with the original direct free kick, ensuring that all opponents are at least ten yards away when the ball is put into play.

We might also have hard words with the referee for not being proactive in the first place and preventing the goalkeeper from doing what he did.

LEAVING THE FIELD OF PLAY AND OFFSIDE

Question:
Two players (attacker and defender) momentum take them both out off the field of play by the goal line about 5 yards from the goal. Just prior to going off the pitch, the attacker saves the ball from going out and passes it back to a teammate just inside the box.

The attacker that saves the ball and passes it back goes off the pitch and then comes back on the field in a matter of 1-2 seconds. In the process the teammate that received the pass shots wide and to the feet of the first attacker that just came back on the field. When the ball is struck, he is in front of the keeper and the defender that followed him off the pitch (the defender is still off the pitch when the ball is struck and also received by the attacker). The defending team claim it is offside because the defender was not on the field of play. Then they complained that the attacker didn't get permission to enter the field of play. What should the call had been? Was I correct by not calling offside and that there was no need to ask to re-enter the field when your momentum takes you off the pitch. Thank you for your help.

Answer (June 25, 2009):
If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of playing movement. Players who leave the field during the course of play are permitted to return without the permission of the referee and play the ball.

A recent change to the Laws of the Game (see Interpretations and Guidance for Referees, Laws 2008/2009) makes it clear that "Any defending player leaving the field of play for any reason without the referee's permission shall be construed to be on his own goal line or touch line for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage of play. If the player leaves the field of play deliberately, he must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play." You will also find this change in the Memorandum 2008, available through the referee page at the ussoccer.com website: "USSF Advice to Referees: The new text more explicitly describes how referees are to consider the location of a defender off the field when deciding if an attacker is or is not in an offside position. A defender who is off the field with the referee's permission (and thus cannot freely return to the field) is not included in determining where the last and second to last defenders are located. A defender whose position off the field was not with the permission of or at the direction of the referee is deemed to be on the goal line or touch line closest to where the defender left the field and must therefore be considered as though still on the field. Furthermore, if the departure from the field is "deliberate," (i.e., other than during the normal course of play), the defender is to be cautioned for the misconduct."

So, yes, your decision was correct. Well done!

CAUTION FOR DELIBERATE HANDLING?

Question:
In U13 high level tournament last weekend a midfielder was running at a moderate pace and the ball crossed in front of her at waist height.

She seemed to reflexively slap it down, and then she stopped running as she knew she would get called for handling. She actually turned around and started walking backwards, anticipating the free kick from the opponent at the spot of her infraction.

The center ref had whistled the call, and then showed her a yellow card. She showed no disention, did not kick the ball again when it was on the ground, and did not complain.

Was a yellow called for? I don't think I have ever seen it called like that, and the Laws don't seem to indicate it was appropriate.

When questioned at half, the Ref confirmed he gave her the yellow for her "deliberate" attempt to handle.

What do you think?

Answer (June 25, 2009):
If the referee believed the act of deliberate handling to have been a tactical foul, then the caution for unsporting behavior was deserved.

OFFSIDE AT THE HALFWAY LINE

Question:
While reading through the Law 1 section of the website, I seem to have found a contradiction that I was hoping you could sort out for me.

PLAYER POSITIONING AT THE KICK-OFF
February 19, 2008 Then:

OFFSIDE?
July 30, 2008 As explained, the player is "past the midfield line" in B and C because a part of the body that can legally play the ball is on or beyond the midfield line."

I've had this question come up in a number of games with regards to offside calls (not positioning at kick-off) but the question of whether the midfield line is part of either or both halves still remains.

Answer (June 25, 2009):
You are talking apples and applesauce here; two different Laws covering entirely different situations. The halfway line belongs to BOTH halves. Foot position (or body position, for that matter) at the kick-off is treated similarly to the foot position for a throw-in: The foot may be on or behind or hanging over the line. For offside, the only thing that matters is where the parts that can legally play the ball are. However, in all cases, the offense, if any, is TRIFLING.

PROCEDURE FOR SECOND CAUTION

Question:
Question involves procedure for issuing a red card when 2 yellows are given. Incident as follows: a reckless tackle deserving of a caution. As the yellow card is shown, the culprit jumps up, gets in the face of the referee and will not stop criticizing the call. The referee decides this dissent warrants another caution and the subsequent red card. I believe it is USSF policy not to show the second yellow but to go straight to the red. Is this true or do we show the second yellow and then the red?

Answer (June 25, 2009):
Correct procedure is to show the second yellow card for the cautionable offense, immediately followed by the red card for the send-off for receiving a second caution in the same match.

A cautionary note: Because a second caution will result in the player being sent off, the second caution should be given when, in the opinion of the referee, it is truly a cautionable offense (in other words, you would have given a first caution for the misconduct) and the misconduct clearly continues a pattern of behavior of that player despite the prior notice of the first caution that a continuation would result in the player being sent from the field. In circumstances where the behavior of the player does not represent such a continuation, the referee should attempt to manage the player using other techniques short of a caution.

USA VS. ITALY

Question:
If you haven't heard this question I'm sure you will. Does US Soccer agree with the decision in the us v italy game on the offsides decision? I say yes under the distracting clause b/c I believe the defender saw the attacker and would have played the ball differently had he not thought he was beat by the attacker.

Answer (June 24, 2009):
The operating rule for ARs in such cases is, "When in doubt, keep the flag down." The decision was correct.

MOONING

Question:
So I saw an interesting situation at the DC United Sounders match today. The keeper mooned the fans. He did not show his bare butt but he did display his underwear. I immediately wondered whether that would be a send off or a cautionable offense. I can not imagine that there would be no punishment. This happened at the very very end of the match during the time wasting DC United was doing.

Is it serious enough to be considered an offensive gesture?

Answer (June 18, 2009):
The answer to your question can be determined only by the referee on the particular game, but it sounds like unsporting behavior at a minimum and possibly an offensive, insulting, or abusive gesture.

It would have been helpful to see the incident ourselves, but a run through the game video by the US Soccer referee staff did not turn up anything of this sort.

NOTE: If everyone who sends in questions regarding professional matches would give us the exact match time of the incident, it would make it easier to give more complete answers.

READER COMMENT: Just a follow-up to the June 18 comment by a soccer fan that was accusing the D.C. United keeper of "mooning." the fans in Seattle. The ESPN360.com replay of the game, shows Wicks at 89:45 stepping back to take a goal kick and seeming pulling his shorts down to re-tuck his jersey. Again, in stoppage time at 3:00, the camera show him again getting ready to take another goal kick and he is in the process of pulling his shorts up again (just before a beer bottle is flung at him). Maybe it's just a nervous habit--forgets he's in public--or perhaps a bit of gamesmanship with his tormentors.

NO ADVANTAGE BY THE ASSISTANT REFEREE

Question:
What is the proper way to apply advantage as an Assistant Referee? Or is advantage generally to be applied only by the Center?

Do I signal the foul and allow the center to determine advantage? Or may I, as the AR, keep my flag, run with the play to see what develops, and if no advantage materializes in 2-3 seconds then raise my flag and call the previous foul?

Answer (June 18, 2009):
In general, the AR should flag only for fouls or misconduct that the referee cannot see. However, that does not give the AR the right or privilege or power to invoke the advantage clause; that is reserved for the referee. In addition, a late flag by the AR for a foul in which the AR him- or herself might have "invoked" the advantage earlier is problematic. In the unlikely case that it might need to be done, this is a matter to be discussed in the pregame conference.

FOULING THE PLAYER IN THE OFFSIDE POSITION

Question:
Thanks for a wonderful resource and for the recent elaboration on the interpretations applicable to deliberate handling vs. offside.

I was hoping you could provide some similar guidance with respect to offside (by interfering with an opponent) vs. a penal foul against the player in offside position (OSP).

For example,

(1) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross goes up alongside a defender to challenge for a header, and is carelessly pushed by the defender -- offside for interfering with a player, or push on the defender?

(2) an attacker in OSP at the time of a cross is running towards the far post, but the cross is to the near post, and the attacker is carelessly tripped from behind by a defender chasing to catch up -offside (interfering with the defender by movement that distracted), or tripping foul?

And on a more general note, should the OSP status at the time the ball was played have any influence on the determination of whether contact should be deemed trifling?

Answer (June 18, 2009):
(1) Offside for interfering with an opponent. There is always the possibility of a caution for the defending player who pushed, but that would depend on whether the referee needed it for game management purposes.

(2) Offside for interfering with an opponent.

As to trifling, the answer is pretty generally yes.

USYS U10/U12 GOALKEEPER RULE (SMALL-SIDED GAMES ONLY)

Question:
In a U-10 game in the USA, playing 6v6, a referee surprised me with what he described as a little known FIFA rule on goal kicks and goalkeeper punts. He would not let the goalkeepers kick or punt the ball on the fly over the center line (midfield line). I have coached U10 soccer for 5 years and never heard of a rule like that.

Apparently, it was OK if our goalkeeper punted or kicked the ball just short of the center line and had the ball bounce over it to one of either our players or the opposition's players. What is the correct rule?

Answer (June 18, 2009):
The referee was correct. Such a rule exists in small-sided soccer (Under 10 and Under 12 only) played under the rules recommended by the U. S. Youth Soccer Association:

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct: Conform to FIFA with the exception that an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team at the center spot on the halfway line if a goalkeeper punts or drop-kicks the ball in the air from his/her penalty area into the opponents penalty area.

The USYS modifies the recommendation with the following advice:
Law 12
The rule on the goalkeeper's distribution still allows for the ball to be punted the entire length of the field, it just can not go directly into the opponents' penalty area

U.S. Soccer thanks Jim Allen (National Instructor Staff/National Assessor), assisted by Dan Heldman (National Instructor Staff), for their assistance in providing this service. Direction is provided by Alfred Kleinaitis, Manager of Referee Development and Education, with further assistance from Paul Tamberino, Director of Referee Development; David McKee, National Director of Assessment (assessment matters); and Ulrich Strom, National Instructor and National Assessor (matters in general).

Submit your questions via e-mail to askareferee@ussoccer.org.