US SoccerUS Soccer

December 2005 Archive (I of II)


GOALKEEPER LYING ON THE BALL

Question:
Question was a U10 keeper went for ball, missed it with her hands and caught it on the ground with her legs. She didn't lay on the ball but was trying to get to it with her hands. Attacker tried to kick ball and referee awarded IFK to attacking team. A fellow referee cited FIFA Q&A for a keeper not in possession of ball lies on it and the referee calls playing in a dangerous manner. My take was the referee must have felt the keeper was playing in a dangerous manner and awarded an IFK accordingly. A third referee said, "The keeper has made a save. that's what keeper's do,however awkward the movement, he still made the save and has control of the ball. THE CONTROL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WITH THE HANDS ONLY. (caps mine). The keeper was not playing in a dangerous manner. The attacker should have been called for an offense an a DFK awarded the keeper's team.

My quibble is control WITHOUT hands. Would you mind clarifying this?

Answer (November 29, 2005):
The simple and only true answer--the decision is up to the referee's evaluation of the total situation.

By having the ball trapped between her legs (and not yet having control with the hands), the goalkeeper MAY HAVE BEEN unfairly not allowing other players access to the ball--no matter how innocent her true intent. The important thing is how long the goalkeeper was lying on the ball and whether or not she was making an effort to get it into her hands. In other words, whether or not the 'keeper was lying on the ball for an unreasonable amount of time.

For the referee to have called playing dangerously on the 'keeper here, he would have to have decided that she had trapped the ball between her legs and was not making a reasonably speedy effort either to play the ball away from her or to gain hand control. If it was a case of the ball winding up trapped between the keeper's legs and more or less immediately thereafter the attacker challenged, then the proper call would have been AT LEAST playing dangerously against the attacker and possible a direct kick foul for kicking if the challenge involved actual contact.

The issue is whether the keeper delayed unnecessarily--if she did, then she was guilty of withholding the ball from SAFE play and that is a classic situation of playing dangerously; if she did not and the attacker's challenge was virtually simultaneous with the ball becoming trapped, then she did NOT withhold the ball from play and the attacker's action was either playing dangerously (indirect free kick) or a direct-free-kick foul.


CHARGING THE GOALKEEPER

Question:
May an attacker charge the opposite goalkeeper?
1. Inside the keeper's goal area;
2. Inside the rest of the keeper's penalty area;
3. Outside of the keeper's penalty area.

Answer (November 28, 2005):
Charging the opposing goalkeeper is possible only if the charging player and the goalkeeper are both going for a ball that is within playing distance of both but is not in the actual possession of the goalkeeper. If the goalkeeper has control of the ball in any manner other than with his hands (see Law 12, IBD 2 for the definition of "control"), an opponent may charge that 'keeper in the same manner that he or she would charge a field player who has the ball. The Law presumes that a goalkeeper who has clear possession of the ball in his or her hands has up to six seconds to distribute the ball into play and any player who interferes with this distribution by charging or otherwise interfering should be sanctioned. Thus, if the goalkeeper legally has hand control of the ball, then the 'keeper may NOT be charged, no matter where he or she is, and any attempt to do so could be punished with an indirect free kick or a direct free kick, depending on the circumstances. Again depending on the circumstances, the player might also be subject to a caution/yellow card for unsporting behavior.

 


REFEREE IDENTITY

Question:
Are referees required to have the proper USSF Identification Card in their possession (or in their equipment bag, in the immediate vicinity) while performing their duty as referee? Must a referee give this information to the coach or other personnel if requested?

Answer (November 28, 2005):
No, although you must wear your badge, you are not required to have your registration card--it is NOT an identification card--with you at the game. If the coach or other team officials want to know the referee's name, they can ask and the referee should be prepared to give his or her name. In this day of extreme caution, the referee should not give any other information, such as Social Security or identification number or phone (office or home) or address or e-mail address. If the person asking for the information wants to know more, tell them to contact the referee assignor for the competition.

 


NUMBER OF SUBSTITUTES

Question:
My question pertains to the following text in Law 3: "The rules of the competition must state how many substitutes may be nominated, from three up to a maximum of seven."

Does that text refer only to official competitions organized by FIFA, the confederations, or the national associations? I am trying to ascertain whether "a greater number of substitutes" (under Other Matches) can be more than seven.

Answer (November 28, 2005):
The specific number of substitutes allowed is governed by the competition authority and must be published in the rules of the competition.

 


NO OFFSIDE FROM A THROW-IN DEFLECTED BY AN OPPONENT

Question:
Today for the first time ever a referee that claims he is very knowledgeable told me that if an attacking player that is in an offside position receives the ball from a throw in (by his team mate) that is deflected from a defenders head or body then he is offside and an offside call should be made since the exception states that it is not offside if the attacking player receives the ball "directly" from a throw in and in this case it was not received directly????

I disagreed with his interpretation. He told me that he looked it up and it was confirmed to him that he was correct. Is he correct?

Answer (November 28, 2005):
You are correct and the referee is dead wrong. Here is a previously-published answer from May 27, 2003, reissued here to keep the record straight: Your reasoning is correct: Deflections off opponents do not change the basic premise that a player cannot be called offside directly from a throw-in. In this case, the correct decision is that there was no infringement of the Law. Now, if the ball had been deflected by a teammate of the player in the offside position, the referee would have been correct in calling offside.

 


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 askareferee@ussoccer.org.

×