Discussion in 'Referee' started by bothways, Jan 21, 2013.
I think it has been out for at least a year now. The quizzes are a great resource!
Cant view vids on ipad though.
Beat me to it.
You can, of course, if you subscribe yo a flash browser converter app.
Clowd browse will work.
i was kidding about the why did no-one tell me part! There are so many great resources out there. maybe we could create a database for big soccer ref participants. Or we all add something we think is cool, and then newer refs could check out?
Clive....care to recommend one?
Took the 1st quiz,
Plenty of fodder for another marathon thread on confusing tests questions!
"A shot taken on goal is blocked by a defending player inside his own team's penalty area. The defending player then starts to dribble the ball while having full control of it. Before the defender dribbled the ball out of the penalty area, the goalkeeper picked up the ball dribbled by the defender (his teammate). The Referee should stop the play and award an Indirect Free Kick to the opposing team."
Correct answer - False
"A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 if he or she touches the ball with the hands directly after it has been
deliberately kicked to him or her by a teammate. The requirement that the ball be kicked means only
that it has been played with the foot. The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the ‘keeper can legally handle the ball."
Hello, my name is Rafal Wlazlo - the administrator of the website and tests/quizzes you mention.
Regarding the question above - as indicated in the ATR 12.20 (which you mention above) the ball has to be DELIBERATELY kicked to the goalkeeper by his teammate. The "deliberate" part is missing from this equation and therefore the described action is legal on part of the keeper.
ATR further clarifies under the same paragraph "The goalkeeper is permitted to dribble into the penalty area and then pick up any ball played legally (not kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can easily play it) by a teammate or played in any manner by an opponent.
The very same ATR section displays a "Triangle" explaining "second touch infraction" with Deliberate/Kicks/Touches with hands/ and states ALL 3 sides must be present in order for the infraction to exist. This question was brought up in one of the meetings in NY and this answer was also confirmed by our State Director of Instruction.
The ATR part that you quote is totally irrelevant -- it refers to a GK picking the ball up after the GK dribbles the ball, not a teammate.
The triangle certainly controls.
No issue here, as the GK picked up the ball
No question here, the defender was dribbling with the foot.
That leaves the delierate side of the triangle as the only one that is an open question:
Nothing in the question suggests that the ball was accidentally defelcted or misdirected -- to the contrary, it clearly states that the defender ha "full control of it." That leaves only the red in question -- was the ball played to a place where the keeper can legally handle the ball. Sure sounds like it since that is what in fact happened.
Each element of the triangle, as described in the ATR, is satsified. The only question, IMO, is whether the offense shoudl be considered trifling, which could well depend upon factors not present in the question.
(While I can see arguments that this should not be construed as an offense (and I believe our colelagues in England would say it was not an offense unless the defender intended the ball for the GK), I don't see any way to rationalize that result unde the description of the ATR, which makes clear that delieberate has nothing to do with whether the deender intended the ball for the GK.)
That is a violation, don't read the Laws so literally and instead think of this: The Law is in place (partially) to prevent time wasting. Imagine if the situation spelled out was in fact legal. The GK picks up the ball, distributes to a defender who dribbles the ball and the GK picks it up. Lather, rinse, repeat. Wouldn't that be okay, I mean they didn't "pass" it or deliberately kick it to the keeper ... See where I'm going here? You could waste time indefinitely theoretically.
The piece that R.U. Kidding picked up on is key:
The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot.
The defender made a play with his foot last and the GK can't pick that back up.
Ask your SDI again. Have him confirm with his peers.
This is directly counter to what has been coming down from above for many years now. We have been told that "deliberately" applies to the kick and not the"to him" part. Both you and the SDI are directly contradicting a long-standing and wide consensus. Many coaches, players, and spectators also suffer from this wording of Law 11.
The case is made here that this player kicked it "to a place where the goal keeper can easily play it."
Also keep in mind when interpreting the above ATR quote that the infraction itself is one committed by the keeper. This is evidenced by the fact that the restart is held where the keeper touched it. The "intent" of the kicker is not the emphasis of this offense and we have been consistently told that it should not be a factor in the decision.
Law 11"touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him
by a team-mate"
Awesome, thanks for your reply.
However, I must disagree, and this has been discussed at more then one referee clinic, however it usually pertains to the instance where a defender traps the ball with the foot to allow the keeper to pick it up.
Please re-read the following quote:
"The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot."
Dribbling is definitely playing with the foot.
ATR goes on:
"The requirement that the ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected."
The question on the quiz emphasizes that, "The defending player then starts to dribble the ball while having full control of it".
"Having full control" indicates that the ball was definitely not deflected or misdirected.
The ball does not have to go directly towards the keeper, only to a place where he can legally handle the ball.
The term "pass-back" is incorrect as it does not have to be a pass nor does it have to go back, in order to be an infraction.
The 2nd part about the keeper dribbling ball back into PA is irrelevant since this situation did not originate outside of the PA.
Please know I am sure that you are already quite familiar with the ATR, I am just pointing out specifics to illustrate my point. No disrespect intended.
@wguynes-I completely understand where you're coming from. I have heard this argument before, as a matter of fact I was the one making it at first when I have heard this scenario. I am myself a National Referee, yet I struggled with this one at first.
Take it for what it's worth but I have spoken to USSF's Herb Silva (U.S. Soccer Director of Referee Identification and Training) who issues most of the USSF/LOTG memos we all get to read. He stated that this is not an infraction. We discussed it while talking about exceptions to restarts for infringements of Law 14 that are written in ATR but not in LOTG.
None taken. I undersatnd that not the entire paragraph or section here is relevant, I was simply trying to point to the correct section of ATR that has relevant parts to this question. As posted in another reply - this answer was also confirmed by USSF's Herb Silva, one of top heads at the federation. I disagreed with it at first but I came around after hearing the arguments later.
If Mr. Silva is correct, then the ATR is wrong. The ATR is clear: this is a violation.
I like this question:
What should the Referee do if he notices a goalkeeper, standing inside his own penalty area, smoking a cigarette while the ball is in play and possessed by one of his teammates who is about to take a shot on opponents' goal?
Please note few things about the quizzes we offer;
We double check all questions and answers for possible errors with the help of several current and former National/Professional Referees and sometimes (rarely) utilizing help of top officials from MLS as well as former World Cup referees and current and former US Soccer administration officials. Having said that, we are aware that even after that we might make a mistake every now and then. We try very hard and cross check all possible references before posting an answer (LOTG. ATR, Guide to Procedures, Memos, Interpretations, etc). In any event, if you believe that we have made an error in any of our answers please let me know and I'll be the first to take a look and, if need be, correct it. After all this is a service for all referees to learn from. If I can make it better, please let me know any suggestions you might have.
But the language of the ATR does not support the answer you give. Every element of the triangle, as currently written in the ATR is met.
If the USSF powers that be really believes this is not a violation, it really needs to re-write the "deliberate" side of the triangle in the ATR. (But I'v heard nothing to suggest that they are plannign to issue a new ATR any time soon.) These create the hopelessly maddening situations of icnonsistant interpretations amongst experienced refs who work hard to be current. I don't see how I can apply an interpretation that is inconsistent with the ATR because someone on the internet says that someone at USSF says that it is right.
I agree that the ATR is at times not too clear and/or confusing in its language, but in this case I believe that HS got it right and the ATR supports it. It all boils down to whether the defender dribbling the ball equals the defender kicking that ball to keeper. I believe it does not and HS agreed, but I also think the ATR's language should be clearer on this.
How in the world to you possibly get there from the ATR??? As set forth above by me and others, every one of the three sides of the triangle is met as they are currently defined in the ATR. You merely assert your conclusion without using the definitions in the ATR. You do not explain which part of the triangle is not met and why -- instead you name drop. Not very helpful.
Consider the ATR statement:
The goalkeeper is permitted to dribble into the penalty area and then pick up any ball played legally (not kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can easily play it) by a teammate or played in any manner by an opponent. According to this statement the keeper can simply leave the box and "steal the ball" from two of his teammates who are kicking it back and forth between themselves. I actually asked that too and it was also confirmed. Why? Because the law states that the ball has to be actually deliberately kicked to the keeper. Dribbling the ball by the defender who is picked up/stolen from him/picked up suddenly (you name it) does not make it "deliberately kicked to the keeper". Again. I completely undersatnd the argument for an IFK, but I have to agree with Herb and also with the ATR. It simply doesnt say anywhere this type of play is illegal.
I'm sorry, I thought I was clear on this. The "deliberately kicking to keeper" is not present. And I mentioned already that merely dribbling the ball (the defender) does not equal to it being kicked "to the goalkeeper".
OK, if this is not a violation how would you account for my theoretical situation of a team doing this over and over again to waste time?
You're being too cute in your understanding in of the Laws here.
The whole point of the Law is to avoid continually playing the ball to the keeper and allowing him to possess it in his hands. Yet, you have constructed just such a situation. The keeper releases the ball to a defender who then makes a pass to another defender where upon the keeper pounces on the ball again. Repeat ad infinitum. Of course, this play is illegal. It's exactly the behavior that was being banned.
That's why the the ATR separates "deliberately kicked" and "to the keeper." The requirement isn't "kicked" and "deliberately to the keeper" as you are claiming.
Separate names with a comma.