Soccer 2013/14 Law 12 - Hanging off the crossbar (Updated)

Something that was brought up after the prior Law 12 discussion was how FIFA's Laws of the Game apply to a situation where a player hangs off the crossbar during the course of play. This player could, of course, be a goalkeeper, a defender, or even an attacking player.

So... what do we do? My immediate instinct is to blow the whistle and stop play, but why? There's nothing outright in the Laws of the Game for either soccer or futsal that directly discusses a player using the crossbar as an aid to play.

So where does that leave us?

IFAB Laws

The closest phrasing in the Laws of the Games that might apply in this situation comes in the Interpretations of Law 12 on page 123 of the 2013/14 book where, in the reasons for "Cautions for unsporting behaviour" (USB), it states:

The USSF Referee Program expanded on this in their 7+7 Advice to Referees memorandum from June 2012, stating that an USB caution must be given for a number of things, including:

• Uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play (leaning on the shoulders of a teammate, using an article of clothing to avoid direct contact with the ball, moving or removing a corner flag, hanging on a crossbar)

The USSF details this again in their Advice to Referees document (2012 update) with almost the same wording in section 12.28.1:

• Uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play: For example, leaning on the shoulders of a teammate, using an article of clothing to avoid direct contact with the ball, moving or removing the corner flag on a corner kick, hanging on the crossbar

So, it would seem that the instinct to blow the whistle would be correct, and then following up with a caution for USB, and an indirect free kick (IFK) to the non-offending team, Of course, these are not directives from FIFA, but the USSF interpretations, which must be in-line with FIFA and IFAB directives. As such, we'll run with them for the time being.

The USSF goes further with respect to hanging from the crossbar and stopping a ball from entering the goal in 12.37 (Judging an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity), where it is stated:

Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.

This logic is supported in Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG, where it states (as relates to dismissals):

Of course, it does not specify that it must be a direct free kick, and the "DOGSO-F" often mentioned refers to a "Free kick" for the "F", not a "Foul", and an indirect free kick (which is the restart for a stoppage of the game to administer a caution) is certain a free kick.

Where this gets a bit confusing (and will likely upset the attacking team) is that the restart for such a play would be an indirect free kick, because the play was stopped to deal with the misconduct and administer a card. That free kick would be taken from the spot on the goal area line perpendicular to where the defender (player or GK) committed the misconduct.

Of course, in the situation where a player (not the GK) hangs from the crossbar and stops a goal by deliberately handling the ball, this would not fall under the scenario mentioned above, but it would be a "DOGSO-H" situation because the player handled the ball, as per Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG:

Altogether a number of unusual situations that, while they may rarely arise, do once in a while, even if they only arise in quizzes and tests along the way.

Of course, this particular discussion covered the Laws of the Game for soccer, but the particular Law wordings in question are no different between soccer and futsal, and FIFA has been making a serious effort to make the two sets of Laws of the Game as similar as possible, so it seems logical that this would apply to futsal also.

Any thoughts? Alternate theories or arguments?

Update (Feb 12/14):

I was working through the interactive LotG knowledge tests from FIFA on their 2012-13 Laws of the Game Quiz and came across this exact question at the advanced level which put something of a different spin on the matter.

The specific question (nivel2/12/119) was:

A defender, hanging by his arms from the crossbar of his own goal, heads the ball to prevent it from entering the goal. What decision should the referee make?

1. The referee takes no disciplinary action and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.
2. The referee sends the player off and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.
3. The referee cautions the player and play is restarted with an indirect free kick.
4. All the answers are correct.

Based on the logic laid out above, I naturally chose #2 as the answer.

It was incorrect.

According to the results, the correct answer is #3, and that the player should be cautioned and the play restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team. No DOGSO in this case it seems.

The plot thickens...

Update (Feb 21/14):

On a mailing list I'm on, Gil Weber posted a link to a video that shows an attacking playing using the crossbar to gain height above a defender to score a goal. Incredibly, the goal was allowed. The player in question is Martin Palermo in a Boca Juniors v River Plate game and can be seen here:

Update (Mar 11/14):

The USSF released their updated Advice to Referees a week or so ago, and the newest version no longer contains the text about dismissing a player for hanging from the crossbar. In other discussions I've had, it's been suggested to me that FIFA explicitly says in the interpretations for Law 12 (pg 130) that a DOGSO-F requires a foul based on the following text:

The second paragraph explicitly uses the phrase "despite the opponent's handling the ball or fouling an opponent," thus suggesting that a foul is required. However, the third paragraph makes no mention of a foul, simply referring to an offence by stating "the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick." This, very explicitly, says that the offence need not be a foul against a player, but simply an offence that incurs a DFK or IFK.

Yet another case of more mixed messages on this one. For the short term, based on the FIFA referee quiz and the USSF ATR change, I'm willing to go along with the caution for USB and IFK until directed otherwise.

Tweet