April 2006 Archive (II of II)
April 26, 2006
RESOLVING CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE LAWS OF THE GAME AND THE IFAB /FIFA Q&A
During a youth tournament this past weekend I witnessed a situation during a PK that has caused a lot of conversation among us referees. I have looked at the FIFA and US Soccer website for clarification, but I am finding apparently conflicting responses.
Team A was awarded a PK. Player 1 was identified to take the PK. When the referee signaled for the PK to be taken, Player 1 stepped out of the penalty box and Player 2 ran in and took the shot which went into the goal.
The question is: What is the correct restart for this situation? * In the June 2005 position paper on penalty kicks, it would appear that the kick should be retaken, i.e. attacker infringed Law 14 and the ball went into the goal, (http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/doc_6_364.pdf). Although this does not address the exact situation that occurred. * On the FIFA website there is a Question and Answer document (http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/Q&A2005_E.pdf) that does address the wrong player taking the kick. It states that the restart is an indirect kick for the defending team at the point where the attacking player advanced closer than 10 yards.
The first scenario where the kick is retaken seems more in line with other restarts, i.e. an offense occurs during a dead ball situation, such as a throw-in or free kick, the player may be carded, but the restart does not change. In the second situation the initial foul is completely ignored after the attacking team commits a foul.
Answer (April 21, 2006):
In such matters of conflict, the IFAB Q&A is the final authority.
SUBSTITUTING THE GOALKEEPER
HI - I am a coach of a U13G soccer team. I have a question concerning substituting goalies during the game.
Can 1 goalie play in the 1st 15 minutes, 2nd goalie next 15 minutes, and the 1st goalie go back in goal for the next 15 minutes, then a 3rd goalie come in for the remainder of the game?
Answer (April 21, 2006):
If your competition plays unlimited substitution, in other words, if players are allowed to enter and leave and re-enter the field (with the permission of the referee), that will work fine. However, if your competition plays according to the strict interpretation of Law 3, in which a player who has been substituted out of the game may not return, then you are out of luck.
Your best bet would be to check with the competition authority (league, cup, tournament, whatever) to find out what the competition rules permit.
CORRECT RESTART WHEN 'KEEPER HOLDING BALL
My question is what is the appropiate restart when the whistle is blown, while the goalie has the ball in his hand. In my 6 years of ref'ing, i have seen 3 different restarts. One, the ball is handed to the goalie, and he can play it as if he blocked a goal, two: goalie gets a goal kick. three: drop ball right at the stoppage of play. I'm lucky enough to not encounter this situation, but it always bothered me.
Answer (April 21, 2006):
Your question is not clear as to why the whistle was blown to stop the game. Was it a mistake by the referee? Was there a foul? Was there misconduct? Even if the goalkeeper was holding the ball at the moment, the restarts would be different in these cases.
If the whistle was inadvertent or for a reason not covered elsewhere in the Laws of the Game, the only correct restart is a dropped ball at the place where the ball was at the moment of the stoppage. Some rules of competition (non-affiliated leagues or high school, for example) allow an indirect free kick. We are not aware of any rules that allow the ball to be handed to the goalkeeper so that it may be punted or for a goal kick.
If the whistle was for misconduct by either team, the correct restart would be an indirect free kick at the place where the misconduct occurred.
Another possible restart is a direct free kick if the whistle was for a DFK foul.
'KEEPER HANDLES DELIBERATELY ON BALL KICKED DELIBERATELY BY TEAMMATE
A group of referees has had a discussion on a real game event, for which there is definitely not agreement.
The real-life situation was that of a "passback", to the Goalkeeper, but the disagreement appears it could also apply GK "double touch", or to a GK directly picking up a thrown-in ball.
CASE: A ball is kicked back to the goalkeeper, poorly by a teammate. As a result the ball comes to rest just inside the penalty area, aligned with the goal. The GK comes out, but realizes that an attacker is making a run for this ball. There are no other defenders between the ball and the goal. The GK apparently decides he won't be first to the ball with feet, and dives in hands first to grab it, which he does. For this discussion, the Referee was also of the opinion that the GK would not have arrived at the ball first had he played it otherwise than with his hands. The GK's possession by hands occurs inches before the attacker would have kicked the ball, but the attacker only mildly touches the ball (best he could do not to injure the GK).
Q1. Is this a simple IFK for passback. E.g. it is not DOGSO-H, because the GK is not subject to DOGSO-H in his own penalty area per clause 4 of the Send-Off procedures. The restart would simply be an IFK for the passback violation.
Or is this an actual case of "DOGSO-F", wherein the act of the GK was not simple "handling of the ball" in the penalty area (which is not an offense for the GK, and hence the reason why I would understand clause 4 excludes it in the Send-Offs), but in fact an IFK free-kick offense of "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate". And then the DOGSO-F (clause 5) kicks in with DOGSO by offense punishable by a freekick.
The greater question seems to turn on narrow interpretation of what is really meant in clause 4 Send-offs by the term "deliberately handling the ball" as it applies to GK in there penalty area's. e.g. Does this mean to talk to only the DFK offense of deliberate handling (for non-GK players), and then the GK is immune in his own penalty area, or does this mean to exclude the GK from any of the offenses which he commits by handling the ball in the penalty (there are three IFK's) that involve the GK handling the ball in the penalty area, in specific circumstances.
When it comes down to it, the two camps of referee sentiment are divided by their interpretation of the phrase in Sendoffs Clause 4 that reads "deliberate handling the ball" when applied to the GK in Clause 4 of the send-offs. One literal meaning is any handling of the ball. The other literal meaning would be the DFK offense for non-GK players, in which the GK is immune, and hence the Laws spelled this out, as a reminderŠ.
Q2. Does USSF have a position on what the intended interpretation of Clause-4 of Send-offs is with regard to what "deliberately handles the ball" means when applied to the GK in his penalty area
Answer (April 21, 2006):
No, this is not a matter of denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The goalkeeper is permitted to handle the ball within his or her own penalty area and is explicitly excluded in the Law from being sent off for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. (See send-off offense 4 in Law 12.) If the goalkeeper does handle the ball directly from a ball deliberately kicked by a teammate or thrown in by a teammate, then he or she must pay the price--but that price is simply an indirect free kick taken from the place where the offense occurred.
OWN GOAL ON PENALTY KICK (OR CORNER KICK)
I think the following question may not be answered by LOTG: Can a team score a goal against itself directly on a PK?
USSF answer (April 21, 2006):
It is a highly unlikely scenario, and so let me create a more likely situation. Youth match, small-sided field (U-10 or U-11). PK is awarded and the kicking team's goalkeeper takes the PK. The wind is blowing strongly against the kicking 'keeper, but he's an oversized strong kid and he puts a powerful blast into the crossbar. The ball rebounds over the heads of all the players and the wind takes it into the kicker's goal. Should the goal be allowed?
One answer is that it should be treated as if it were a free kick and disallowed, as under Law 13. However, the penalty kick is not defined as a subcategory of a direct free kick. It has its own separate law, Law 14.
In two places, it is made clear that a goal cannot be scored directly against the team taking a direct free kick, Law 13 and ATR 8.6, the table entitled "Common Elements of the Eight Methods of Restarting Play." In two corresponding places, it is silent about whether a goal can be scored directly against the team taking a PK, Law 14 and ATR 8.6.
In ATR 8.6, in answer to the question, "Can a goal be scored directly?": - Under DFK, the answer reads, "Yes, but only against opponent." - Under PK, the answer reads, "Yes." The logical implication is that a goal can be scored directly against the team taking a PK.
I believe that the LOTG and ATR are silent on the question because the scenario is so unlikely. Does USSF have an official answer, or will we just sit tight and hope this unlikely scenario never happens?
Answer (April 21, 2006):
If this extremely unlikely event were to occur, the correct restart would be a corner kick for the opposing team.
Although direct free kicks and penalty kicks are dealt with under separate Laws, the only real difference between them--from the point of view of their name--is that the penalty kick has been committed by the defending team within its own penalty area. The immediate reason is the same for both, a direct free kick foul. If a direct free kick goes directly (without being played or touched by an opponent) into the team's own goal, the correct restart is a corner kick. So it is in this situation.
It is clear that the question arises solely because the Law is entirely silent on the matter. The answer is acceptable only because (a) the situation is so unlikely and (b) it is consistent with what we do know about all other restarts.
SUSPENDED COACH USING ELECTRONIC DEVICES TO COMMUNICATE WITH TEAM
I have a question regarding the usage of electronic devices (ie: two way radios, cell phones, etc) by the coaches during a match. Is there a FIFA or USSF Rule that forbids such usage?
My concern comes because our League MISO (Men's Island Soccer Organization) has a coach that has been suspended for a 5 year minimum term. However, I've received reports from some referees that although he's suspended from any activity with the League, he's coaching the team via a two way radio with which he communicates with either the new coach or the team manager.
Is this permissible? If not, could you provide me with the Rules that state that this is not allowed?
Answer (April 19, 2006):
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.
To ensure better compliance from its teams, perhaps the league should provide more complete rules and guidance 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.
WHERE TO PUNISH DISSENT BY GOALKEEPER IN OWN PENALTY AREA
The ball is in play at midfield, what would the restart be for dissent by the goalkeeper who is in his own penalty area?
Answer (April 18, 2006):
If the referee stops play to punish misconduct, the restart is taken from the place where the misconduct occurred. In this case it would be the spot where the goalkeeper dissented. Do not forget that if the misconduct is by a defending team player in his or her goal area, the restart is taken from the goal area line that runs parallel to the goal line.
KNOW WHEN AND HOW YOU WILL BE PAID
what is the proper protocol for collection of fees?
- pregame, after game ?
- mention it if it "forgotten" ?
did a game last week, one coach did not pay me, hung around his sideline after game, finally caught his attention, he claimed he was not aware he was to pay me or not aware how much, started searching thru his pockets , ... etc.
he also had no card for himself, no lineup sheet for me or opposition, etc.
is this common?
Answer (April 18, 2006):
All competitions must make it clear to their clubs and teams what the appropriate timing is for paying the officials. Some do it at the game, others at the end of the season, etc. You should check the method of payment with your assignor before accepting any games in a competition you are not familiar with.
And, yes, it is all too common (in all senses of the word), for people to attempt to avoid paying their legitimate debts. But no referee should ever allow a game that requires line-up sheet and cards to begin without them.
STOP EXCESSIVE CONTACT EARLY
In a U17B D1 travel game I did yesterday, one of the coaches complained that I allowed too much contact around the ankle and lower leg. Not during slide tackles but when the boys were on their feet and challenging for the ball. How do you decide when to blow the whistle on contact like this?
Answer (April 12, 2006):
You stop this sort of play the first time it occurs. If you make it clear that it is not allowed, it won't happen again--at least in this particular game.
I recently played a match with the league following FIFA rules. A player received two yellow cards and was shown the red.
The league claims they can count the yellows for disciplinary reasons however I've read FIFA [Disciplinary Code] Article 18 which says the 2 yellow cards should be rescinded once an indirect red is given.
Can a league count yellow cards in that situation?
Answer (April 6, 2006):
A memorandum of October 22, 2002, forbids the practice you describe. We are not certain just what "an indirect red" is, but the league or other competition authority may not discount or dismiss any cards given by the referee.
To: State Associations
From: Alfred Kleinaitis
Manager of Referee Development and Education
Subject: Mandatory Suspension Following Dismissal
Date: October 22, 2002
FIFA Circular 821, dated October 1, 2002, reminds all national associations that any player dismissed from the field is to be automatically suspended from the next match of the competition in which the player was dismissed.
This mandatory suspension is to be enforced for all dismissals (red cards) regardless of the reason and will include send-offs for receiving a second yellow card as well as for actions leading directly to the dismissal. The duration of the suspension can be extended beyond one match by the competition authority.
All national associations are reminded in particular that they may not seek to avoid this binding instruction by passing "exceptional rules," i.e., a provision which creates any sort of exception.
The automatic one-match suspension may only be waived if it is proven that the referee dismissed the wrong player in a case of mistaken identity.
In no case may the decision of the referee be modified after the game, as is clearly stated in Law 5 of The Laws of the Game.
FOLLOW-ON QUESTION AND RESPONSE RE COUNTING CARDS
In this case the player was red-carded and sent from the field after the second caution. The league allowed him to play the following game.
Later in the season he was banned for receiving 4 yellow cards in the same season.
The league rules state that 2 yellows in the same game count as a red. However in this situation they counted the 2 yellows to the ban in addition to the red.
Should the league count all the cards, just the yellows or just the red?
Thanks again for your help. I'm confused as I always assumed once a red card was given the player is ejected and misses at least the following game. All displinary action thus would relate to the red card and not the prior cautions.
Answer (April 10, 2006):
It is up to the league to enforce the rules they have on the books, to change the ones that don't belong there, and to clarify those that need clarification. Should a player sit out a game for a second caution in a single game? Absolutely; that is a policy of both U.S. Soccer and FIFA. If the league rules don't say that, they should be changed to do so, but other than that--whether they count as 2 yellows or a red or both--that is league business. The league is the authority that sets the disciplinary standards. Neither U.S. Soccer nor FIFA determine that if you have 4 yellows in a season you must sit out a game. That is something the league puts into its rules of competition, just as FIFA says that if a player receives two cautions in a round of the World Cup that player must sit a game. It is not part of the Laws of the Game, but of the rules of the competition.
In no case is it the responsibility of the referee on a game to be concerned about who can play and who cannot. The body that sets the rules of competition must see that they are properly enforced through its own agents.
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.
Submit your questions via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.