Question Number: 35925

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 6/8/2025

RE: Competitive Adult

peter babbage of Hjørring, North Denmark Region Denmark asks...

I feel I should know this but one or two doubts have crept in! Defender and attacker are chasing the ball into the area. Attacker touches the ball and it trickles over the by line. At the same time the defender pushes him over. So my question is the ball was over the line before the push and was *dead* is it a goal kick or a penalty ?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Thanks for the question.
There is a paper answer and a game answer.
On paper as the offence happened inside the penalty area, committed by a defender while the ball is in play the restart is a penalty kick.
In a game situation though it may not be so clear as a referee has to answer a number of questions that might not be so obvious
1. Was the ball in play when the offence happened or was it over the goal line?
2. Was it a clear offence or was it doubtful and trifling?
3. Was it a legal charge that was poorly executed?
3. Was there sufficient force used for an offence or did the attacker exaggerate minimal contact going to ground easily?

As you no doubt pay a lot of attention to refereeing you will no doubt see no calls being made on certain challenges close to the goal line even when it looks like a possible upper body offence has been committed and maybe where a referee has opined that the attacker has lost control of the ball with it clearly destined for out of play and therefore no call is made.

I recall in a game where a defender and an attacker were stood on the goal line just inside the penalty area close to AR1.There was one attempt by the defender to play the ball and then I looked at the lead AR to see if the ball was out of play and he had a somewhat flustered flag action. The second attempt clearly played the ball out for a corner kick and I shouted corner kick with the arm signal.
At half time I asked the AR what happened at the incident and he said he forgot the flag signal for a foul and a penalty! He was of the opinion that there was contact on the attacker’s leg and therefore a foul. If there was it was minimal and certainly not enough for the attacker to react to or go to ground. I told him I was glad he did forget as in my opinion any contact did not merit a penalty and the corner kick was the *best* decision.
Yes maybe technically a minor foul yet in my opinion did not meet my threshold for a penalty kick.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter
My thinking is much in line with my colleagues'. He often uses the word “threshold,” a term I truly appreciate. In every match, I ask myself: What is my threshold? Does it align with what the players accept? Most importantly, is it in keeping with both the Spirit and Laws of The Game (LOTG)?
When a referee steps onto the field, they begin with the greatest of intentions—letting the game flow without compromising its integrity. Every call feels personal because we know the emotional stakes extend far beyond the whistle. We aren’t interested in punitive gestures, but when intervention is necessary, it must be unambiguous. Our decisions aren’t about enforcement they’re about defending the heart of the game against chaos.

My most respected mentor Esfandiar Baharmast has a magnificent refereeing video detailing his trials and tribulations in the 98 World Cup in a match between Norway and Brazil I often refer others to watch this video for numerous reasons: - Integrity, foul recognition, positioning, proper use of advantage, etc... It’s such an incredible video because it touches on so many great points. I so recommend it for -ANY- true fan of the game no matter their level of interest or involvement. Case on point here is his explanation At about 3:45 when explaining his decision “I don’t call a small pull or push in the 89th minute” It speaks to how a referee objectively is managing a match with full awareness as to what his criteria, obligations and responsibilities truly are.

The referee at the centre of World Cup storm

Imagine awarding a penalty kick and a card to a player who committed that type of foul you mentioned in the very first minutes of the match? It’s not a question of doubt—you know the impact that decision will have. But not every trifling or doubtful action must be ignored. A referee’s ability to read the temperature of a fiery game and decide when to intervene is crucial. Sometimes, it’s about containing a campfire before it ignites a bushfire—or reining in a full-blown inferno.

I recall officiating a ster fire of a match in the first half, despite my best efforts. Chaos seemed inevitable. To order, I started calling every minor infraction: bad breath in the middle of the park, anything near the touchline. I slowed the game to a crawl in the second half, trying to rein in the mayhem. However, I knew I could never make those same calls in the penalty area—their impact on the match would be too great. The same principle applies to incidents that occur after the ball has gone out of play. Unless the conduct is truly egregious, sometimes all that’s needed is a word, if that.
Referees must remember that the word “attempt” appears in three offenses:
•   Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
•   Trips or attempts to trip an opponent
•   Strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
An “attempt” occurs before any actual contact. While I don’t suggest searching for fouls when the ball has clearly crossed the line into touch, misconduct is still punishable by yellow or red cards—even though play has technically stopped. We’ve even redefined fouls to account for players exiting the field to foul an opponent in such cases, the ball is placed back on the pitch at the nearest point, and if the foul was on the goal line within the penalty area, a PK is awarded.

I wish I could show you two moments that remain vivid in my memory:

1.   A defender executed a crafty push. a disguised lurching stumble into the back/side of an attacker. The slightest heel click caused a sitter to be missed. I awarded a PK and sent the defender off for DOGSO, reducing their team to ten. It wasn’t a dramatic wipeout, just a well-timed, unavoidable nudge.

2.   The ball was traveling along the goal line and crossing into touch as a dribbling attacker reached to pull it back. Before they could, they were excessively cleaned out—far beyond what was reasonable. I awarded a penalty and red-carded the defender for serious foul play (SFP). We debated whether it warranted only a yellow for unsporting behavior (USB) since the ball was technically out of play, but I remained adamant: the attempt to stop the attacker occurred as the ball was rolling over the goal line. The force used was excessive, well beyond reckless. This was no legitimate tackle to break up an attack, if it had been, I likely wouldn’t have made any call at all.

Was that tackle purely unsporting, with no other intent than to endanger an opponent? I’ve often approached players slightly late to challenges and noted, with a knowing pause, the “attempt.”

To illustrate how quickly this delicate balance can shift, picture this: as the central referee (CR), I have the best seat in the stadium—a front-row vantage point in the middle of the field. Within the first three minutes, a blue defender delivers a reckless, albeit slightly late, tackle—a classic professional foul, taking out either the red player or the ball, but not both. It disrupts an attacking play, preventing a good opportunity to advance into scoring territory. No hesitation. A sharp whistle blast, hand in the shirt pocket, brandishing the yellow card, motioning the player up, and awarding the direct free kick (DFK). Some slight grumbling—it was, after all, the very first foul.

There's a persistent myth in the game: some believe a referee will let you get away with one good crack at someone’s ankles early on, avoiding a card to delay setting the standard. That’s wrong, but not always incorrect.

Here’s where things escalated. Two or three minutes later, a red team player gave me another reason to blow the whistle. If my first call was firm, this one was undeniable—I hammered the whistle, running toward the incident, hand already in my back pocket, red card out before I reached the two players lying on the ground.
Earlier, I kept my words minimal. A simple “Are you OK?” to the red player. Here, again, I asked the same of the blue player. “Are you OK?” He gave me a thumbs up and said I guess I’ll live but what the hell was that? But then, this cheeky red fellow had the nerve to question why he was being expelled with a red card when I had only shown yellow to the blue defender a few minutes before.

I read that red player and all those in earshot, the riot act quickly: "The yellow card I issued earlier should have forewarned you: I take the safety of all 22 players on this field very seriously! That tackle, though reckless, was from the side and an attempt to play the ball in breaking up an attack. Your challenge was an abomination. You ran 10 yards and delivered an excessive, two-footed tackle directly from behind on a standing blue player with no chance of winning the ball, just six yards from the touchline at midfield? Tell me, what attack was happening other than yours?"

Those were the only two cards I issued in the match. Five minutes in, red was reduced to ten men against eleven. From then on, silence. Not a peep for the remaining 85 minutes.

I was fortunate, my colleague was not.
Sometimes, despite our best efforts, we fail to dial it in correctly.

Russian referee Valentin handed out 16 cards—12 yellows and 4 reds—in a FIFA World Cup match notoriously known as the "Battle of Nuremberg." His first yellow came just two minutes into the game: a questionable caution to Mark van Bommel (Netherlands) for a rather benign incident that arguably didn’t warrant anything beyond a simple free kick. Then, five minutes later, Khalid Boulahrouz (Netherlands) received a yellow in the seventh minute for a tackle that arguably deserved a direct red. Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal) was ultimately substituted out due to a studs-up injury to his thigh. This uneven standard sent a confusing signal to everyone on the field, and the game spiraled out of control. It didn’t matter whether you were watching, playing, or officiating it was uncomfortable for all involved.

In my game, the stakes were no less personal. Early on, a reckless challenge disrupted attacking play—abandoning a ball won fairly by a player. Recognizing that risk, I issued a yellow card as a necessary warning. Minutes later, another severe incident unfolded, demanding escalation to a red card. My decisions made it clear that the second, harsher action was anchored in that initial moment. It wasn’t about being overly punitive: it was about safeguarding the game’s integrity and defending the threshold of safety.
By contrasting my approach with the missteps in Nuremberg, I only wish to underscore the importance of setting a high threshold from the first minute. A well-delivered response commands respect. A weak signal invites dissent and jeopardizes the safety and fairness of the match.

Players should never be left wondering: Is dangerous, reckless play truly being penalized, or are we expected to fend for ourselves?
Cheers