|
The
initial section of Law 12, "direct free kick", lists a set of
six offences which, if committed against an opponent in a manner that the
referee judges to be "careless, reckless or with excessive
force", result in a DFK to the non-offending team. The offences are
kicking or attempting to kick, tripping or attempting to trip, jumping at,
charging, striking or attempting to strike, and pushing.
Law
12 further provides that, if a player commits any of these six offenses
inside his own penalty area (PA), the opposing team will be awarded a
penalty kick (PK). While the offence must occur within the PA, the ball
does not have to be in the PA for a PK to be awarded.
COMMENTARY
So
the word is out. Even in the "gentlemanly" game of soccer,
people sometimes lose control and do things that are not exactly
appropriate. To be a foul, the first six of these, listed above, must not
only occur, but must be committed in a manner "considered by the
referee to be careless, reckless, or using excessive force".
First
off, what's "careless or reckless?" Synonyms for these words are
rash, negligent, wild, unconcerned, neglectful, improvident and a few
others, but you get the idea. While excessive force is harder to define,
let's just agree that it's a bit more violent than the norm since the
referee makes the decision on the field anyway (and what's an
"excessive" push in a U-8 game might not even be noticed in a
professional match).
So
there we have it. Three things that you get in trouble for even trying to
do (kicking, tripping, striking) and a couple that you have to actually
accomplish in order to create a foul (jump at, push). And by the way,
possession of or proximity to the ball isn't even involved in any of them.
If A trips B while the ball is 60 meters away, it can still be a foul.
However, all of these do require that the action be directed at an
opponent. Therefore, if a keeper decides to strike her own defender for an
especially poor play, this section of the law is not
applicable. However, it's quite likely that the referee will decide that
this is violent conduct under a later section of law 12 and act
accordingly.
Right
from the start, be aware that if a player stands there and sticks her foot
out and clearly trips an opponent on the way past or runs up to another
player and kicks her, the referee will judge this to be either careless,
reckless or with excessive force and call a foul. It seems to get a little
murkier, however, when the non-offending player has the ball, as either
the trip or kick might possibly be an unintended consequence of trying to
get the ball. But have no fear; intent has nothing to do with this one. If
a player tries to steal the ball and, through carelessness or
recklessness, misses and takes the attacker to the ground, the referee
will call a trip. In fact, even if she "gets ball" prior to the
opponent hitting the deck, the referee might judge the "getting
ball" to be just an unintended consequence of the takedown and call a
foul.
Now,
with all of that said, be aware that any of these offences, if committed
violently enough, can land the perpetrator on the bad side of a yellow or
even red card for serious foul play or violent conduct.
The
second section of Law 12 provides for the award of a direct free kick to
the non-offending team for the commission of the following four offenses
-
holding an opponent;
-
spitting
at an opponent;
-
handling
the ball deliberately (other than by goalkeepers in their own penalty
area);
- tackling
an opponent to gain possession of the ball, but making physical
contact with the opponent before contact with the ball. Tackling and
the closely related subject of physically charging opponents are
important subjects which will be treated in a separate subtopic of
their own, and we will mainly cover only holding, spitting, and
handling in this subtopic
This
section of Law 12 further provides that, if this offense is committed by a
player within his own defensive penalty area (PA), the opponent is awarded
a penalty kick (PK). While the offense must occur in the PA, the ball does
not have to be in the PA for a PK to be awarded, unless the offense is for
handling the ball.
COMMENTARY
AND COACHING POINTS
In
contrast to the six types of actions listed in the first section of Law
12, there is no requirement that the referee first consider any of the
four types of actions listed in the second section of Law 12 to have been
committed by a player carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force
before calling them as an offense. This second section of Law 12 reflects
an intent for referees to be stricter and allow less leeway to regard
these four types of actions as acceptably accidental, unintentional, or
incidental side effects of otherwise fair play. The six actions listed in
the first section of Law 12 mostly represent unacceptably overboard or
improperly motivated extensions to types of activities whose nature would
otherwise be consistent with the law and spirit of the game, or else be
realistically unavoidable incidentals to a contact sport like soccer. By
comparison, the first three types of actions listed in the second section
of Law 12 have far less consistency with any fair objective of the game,
and hence are tolerable only when they are wholly unintentional and
accidental in the course of otherwise fair play. Tackling an opponent to
win possession of the ball is a special case of a deliberate type of
activity that of itself is entirely consistent with the spirit and law of
the game, but unavoidably risks creating rough and even dangerous play.
The compromise is to license the player to make the attempt, but add by
way of caveat that the player better contact the ball first or else
strongly risk being charged with an offense (plus a card, if the referee
regards the attempt as reckless or excessively forceful).
-
Holding an opponent: A player is not allowed to deliberately use their
hands to grab an opponent's body or jersey or to use the arms (or
legs) to hook the opponent, for the purpose of restraining the
opponent or to force them off-balance. Holding can also include
extending the arms outward physically against another player to form a
barrier to their progress, although this particular action likewise
could be characterized as illegal obstruction, if the referee so
chooses. A player caught deliberately pulling an opponent's jersey
also is at particularly strong risk from many referees of receiving a
yellow card.
-
Spitting at an opponent:
This offense is primarily about an unacceptably inflammatory show of
disrespect to an opponent, and only secondarily (if at all) about
health risks. Even if a player is standing near one touchline while
exchanging hard stares with an opponent who is standing across the
field near the other touch line, if the player spits at the opponent,
the referee can call the player for an offense. So long as the referee
judges the player to have hurled an insult by spitting in an
opponent's direction, it does not matter that the force of the
spitting is limited or whether the player stays at a distance that
poses no risk of the spit actually reaching the opponent. A player
called for the offense of spitting will very likely also be ejected
from the game with a red card, since spitting is specifically listed
in the last section of Law 12 as an offense that merits sending off
the guilty player.
-
Handling the ball deliberately:
Few rules in soccer are so simple, yet so often misunderstood as the
one making deliberate handling of the ball an offense. The language
police may seem insufferable to fuss at people for calling it a
"handball", but this time they have a point: this
terminology is not a harmlessly incorrect informality like calling
offside instead "offside", but instead subtly misleads
toward incorrect understanding of the rule itself. It is a rule
against deliberately playing the ball with the hands or arms, i.e.
"handling" it, and not a rule against the ball striking the
hand and arms during play, i.e. a "handball". Law 12
establishes two requirements before handling the ball is considered a
foul:
-
The handling must be deliberate (not accidental) - in other
words, there must be an intent to play the ball with the hand or arm.
-
The
hand/arm must actually come into contact with the ball (i.e., it is
not an offense to swing and miss - although some referees might
consider this to be unsporting behavior which would warrant a
caution).
Understanding
what the rule actually means by requiring that handling be
"deliberate" and fully appreciating the spirit-of-the-game
rationale behind the rule are fundamental to gaining a practical, accurate
grasp of when it does or does not likely apply. The very essence of soccer
is that the hands and arms are NOT to be deliberately used to play the
ball, either directly to deflect it or indirectly to block or control the
possible paths along which others may direct the ball. Soccer would be
essentially the same sport, with a bit more scoring, if the goalkeeper
position were eliminated, but a quite different one if every player had
the same right as the goalkeeper to use hands or arms. Philosophically,
the handling rule is the most important rule in the game, defining the
most distinguishing characteristic of the sport. On the other hand, there
is nothing much lost to the game, either essentially or practically, from
accidental contact that truly does not result from any deliberate attempt
to play the ball with the hand or arm.
Deliberately
attempting to "play" the ball includes, as expected, any attempt
to intentionally deflect an imminently anticipated or already incoming
ball using the hand or arms. However, deliberately attempting to
"play" the ball also includes deliberately extending the hands
and arms into the potential paths available to any ball that might come
into the player's vicinity, even if the ball is not imminently expected or
even nearby at the moment the hand or arm is extended. Without this
inclusion to what constitutes "deliberate" handling, players
would be able implicitly "guard" an area of the field with their
arms and hands, so long as they extended them before an incoming ball was
imminently anticipated or nearby. Their arsenal of tools available for
playing the ball would expand to include the hands and arms. This is why a
player running down the field with the arms held out in front or extended
out from the side of the body is inviting a handling call if struck by the
ball.
So,
with such a liberal interpretation of what is "deliberate"
handling, how could ball-to-hand or arm contacts ever avoid being
"deliberate"?
First,
leeway is usually given for players to extend their arms momentarily to
keep from losing balance, but this leeway may be lost or quickly exhausted
if a player seems to be contriving to abuse this tolerance.
Second,
anatomically there is no way humans can ever totally keep their hands and
arms out of harms way. Some leeway is usually given players for this fact
without requiring them to be contortionists, so long as the player seems
to be making a fair attempt to avoid using the hands and arms to play the
ball. However, it is important to realize that a player, even one who has
hands and arms tucked as tightly straight down against their side as
possible, who deliberately turns sideways into the ball so the arm and
hand are exposed to the incoming ball, will often be regarded by the
referee as having attempted to play the ball and therefore having
committed a deliberate handling offense. This is especially true if the
player makes any gesture to angle that side of the body to influence the
deflection.
Third,
many refs will often allow some leeway for truly unexpected bounces into
the player's hand or arm when the player is clearly reasonably expecting
to be able to play the ball cleanly without difficulty by only using the
feet and is in fact trying to do so. However, this leeway is extended more
inconsistently and less often than the other two types, and applies mainly
when hands and arms appear to be extended only to a position the player
reasonably expected to be well out of the way of potential play on the
incoming ball.
It
should now be clear why each of the following common, persistent
assumptions is false.
-
an
assumption that any hand or arm-to ball contact is a handling offense
- an
assumption that an instance of handling cannot be deliberate, because
either:
-
the
player extended their hand or arm before the ball was in their
vicinity, or else before they knew the ball would be kicked in their
particular direction; or
-
the
player may have know that the ball was in their vicinity, but the ball
was kicked unexpectedly soon or hard, so the player did not have time
to move out of the way of the ball before it struck them.
There
is probably no trickier segment for the referee in applying Law 12 dealing
with fouls and misconduct than judging fair challenges for the ball. A
challenge here is defined as one player making an attempt to take the ball
away from an opponent who has possession. This is accomplished by one of
two challenges defined by the LOTG as "tackling" (an action in
which the player tries to physically take the ball from the opponent) or
"charging" (an act in which the player attempts physically to
move the opponent away from the ball). Purists will note that in the
strictest sense, charging is any act of running at an opponent and making
contact, so there can indeed be charging away from the point of play--such
charging is almost always a foul.
As
has already been noted, the LOTG defines unfair play as being careless,
reckless or using excessive force IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE.
Specifically, when these standards are applied to tackling, the LOTG
further specify that it is unfair when the player "tackles an
opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent
BEFORE touching the ball." Of course, this is where it gets tricky.
Most experienced referees believe it is virtually impossible to make a
fair challenge from behind, i.e., it is practically impossible to touch
the ball before the opponent unless the challenger is at least shoulder
level. However, it can be done, and the referee must make the final
judgment. One sees this particularly in tackles where a player comes from
behind between the opponents legs, or in cases where the tackler makes a
sliding challenge and manages to get a leg around the player with the ball
to make contact with the ball. Additional instructions in the older
version of the LOTG specifically forbid the referee from calling a foul
when a player makes a successful tackle with an outstretched leg over
which the player losing the ball then falls. This instruction has been
removed from the new version and it remains to be seen if referees will
continue to apply the old interpretation. Finally, if it is difficult to
tackle fairly from behind, it is just as hard to tackle unfairly from the
front. If the players are facing one another, it takes a pretty reckless
swing and a miss to commit a tackling foul, though sliding with the studs
up or taking out the dribbler's legs just after he has pushed the ball to
one side are common, usually because of clumsiness or inexperience, not
because of any intention to do harm. Generally, when players are facing
one another, the most reckless tackles are those where the tackler comes
from above and steps down towards the ball (and lower leg) of the
opponent...what the South Americans call "la plancha" or
"the flat iron".
Charging
is essentially rushing at another player, resulting in body contact.
Without the essential contact, the foul may be jumping at the opponent,
but it cannot be charging. The difficulty for the referee is that there
are "fair" charges and fouls. A fair charge is a
shoulder-to-shoulder attempt to knock an opponent off the ball which is
performed with at least one foot on the ground, with the arms in close to
the body, and with the ball close enough to both that it can be played by
either...what we call "playing distance". Clearly, a fair charge
meeting these criteria can result in one of the players falling down--the
"big kid, little kid" problem--but if the charge is truly fair,
this doesn't matter and no foul should be called. Players with the ball
can also be charged from behind so long as the charge is not reckless or
involve excessive force...the player with the ball is permitted to
"shield" so the player trying to win the ball is permitted a
certain amount of physical contact in an effort to get possession away
from the attacker. When young players are involved, a challenge from
behind is more likely to be deemed a foul by the referee; as players get
older, play is more physical, and more bumping is usually permitted.
Again, the use of hands and/or arms will change this action from a charge
to what will probably be judged to be an illegal push.
COMMENTARY
From
a coaching standpoint, the acts of tackling and charging are what modern
high pressure soccer is all about. Getting players to apply as much
pressure as possible without fouling and training them to hold the
ball and maintain possession under pressure are at the heart of the modern
North American style of the game.
There
truly are very few tactics involved in teaching tackling and
charging...they are fundamental soccer skills that are learned in 1v1 and
2v1 exercises, and through playing the game. Making sure players know the
proper fundamentals for tackling (going in on balance, timing the tackle,
making sure when you are chasing an opponent down from behind that you
have completely caught up to him before trying to tackle) and charging
(who may be charged and when, one foot on the ground, arms kept in, etc.)
will help them successfully challenge for the ball and avoid being called
for fouls.
But
in the final analysis, more than any other LOTG, these are the fouls the
experienced referee will use to control the game. The coach must
understand that the referee is not going to whistle for every act of
reckless tackling or charging, particularly if the fouled player maintains
possession. The good referee will make broad use of the advantage clause,
and only punish those actions which grossly affect the outcome of a play,
or which are necessary to maintain control.
"An
indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the
opinion of the referee ... impedes the progress of an opponent...."
COMMENTARY
A
player is supposed to play the ball.
Blocking
or screening a player from a route to the ball is not allowed. However, a
player who has the ball within playing distance may shield the ball from
an opponent.
This
is not a common foul and enforcement of it varies considerably from
referee to referee. NOTE: The foul of "impeding" is
commonly called "obstruction", but in recent years, FIFA has
increasingly recommended that referees use the term
"obstruction" to describe situations where a player may legally
prevent an opponent from reaching the ball, and "impeding" to
describe this foul.
"An
indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the
opinion of the referee.... plays in a dangerous manner."
COMMENTARY
There
are few guidelines here. "Dangerous play" is completely in the
opinion of the referee. The USSF interpretation is that dangerous play
occurs when, in the opinion of the referee, the play is dangerous to the
opponent or oneself and the action denies an opponent the fair opportunity
to play.
Misconduct
covers serious offenses against the spirit of the game. Yellow and red
cards are the referee's strongest weapons against unsporting and
potentially violent behavior. Many leagues penalize misconduct with fines
and suspensions.
COMMENTARY
One
way to understand misconduct is to compare it with "standard"
fouls.
The
direct free kick fouls mentioned in Law 12 are, with the exception of
handling the ball, unfair actions committed against an opponent, and all
-- with the exception of spitting -- will normally occur only while the
ball is in play. They result in the other team being awarded a free kick
or penalty kick, if appropriate. In general, fouls are similar to acts of
normal play, which become fouls when they are executed carelessly,
recklessly or with excessive force. (Handling is different because it is
committed against the ball and against the other team in general, but not
against a specific opponent.)
Misconduct,
by contrast, covers actions of deliberate poor sportsmanship contrary to
the concept of fair play itself, rather than just "normal play
carried to excess." The act can be committed against anyone,
including a teammate, spectator or the referee, as well as against an
opponent. It can occur off the field, or while the ball is out of play.
The consequence of misconduct is a personal punishment to the player
committing the act, which the referee signifies by showing a yellow or red
card. If an act of misconduct is also a foul, such as handling the ball to
prevent it from entering the goal, the foul is called and the free kick or
penalty kick is awarded along with the card.
Although
the LOTG specify yellow or red cards for certain acts, some referees will
"go up the ladder" by first talking to players and coaches, then
warning, and only showing a card if these steps do not cause the
unsporting play to cease. Other referees will issue a caution much more
quickly. Referees seem to show the most variation in their reaction to
dissent -- from near-total deafness to rabbit ears.
Cautions
were originally intended as severe warnings of a potential sending-off. In
a game with no substitution, as soccer used to be, this was a serious
threat. Still today, two cautions in a game lead to a sending-off, and
that team plays short. However, the substitution rules that often apply
today -- the relatively free substitution found in most youth soccer, for
example -- have changed the dynamics of cautions. Instead of simply
warning of a potential sending-off, cautions are of interest in
themselves, and leagues may have rules disqualifying teams or players who
accumulate a certain number over a season; cards are used as a tie-breaker
in tournaments. This makes it essential that players and coaches recognize
and avoid acts that can lead to cautions, and that players and coaches
understand the referee's decision-making processes. In recent years FIFA
has tried to add consistency to the decision by adding more specific acts
to the list of misconduct offenses, but most red and yellow cards are
still largely up to the referee.
Law
12 lists five offenses that are specific to goalkeepers in their own
penalty areas, all of which are punishable by an indirect free kick (IFK).
The keeper may not do any of the following:
-
take
more than four steps while controlling the ball with his hands, before
releasing it from his possession;
-
touch
the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his
possession and has not touched any other player;
-
touch
the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him
by a team-mate;
-
touch
the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a
throw-in taken by a team-mate;
-
waste
time.
Other
than these offenses the keeper is mostly just like another field player,
and is subject to the same sanctions for the same offenses. Because
special situations involving the keeper can occur under so many of the
laws, however, all questions concerning goalkeepers -- including those
dealing with these five offenses -- are grouped together in a special
supplement on the Goalkeeper and the Laws.
QUESTIONS
Back
Questions
on tripping, jumping, pushing, striking and kicking
Several
possibilities. Remember that advantage applies to most everything in
soccer so the referee might have thought that he'd be giving an advantage
to the other team by calling the trip. Also, maybe the defender "had
the ball" and your player tripped over that.
Remember
that "on it is inside it" (or "the lines are part of the
area they define") so a PK will be awarded.
Specifically,
they mean that if the pushing is careless, reckless or done with excessive
force in the opinion of the referee, the foul will be called. If a player
pushes another to the ground with two hands in the back, it's clearly a
foul. If a player pushes off another while both jumping for a ball, it's
likely marginal depending on the force of the push. As mentioned earlier,
the level of pushing allowed varies greatly from game to game depending on
the nationality of the teams involved, level of play, experience and mood
of the referee, the position of the moon, etc.
If
the referee judges that the attacker had an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity (more detail later in this law), the defender will have plenty
of time to contemplate his act from the sidelines after he receives a red
card. In that case, this is actually counted both as a) a trip and b)
committing a foul punishable by a free kick to prevent an obvious
goal-scoring opportunity.
Any
player whose feet leave the ground and who does not jump straight up may
be called for "jumping at" if he or she makes contact with an
opponent. You should be careful not to confuse "jumping at" with
a fair (shoulder) charge, in which a player may legitimately use his or
her shoulder to push an opponent off the ball, as long as contact is made
with the opponent's shoulder. But if a player jumps at an opponent, the
offence will be called no matter what parts of the body actually make
contact -- "jumping at" can also involve the cleats.
Well,
they can be but not necessarily. A good example here is
"spitting". If you spit at an opponent (dealt with later in this
law), you're off. Gone. Period. No question of severity, amount, referee's
judgment, whatever. In opposition to that approach, all of the fouls
dealt with in this section can earn a red card if the referee
decides that they're done in such either violently or carelessly enough to
merit same. So there you are shielding the ball with the opponent bumping
you from behind and you swing your arm back to "clear some
space". Maybe a free kick for striking, but not likely a red. If, in
the same instance, you turn and punch the opponent in the head, bingo. Red
and gone. In another example, an opponent falls on the ground with the
ball at his feet and you go up and kick at the ball and hit him at the
same time. Maybe a free kick for kicking an opponent. In the same
circumstance, you go up and kick him in the stomach to teach him not to
lie on or about the ball and you're gone. So in this section it's not
necessarily whether a player pushes or kicks or strikes that
determines whether it's just a free kick or a red card (and sending off)
but how it's done. .
Well,
I'm sure that any of your U-6's would be able to tell you whether they got
"pushed" or "hit" better than I but here goes. Try to
picture "striking" as using your hand or elbow or the ball (more
on this in a minute) to simply pop the opponent in the nose. For pushing,
see yourself placing your hands gently on the opponent's back and shoving
him 10M into the cheap seats. There's your difference. With regard to
striking with the ball, be aware that it's a foul penalized by a penalty
kick if the keeper, in his own penalty area, strikes an opponent by
throwing the ball at him while the ball is in play, regardless of where
the opponent is located.
A
GREAT back swing and likely a good non-call based on the
"accidentally" and "from behind" wording. Now if the
defender was approaching from the FRONT, a send-off would have been more
likely.
That's
the likely choice since the other best possibility, dangerous play, is an
IFK offence.
Obstruction
requires no physical contact with an opponent to be an offense, but
instead focuses on a player's improper attempt, while they are not within
playing distance of the ball, to shade an opponent from the ball (see the
more complete discussion in the obstruction section of this FAQ). To the
extent physical contact may be involved, it could consist entirely of
conduct that would be entirely permissible if the player was legitimately
playing for the ball or to fairly gain a position to receive it. Holding
OTOH requires physical contact, concerns a player seeking to restrain an
opponent by improperly extending the hands, arms, or (less commonly) legs
to restrain or even hook the opponent, and can be committed even by a
player immediately in possession of the ball. Another important difference
is that even if a player commits an obstruction offense within their own
defensive penalty area, the opponents are only awarded an indirect free
kick. By contrast, a holding offense would result in a penalty kick for
the opponents if committed within that location (and a direct free kick if
committed elsewhere). Thus, whether obstruction or holding is called will
have practical consequences roughly in direct proportion to how close to
the opponent's goal the action occurred. The next question explores the
issue of sorting out illegal physical contact by holding from legal
contact that nonetheless is being used to obstruct an opponent.
If
the arm is held out far enough or used aggressively enough to restrain the
opponent as to clearly be holding even apart from the obstruction, then
LOTG 5 directs the referee to call the more serious of any two
simultaneous offenses, which in this case is holding. However, there is no
bright-line demarcation between using the arms in a way that is clearly
holding even independent of whether obstruction is involved, and action
that is clearly designed to obstruct, but where the deployment of the arms
would be legal or at least tolerably incidental in another context. In
part, this comes down to the need for the rules to accommodate human
anatomy realistically during dynamic movement and play: players simply
aren't expected to play with their arms held rigidly tight against their
sides. They are allowed some freedom of action to moderately extend the
arm outward for balance and natural running action, and even to take some
deliberate incidental advantage of this leeway to occupy and preserve
their playing space; just not overly much.
A
good, informal test is this: assume a vertical standing position, with
arms held loosely against the sides. Now, take one modest leaping step
forward, allowing the arms to swing forward a bit for natural balance,
without attempting to throw them outward. When you land, the elbows will
still be pointing nearly, but not quite vertically downward, but perhaps 4
or a tad more inches out from the body (of course, varying somewhat with
your height, etc). You're probably safe at least out to here, unless you
are actively jabbing your opponent with your elbow, piston-style. You are
allowed a bit more leeway when cutting or turning, so long as the elbow is
held predominately down. However, the more your elbow comes out at an
angle from this, the more risk the contact will be viewed as holding,
rather than fairly incidental to your right to occupy space and keep
balance, including taking into account contact from your opponent. Also,
so far, we've only taken into account mainly the action of the upper
arm and elbow. Actively using or extending the lower arm or hand at any
angle other than in a mostly vertical or straight forward plane is
suspect, and greatly increases the chances the you will be regarded as
holding or pushing, rather than fairly taking incidental advantage of your
right to occupy space and keep balance against your opponent's contact.
Other
situational factors may also enter the referee's judgment of whether to
call holding or obstruction (or maybe nothing) in this gray zone, such as
the age and level of competition involved (higher == more physical play
tolerated) and whether the consequences of the call seem disproportionate
to the particular nature of the action involved. This may especially be
true where the action occurs in the guilty player's defensive penalty
area, and the referee feels that a penalty kick is unfairly
disproportionate in the particular circumstances. However, this logic is
not available to bail out a defender who has regained possession of the
ball right in front of their own goal and is madly trying to fend off an
attacker long enough to turn and safely clear the ball, but is getting
over-aggressive with their arms. Obstruction within playing distance of
the ball is perfectly legal, whereas holding is not, leaving the referee
with an all-or-nothing decision whether to call a penalty kick offense in
the particular circumstances.
This
question is entirely answered in the previous question 12.2.02, especially
the second paragraph of that answer, which applies to other situations as
well.
The
consequences for each are the same (direct free kick, except penalty kick
when committed in the player's own defensive penalty area), and the
referee need not articulate which occurred to signal an offense. All the
referee need signal is any stoppage in play necessitated thereby and the
appropriate restart. Therefore it matters little which characterization
the referee chooses, although the referee may be somewhat quicker to call
something that looks like holding rather than let it go as an incidental
effect of otherwise fair play. It is important to remember that these
characterizations are not tightly defined criminal statutory offenses in
soccer, but rather serve as convenient labels for various improper uses by
a player of their hands, arms, and legs. The distinction between pushing
and holding is mostly arbitrary, except that hooking or grabbing an
opponent with the hands or arms is unlikely to be a part of any fair play,
and more likely characterized as holding (and likely more quickly called).
Otherwise, informally, holding seeks to restrain whereas pushing seeks to
positively force an opponent in an undesired direction (for them). A
player extending their legs to block an opponent will be more likely
characterized as tripping or attempting to trip their opponent than as
holding them, except possibly when the player raises their leg higher up
against their opponent's leg to hook and restrain them far more than
possibly to upset their balance, the action may be recognized as holding.
Again, however, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary.
When
the player in front was called for the IFK foul, it was for illegal
obstruction, because the referee felt that the front player was not
primarily trying to play the ball himself but rather was trying to prevent
his opponent from being able to play it by blocking him off the ball. When
the back player was called for the foul, the referee in all likelihood
thought the front player was making a legitimate attempt to play the
incoming air ball himself, and that the back player was trying to use
pressure from his hands and body to improperly to go over the back of the
front player. In this case, the referee would call a holding or pushing
foul. Especially in higher-level competition, the referee may want to
"let 'em play" and may therefore decide to allow a fair degree
of physical contact. Some incidents of such contact may not be called
fouls at all so long as the shoving doesn't get out of hand or become
truly unfair.
So
long as the back player doesn't actually push with the hands, some
referees will tolerate this up to a point in order for the back player to
protect his chin from the head, shoulders, and arms of the front player
when they both jump up for the ball. Obviously, even a referee who is
favorably disposed to tolerate this technique will usually recognize
limits beyond which the back player is abusing this tolerance, in order to
push the front player, or is holding the front player for an unfair
advantage. In those cases, a foul will be called.
He
is doing nothing illegal merely by spitting on the field, even when an
opponent is nearby, so long as it is clear in the context to both the
referee and the opponent that nothing is meant by it. However, because of
the potentially very serious consequences if the opponent (and the
referee, perhaps influenced by the opponent's upset reaction)
misinterprets his action, you would be wise to make sure he knows the
seriousness of what is at stake. This could include not only a direct free
kick or penalty kick, but also his expulsion from the game with a red
card, which in most leagues and tournaments requires at least his being
barred from the next game as well (possibly more). He should be instructed
to always keep this in mind, and spit only when no one else is closely
around, and in a direction away from anyone. Substitute him out of the
game if he is getting careless about this, or you may be doing without him
anyway (and be forced to lay the rest of the game with only 10 players on
the field if he is expelled with a red card).
The
vast majority of the time, yes! There is no general right to handle
the ball to protect oneself! The proper response is to try to duck out of
the way instead. This is another situation where the risk of inadvertently
legalizing use of the hands and arms would be an unacceptable consequence,
if players were able to justify redirecting any ball that comes in hard at
them as self-defense. What may be tolerated sometimes by some referees is
to for a player to place their arms and hands tightly against their body
and face, straight up, so long as no attempt is made to use the arms to
affect the angle or strength of the ball's deflection, or move
unnecessarily to meet the ball. Otherwise, such will be regarded as an
attempt to play the ball. However, be aware that this practice will tend
to be only inconsistently and occasionally tolerated, more so the younger
and less experienced the player and less so the higher level competitive,
older, or more experienced the player. An attitude prevalent among
referees is that players should usually be expected to duck instead of
parry the ball with the arms in self-defense, even as described. Young
players are not really being extended a favor by permitting them
over-laxity about handling calls, since this will only reinforce bad
habits that will not be tolerated later on, or by all referees even for
their age players.
Yes, provided that the
arms and hands are held tightly against the body to protect the affected
area, and provided they do not abuse this privilege by trying to use it
for any collateral purpose to affect the ball other than as truly required
for self-protection. In particular, they must not play the ball by seeking
to control its deflection in any conscious or predetermined way (i.e. they
should face forward, into the music). For men, this means arms held
straight down tightly against their chest, and hands crossed against their
crotches, facing straight forward into the ball to the extent possible in
the circumstances. For women, this means arms held tightly against their
chest, with elbows pointing more or less straight down, and forearms
crossed in front of their breasts, held tightly against them, again facing
straight into the ball to the extent possible in the circumstances.
The
application of these exemptions becomes much less consistent and reliable
other than in wall situations. Women (including any players old enough to
have developed breasts) have traditionally been extended some leeway by
many referees to use the crossed-arms-against-chest protection described
in question 12.2.09, and men to use the hands covering the crotch
protection also described in that same question. However, many referees
feel that just as with protecting the head, the proper response is to duck
or move, rather than to needlessly tolerate an opening for players to play
the ball by parrying it under the guise of flinching while protecting
themselves. The higher the level competition, the older the player, the
less leeway will be extended except in wall situations on free kicks, and
the more skilled play or effort to avoid the ball will be expected of the
player instead.
No
tolerance whatsoever is usually extended to them, nor should be for this
understandable, but unacceptable reaction. Your mileage may vary with your
local soft-hearted ref of the day. However, young players are not really
being extended a favor to permit over-laxity on handling calls which will
only ingrain bad habits that will not be tolerated later on, or even with
many other referees calling games for their age group. So, what to do? The
quick fix is to instruct players to grab their shorts whenever the ball
comes at them. This both tends to negate for the referee any impression
that the player intends to try to improperly play the ball or extend their
arms, and promotes the proper response by the player as well, which is to
try to duck out of the way. At your team's practices, you should conduct
exercises designed to accustom players in small steps to having to the
ball coming directly at them other than on the ground. A good way to start
is by having someone stand very near them and toss the ball gently into
their chests for them to play, and then progress from there. Some gentle
heading practice helps, even though you may not want to emphasize this
technique as a formal real skill to acquire until players get older. Make
sure that they understand, even in practice, that arm or hand-to-ball
contact is a serious no-no, and not simply an accident to giggle about
their own haplessness.
If
a player uses their arm to deliberately play the ball at all, even if held
tightly against their side, this is considered impermissible handling.
Some referees will allow some leeway for this reaction of turning to the
side as a sometimes-permissible form of instinctive self-protection
against a sudden, hard ball coming at a player at about stomach to
shoulder level where the player, so long as the player does not seem make
any effort to control its redirection, whereas other referees will almost
never allow this without calling the player for a handling offense.
Players should, in general, be discouraged from using this
turn-to-the-side reaction, even though it is perhaps not as egregious as
sticking the arms out extended in front. The grace extended to this
practice by referees is at best, inconsistent and unreliable. If a player
seems dip their shoulder or body to in any way consciously control the
redirection of the ball, a handling call is near certain even from the
most generous of referees. The predominate attitude among many referees is
that players should either learn to play the ball properly, or learn to
duck out of the way.
In
general, the side of the shoulder is viewed as part of the arm. The front
of the shoulder is viewed as part of the body, so long as the player does
not try to dip the shoulder forward or out of the plane of the torso. The
top and front of the shoulder above and inside the armpit is considered
part of the body, whereas outside of the armpit, the shoulder tends to be
viewed as part of the arm. The back of the shoulder is also usually viewed
as part of the body rather than the arm. A player who turns their back on
the ball (and not just to the side) with their arms held in is less likely
to be called for handling if the ball strikes the shoulder, because this
is rarely consistent with an attempt to truly play the ball with the arms
(little or no eye-arm coordination is possible in this situation, for one
thing). This brings the issue into its proper focus: the real concern is
when the shoulder is used as if part of the arm rather than as an integral
part of the torso to consciously attempt to control the manner in which
the ball deflects from it, with the caveat that the side of the shoulder
is presumptively considered as part of the arm in most cases. A player is
allowed to play the ball with the torso, but not with the arm.
We'll
assume that the referee had a clear view of both plays and appears to be
competent. In the first instance, where handling was not called
against the player, the most likely possibility is he or she thought that
the player reasonably expected to be able to play this ball cleanly and
without difficulty using only the feet. In other words, under the
particular circumstances, the nature of the incoming ball made it unlikely
that the player could reasonably have recognized that her arm was truly in
the potential playing area for the ball. A second reason to extend leeway
to the player would be if the arm appeared to the referee to have been
momentarily extended reflexively for balance, rather than heedlessly held
out.
In
the second instance, where handling was called against the player,
perhaps the referee did not think the player had any right under those
particular circumstances to believe her arms were not potentially in the
playing space on the ball, nor did the referee believe the arm was
justifiably reflexively extended for balance. Finally, referee tolerance
for unexpected bad hops into the arm is always going to be something of an
ad hoc snap judgment, and therefore will always be an inconsistently
extended grace from situation to situation and referee to referee.
Most
local rules prohibit charging the goalkeeper in his goal area. It also is
specifically against the LOTG to try to "prevent the goalkeeper from
releasing the ball from his hands".
Depends.
Mostly it depends on the degree to which both players are doing it and the
amount of control the referee feels he needs to exert. Smart coaches will
teach their players to "make themselves bigger" by using their
hands and arms for balance. Not only does it help their balance, it also
"increases their wheel base" and makes it more difficult for an
opponent to touch the ball without using excessive force. As long as two
players are more or less hand checking or arm checking one another,
referees will usually let it go on unless it looks like it will become
violent--for one thing, it's often hard to tell how did what to who first!
It
is very important for players not to let their feet rise above the level
of the ball when tackling, especially when sliding. Raised feet at the end
of extended legs offer no mercy to an opponent's lower leg, and many very
serious lower-leg injuries (including fractures so bad they put an
immediate end to a player's career) have been caused by this practice.
Obviously the referee thought your player had not had his studs up
intentionally when tackling, or he would have given him an immediate
caution at least. This is something you should ensure all your players are
aware of.
When
tackling, a player should normally make sure he is facing his opponent.
The hockey 'hip check' is definitely not acceptable in soccer! Referees
will normally immediately call any tackling attempt when contact is made
with the opponent before the ball, and players who come at their opponents
side-on normally do make contact with the other player before the ball, so
it is hard for them not to be called for this.
"Backing
in" is a little different, because it not normally so much a tackling
offence as a kind of illegal charge. Imagine two players, one behind the
other, waiting near midfield to receive a goal kick. If the length of the
kick is slightly too much for the player nearer to the ball, he will be
tempted to back up into his opponent, thereby fouling him if in so doing
he disrupts his opponent's attempt to play the ball.
You're
probably not going to like this answer, but it sounds from your
description as though the referee was right. If the opponent blocked the
ball, causing your player to trip over it, no foul was committed, and the
drop ball was the correct restart after the injury. Had the opponent made
contact with your player before blocking the ball, you would have a point,
but apparently the referee was sure that no foul had been committed.
Tip:
Coaches can teach their players how
to avoid injury from an impending tackle of this kind by leaping the
sliding opponent. If the ball is pushed under or past the opponent's legs
just before the tackle, it is often fairly easy for the player to hurdle
the opponent and continue towards goal unimpeded. You can practice this
technique with any low obstacle which allows a ball to be pushed under and
the player to jump over, but it's safest to use something like a light
bamboo or plastic rod between two vertical poles, arranged so that it will
fall if the player bumps into it.
There
are several things to watch out for in this situation, which is especially
problematic when two players are both pursuing the ball to try to get into
position to play it, yet are still clearly outside what could be
considered "playing distance", and perhaps still well outside.
They are typically jostling one shoulder to shoulder to win or maintain
the most direct path to the ball, which may still be 20 or 30 feet away.
As long as the initial contact is made at a reasonably shallow angle to
the most direct path to the ball, there really should be no foul here, no
matter who "initiated" the contact, since both players are
really trying to play the ball and have equal rights to pursue it.
What
turns this into a foul is if, either in the course of approaching to make
the initial contact, or in later jockeying after the players are mutually
engaged in a shoulder-to-shoulder race for the ball, one player changes
her momentum deliberately to a sharp angle from a path to the ball in
order to try to knock or shove the other player out of the play. This is a
foul if one player is running clearly more at an angle toward the opponent
rather than taking the shortest path to the ball and only diverts toward a
direct path to the ball after having bumped the opponent out of the way.
If in the same circumstances, one of the players suddenly starts using
arms or elbows to unfairly win the race for position, just about every
official will whistle. The same analysis can be applied where two players
are jockeying not directly for the ball, but perhaps for a favorable
position on the field, and they're in a close contest coming toward that
spot from roughly the same side. Neither really "owns" the spot
or most favorable line in such contests, at least not until one of them
gets there first, having fairly won the position.
Once
again, it will probably depend to some extent at least on how old your
players are and how physical the referee is prepared to allow the game to
get. As has already been said, a player who extends his arm to push
another player out of his way is likely to be called immediately for
pushing. And anything that is construed by the referee as "playing
the other player, not the ball" is likely to be called as well. So
anything resembling an NHL body check (however legal it might be on the
ice) is pretty well certain to be deemed a charging foul. So if your
player appears to have as his primary goal pushing or steering the other
player deliberately off to the side rather than going first and foremost
straight to the ball, the referee is probably going to find fault with
that approach.
Again,
the use of hands and/or arms will change this action from a charge to what
will probably be judged to be an illegal push. If you listen during a
high-level game involving older players, you may hear the referee say
fairly frequently near the beginning of the game, as they and the players
are establishing the limits within which the match will be played,
"Blue, get your hands off his back!" or "Keep your arms
down, Red!" It's important to remember that it is not illegal
in itself to charge from behind a player with the ball, as long as the
charge is not reckless and does not involve excessive force. This is the
case because the player with the ball is permitted to "shield"
it -- if no charge were possible, the defender could never hope to win the
ball. This is a good example of how soccer can simultaneously be a very
physical and a very sporting contest. It will be important for your player
to learn to put pressure on his opponents without pushing them.
By "riding someone
off the ball", most soccer folks mean continuous contact shoulder to
shoulder with the object being to dislodge the player from possession of
the ball. Once again, if hands or arms are involved, this can be
considered holding or pushing. Many refs miss fouls here, by assuming it's
a normal "fair" play -- whereas the player committing the foul
is actually playing the man, not the ball. Of course the other
requirements of having an effect on the game and/or
careless-reckless-excessive force also apply, but in a fair charge, even
the staccato shoulder bump is supposed to be an integral part of an
attempt to get the ball, not simply to move the opponent away. That's one
reason why it's always a foul for attempting to charge the goalkeeper when
he's holding the ball -- the action in isolation might be
"fair", but how can one realistically expect shoulder contact to
lead to possession of a ball held in the keeper's hands, unless it's done
with excessive force?
If
the player is not playing the ball but is preventing someone else from
moving toward the ball, he is impeding the other player Referees expect
collision and jostling to occur among players moving toward the
ball. However, if a player is, moving across the path to the ball,
he may be more likely to be called for obstruction. Players are generally
expected to look at the ball and react to the ball. A player who seems to
be instead watching his opponent or moving in reaction to his opponent's
run, is more likely to be called for obstruction.
Yes.
However, to be "playing the ball", one should be close enough to
touch it if one wished.
Presumably,
in the opinion of the referee, the back was within playing distance of the
ball and was therefore shielding a playable ball. This is not a foul.
No.
A player (who is not playing the ball) may commit this foul simply by
forcing an opponent to slow down or change her path to the ball.
A
player shielding the ball must have the ball within playing distance and
presumably is paying some attention to the position of the ball.
Obstruction occurs when the player is not playing the ball, that is,
either the ball is too far away to be played or the player's attention is
focused on an opponent and not the ball.
It
is illegal to impede the progress of the goalkeeper toward the ball. If
the attacker blocks the keeper from the ball, without trying to play the
ball himself, then this is a foul. However, there is nothing wrong with an
attacker standing near the keeper, if when the ball is kicked, the
attacker moves to play the ball, not the keeper.
The
attacking players may position themselves anywhere on the field. However,
when play starts, they may not impede the keeper's progress toward the
ball. If the referee is aware of the "wall" forming around the
goalkeeper, he will watch for obstruction when the kick is taken. In order
to defend against the tactic of obstructing the goalkeeper, you should try
to bring this to the attention of the referee. One might do this by simply
having the keeper move around quite a bit before the kick; players trying
to obstruct the keeper will then have to move with the keeper and this
off-the-ball action may draw the referee's attention.
The
1996 laws explicitly listed as a foul, "charging fairly ... when the
ball is not within playing distance". The 1997/98 laws do not
explicitly mention this foul but most referees would consider it a form of
obstruction
Dangerous
play is completely within the opinion of the referee; calls may differ
from game to game and from referee to referee. However, a typical example
of dangerous play involves a player kicking near the face or torso of an
opponent. The foul might not be the fault of the player kicking the ball;
if a player is lying on the ground next to the ball, s/he may be guilty of
creating the "dangerous play"; similarly, a player attempting to
head a ball which is near the ground may be guilty of dangerous play if
another player is kicking at the ball (or *would* kick at the ball if the
other player were not there.)
When
dangerous play occurs, the referee is going to give the benefit of the
doubt to the player who was making the most natural play of the ball. If
the ball is on the ground, one expects a player to kick at it; someone who
is trying to head the ball when it is near the ground will be blamed for
creating the dangerous play situation. On the other hand, if the ball is
high in the air, the one heading the ball will be given the benefit and
someone else kicking at the high ball may receive the whistle.
No,
kicking the ball while lying on the ground is not in itself a foul.
However, if a player, by lying on the ground, is putting himself in
danger, he may be penalized for dangerous play.
No,
such kicks are not, in themselves, fouls. The bicycle kick is an example
of a legal (and beautiful) play, unless it puts another player in danger.
No.
Contact is not necessary for a call of "dangerous play". Indeed,
if contact occurs during dangerous play, a more serious foul (kicking,
tripping, illegal charging) will probably be called. These more serious
fouls lead to a *direct* free kick. A soccer cleat in another player's
face will usually be considered dangerous play if no contact occurred; it
is the foul of kicking another player if there is contact. Similarly a
studs-up tackle may be whistled for dangerous play if the player does not
hit anyone but may be an illegal tackle, trip or kick if contact is made.
(N.B.: the fouls of "kicking or attempting to kick",
"tripping or attempting to trip", "jumping at an
opponent", or "striking or attempting to strike" do not
require contact either. Those fouls lead to a direct free kick.)
Referees
do not agree as to whether dangerous play can be called only when the
action affects an opponent, or whether the call may be made when opponents
are not involved. One could argue that a foul requires an opponent; for a
team to benefit from a free kick, they must have been fouled. Thus a
common interpretation of the laws of the game would argue that
"dangerous play" should not be called unless an opponent is
involved. (See the USSF interpretation in the introduction to this
section.)
However,
referees of youth games feel an obligation to keep the players safe and to
provide some instruction to the players. For this reason one might see a
"dangerous play" foul called when one player engages in a tactic
which could harm himself or a teammate, even if no opponents are nearby.
If
the call is truly an *indirect* free kick then the referee is probably
calling dangerous play for the manner in which the player collided with
the goalkeeper. Since the goalkeeper is often dangerously exposed to
collisions and kicks, many referees attempt to especially protect the
goalkeeper and are more likely to penalize an attacker for dangerous play
when the collision involves the keeper.
No.
However, one who plays in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner may receive
a yellow card for "unsporting conduct". A player who repeatedly
fouls opponents may, after engaging in dangerous play, receive a yellow
card for "persistent infringement" of the laws. Therefore a
player might be whistled for a "dangerous play" foul and *then*
immediately after that be cautioned for one of these more serious
violations.
Yellow
card offenses generally cover acts that demonstrate poor sportsmanship and
disrupt the game, but don't directly affect the score or cause injury.
"Persistent infringement" is a good example -- it's usually
called for a succession of "ordinary" fouls, despite a warning
from the referee. "Unsporting behavior" covers almost any action
that shows disregard for fair play but is not extremely violent, such as
an overly aggressive tackle, or verbally calling an opponent off the ball.
Three cautionable offenses give the referee specific weapons to maintain
his authority: dissent, and entering and leaving the field without
permission.
Red
card offenses are acts completely against the spirit of the game (serious
foul play), behavior that should never occur on a soccer field regardless
of how the game is going (violent conduct; spitting; offensive, insulting
or abusive language), and repeated yellow card offenses.
This
varies among leagues, among referee associations, and from one referee to
another. Part of it is the referee's personality, which you just have to
size up. Directives from above can also play a role, so pay attention when
the referee administrator speaks about his objectives for the season.
There may also be local rules about cautions, such as a mandatory caution
for a sliding tackle in an over-50's tournament.
Some
referees treat cards as simply a letter-of-the-law issue, rather than as
flexible tools for game control. In recent years, the lists of yellow and
red card offenses have become longer and more specific. Delaying the game
and failing to retreat 10 yards on a free kick were always considered
unsporting behavior (yellow), but have only been specifically listed since
1997. Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity through a
deliberate foul was always a form of serious foul play (red), but these
variations were only listed recently. The hope of the law writers is that
having specific offenses singled out should cause referees to call them
more often -- this is their battle against the "professional
foul" seen in high-level games. Some over-zealous referees have
responded by looking for reasons to caution and send off players even in
recreational youth games, rather than looking for ways to keep all the
players on the field and the game flowing.
What
the referee did was legal, and often happens when a cautionable offense
and advantage occur together -- the referee waits for the ball to go out
of play. There is a slight danger for the referee in this, because a
second act of misconduct might occur in the interim, and it's not good to
have too many yellow cards "queued up". And if the offense leads
to a red card, referees almost always stop play immediately.
The
referee also had another option. He could have waited for the original
advantage situation to finish, stopped play with his whistle, shown the
yellow card, and then restarted with an indirect free kick for the other
team. In this case the stoppage is not for the foul itself, but merely to
create a break in play for issuing the caution.
This
is a common problem. Different teams, leagues, ethnic groups, geographical
regions and referees have different expectations of how much physical play
is "normal." At World Cup level, Scotland vs. Norway, for
instance, would be a very physical game without player complaints, whereas
South American teams might expect the referee to call more fouls. Another
possibility is that the referee is simply missing fouls he should be
calling, which makes this issue more ticklish -- he may interpret your
comments or questions as dissent.
Initially,
tell your players to play harder than they're used to and to expect the
same in return from the other team. Try to talk with the referee and
present your analysis. If he responds by being firm in his view that the
game is going okay, and it's you who are acting like a crybaby, then
that's that -- tell your players to put up with it and not retaliate. On
the other hand, your information may open his eyes somewhat. In either
case, retaliation is not called for. Once you raise an issue like this
with the referee and if you and your team then remain calm, the ref may
give your team the benefit of the doubt. If you start complaining, then he
may label you a trouble-maker and go from there.
Referees
differ in their expectations. They usually don't do anything about
excessive coaching from the side, but some clamp down quickly on dissent
and negativity, while others act quite deaf. Let's hope this referee will
learn from other refs or assessors, and start acting to improve the
atmosphere.
SFP
covers actions that, although blatantly unfair, are part of the game and
usually involve some attempt to play the ball. VC is simply fighting. If a
player violently jumps cleats-first into an opponent who has the ball, it
would probably be considered a form of tackle and be treated as SFP; if
his target doesn't have the ball, it's probably VC. If a spectator is
attacked, it's certainly VC, not SFP. Leagues commonly impose longer
suspensions for VC than SFP, so it matters what the referee writes in the
report.
Denying
a goal refers to situations where the ball would, without the handling
foul, enter the goal for a score. This means a defender other than the
goalkeeper using his hands to stop a ball that's definitely on its way in.
It might also mean the goalkeeper handling a shot outside his penalty
area, although the farther away from the goal, the harder for the referee
to be sure the ball would have gone in.
An
obvious goal-scoring *opportunity* occurs before the actual shot on goal.
According to FIFA/USSF guidelines, there are four conditions that have to
be met to have an OGSO:
-
attacker
moving directly towards the goal
-
only
one or no defenders between the attacker and the goal
-
ball
in proximity to the attacker, who can play it without much extra
effort
-
attacker
with a reasonable shooting opportunity
So
for example, it's an OGSO if an attacker near the outer edge of the
penalty area feints, dribbles past the last fullback and heads for the
goal with only the keeper to beat. It's also an OGSO if the keeper comes
out and the attacker then dribbles past him so there's nobody defending
ahead. In either of these cases, if the beaten defender grabs the attacker
and pulls him down before he can take a shot, an OGSO has been denied by a
deliberate foul and the LOTG say send off the defender.
Remember
that all four conditions have to be met. If the situation is exactly the
same except the attacker is a nine year-old girl and she's pulled down 35
yards from the goal, then it may not be an OGSO -- that's probably too far
out to consider it a reasonable shooting opportunity. Or take the case
where the defender successfully turns the attacker so he is heading across
the field, and then pulls him down. That's not denying an OGSO, either --
not heading directly towards the goal.
Another
potential OGSO denial is where there's an open attacker at the penalty
spot with no defender ahead of him except the keeper, the ball is passed,
and a defender handles the ball to prevent it from reaching him. That call
depends on the referee's judgment of whether the pass was controllable and
how wide-open the attacker would have been if he had received it.
Any
kind of foul can be considered. Players have been sent off for
obstruction, which only leads to an indirect free kick by itself --
because the obstruction denied an OGSO.
If
a goal or an OGSO is denied, the Law says the offender must be sent off,
whatever happens afterwards. So if a defender in the goal mouth
deliberately handles the ball to keep it out, but the ball rebounds to
another attacker who then scores before the referee has had a chance to
blow the whistle, technically the defender should still be sent off -- the
first goal was denied, and the score was the result of a different play.
However, some referees feel this is excessive, and will instead show a
yellow card or no card at all, believing that (a) the goal was not in fact
denied, and/or (b) the goal scored was sufficient punishment.
< |