Question

[meyers]

In tonights MLS game, there was a play that I had not seen before. I was looking for some comments on what people thought of this situation.

Crew RM recieved a ball over the top down the right side. He pushed it towards the box/goal with one touch. His second touch came at the point where the penalty area and the endline meet and he pushed it towards the goal. His momentum took him across the endline and he curved starting to come back into the PA. The Crew RM was being shadowed by the RSL LB (?). The LB also crossed the endline.

While both players where "off the field" they came in contact and the RM went down. Not much debate, the RM was tripped, but outside the endline. The Ref gave PK.

I guess I would agree. I suppose if the same thing had happened along the touch lines, a DFK from the closest point on the pitch would make sense. The closest point for this foul just happened to be in the PA.

Just kind of an odd situation. Any comments? Did the Ref do the right thing?

[intechpc]

Well at first look my first reaction was no, the foul occured outside the field of play and therefore only a caution was appropriate in this situation with and IDFK awarded since the ball was still in play. However, the advice to referees for 2006 states that in this situation the player is not considered to have left the field of play.

So I guess from that you could draw the conclusion that since they are still considered in the field of play that a normal penal foul for tripping may be called. Now, the LOTG are very specific about the penalty area's boundries and there is no allowance made for extending it in this situation, therefore I'm inclined to agree with you except that this would be very out of the ordinary to have a DFK for the attacking team occur inside the penalty area anywhere but as a PK. There is no provision for such a thing anywhere in the LOTG under any circumstance

Ultimately I think the referee probably did the right thing. His call seems consistent with the intent of the laws and was the most reasonable in terms of normal play.

[colins1993]

I too have never seen a play exactly like this.

True that the contact did occur outside the field of play but I felt the correct decision was made.

Here is how I saw it: The Col fwd played the ball around the RS left back on the side of the PA about ten yards from the end line It turned into a foot race then between the two players. As the COL fwd attempted to "turn the corner" and head for goal he basically ran out of real estate and was off the field of play by about a yard or two with the RS def chasing him.

The ball was still on the field of play when the contact ocurred but did cross the end line seconds after the contact occurred. I think this was key.

The CR did have a rather lengthy dicussion with AR1 and I feel they got it right.

[bluedevils]

Bah, I quit watching the game and didn't see this incident. Very interesting situation indeed. My first reaction was, you cannot award a PK for a foul that occurs off the ball. But I still need to read through the 2006 ATR more thoroughly and it sounds like there is a relevant passage regarding these kinds of situations. I wonder if, and how, the ATR can be reconciled with the traditional notion that fouls can occur only on the field of play, not outside.

[HoldenMan]

For offside purposes a player who's left the field is considered to be on the line.

Fouls? not so. That's according to the FIFA Q&A

[Ref Flunkie]

For offside purposes a player who's left the field is considered to be on the line.

Fouls? not so. That's according to the FIFA Q&A


This was my impression as well (we've had this discussion before, I KNOW). It was the whole "is it close enough to the line to sell as a PK, or can you only give a misconduct". I don't recall what version of the ATR I have at the moment, but I would appreciate a quote from the ATR dealing with this situation if there is one.

[USSF REF]

Bah, I quit watching the game and didn't see this incident. Very interesting situation indeed. My first reaction was, you cannot award a PK for a foul that occurs off the ball.

I think I know what you meant, but suffice it to say a foul can be committed away from the ball. Case in point...

The ball is in play being dribbled toward Team A's penalty area. Meanwhile, in team B's penalty area an attacker is still hanging around. At this time the Goalkeeper thinking he can get away with it, punches the team A player and it is spotted by the Assistant Referee.

So, we have the ball in play in addition to striking which is one of the 10 direct free kick fouls. As this foul was also committed in the penalty area, once the referee notes the information from the AR should...

1. Stop play
2. Send-Off the keeper for Violent Conduct (in NCAA this is considered serious foul play because the ball in play)
3. Awards a penalty kick to team A (which may only be taken once team B identifies a new goalkeeper.)

[bluedevils]

Originally Posted by bluedevils
Bah, I quit watching the game and didn't see this incident. Very interesting situation indeed. My first reaction was, you cannot award a PK for a foul that occurs off the ball.

I think I know what you meant, but suffice it to say a foul can be committed away from the ball. Case in point...I think I know what you meant, but suffice it to say a foul can be committed away from the ball. Case in point...

Holy crap, I can't believe my typo. Definitely meant to type "off the field" NOT "off the ball."

[refmike]

I did not watch the game but this is something directly from the FIFA Q&A.
The trip occured off the field while the ball was in play on the field. It cannot be a foul because it did not occur on the field. A misconduct off the field is punished by a caution and if play is stopped for it, the restart is a dropped ball. The IFK restart is only for a sub entering the field without permission.

Now if one if the involved players was actually on the line the situation is different but I read above that it was clearly 2-3 yards beyond the line.

[refontherun]

Now if one if the involved players was actually on the line the situation is different but I read above that it was clearly 2-3 yards beyond the line.

That was my thought exactly. Considering the long discussion between the CR and AR, perhaps the AR saw that one of the players had an extremity on or in the plane of the goal line when the foul actually occured. That would make it on the FOP.

Another possibility could be that the AR raised the flag for something that happened within the PA, but before the players left the field and the CR didn't notice the flag until the incident that happened off the field.

[ref2coach]

[QUOTE=intechpc] However, the advice to referees for 2006 states that in this situation the player is not considered to have left the field of play. /QUOTE]

intechpc, 2006, ATR, page 27, #10. A player running with the ball sees a defender in front of him. He leaves the FOP to continue playing the ball, the Defender holds him off of the field of play. What does the referee do?
Play is stopped, and the opponent is cautioned for USB. Play is restarted with a dropped ball at the location of the ball, when play was stopped.

I read the rest of the Law 12 advice, is the conflicting instruction in a different section of the ATR?

[macheath]

Holy crap, I can't believe my typo. Definitely meant to type "off the field" NOT "off the ball."

phew! Thought someone was using your name in vain for a minute...

[bluedevils]

phew! Thought someone was using your name in vain for a minute...

I hope I haven't lost all credibility because of this slip-up!

[intechpc]

I read the rest of the Law 12 advice, is the conflicting instruction in a different section of the ATR?

Section 3.9 of the ATR talks about Leaving the field without permission. I'd post the quote but since I can't cut and paste from the ATR, I'm too lazy to retype it all.

[refmike]

The interpretation of a player off the FOP being considered on the line is for offside purposes only. Infractions that happen off the field are not considered to be on the line.

[colins1993]

The interpretation of a player off the FOP being considered on the line is for offside purposes only. Infractions that happen off the field are not considered to be on the line.

NOT awarding a penalty on this play would have been a grave injustice.

I'd like feedback from other refs who actually SAW this play. I checked MLS.net yesterday and it wasn't up there yet.

[Ref Flunkie]

NOT awarding a penalty on this play would have been a grave injustice.

I'd like feedback from other refs who actually SAW this play. I checked MLS.net yesterday and it wasn't up there yet.

It's up now, and to be honest, not sure about the call to start with, even if it had occurred on the FOP. The ONLY way I can see you giving a PK call on this is that the initial contact occurred on the line. However, I must say, I'm not even sure it was a foul, but then again I'm watching it on low-res web video. If it was for the apparent "trip" at the end, it was clearly 2-3 yards off the field and I don't see how you can sell it happening on the FOP.

[NHRef]

I just watched it, if you assume it was a foul, they were both running pretty close along the end line, easy to imagine that some part of one of them was breaking the plane of the line.

[ref2coach]

intechpc. The 3.9 citation is an interpretation that says the player "is considered to not have left the FOP without permission" in regards to the (non) requirement to have the Referee's permission to re-enter the FOP in this situation.

This citation does not apply to either "Offside" or "Foul" location, only judging "to caution or not to caution" for leaving the FOP without permission. ;)

[Ref Flunkie]

I just watched it, if you assume it was a foul, they were both running pretty close along the end line, easy to imagine that some part of one of them was breaking the plane of the line.


But do you give that as a PK if the same thing occurs but the two are running along the top of the PA? I think not.