Question Number: 23841

Law 5 - The Referee 8/27/2010

RE: AYSO Under 13

Mike of Chino Hills, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 23625

How stringently should a referee enforce encroachment during the penalty kick? In his answer, Referee McHugh mentioned that it appeared that the encroachment was accepted by either team, and may be considered trifling. I've heard similar arguments, such as whether the encroachment had an impact on the play.

But I've also been told that 'trifling' only applies to Law 12 offenses.

-- So what if the attacker kicks a shot straight into the net (no rebound) while a team-member encroached a step or two? Should this be ignored? If so, then what about a yard or two?

-- Do we only care if the goalkeeper was not distracted, and there was no play on a rebound? Otherwise, it is considered 'trifling'? Does 'trifling' apply to encroachment, even if it is not a Law 12 offense?

-- How carefully should the referee enforce or pay attention to encroachment? At what point, if ever, is it considered a 'gotcha' call?

It seems that there is always some sort of encroachment at the premier level. At least, in the World Cup, the refs let a lot go. Does the same apply at the youth level? Is this more like the Law says one thing, but the reality is another?

My daughter once played a youth game where the kicker made a penalty kick shot straight to the upper corner of the net. Her coach argued loudly that an attacking player had entered the arch early, and was livid that the referee awarded the goal anyway. I thought the referee made the right call, because it was such a great shot. But in law, the referee may have been wrong.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Mike
The art of refereeing is the art of knowing when to stop the game and when to let it go. It is knowing what is significant which needs to be called and what is trifling which does not need to be called. Trifling applies to all of the Laws of the Game not just Law 12.
So in the case of a penalty kick the referee has to judge what is trifling encroachment, trifling movement off the line and what is not. In this video clip the referee has the penalty kick retaken 5 times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F8e6mq3yqs.
Indeed if the keeper saved the last penalty it would have been retaken as well. Was all this needed or helpful to the game. Yes the referee was entirely correct yet it achieved very little IMO. The livid coach in your daughter's game is trying to influence the referee on what was probably a trifling encroachment. By all means if the encroachment interferes with the penalty or the player has gained an advantage on a rebound then the referee must use the Law to deal with it.
This leads me on to movement off the line by goalkeepers on a PK. The success rate at penalties is 80%+ so saves are indeed rare. I saw a penalty save in the PL this week and the GK had taken one step off his line. Technically a retake but the referee and AR saw the step as trifling and went with a corner kick. Had the GK say taken more steps then that is not trifling and the referee must deal with it.
IFAB the law framers used to include a statement that referees should only penalise deliberate breaches of the Law and to ignore trifling or doubtful breaches of the Law. That is no longer in the Laws yet as referees we just need to ensure that the game is played fairly, honestly and within the spirit of the game

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Mike, you're thinking about advantage which, here in the US, only applies to Law 12. Trifling offences apply to all the Laws. That said, when it comes to penalty kicks, I think FIFA is not consistent. They have in the past called out to referees to put a stop to there being 5-10 players almost even with the kicker by the time the ball is kicked but at the same time, you see just this behavior in professional matches all over the world.

In your daughter's game, sounds like the referee made the correct decision. The teammate of the attacker being a bit into the penalty area had no effect on a perfectly placed shot and I would have ignored that also

Answer provided by Referee Gene Nagy

Mike, you are so right: in theory there is no encroachment but in practice it's done all over the place. So basically refs can call back a shot with the slightest of encroachment but by example (World Cup, Premier League) a lot of it should be ignored. This is one play that is not done by the book but by common sense.
The ref in you daughter's game probably did what 95% of refs would have done. But who cares if the coach was livid? Isn't that normal for a coach?
As far as 'trifling' is concerned, refs are told to let little things go and go for the bigger transgressions. Now a little offside is still offside but a little nudge is to be ignored. Taking a throw in a free kick 5 yards away from where it should be, is no big deal. Six seconds or eight seconds in goalie possession is also not a big deal.
The trend I see is if it didn't make any difference whether it went in or not on a penalty, then ignore a bit of encroachment.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Here is what the Advice to Referees, an official USSF document for referees has to say on Trifling Infractions:

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 trifling infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

As for encroachment, the issue is indeed whether the encroachment affects play. If not, in the opinion of the referee, then no call need be made. Knowing when the ball is kicked versus when the players other than the kicker and keeper moved is often difficult, as the referee only has one set of eyes. If the encroachment is minor, it is either not seen or is ignored. Blatant encroachment that affects either the keeper or the kicker should be dealt with according to Law 14.

It all comes down to the 7 little words 'If, in the opinion of the referee...'