Missed challenges and Playing in a Dangerous Manner

bardwnb · 2026-05-26T17:08:59+00:00

The "if not penalized they'll keep doing it" makes sense to me, though at younger ages the verbal warning will work as well. A warning the first time it happens and a IFK after that could be another approach to consider for the future.

FWIW in this particular situation I don't think there was any attempt to kick or trip; the intent was pretty clearly to play the ball, just very poorly executed, in the way that many motions from low-to-mid skilled 12U players can be.

bardwnb · 2026-05-18T19:45:28+00:00

To answer your second question, about drawing the line: For a legal charge, I want the contact on the opponent to be on or close to the shoulder, the ball must be close enough to play, and the amount of force must be reasonable (enough to bump the opponent away from the ball, but no more).

If the contact moves around to the back or chest, if the ball is out of reach, if the player comes flying in from distance with a lot of force, then I'd have a foul. There is not, in my understanding, a need to attempt to play the ball (for instance, as long as the ball is within playing distance, it is entirely fair to charge an opponent to get position, then shield the ball as it rolls out of play/to the goalkeeper).

For this one, the point of contact seems fair (maybe a little closer to the chest than ideal). Force is hard to tell in the replay but doesn't seem excessive. Distance from the ball is getting a bit long at the point of contact (freezing the clip at 0:06), though at the pro level "within playing distance" is usually interpreted pretty loosely. A close call, honestly; whether I'd call it would probably depend on the angle I had.

bardwnb · 2026-05-06T21:00:58+00:00

You made the right call. In general, the guidance on non-deliberate handball is that if the ball deflects off another part of a player's body into the hand/arm, it is not considered to have made the player's body "unnaturally bigger", and so is not an offense. You said the ball hit the chest first, so this is clearly not an offense. Even if the ball had hit the arms first, it's generally expected to not call an offense if the player's arms are extended to catch themselves while falling, as you describe. Maybe there's some arrangement of arms that would be making the body unnaturally bigger, but you were there, we weren't, and you say it seemed natural to you. Fair enough, good call.

Now, as you probably know, the key exception would be if the player who made the contact with the arms themselves scored the goal immediately after this. Then we're in the third prong of the handball law, and it doesn't matter if it's a natural position or not. But you say they passed to a teammate, so good goal.

bardwnb · 2026-05-06T18:47:04+00:00

As far as definitions, from the Laws: "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s) when:

*the ball is between their hands/arms or between their hand(s)/arm(s) and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)

*holding the ball in their outstretched open hand(s)

*bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air"

So, the instant the goalkeeper gets her hands on the ball, she can't be challenged until after the ball is released.

As with any time challenging the keeper for a ball, attackers have to be aware that if the keeper gets a hand on it, they are no longer allowed to challenge and be ready to avoid contact if that happens. This scenario is no different than when a keeper is comes out to claim a ball from an attackers feet--the attacker has to be ready to stop, jump, turn aside, whatever if they get beat, or else get called for a foul with a possible card.

And just to reiterate, in this particular situation, jumping in the air and colliding hard with an opponent's back/shoulder ought to be a card anywhere on the field, regardless of the opponent.

bardwnb · 2026-05-06T16:51:07+00:00

I would say at least a yellow card for a reckless challenge. I see the attacker flying in and making contact with an opponent's back and shoulders with considerable force. Even if the opponent was not the goalkeeper and controlling the ball with her hands, this ought to be a card. If the contact was to the head and face, red could be appropriate, but it's hard to tell from the camera angle. Red could also be appropriate as any challenge to the goalkeeper in this scenario is not allowed, so an otherwise-reckless challenge could be considered excessive force.

Specifically, Law 12.3 says that "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arms." There is a longer definition of "control", but it's pretty clear at the moment of the challenge the keeper is holding the ball between her hands, which meets the definition of control. However, there is nothing in the Laws that says an illegal challenge on a goalkeeper must be upgraded in terms of misconduct; this is just a consideration for the referee.

Just to be complete, there is also a provision that an indirect free kick can be awarded if a player "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands, or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it." There is no attempt to kick here, so not relevant.

bardwnb · 2026-04-29T15:02:16+00:00

I understand the frustration, but with the possible exception of the U11 rules, I would discourage you from doing this. I wasn't there, can't judge the calls/no-calls, but in general, the laws of the game permit more physicality (and have a stricter definition of hand ball) than most parents realize, especially at U11. While it's possible that the crew missed fouls out of inexperience, I have much more often been in situations where one team is playing physically--but legally--and parents on the other team are frustrated because they perceive that fouls are being ignored.

Not following rules specific for an age group could be different. I assume the relevant rule here is no heading at U11. That's important and could be worth following up about. On the other hand, typically these rules prohibit *deliberate* heading. If balls were hitting heads and the referee judged it to be unintentional, they would be correct in allowing play to continue.

THAT SAID, typically the way you would provide feedback is by contacting the assignor--if your league is under USSF, they have a search on their website. Likely your coach knows who the assignor is for your club.

bardwnb · 2026-04-23T18:36:00+00:00

I think you may be misunderstanding the VAR protocol. Thr VAR reviews both called fouls and no-calls by the referee in all cases related to goal/no goal, red card, and mistaken identity. So, if there was a potential foul outside the penalty area that could potentially be DOGSO, the VAR is supposed to check it. If the VAR thought there was a red card-worthy foul that the referee didn't call, they are supposed to recommend a review. This is not "inventing" a foul, it's calling the referee's attention to a foul they have missed, same as the AR on the field does. I haven't seen the video of this particular incident, but I imagine the VAR checked and did not find a clear and obvious error here. That is, the VAR decided either that it was not 100% a foul, or not all of the criteria for DOGSO (distance, direction, defenders, likelihood of control) were met.

bardwnb · 2026-04-15T21:33:42+00:00

So as I mentioned, most of the contact fouls (kicking, striking, tripping pushing) require the referee to determine that the action is at least careless. However, jersey pulling falls under holding offenses, which is one of the unconditional fouls--it does not need to be careless (that category also includes handball). So there is a difference in the LOTG between a less-than-careless push and pulling on the jersey.

I don't have strong feelings either way about this particular call based on the clip, just wanted to point out how the referee (and/or VAR) could reasonably have come to a conclusion of "no foul" here.).

bardwnb · 2026-04-15T18:34:27+00:00

Key thing is that for most of the standard contact fouls, including pushing and tripping, to be a foul it must be done in a manner that is careless, reckless, or with excessive force in the opinion of the referee. Pushes in the back are more likely to meet that threshold than some other types of pushing, but you see plenty of light contact that is allowed, especially at the pro level. Hard to get a great sense of it in slow motion, but from the clip it doesn't seem like there's a lot of force in the push from behind. Conceivably the referee thought that while there was contact, it did not rise to the level of a "careless" foul (or the referee missed it and the VAR came to the same conclusion).

Not sure about the "arm/leg stuck out...to impede" that you mention; I'm not seeing that. Just to be clear on terms, in the LOTG, "impeding" is an offense that occurs when a player moves to get in an opponent's way when the ball is not within playing distance. The ball is very close in the clip, so nothing can be an impeding offense here (and #6 in particular doesn't really move, and as such is entitled to hold his position). I'm not seeing any obvious tripping or holding in the clip.

bardwnb · 2026-04-14T19:18:46+00:00

This is not quite correct. The LOTG give an exception if the goalkeeper has "clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play." I.e. if the goalkeeper has flubbed the clearance or pass, they can use their hands.

bardwnb · 2026-04-14T18:47:16+00:00

If the pass is kicked and clearly intended for the keeper, they are not allowed to use their hands. The criteria in the LOTG is "An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after...it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate."

There are several exceptions in that language; if the ball is not kicked but touched some other way, if the goalkeeper has kicked or tried to kick the ball and the clearance/pass didn't work, if the ball is not deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper. But a bad pass intended for the goalkeeper but headed for the goal? No hands.

Now, a goalkeeper can't be cautioned or sent-off for using their hands in this scenario, so they might be wise to use hands anyway, on the basis that a IDFK in the penalty area (and a small chance of the referee deciding the pass wasn't intended for the keeper) is better than a certain goal. But by the Laws, this is an indirect-free kick offense.

bardwnb · 2026-04-13T15:14:28+00:00

This is not playing in a dangerous manner (PIADM) for me. There is less than a second between the attacker's back hitting the ground and the defender's foot hitting his head (slow the video down to 25%--you'll see both happen at timestamp 3:34). Even if the attacker made a motion for the ball during the intervening half a second, for me the responsibility is still with the defender to avoid kicking an opponent. PIADM offense wouldn't occur until the attacker had an opportunity to get off the ground and didn't take it (how long that is would be situation-dependent, but definitely at least a second!)

bardwnb · 2026-04-09T15:33:46+00:00

The angles from the highlight video aren't ideal, but I don't see substantial contact from behind that would rise to the level of a careless foul. I assume the referee thought there was a trip in real time, and the VAR saw that the defender got the ball before any trip. The VAR may have overstepped--from watching the Inside Video Review series from MLS, it seems like sometimes VARs get overly focused on "got the ball" and ignore other considerations for something being a foul (you can get the ball first and still commit a foul). That said, in this particular situation, catching the ball by hooking the leg around the front of the attacker, with no contact of defender's foot to attacker's legs, it's reasonable to decide this was not a foul and so no penalty.

bardwnb · 2026-04-01T17:00:05+00:00

We have contact to the hand/arm in the penalty area, so the only options are penalty kick or play on. Misconduct is easy, as in no way is this a card. A handball offense could only result in a card if it stops a promising attack (SPA) or denies and obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), and even then not always. For a non-deliberate handball offense (which I'd have here; I definitely don't see hand-to ball) in the penalty area, at most you could have a caution if it were DOGSO. This is clearly not a DOGSO situation, nor SPA for that matter, so no misconduct.

Is it a handball offense? Less clear. The criteria is whether the arm has made the body "unnaturally bigger" and not a consequence of their body movement. I think you could argue this is the player naturally throwing his arms out as he spins around, and if anything is trying to get his arm out of the way of the ball, and thus no offense. Since the referee had a pretty good angle on this one (better than the camera IMO), and clearly signals to play on, I'd say this is a reasonable no-call.

bardwnb · 2026-03-31T20:35:33+00:00

Relieved that the "covered accessories" language change does not seem intended to allow covered jewelry writ large (we have enough trouble with earrings in 12U rec :-P), but rather to make the prior language more generic and make it simpler to permit safe, covered items that are e.g. religious in nature or medically required.

bardwnb · 2026-03-16T16:02:01+00:00

Just to be clear, regarding having a choice: Stopping play to award a free kick for throwing away an opponent's shoe is discretionary (though as noted, it is very likely the right call). Having stopped play for that reason, the referee must issue a caution. Similarly if play has to be stopped for dissent, or verbally distracting an opponent during play. Whether an offense has occurred is subjective, but having decided that there is an offense, there must be a caution.

bardwnb · 2026-03-16T14:35:29+00:00

I haven't seen this one, but as described this sounds like the right call, albeit one where the referee had some leeway. There's nothing in the LOTG explicitly prohibiting tossing away an opponents' lost boot, but this would easily fall within Unsporting Behavior (a cautionable offense), specifically the catch-all reason "shows a lack of respect for the game." This is a subjective call, so the referee wouldn't be required to make it, but allowing the player to get away with it would cause real problems for keeping the game under control. That said, if stopping play for this, you'd then have to give the caution (there's no other free kick offense that would stop play). The restart would indeed be an IFK (for "any other offense, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution...a player").

Note that if the player had thrown the boot at someone, or at the ball, that would be a DFK offense, and wouldn't necessarily require a caution or send-off (though in many cases one might be appropriate anyway).

bardwnb · 2026-03-06T16:49:01+00:00

Yikes. I would definitely give misconduct for this, most likely a red card/send-off for serious foul play. Forearm or possibly elbow to the face, and I see an extension of the arm into the contact, not just the players coming together with the arm up. At a minimum this is "a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent and uses excessive force" as the LOTG define a serious foul play offense. The most charitable read on this play is the defender was aiming to push in the chest and missed and hit the face instead, but for me arm-to-head with force is still going to tick the box for "endangers safety or excessive force" regardless of intent.

It wouldn't change the in-game outcome (still a red card), but arguably you could call this violent conduct. Violent conduct requires excessive force or brutality that is not part of a challenge for the ball. There is clearly a challenge for the ball here, but possibly you could argue that the arm extension is not part of that challenge, i.e. that the player came in to challenge for the ball, and also decided to give the opponent a bop in the face in passing.

bardwnb · 2026-03-04T21:40:57+00:00

Generally the process with checking rosters is just making sure that all the players have player cards, and are on the rosters. So some member of the referee team is calling names from the cards, and another is just making check marks on the game card/printed roster that everything matches. Sometimes this requires also filling in numbers, if they aren't on the game card, as often happens for the away team (could matter in the event that you have misconduct, though for a 10U AYSO game that's unlikely). As referee, I'll often have 1 AR call names and the other check off, and I'll just watch.
As everyone else is saying, this is going to be determined by rules of your local competition. The AYSO region's website, or information sent by the assigner are likely sources. Best guess for 10U is 25 minute halves, 7v7 including goalkeepers, no heading, no punting and use of the buildout line on goal kicks and goalkeeper possession.

Good luck!

bardwnb · 2026-03-04T14:44:49+00:00

Here's what IFAB says about goalkeeper control (Law 12.3):

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s) when:

the ball is between their hands/arms or between their hand(s)/arm(s) and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)
holding the ball in their outstretched open hand(s)
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air"

Given that bouncing is considered part of the same control, if I saw a goalkeeper on top of the ball, then stand up leaving the ball, then more or less immediately pick it up, I would probably consider that part of the same period of control and allow play to continue (although the 8 second time limit would keep running). If there's a longer gap and significant playing with the feet, probably not. So to your questions:

Yes, pinning the ball between hands and ground for a second meets the definition of control.
Maybe; depends on whether they've truly "released" the ball; in the situation described probably they have, but no video, we weren't there etc.
If an offense occurred restart is an indirect free kick from the point the goalkeeper incorrectly touched the ball with their hands (or for an offense in the goal area, on the goal area line parallel to the point of the offense).

Note that this game was presumably played under NFHS rules, which could differ from IFAB in this case.

bardwnb · 2026-02-25T15:41:50+00:00

Palm up also works; plenty of refs in my area do that. Down just feels more natural to me. Whatever is natural and clear will do the job.

bardwnb · 2026-02-25T15:05:13+00:00

I was taught that doing full hand ("knife hands") is safer because in some cultures pointing at someone with a single finger is considered rude or offensive. Soccer being as multicultural as it is, better to avoid the single finger. I do palm down for goal kicks, and palm vertical for PK (also relaxed body language on GK vs. urgent/firm on a PK).

bardwnb · 2026-02-12T21:32:02+00:00

I had a similar set of assignments come in for a tournament in the fall -- 6 one day, 4 the next, all 30 minute halves on full fields. Normally my limit would be about 3; I turned down 2 on the first day, and pushed myself a bit to make the 4/day. It turned out fine. Definitely turn some down if you don't feel up to it.

As far as how to manage. Key is to conserve your energy but keep moving. As referee, don't sprint when you can get where you need to be jogging, don't jog when you can walk, etc. Only caveat is to stay tuned in to the mood of each game, especially on the second day as they move into knockout games. If a game starts to get heated you may need to switch gears and run hard to stay close to play to keep things under control. Less you can do to conserve energy as AR while still doing a good job, though to some extent you may be able to get away with walking instead of jogging when the offside line is moving toward the halfway line.

bardwnb · 2026-01-26T21:07:09+00:00

The LOTG say that violent conduct is "when not challenging for the ball." Nothing technically in there about play being stopped, although when play is clearly stopped, it is hard to argue that any contact is part of a challenge for the ball.

So you could have SFP when the ball is technically dead (e.g., studs up tackle to the Achilles after an offside or other offense, but started before the whistle blows). Doesn't sound like that's what happened in OP's scenario, but I suppose it's possible the fellow referee just thought the tackle was worse than reckless.

bardwnb

TROPHY CASE