You Call It Our Questions YOUR Answers AskTheRef.com

Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules

You-Call-It 48

Question...

3 FOR 1 early CHRISTMAS present!

(1)Last seconds of a tie game a penalty is awarded. Time is extended to allow the kick to be taken. Player takes the kick and the ball is deflected on to the post by the goalkeeper and then is erratically rolling, along the goal line off the inside of the post. A playful dog has spotted the ball and tries to bite the ball as it runs along the the line. You are unsure if the ball was destined for the goal
or if it would have come back into play. Your Match Your Decision Your Reputation

(2)Last seconds of a tie game a penalty is awarded. Time is extended to allow the kick to be taken. Player takes the kick and the ball is deflected high into the air by the goalkeeper who runs out pumping his fist he has stopped the shot! The ball returns to earth with lots of backspin and is obviously headed into the goal! A panicked but alert defender runs in to clear the ball away! An attacker sees this and runs after the defender and trips him just before he reaches the ball. The ball then fully crosses the goal line under the crossbar and between the posts.
Your Match Your Decision Your Reputation.

(3) Last seconds of a tie game the referee appears to incorrectly award a PK for a high boot in the face of an attacker at near the PK spot. The AR is confused slightly as there was no contact but he sees the referee pointing to the PK spot. The attacker who narrowly ducked away was closest to the ball, grabs it, places the ball approx.. on the PK spot and quickly kicks the ball towards the goal. The keeper was thinking it was a PK had not prepared himself, was tying his shoe and fixing his gloves whilst on a knee as the referee had not signaled the PK to be taken . The ball smacks him in the face and deflects into the goal. Unfortunately the keeper suffers a bloody nose and requires treatment. The opposition are screaming about the injustice. The referee is declaring no goal but shows a red card to the kicker for VC instead of a caution for USB, orders him off thus reducing his team by a player. The AR is still befuddled and is trying to get the referee attention but at the same time contain and record all the unrest going around him. The kicker (a referee himself) is upset saying he thought it was INDFK for PIADM and had a right to take the kick quickly. The AR in consultation with the CR is suggesting that it was an INDFK offense! as referee
Your Match Your Decision Your Reputation

Our Hint

Our Answer...

These are three "killer" questions but think on, What is FAIR? Also USSF referees the ATR is no longer valid as quotable instructions as to validate your assumptions only the A&G off the LOTG is accepted. That does not mean the ATR is a bad document or not of use it simply has been abandoned by the USSF as their only source material
(1) People there is reason why dogs on a leash at a park is a good idea! We know that the referee decides when the PK is completed. If the dog ...tries to bite the ball... but does not succeed, and if the referee is smart enough to wait and see if the untouched ball will cross the line, then award the goal if it does. In such case the outside agent has not influenced the play.
On the other hand, if the dog does (bite/knock) the ball prior to it crossing the line then clearly the PK has not been completed. By the letter of the law if the ball has rebounded off the GK or the frame of the goal (as it has in this example) and then is touched by an outside agent the restart must be a dropped ball. But in extended time there can be no dropped ball restart. The period of play is over.
So what a pickle for the referee. In my opinion the fair thing to do if the dog does touch the ball and it's clearly still on the line and MOVING towards the goal (that is, the PK is not yet completed) is to retake the PK. The kicking team should not suffer in this instance by being denied their fair chance to score a goal in extended time.
Is this bending the LOTG? Yeah, maybe. Breaking the LOTG? Yeah, maybe. But what's fair? What upholds the spirit of fairness and equality? Mind you if the ball was CLEARLY deviating away from the goal prior to the dog making contact you are not incorrect to declare the PK over as a miss. YMMV.

Our 2nd toughie!
(2)A PK in extended time is playable only by the kicker and the GK. Nobody else can play the ball and, in fact, nobody else should even bother entering the penalty area (though the LOTG do not prohibit this). Again, the referee decides when the PK is completed. Hopefully he/she will wait and see the outcome of the spinning ball.
There is no indication that either field player entered the penalty area or penalty arc prior to the kick. So nothing to consider there. Also neither is an outside agent.
Since neither of the two field players touched the ball and it eventually did cross the line, Lets award the goal. We also caution the attacker for the misconduct (unsporting behaviour/trip) and warn the defender for attempting to play a ball he had no right to play.
Again, YMMV and maybe we are bending the LOTG, but what's fair? The defender initiated the stupidity by going after a ball he had no right to play. The attacker compounded the stupidity by tripping in a challenge for a ball he also had no right to play. Let the two cancel each other. Give the goal and hope the assessor believes in more in fairness and less in refereeing with a stick up your rear end.

From the editor(The third is such a mess that when I presented it to the FIFA referee committee they not only refused to give me an answer but refused to comment at all! Sigh This PK situation was comprised of two separate instances and contrived into our little plate of messy spaghetti. Something, that unfortunately I am well known for!
The 1st incident was the PIADM was in fact the correct call established by the AR input and the CR had the goal was reversed but restarted ceremonially with an INDFK due to the CR initially claiming it was a PK. So his interference created the confusion . The second part was another PK where the keeper was actually hit in the face with the ball by a kicker going too early AFTER being told NOT to go until the whistle. The fact the kicker chose to disregard the instructions and in doing so actually endangered the safety of the keeper the referee decided to send him off rather than caution. I combined the two into a single crappy moment so sorry if it reads as a horror show! lol)

CONSIDER carefully whether our answer(s) are believable if at all conceivable!

(3) It is critical to remember although a referee can alter a decision prior to restarting play! Only if he accepts the additional information as credible compared to the information he already has in arriving at the initial decision. Plus if time has expired is a PK the ONLY restart we can reverse our decision on?
>
> "If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball at an
> opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless
> manner nor using excessive force, the referee must allow play to continue."
> (Hard to think a ball directed into the face is not EXCESSIVE! but was it really?)
>
> "An indirect free kick must be retaken if the referee fails to raise his arm to
> indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal."
> (Ahh but THE BALL WAS NOT kicked DIRECTLY)
>
> "The initial indirect free kick is not nullified by the referee’s mistake."
> (So if the indfk restriction of a 2nd player touching the ball aka the keeper deflection occurs then we could count the goal!)
>
> No referee signals for a PK unless he believes he saw a DFK foul inside the PA committed by the defending team. The fact there was NO contact ... MIGHT... be grounds for rethinking the foul as a PIADM, which is an INDFK offence rather than an attempt to kick an opponent for a DFK. But if it starts out as a PK as a referee I suggest take charge of the ball ASAP. Do the WAIT for whistle etc.. and no doubt if the AR has something to say it will get told to you before the PK begins. The reasoning to take the kick quickly and unfortunately hit the keeper then rebound into the goal because a player disagrees with the initial thoughts of a referee who DOES NOT SIGNAL an INDFK but a PK is not a valid assumption to be made. The fact the CR might abide by the AR input is certainly a possibility but not a certainty. The mechanics here are flawed and as a result decisions are being made without eye contact and receiving a bit of... NECESSARY... Intel from the AR. The CR though has dug himself a deep hole, so can he extricate himself?

Our thoughts regarding the red card for kicking the ball from 12 yds away and accidentally hitting the keeper in the face? It is a harsh outcome albeit an unpleasant result for the keeper, we think it excessive and even a caution is debateable! The player taking the kick is not dissenting the instructions so much as misinterpreting them. Kicking a ball off an incorrectly signaled restart is not the same as disregarding proper instructions NOT to go . If we follow the AR advice and reflect that it was an INDFK offence given it WAS taken correctly just not signalled correctly, should it be discounted? The INDFK restart from the approx. spot of the foul struck the keeper as a second player and deflected into the goal. You could rescind the card and award the goal. End the match!

We do think it matters as the CR has inadvertently interfered and perhaps created a ceremonial free kick. That said we think the red card has to be rescinded given it was in theory a legitimate shot. At best a caution perhaps a retake to make it FAIR to all. But is that bending the LOTG again too far? In point of fact was there DOGSO on the part of the defender who did foul? Was there criteria present to have him sent off reducing the defence to 10 players as well? Best ignored if you do award the goal, as you want to be leaving quickly lol

Still as CR you DID signal a PK not an INDFK ! After consulting with the AR if you wish to continue awarding the PK for an attempt to kick that as an opinion on a fact of play will not be disputed even if disagreed with. That said if you as CR are OK with claiming the early free kick of the ball into the head was a double caution delaying the restart and USB or a straight VC the red card can stand reducing them by a player. But we warn you it likely the send off would be appealed/protested! On the other hand WAS there DOGSO on the initial foul that could have a defender being removed and reducing their team to ten players as well? Given time is expired is it necessary to do so? The reality of the LOTG is IF there is reason to show it for DOGSO then do so1! Still time is extended to take the PK, so do the PK and live with the results. Lots of sticky sauce and smelly Parmesan cheese on this messy spaghetti plate lol

So no real solution just our idea of fair
retake the kick this was a blade of grass restart for PIADM. If there was a DOGSO ensure the defender is held accountable show the red card send off , rescind the red to yellow for the kicker ensure proper positions of all players for the INDFK and add a bit of play time to account for the lost time! In reality nothing is going to really save this from what it is a truly crappy situation.
As in all things your Match Your Decision Your Reputation!

That was our Question YOUR Answer is...

Amy Lloyd a Referee from Santa Cruz California USofA

You-Call-It #48
(i) Considerations: (a) ball is rolling along goal-line erratically = still in field of play, (b) ball is interfered with by outside agent, (c) time was extended to take the penalty kick, (d) referee sole decision-maker when pk is complete as per (e) Law 14 (pk), and Law 3 (outside agent interference).

As referee, unsure is not equal to uncertain. Erratic ball moving along goal-line includes certainty that ball had moved forward before playful dog-bite. Situation tranforms into interference by outside agent (Law 3), esp, when certain ball was moving forward. Law is clear on this - retake. However, first make arrangement(s) to remove the bally canine.

The other outcome with outside agent touching ball rebound into field is dropping ball that penalises the attacking team = Not fair.

(ii) Considerations: (a) panicking alert defender can not legally clear the ball, (b) ball movement was not interfered with by anyone after pk was taken. Award goal. Then book the attacker who tripped panicked alert defender for unsporting behaviour.

(iii) Considerations for resolving soup of referee's making: (a) referee takes consultation from AR however not obliged to follow, (b) referee can change decision if play was not started, and (c) referee must not confuse players, and communicate clearly the adjudicated decision. That is, IFK signal must be given to defenders if IFK, --or-- PK if adjudged direct kick offence. With a key match incident such described with offence near the PK-spot, best to take correct advice from AR for IFK, and not to confuse players with incorrect signal or instruction.

In either case, proper procedure not followed with taking of kick in critical area. On consult with AR, decision is to award IFK, then signal clearly and retake IFK. If sticking with PK decision, then administer positions of players, keeper, ar, ball and identify kicker before taking of penalty kick.

Sending off attacker for violent conduct correct as keeper has no fair chance of playing for quick indirect kick.
--

AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999

<-->

Soccer Referee Extras: Sunday, November 24, 2024
Offside Question?
Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

<>
Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Recent Questions

Click Go to view all recently posted questions