tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16238755995508524212024-03-13T16:43:00.739-04:00FIFA Soccer and Futsal LawsA discussion of the FIFA Laws of the Game for both soccer and futsal, with their applications, interpretations, and confusions by a Canadian referee from Ontario.Alex Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262538690762505685noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623875599550852421.post-33565647104309193562014-11-20T14:40:00.000-05:002019-05-16T08:38:57.693-04:00Soccer 13/14 Law 12 - Goalkeepers and DOGSO-HRecently the Ontario Soccer Association held its first RUG and PUG (Regional and Provincial upgrade groups) weekend at various locations around the province. At one of the sessions, an interesting question was posed to the group about what might happen when a goalkeeper handles the ball illegally to deny a goal.<br />
<br />
Like many of the other decisions under the Laws of the Game, it is both complicated and incredibly simple, and to understand the reasoning behind the answer to the question, a brief history of the misconduct of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity must be looked at.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<h4>
History </h4>
Before 1980, there was no real consideration of what became known as the "professional foul", but an incident in the that year's English FA Cup final began to drive the IFAB board toward the Laws that exist today. In 1990 as the World Cup approached, IFAB submitted a Mandatory Instruction about the "professional foul" to Law XII - Fouls and Misconduct that read as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If, in the opinion of the referee, a player who is moving towards his opponents' goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal is intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means, i.e. an offence punishable by a free-kick (or a penalty-kick), thus denying the attacking player's team the aforesaid goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).</blockquote>
<br />
The following year, the IFAB board further expanded on this, changing that Mandatory Instruction to Decision 15 in Law XII and then introduced Decision 16, which brought in the concept of handling, something that wasn't covered in the decision from the prior year:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If, in the opinion of the referee, a player, other than the goalkeeper within his own penalty-area, denies his opponents a goal, or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, by intentionally handling the ball, he shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).</blockquote>
These two items eventually became, in 2006, two of the seven sending off offences in Law as what is commonly known (especially in the United States) as "DOGSO-F" and "DOGSO-H" (Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity by means of offence punishable by Free kick or Handling respectively).<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Scenario</h4>
With the history out of the way, we can look at the scenario, which was presented as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A player deliberately kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper, who is inside his own penalty area. An opponent is there and about to kick the ball into the goal when the goalkeeper dives on the ball, collecting it with his hands, before the opponent is able to touch the ball.</blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uTrAQKt6RmE/VGzmOO2dNHI/AAAAAAAADGs/enixFiz4v74/s1600/Christian%2BAbiatti%2Bdiving%2Bsave.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uTrAQKt6RmE/VGzmOO2dNHI/AAAAAAAADGs/enixFiz4v74/s1600/Christian%2BAbiatti%2Bdiving%2Bsave.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">AC Milan's Christian Abiatti diving to save a ball against Lecce (Mar 11/2012)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
IFAB Laws</h4>
The new wording of in terms of DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H read as follows in Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ndtsGESNggg/UvU50AbKOtI/AAAAAAAACGE/7s-Ujcbr97g/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogsoh.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ndtsGESNggg/UvU50AbKOtI/AAAAAAAACGE/7s-Ujcbr97g/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogsoh.png" height="66" title="" width="512" /></a>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-51aZXtOy-bM/UvUvhEBLy5I/AAAAAAAACF0/bD2WqRZuAKM/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogso.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving toward the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-51aZXtOy-bM/UvUvhEBLy5I/AAAAAAAACF0/bD2WqRZuAKM/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogso.png" height="72" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
We know that the goalkeeper cannot legally play the ball with his hands (until it is out of play or touched by an opponent) as it was deliberately kicked to him by a teammate (pg. 37), so there is an argument that can be made that, as the goalkeeper cannot be sanctioned for DOGSO-H as per the LofG, as this is an action that results in a free kick (an indirect free kick to be precise), it would fall under DOGSO-F.<br />
<br />
Having said that, there is the suggestion that, by including the portion in the DOGSO-H within parentheses about goalkeepers, IFAB wishes to indicate that this overrules all other DOGSO considerations when goalkeepers are involved in such a situation. But, is the offense here actually handling, or is it simply one of what are sometimes termed as "technical offences"? If it isn't actually handling, then does DOGSO-F come back into play?<br />
<br />
To clarify this, IFAB included a portion in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (pg. 119):<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kA27zkHqlsY/VGzfwpAnNWI/AAAAAAAADGc/WbfDrShRdQY/s1600/Law12-gk-handling_IG.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player. Inside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball. He can, however, be guilty of several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick." border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kA27zkHqlsY/VGzfwpAnNWI/AAAAAAAADGc/WbfDrShRdQY/s1600/Law12-gk-handling_IG.png" height="114" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
This indicates that the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence nor any misconduct related to handling the ball within his own penalty area.<br />
<br />
This is in line with the FIFA clarification provided by Héctor Vergara, "the GK is allowed to use his hands in his penalty area, so he can’t be sanctioned for DOGSO, he should be penalized with [an indirect free kick] for touching the ball with his hands after being played to him by a teammate."<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Final Decision</h4>
The answer is that, in this scenario, the resulting restart would be an indirect free kick with no associated misconduct (caution or sending off) for the goalkeeper.<br />
<br />
Somewhat unrelated to this but still interesting, the 2006 Questions and Answers on the Laws of the Game (the precursor material to the "Additional Instructions and Guidelines" introduced in 2007-08) has a pair of interesting questions under the Law 12 (pg. 26) material that present a reason for cautioning a goalkeeper for "handling the ball" within his own penalty area:<br />
<ol start="6">
<li><i>A player, other than the goalkeeper, standing in his own penalty area holding a shinguard, hits the ball with his shinguard to prevent it entering the goal. What action does the referee take?</i><br />
The referee awards a penalty kick and the player is sent off for preventing a goal. The shinguard is regarded as an extension of the player’s hand.</li>
<li><i>What happens if, in a similar situation, the player in question is the goalkeeper?</i><br />The referee stops play, cautions the goalkeeper for unsporting behaviour and play is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team unless covered by the Special Circumstances listed in Law 8 – The Start and Restart of Play. </li>
</ol>
<ol start="6">
</ol>
Alex Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262538690762505685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623875599550852421.post-2129172535277679882014-04-11T15:21:00.000-04:002019-05-16T08:38:33.634-04:00Soccer 13/14 Law 16 - The Goal Kick - Stationary or not?I came across an interesting discussion the other day about goal kicks.
The discussion was specifically about whether the ball needed to be
stationary at a goal kick. It was presented such that the Laws of the Game did not
state that the ball needed to be stationary at goal kicks, but did for all other kicked restarts. <br />
<br />
With a bold statement like that, it almost necessitates looking things up in the Laws of the Game book.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
So, sure enough, the various restarts are as described as follows:<br />
<br />
Law 8 – The Start and Restart of Play. This Law covers the kick-off, which starts a match and a half, and is the restart after a goal has been scored. It states in the procedure section that:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5cPz5A83e8I/U0fhzbXXEpI/AAAAAAAACKc/yGM1pf83XiI/s1600/Restart-Law+8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="the ball must be stationary on the centre mark" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5cPz5A83e8I/U0fhzbXXEpI/AAAAAAAACKc/yGM1pf83XiI/s1600/Restart-Law+8.png" height="26" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Law 13 – Free Kicks. This covers direct and indirect free kicks (and thus, by extension, penalty kicks).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HKCCl6YMkaY/U0fh2Ya8cvI/AAAAAAAACKs/A7zRZPDUbm8/s1600/Restart-Law+13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="For both direct and indirect free kicks, the ball must be stationary when the kick is taken and the kicker must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player." border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HKCCl6YMkaY/U0fh2Ya8cvI/AAAAAAAACKs/A7zRZPDUbm8/s1600/Restart-Law+13.png" height="72" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Law 14 – The Penalty Kick. An extension of Law 13, this has its own extra note.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9YrY8rc3ZxE/U0fh2ZTbyiI/AAAAAAAACLA/qbj2N5Ohfg0/s1600/Restart-Law+14.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The ball: must be placed on the penalty mark" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9YrY8rc3ZxE/U0fh2ZTbyiI/AAAAAAAACLA/qbj2N5Ohfg0/s1600/Restart-Law+14.png" height="54" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Law 16 – The Goal Kick.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3zzMXHwXskQ/U0fh2Q4HBkI/AAAAAAAACKw/HBXuLYRot30/s1600/Restart-Law+16.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The ball is kicked from any point within the goal area by a player of the defending team" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3zzMXHwXskQ/U0fh2Q4HBkI/AAAAAAAACKw/HBXuLYRot30/s1600/Restart-Law+16.png" height="50" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Law 17 – The Corner Kick.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3jKTX2k5O0k/U0fh2rRqJdI/AAAAAAAACK8/DqAkfJZ0Z-I/s1600/Restart-Law+17.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The ball must be placed inside the corner arc nearest to the point where the ball crossed the goal line" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3jKTX2k5O0k/U0fh2rRqJdI/AAAAAAAACK8/DqAkfJZ0Z-I/s1600/Restart-Law+17.png" height="53" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
<br />
The lack of the word "placed" or "stationary" in Law 16 is a bit amusing, but the wording "from any point" almost suggests a placement. Of course, it can still be argued that when the ball is kicked, moving or not, it is from a "point within the goal area."<br />
<ul></ul>
Once the Interpretations are taken into play, things get a bit more precise, but the details are actually found in the Law 6 interpretations. The first deals with additional assistant referees, and is a new addition to the Laws of the Game interpretations (p. 84):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QdB7DFQtGGU/U0fqFjbaN5I/AAAAAAAACLM/4bcedloDRqs/s1600/Restart-AAR.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The additional assistant referees must check if the ball is placed inside the goal area. If the ball is not placed correctly, the additional assistant referee must communicate this to the referee." border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QdB7DFQtGGU/U0fqFjbaN5I/AAAAAAAACLM/4bcedloDRqs/s1600/Restart-AAR.png" height="90" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
<br />
Of course, very few games, especially at the amateur level, use additional assistant referees, and the interpretations also cover the assistant referee's duties on goal kicks (p. 87):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GnaPsP3vfOY/U0fqFqBL4VI/AAAAAAAACLQ/yDvAw-U9Zzk/s1600/Restart-AR.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="The assistant referees must check first if the ball is inside the goal area: if the ball is not placed correctly, the assistant referee must not move from his position, make eye contact with the referee and raise his flag" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GnaPsP3vfOY/U0fqFqBL4VI/AAAAAAAACLQ/yDvAw-U9Zzk/s1600/Restart-AR.png" height="98" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
The use of "placed" here brings things back in line with the other restarts.<br />
<br />
Last May, Matthew Barrett, a London, England based referee under the English FA, <a href="https://www.refereesassociation.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4131#p49273" target="_blank">posed the question directly to FIFA</a>, and they responded to the following question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Does the ball have to be stationary for a Goal Kick?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yes, as for any kick the ball has to be stationary (e.g. free kick, kick-off, goal kick). If not it has to be repeated. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
The USSF used to run an "Ask a Soccer Referee" feature, and in <a href="http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/ball-must-be-stationary-on-all-kick-restarts/" target="_blank">April 2007</a> also addressed this issue, stating that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The specific statements in Laws 8 and 13 that the ball be stationary for
the start and restart of play and free kicks also imply that the ball
must be stationary for all kick restarts. </blockquote>
Of course, the wording in Law 8 now only applies to kick-offs, and there is nothing anywhere within that obviously suggests that Law 13 applies to all other kick restarts.<br />
<br />
As an interesting point of note, in the 1890 Laws of the Game, the following phrase appeared in Law 10, before it was amended to remove "and goal-kick" in the 1938 Laws of the Game:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The kick-off (except as provided by Law 2), corner-kick and goal-kick shall be free-kicks within the meaning of this Law.</blockquote>
This particular year, not only were the Laws of the Game heavily rewritten and moved into the order that we are familiar with today <span class="st"> by Sir Stanley Rous</span>, but the word "stationary" first appeared, in reference to free kicks.<br />
<br />Alex Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262538690762505685noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623875599550852421.post-81672350812405942032014-02-07T15:06:00.003-05:002019-05-16T08:37:35.671-04:00Soccer 2013/14 Law 12 - Hanging off the crossbar (Updated)Something that was brought up after the prior <a href="https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/51/44/50/lawsofthegamefutsal2014_15_eneu_neutral.pdf">Law 12 discussion</a> was how FIFA's Laws of the Game apply to a situation where a player hangs off the crossbar during the course of play. This player could, of course, be a goalkeeper, a defender, or even an attacking player.<br />
<br />
So... what do we do? My immediate instinct is to blow the whistle and stop play, but why? There's nothing outright in the Laws of the Game for either soccer or futsal that directly discusses a player using the crossbar as an aid to play.<br />
<br />
So where does that leave us?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><h4>
IFAB Laws </h4>
The closest phrasing in the Laws of the Games that might apply in this situation comes in the Interpretations of Law 12 on page 123 of the 2013/14 book where, in the reasons for "Cautions for unsporting behaviour" (USB), it states:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJoYfb09VYk/UvUjw0Lc4vI/AAAAAAAACFg/D_uxSEhZAsk/s1600/Law12-crossbar-respect.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJoYfb09VYk/UvUjw0Lc4vI/AAAAAAAACFg/D_uxSEhZAsk/s1600/Law12-crossbar-respect.png" height="27" width="512" /></a></div>
<br />
The USSF Referee Program expanded on this in their <a href="https://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/2dda96edd75542a8add032e2d195a510.ashx" target="_blank">7+7 Advice to Referees memorandum</a> from June 2012, stating that an USB caution must be given for a number of things, including:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li>Uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play (leaning on the shoulders of a teammate, using an article of clothing to avoid direct contact with the ball, moving or removing a corner flag, hanging on a crossbar)</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
The USSF details this again in their <a href="https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/ruqcsf0671k1bcf6dzwf/1/348010025/2809854081/1" target="_blank">Advice to Referees document</a> (2012 update) with almost the same wording in section 12.28.1:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ul>
<li>Uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play: For example, leaning on the shoulders of a teammate, using an article of clothing to avoid direct contact with the ball, moving or removing the corner flag on a corner kick, hanging on the crossbar</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
So, it would seem that the instinct to blow the whistle would be correct, and then following up with a caution for USB, and an indirect free kick (IFK) to the non-offending team, Of course, these are not directives from FIFA, but the USSF interpretations, which must be in-line with FIFA and IFAB directives. As such, we'll run with them for the time being.<br />
<br />
The USSF goes further with respect to hanging from the crossbar and stopping a ball from entering the goal in 12.37 (Judging an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity), where it is stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.</blockquote>
<br />
This logic is supported in Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG, where it states (as relates to dismissals):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-51aZXtOy-bM/UvUvhEBLy5I/AAAAAAAACFw/_fa-K4TiPzg/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogso.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving toward the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-51aZXtOy-bM/UvUvhEBLy5I/AAAAAAAACFw/_fa-K4TiPzg/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogso.png" height="72" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Of course, it does not specify that it must be a direct free kick, and the "DOGSO-F" often mentioned refers to a "Free kick" for the "F", not a "Foul", and an indirect free kick (which is the restart for a stoppage of the game to administer a caution) is certain a free kick.<br />
<br />
Where this gets a bit confusing (and will likely upset the attacking team) is that the restart for such a play would be an indirect free kick, because the play was stopped to deal with the misconduct and administer a card. That free kick would be taken from the spot on the goal area line perpendicular to where the defender (player or GK) committed the misconduct.<br />
<br />
Of course, in the situation where a player (not the GK) hangs from the crossbar and stops a goal by deliberately handling the ball, this would not fall under the scenario mentioned above, but it would be a "DOGSO-H" situation because the player handled the ball, as per Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ndtsGESNggg/UvU50AbKOtI/AAAAAAAACGA/aR_Y3NuAOro/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogsoh.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ndtsGESNggg/UvU50AbKOtI/AAAAAAAACGA/aR_Y3NuAOro/s1600/Law12-crossbar-dogsoh.png" height="66" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
Altogether a number of unusual situations that, while they may rarely arise, do once in a while, even if they only arise in quizzes and tests along the way.<br />
<br />
Of course, this particular discussion covered the Laws of the Game for soccer, but the particular Law wordings in question are no different between soccer and futsal, and FIFA has been making a serious effort to make the two sets of Laws of the Game as similar as possible, so it seems logical that this would apply to futsal also.<br />
<br />
Any thoughts? Alternate theories or arguments?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update (Feb 12/14):</h4>
I was working through the interactive LotG knowledge tests from FIFA on their 2012-13 Laws of the Game Quiz and came across this exact question at the advanced level which put something of a different spin on the matter.<br />
<br />
The specific question (nivel2/12/119) was:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A defender, hanging by his arms from the crossbar of his own goal, heads the ball to prevent it from entering the goal. What decision should the referee make?<br />
<ol>
<li>The referee takes no disciplinary action and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.</li>
<li>The referee sends the player off and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.</li>
<li>The referee cautions the player and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.</li>
<li>All the answers are correct.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Based on the logic laid out above, I naturally chose #2 as the answer.<br />
<br />
<i><b>It was incorrect.</b></i><br />
<br />
According to the results, the correct answer is #3, and that the player should be cautioned and the play restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team. No DOGSO in this case it seems.<br />
<br />
The plot thickens...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update (Feb 21/14):</h4>
<br />
On a mailing list I'm on, Gil Weber posted a link to a video that shows an attacking playing using the crossbar to gain height above a defender to score a goal. Incredibly, the goal was allowed. The player in question is Martin Palermo in a Boca Juniors v River Plate game and can be seen here:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/orEQCyjYFRU" width="420"></iframe><br />
<br />
<h4>
Update (Mar 11/14):</h4>
The USSF released their updated Advice to Referees a week or so ago, and the newest version no longer contains the text about dismissing a player for hanging from the crossbar. In other discussions I've had, it's been suggested to me that FIFA explicitly says in the interpretations for Law 12 (pg 130) that a DOGSO-F requires a foul based on the following text:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6sGy_JcKo0Y/Ux8e6Fj6kWI/AAAAAAAACHw/vjyphzOYl4s/s1600/fifa_int_dogso.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area. If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goalscoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he still may be cautioned. Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity: the distance between the offence and the goal; the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball; the direction of the play; the location and number of defenders; the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6sGy_JcKo0Y/Ux8e6Fj6kWI/AAAAAAAACHw/vjyphzOYl4s/s1600/fifa_int_dogso.png" height="411" title="" width="512" /></a></div>
The second paragraph explicitly uses the phrase "despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent," thus suggesting that a foul is required. However, the third paragraph makes no mention of a foul, simply referring to an offence by stating "the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick." This, very explicitly, says that the offence need not be a foul against a player, but simply an offence that incurs a DFK or IFK.<br />
<br />
Yet another case of more mixed messages on this one. For the short term, based on the FIFA referee quiz and the USSF ATR change, I'm willing to go along with the caution for USB and IFK until directed otherwise. Alex Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262538690762505685noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1623875599550852421.post-2334953414087739772014-01-27T11:09:00.001-05:002019-05-16T08:36:24.103-04:00Futsal 2012/13 Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct (as applies to the GK)There's been an interesting discussion on twitter of late about futsal's Law 12, specifically as it applies to the indirect free kicks portion relating to the goalkeeper. The method currently taught in the CSA <i>seems </i>to be contradicted by what some higher level referees from Europe are stating.<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1623875599550852421" name="more"></a><br />
<a name='more'></a>The relevant portion of <a href="https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/51/44/50/lawsofthegamefutsal2014_15_eneu_neutral.pdf">Law 12 from FIFA</a> is as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eS0plgQ8QTQ/UuZ8PoIJGLI/AAAAAAAACEw/b199PDTZVz4/s1600/law12_gk_ifk.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eS0plgQ8QTQ/UuZ8PoIJGLI/AAAAAAAACEw/b199PDTZVz4/s1600/law12_gk_ifk.png" height="269" width="512" /></a></div>
<br />
The specific one in question is, coincidentally, the one that was changed ("kicked" to "played") for 2012/13:<br />
<ul>
<li>after playing the ball, he touches it again in his own half of the pitch after it<br />has been deliberately played to him by a team-mate without an opponent<br />playing or touching it</li>
</ul>
Here in Canada, and specifically Ontario, the interpretation followed is such that there is a "no foul, no card" situation when a goalkeeper dribbles the ball into the opposing half, then back into his own half of the pitch. This is what we, as referees, are taught, and what is applied during the course of matches.<br />
<br />
Having said that, according to a discussion with an English futsal referee on twitter, if a goalkeeper dribbles the ball into the opposing half, then dribbles it back into his own half of the pitch, this would be an indirect free kick, with the keyword being "again" from the Law above, thereby suggesting that the goalkeeper becomes his own team-mate when he crosses into the opposing half of the pitch.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://twitter.com/futsalrefmarc/statuses/427780192065839104" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nPKVtQwkIS4/VGz-R1ywL0I/AAAAAAAADHA/GhZ_9sVPewE/s1600/english_futsal_ref_twitter.png" height="175" width="400" /></a></div>
The big issue with this is that this seems to go against the rest of the Laws of the Game and indeed the Laws of the Game for soccer/football. For example, there's a specific situation that happens all the time in soccer when a goalkeeper collects a ball (not from a team-mate) outside of his penalty area, dribbles it into his area and handles the ball. The specific wording is "touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate". Under the Laws (and indeed in every match played out there), this is allowed. In this case, the goalkeeper ceases to have his privileges (handling the ball) once he leaves his penalty area, does that make him his own team-mate? If so, it would seem that FIFA is redefining words... something they never suggest they are doing anywhere within the Laws of the Game.<br />
<br />
The same applies to the futsal Laws of the Game. Yes, the word "again" is in the Law quoted above. But more importantly, the word "team-mate" is there. The goalkeeper is still his team's goalkeeper, whether in his penalty area, his own half of the pitch, or the other half of the pitch. Therefore, he cannot be his own team-mate when he crosses the halfway line. If that were the case, would he not cease to be his team's goalkeeper, which would contravene Law 3 - The Number of Players, "A match is played by two teams, each consisting of not more than five players, one of whom is the goalkeeper."<br />
<br />
If it is the case is that when the goalkeeper receives the ball from a team-mate, plays it out of his own half of the pitch, and then back into his own half of the pitch, the call should be an indirect free kick, then there needs to be a clarification given to all officials and associations indicating that this is the desired interpretation. Without that, we can only go by the current interpretation in the Laws and thus there is the potential for different groups dealing with the law in different ways. the specific interpretation in the 2012/13 Laws is as follows:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h3OVTPYj2og/UuaCscuULzI/AAAAAAAACFA/9dqNFOoGVB8/s1600/law12_gk_ifk_interpret.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h3OVTPYj2og/UuaCscuULzI/AAAAAAAACFA/9dqNFOoGVB8/s1600/law12_gk_ifk_interpret.png" height="104" width="512" /></a></div>
The vertical bar indicates the amendment portion, which was changed from "kicked to him" to "played to him" in the 2012/13 Laws of the Game.<br />
<br />
As things currently stand, there are GKs in Brazil (for example) who regularly carry the ball over the halfway line within the four seconds allotted to them, then back into their own half, without any penalty. With the Euro Cup beginning tomorrow (Jan 28th), it'll be interesting to see a) if this situation crops up at all, and b) how it is called at that competition.<br />
<br />
What are your thoughts?<br />
<br />
<h4>
Update (Jan 28/14):</h4>
The FIFA Refereeing Department responded to the query set forth with the following as their answer on how this portion of the Laws of the Game should be interpreted:<br />
<br />
Scenario 1: Suppose that a goalkeeper dribbles the ball over the halfway line (in less than 4 seconds of course) and then dribbles the ball back into his own half of the pitch. What action, if any, should the referee take?
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #1f497d; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">The 4 seconds are being counted – if the goalkeeper does not go over 4 seconds, no fault, no indirect free kick. Once he goes over the half
line, the count of 4 seconds is stopped; as he crosses back to his own half of the pitch, the count re-starts at 0. So theoretically he can cross back and forward as many times as necessary...</span>
</blockquote>
<br />
Scenario 2: Suppose the goalkeeper plays the ball to a teammate, then runs into the opposing half, where he receives a pass from a team mate (still no touch by an opponent). The goalkeeper then dribbles the ball into his own half of the pitch. What action, if any, should the referee take?
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #1f497d; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Award an Indirect free kick, as he touches again at his own half without an opponent touching it – the infraction is done when he crosses the line, and not before.</span></blockquote>
<br />
I believe that answers the questions raised completely and effectively. It appears that there was some confusion in the discussion online, which often happens, and that Marc was answering half of the question, likely not realizing that there were actually two separate questions in the discussion.Alex Fhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00262538690762505685noreply@blogger.com2