For example, in your July 9, 2009 question on the AR signal for a PK, you said how the AR was to determine and signal “if the goalkeeper has moved illegally AND IT MADE A DIFFERENCE.” (your ALL-CAPS). Does “MADE A DIFFERENCE” mean, for example, that if the keeper leaves the line early, but the shot misses the goal (no keeper save), that leaving early made no difference in helping a save, so no foul? Or did it mean that if a goal was scored anyway, leaving early “MADE no DIFFERENCE”, so no need to signal?

It seems that the first option makes sense as being trifling leaving early had no impact upon play since the shot missed the goal.

But the LOTG and ATR seem clear that it does not matter if the shot is saved or misses when calling this.

Similarly with trifling – players that enter the penalty area on a PK slightly before the kick seem to have “no significant impact upon play” [ATR 5.5] in almost all cases. Yet much of Law 14 addresses this infraction. If the ball enters the goal on a PK, how could an attacker’s pre-kick entry into the penalty area not be considered trifling?

There seems to be consensus that things like 6-second rule violations, and keeper handling slightly outside the area when punting are trifling offenses. Right? But why are foul throw-ins not almost always trifling?

Thanks for providing “the answer” to so many important questions.

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
1. Goalkeeper leaving the line early:
The original meaning was that the goalkeeper’s leaving the line early may be disregarded if the ball enters the goal. If the kick missed, then it COULD have made a difference and the kicking team gets another “shot” at it. The final decision here is made by the referee on the game, not those of us who are watching (and adding up the “mistakes” by the referee).

2. Trifling infringements
For those who have not yet downloaded this year’s edition of the Advice to Referees, here is the text referred to in the question, Advice 5.5:

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
“The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators.”

This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee’s fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to. Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players. However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. Further, the referee may wish to talk to or warn a player regarding infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

With regard to entering the penalty area early, we can say that if it had no effect on play, then it need not be punished, as this would disrupt the flow of the game unnecessarily.

However, if, in the opinion of the referee, a kicking team player’s early entry into the penalty area had some effect on the play, it would not be trifling and would have to be punished in accordance with the Law.

Infringement of the six-second rule is sometimes misinterpreted. The count starts when the goalkeeper is preparing to release the ball, not when he or she actually gains possession. Why? Because very often the goalkeeper has to disentangle him-/herself from other players or move around fallen players, and it would be unfair to begin the count in such a case.

The goalkeeper’s handling of the ball “outside” the penalty area by crossing the line when punting the ball is clearly trifling, particularly if it occurs only once in a game and is only VERY slightly beyond the line. The referee should first have a word with the goalkeeper, warning him or her to watch the line in the future or risk consequences. No referee should rush into danger of losing control by punishing any trifling matters.

Foul throw-ins are generally trifling. What should be our primary concern is having the throw-in taken from the proper place, within one yard/meter of the point where the ball left the field. A throw-in is simply a way of putting the ball back into play quickly and efficiently.

Finally, please remember that such matters should be covered in the pregame conference between the referee and the other assigned officials.

The referee stopped play and stated she was not allowed to touch the flag. He then awarded the other team an indirect kick from corner area. The only ruling I could find regarding touching flag deals with players adjusting a flag TO a vertical position or FROM a vertical position prior to the kick. The referee was extremely professional, had perfect mechanics, and was obviously extremely competent. I know I was wearing my parent hat for this game, not my badge, but the ruling on touching the flag puzzled me. Is there a law, or directive that I have overlooked?

USSF answer (November 11, 2009):
The referee may have been “extremely professional,” but he was also EXTREMELY PETTY.

The corner flags are not to be moved, but not in the sense for which the referee punished the player on your daughter’s team. We instruct our referees (and anyone else who cares to read the document cited below) that this sort of movement of the flag is not against the Law; such movement must be corrected, but not punished.

This statement is included in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

1.6 NO PLAYER MODIFICATIONS TO THE FIELD
Goalkeepers or other players may not make unauthorized marks on the field of play. The player who makes such marks or alterations on the field to gain an unfair advantage may be cautioned for unsporting behavior. Players may return bent or leaning corner flags to the upright position, but they may not bend or lean them away from the upright position to take a corner kick, nor may the corner flag be removed for any reason.

First, am I correct that the AR or CR should only signal for a stoppage due to offside when that attacking player becomes involved?

Second, if so, why does it seem (at least to me, after watching hundreds of premier games at the u14 and higher level) that refs don’t seem to understand that critical aspect? By that I mean that the second they see any player past the second to last defender when a ball is played, UP GOES THE FLAG!!! Play stops, and a free kick is given to the defending team. No attempt is ever made to see if the player in the offsides position stays out of the play!

No one at this level seems to recognize that a player can be offsides and not result in a foul. Certainly not parents screaming “offsides” on the sidelines.

Am I alone is seeing this glaring misunderstanding by officials (and fans) at this age/play level?

USSF answer (November 9, 2009):
Offside should be called only when the player in the offside position becomes involved in play through interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in the offside position.

The reason why some ARs flag early and some referees call for offside early is because they pay no attention to the Laws of the Game or to the instructional materials distributed by the U. S. Soccer Federation and so carefully and fully enunciated and disseminated by their state directors of referee instruction.

No, you are not alone. We, too, despair in company with you.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
We supplied this answer to another questioner back in June. We believe it will apply to your question as well.

Under FIFA rules of competition, suspended coaches are neither forbidden nor allowed to communicate with their teams via mobile phones during FIFA matches. FIFA will not take any action. Nor is there anything in the Laws of the Game or Q&A to cover this. Accordingly, subject only to the requirement that the team official behaves in a responsible manner, mobile phones, headsets, walkie-talkies, and other similar communication devices may be used in the technical area.

To ensure better compliance from its teams, perhaps the league should provide more complete rules and guidance to the teams as to what constitutes “suspension” and what a coach or other team official who is under suspension may and may not do. It is not up to referees to police disciplinary rules of a competition.

In the Directive, one of the things the referee is supposed to consider in determining a handling offense is “Did the player ‘benefit’?”.

My understanding is that whether or not a player benefits from incidental arm/ball contact is irrelevant; it is either deliberate or not, and what happens afterwards is immaterial. “Advice” states unequivocally: “The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement.”

Can you please clarify? If I’m misunderstanding the directive (as others have too), what is it supposed to be conveying?

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You would seem to be misreading Advice 12.9 and confusing its text with that of the Directive, rather like confusing apples with applesauce. They speak of two different things.

Advice 12.9 addresses the “benefit” an attacking player might achieve in the sense of attack, while the Directive addresses the “benefit” a defending player might achieve in the sense of foiling an opponent’s attack.

The Directive on “Handling the Ball” does not suggest that benefit of a player’s action should be the sole point to decide if a ball was handled intentionally or not. The “Directive” states that the referee needs to decide first if a handling the ball situation involved (1) a player “making himself bigger” or (2) if the player’s arm was in an unnatural position. The third criterion (3) involves the result of the action. The first sentence is of (3) is key (quoting from the “Directive”): “In considering all the ’signs’ described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action.” Possible “benefits” for defender or attacker are suggested. However, these benefits are to examined only in the context of the first two criteria. In other words, if the defender “made himself bigger” and was able to play the ball the observed benefit of foiling the attack provides confidence the the handling of the ball was intentional. If the referee is still unsure after considering these 3 criteria additional factors (reaction time, distance to ball) can be applied.

In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the player’s action to determine whether an offense has been committed.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You have actually asked two completely different questions. We will rephrase them and answer each separately.

1. Must a free kick taken by the kicking team from within its own penalty area leave the penalty area to be in play? The answer is yes. If the ball does not leave the penalty area and enter the remainder of the playing field directly, the kick must be retaken.

2. If the goalkeeper makes a save in his/her own penalty area and then releases (rolls, throws, or kicks) the ball to a teammate who is inside the penalty area, may the teammate play the ball? The answer is yes.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
The goalkeeper may leave the penalty area (which includes the goal area) and retrieve the ball and dribble it back into the penalty area and play it with his/her hands only if the ball was played (a) in any manner by an opponent or (b) by a teammate in a legal manner, i. e., not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper or to a place where he or she could play it.

USSF answer (October 29, 2009):
The USSF memorandum of March 25, 2009, “confirms that ‘interfering with play’ cannot be decided unless the attacker in an offside position makes contact with the ball.” We would recommend that the assistant referee wait before signaling for offside in such cases. If a player in an offside position is going to be charged with being involved in active play by interfering with play, he has to touch the ball. If during the time he is NOT interfering with play he manages to interfere with an opponent by ACTING (not simply standing) in such a way as to block the path or line of sight of, deceive, or distract an opponent, then he is just as guilty of offside as if he had touched the ball — but not until that time.

However another referee says that all that is required to allow the kickoff is for seven Team B players to be on the field (including a GK) and that it does not matter if these seven are anywhere near their playing positions. He says that this is true even if Team B had 11 players during the first half and the referee is well aware that they have more than 11 available for the second half.

So my questions:

1. Can a referee legally order a second half kickoff if the other team has only 7 players on the field?

2. Can a referee legally order a second half kickoff if 11 players have entered the pitch but are nowhere near their playing positions (although they are in their own half)?

3. Even if technically legal, is it acceptable/proper for a referee to do either of the above?

USSF answer (October 29, 2009):
We all need to remember that the players are entitled to a break at halftime. Even if only one player wants the full break time permitted under the rules of the competition, then all players must be given the full amount of time allotted under the rules. It is pretty clear that the referee in your scenario has failed to consider the welfare and safety of the players.

1. Yes, provided that the full time allotted for the halftime break has passed.
2. Yes, with the same caveat.
3. It certainly shows a lack of respect for the players and the game to do what your scenario suggests.

We need to remember that it is THEIR game, not ours.

I was the center referee in a U14 Boys game. During the game, I noticed my AR was substantially away from even with the second to last defender(STLD); even to the point where the STLD would be at midfield, my AR would be even with the defending team’s eighteen-yard line. 

I ran over during a stop in play and asked what was wrong, whether he could continue, etc. and was told in no uncertain terms that he “was fine and he could see offsides just fine”. I told him he needed to stay even with the second to last defender, and he just shrugged his shoulders and dismissed any more of the discussion.

At numerous points during the second half, even after I persistently pointed at him when a signal was necessary and he was out of position (e.g. ball goes over the goal line, he is standing with his feet wider than shoulder length at the eighteen as if stretching), he was never in position. It even got to the point where, if he WOULD signal for a player in an offside position, he would quickly snap the flag up and down and make no further signal. Or he would be chatting with the coach while active play was taking place mere yards from his touchline. He essentially was having a hissing fit on the sidelines for me calling him out for his poor performance, and doing whatever he wanted.

My question: what recourse does a center referee have to deal with a disruptive and possibly subversive Assistant Referee. During the game, after him telling me that he was just fine in seeing offsides from wherever he was, I considered asking him to recuse himself and leave the game. He was THAT disruptive, even to the point where minor mistakes I made (e.g. in signaling the end of the game with my whistle, upon blowing it the first time and holding my hands out, I blew the whistle out of my mouth and was forced to pick it up from the ground to finish the whistle signal – after this), I was in perfect position to witness this AR turn to the coach and mock me

USSF answer (October 29, 2009):
As stated in Law 6, “In the event of undue interference or improper conduct [by an assistant referee], the referee will relieve an assistant referee of his duties and make a report to the appropriate authorities.” You probably should have dismissed the AR at halftime. That way you could have appointed a club AR and take over the duties of the AR for offside.

In addition, considering the behavior of the AR in question, the referee in such a situation could also proceed against the AR under the terms of US Soccer Policy 531-10, Misconduct of a Game Official. The policy is contained in the Referee Administrative Handbook, which can be downloaded from the Instructional Materials section of the referee program pages at www.ussoccer.com.