Question Number: 26073

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/17/2012

RE: Grade 7, state candidate for 2012 Adult

James Bogdanoff of Aledo, TX usa asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26046

I am pleased to see this issue come up as it happened in my game and I wrote for an official answer to the question. Here is a cut and paste of my email with Jim Allen:

From: Jim Allen
Date: December 28, 2011 9:08:39 AM CST
To: James Bogdanoff
Subject: Re: Ask A Soccer Ref Question

James,
You will find there are as many opinions as there are people. However, in this case the only opinion that matters is that of the Law. No, this is not an offense if, in the opinion of the referee, this was a natural play. The player knew he could not deliberately kick the ball for his 'keeper to pick up, but this header was entirely legal.

Jim Allen
USSF National Instructor Staff



Question: I have not been able to find an answer searching the website

or talking with my referee brother Mike Bogdanoff.



The questions is on a defenders throw in with the ball traveling

throught the air to his keeper and right before the ball reaches the

keeper another defender teammate heads the ball directly to the

keepers hands. The ball never touched the ground and went from thrower

to header to keepers hands in the penalty area.



I felt that this circumvented the direct throw to the keeper rule and

let play continue but verbally told the players that they can not do

that as it was against the spirit of the rule.



Is there an opinion on this?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi James
This question has featured recently on our site. I concur with Mr Jim Allen's view on this. If it is a natural play then there is no offence. If however in the opinion of the referee the situation was contrived to circumvent Law 12 then it is an offence.
The player would be the cautioned and the restart is an IDFK from where the header took place.
As I said in reply to a similar question context is important for me. If the situation was seen as a ploy to run down the clock then it is circumvention. If it was a situation that just developed with the ball put smartly back into play my advice would be to allow play to continue.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

As Jim Allen clearly points out, the only opinion that matters is the referee working that game that day.

Your opinion during the game you worked was throwing the ball to a teammate's head so the ball could 'legally' end up in the keeper's hands was a violation of the Spirit of the Game, which is misconduct. The Law gives you that authority and also the authority to just have a quick word with the players or to issue a caution with subsequent yellow card.

My opinion is whatever the referee decides is correct. I think for a caution to be given for trickery at a throw in, the play would have to unfold as you described. The throw is basically directly to the keeper. A teammate realizing if his keeper handles the throw a close to goal IDFK will result, quickly heads the ball to the keeper. Or, a set piece where a teammate of the keeper stands close to the keeper so he may head the ball directly thrown to the keeper thus circumventing Law 12.

You could make a case for either scenario being misconduct but in my opinion, the set piece would be more obvious.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

The wise referee does not make trouble where there isn't any, so your choice to let play continue was a good one based on your description. This issue of circumvention is rare in today's game, and it usually stands out pretty clearly when it is done.

I reiterate that if (big IF) the referee determines this was not a natural part of play (and it usually is) and decides to call the circumvention or trickery based on observation and 'feel', she will issue the card to the defender who headed the ball and restart with an indirect free kick where the ball was headed. This is not an offense by the keeper.

Let me stress this is not a common call, nor one referees should go looking to call.