Futsal CELL Webinars

---

Following a pass from her teammate, Black No16 attempted to shoot at goal. During the execution of the kick, the player miskicked (“shanked”) the ball, causing it to travel backwards instead of towards the goal. The ball subsequently struck the Green team GK (white jersey) and rebounded into the goal. At the same time, due to the momentum generated from the kicking action, Black No16 slid forward during her follow-through and made contact with the goal structure, causing the left goalpost to move from its original position.

Decision:

The referee must determine whether the movement of the goalpost occurred before or after the whole of the ball crossed the goal line between the posts and under the crossbar:

- If the ball wholly crossed the goal line before the goalpost was displaced, the goal must be awarded.

- If the goalpost was displaced before the ball wholly crossed the goal line, play must be stopped and the goal cannot be awarded, as the goal was no longer in its correct position at the moment the ball entered.

In this situation, consideration should also be given to whether the contact with the goalpost by Black No16 was accidental as part of normal playing movement, or careless/reckless in nature. If accidental, no disciplinary sanction is required. If deemed careless or unsporting, disciplinary action may be considered in accordance with the LOTG, Law 1, page 24:

“If an attacking-team player moves or overturns the opponents’ goal accidentally or deliberately, a goal must not be allowed.”

As the action by Black No16 was accidental and occurred during a normal playing movement, no disciplinary sanction is required. The correct decision is No goal,  dropped ball to the Green team GK and no disciplinary action for Black No16.

Mentoring points for Referees:

Regardless of your "feeling of unfairness" in such a situation, referees must maintain visual awareness not only of the ball and goal line, but also of the position and stability of the goal structure during dynamic attacking situations. When a player’s momentum carries them into the goal, the referee should immediately assess whether the goal has been moved before the ball enters the goal. In situations involving potential goals, referees should avoid making rushed decisions and instead process the complete sequence of events before signaling.

This is also an excellent example of effective teamwork:

- The 2nd referee and timekeeper may provide valuable assistance regarding the exact moment the goal was displaced,

- Clear eye contact and calm communication between officials are essential before confirming the final decision.

- Delay the whistle momentarily to fully observe the outcome of play.- Clearly indicate that the goal was displaced before announcing the decision.- Use calm body language and confident communication to reduce player confusion and dissent in unusual situations.

Strong referees demonstrate composure and credibility by correctly applying rare law scenarios, even when the decision may initially surprise players and spectators.

At 7:27, following a missed challenge by the White team GK (wearing a blue jersey), Black No8 gained possession and advanced toward an open goal-scoring opportunity. White No19 pursued and attempted to challenge with a sliding tackle. At 7:25, the ball was positioned between both players and remained playable by either player. Black No8 made contact with the ball (rolling it) and playing it before White No19 challenged it.

Decision: The sliding tackle by White No19 was executed at speed with a straight leg, and his trailing leg made contact with the standing leg of Black No8. The challenge involved significant speed, force, and intensity, clearly endangering the safety of the opponent. In accordance with the Futsal LOTG, this action constitutes the use of excessive force, defined as when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and/or endangers the safety of an opponent. The correct disciplinary sanction is a red card to White No19 for Serious Foul Play. The correct restart is a direct free kick (accumulated foul) for the Black team.

Mentoring points for Referees: Although contacts occur, the Futsal Laws should make the game as safe as possible. This requires players to show respect for their opponents, and referees should create a safe environment by dealing strongly with those whose play is too aggressive and dangerous. The Futsal Laws embody the unacceptability of unsafe play in their disciplinary phrases, e.g. “reckless challenge” (caution) and “endangering the safety of an opponent” or “using excessive force” (RC).

From a refereeing and match control perspective, this incident provides several important learning points for the referee team:

- The referee should recognize the tactical and emotional context of the situation immediately after the goalkeeper’s missed challenge, as the attacking player was progressing toward an open goal-scoring opportunity. These moments often create desperation challenges from defenders and require heightened anticipation and concentration.

- Optimal positioning and angle of view are critical. The referee should work to maintain an open viewing angle between the challenger and the attacker in transition situations to clearly evaluate the point of contact, the intensity of the challenge, and whether excessive force is used.- In challenges involving sliding tackles at speed, the referee should focus on key criteria such as speed, intensity, point of contact, body control, and the use of the legs or studs. A straight-leg challenge with forceful contact to the opponent’s standing leg is a strong indicator of Serious Foul Play.

The Red team was attacking using a flying goalkeeper (No22 in a yellow jersey). Upon losing possession at 17:09, the White/Blue (WB) team initiated a quick counter-attack. At approximately 17:04, WB No6, with a clear view toward the Red team’s goal, shot the ball to the goal. At the moment of the shot, only Red No13 was positioned between the attacker and the goal. Notably, the Red team’s flying goalkeeper (No22) was outside his own penalty area and therefore not in a position to defend the goal. Red No13 blocked the shoot with his body. The trajectory of the ball indicates that the shot was heading directly into the goal.  The ball touched the body of Red No13 and his left arm.

Decision:

The ball is first blocked and deviated by the left thigh of Red No13, and then hit his left arm to finally going away from the goal. The key component concerning the decision is after reckonizing that the ball touched the arm after being deviated by the thigh, do you consider that his left arm was or wasn't "deliberate" (i.e. 2nd movement after the shoot, unatural position, not justifiable, movement of the arm after being touched by the ball: firm or loose). 

LOTG Law 12, p82: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies the opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity and the referees award a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball, etc.), the offending player must be sent off.  Summary table on LOTG p85.
No attempt to play the ball with his arm:The restart is a Pk for the WB team (not accumulated foul because pk awarded) and a YC for Red No13 (DOGSO-YC).
Attempt to play the ball with his arm:The restart is a Pk for the WB team (not accumulated foul because pk awarded) and a red for Red No13 (DOGSO-Red).

Mentoring points for Referees:

• - Sequence matters: Recognize thigh → arm contact. The first legal block does not cancel a later offence.
  - Deflection ≠ no offence: After the deflection, assess the arm action independently.
  - Deliberate criteria: Look for secondary movement, unnatural position, and making the body bigger.
  - Moment of contact: Judge the arm at the time it touches the ball, not its initial position.
  - DOGSO application: Shot on target and goal prevented → apply FIFA Futsal LOTG Law 12 correctly.
  - Disciplinary outcome: Genuine attempt to block → Penalty kick + Yellow card.
  - Teamwork: In these video, both referees have a clear view of the ball contact with Red No13.

After releasing the ball to a teammate, Blue No3 attempted to move past Black No15. As Blue No3 advanced on his right side, Black No15 raised his right arm and initiated contact with his elbow, making contact with the face of Blue No3.

Decision:

Black No15 used excessive force and brutality against Blue No3, with no attempt to challenge for the ball.  He raised his arm to lead the contact with his elbow.The action constitutes Violent Conduct. The correct decision is to send off Black No15. Play is restarted with a Direct Free Kick to the Blue team (counted as an accumulated foul against the Black team) from the location of the offense.

Mentoring points for Referees:

• Recognition of Off-the-Ball Incidents: Maintain active scanning after the pass is released. Incidents of violent conduct often occur when the ball is no longer the immediate focus.
• Focus on Point of Contact: Contact to the face with the elbow is a critical indicator of excessive force; prioritize player safety in your evaluation.
• Distinguish Nature of the Action: Clearly identify when a player is not challenging for the ball: this is a key element in classifying the offense as violent conduct rather than a foul challenge.
• Positioning and Angle of View: Anticipate forward movement after a pass and adjust positioning to keep both players within your optimal line of sight.
• Use of Teamwork: If the referee’s view is partially screened, rely on the second referee or third official for support and confirmation.
• Strong Disciplinary Presence: A clear, confident send-off with appropriate body language helps manage player reactions and reinforces match control.

At 1:10, Yellow No5 gains possession by taking the ball from Red No4 and immediately advances toward the Red teams' goal. At this moment, the Red team is using a flying GK, meaning the goal is effectively unguarded, as confirmed in the replay sequence.

As Yellow No5 continues his forward run toward goal, Red No4 attempts to recover defensively. At 1:08, in an attempt to evade a sliding challenge from Red No4, Yellow No5 pushes the ball forward and tries to jump over the opponent. However, Red No4 fails to play the ball and instead his left leg raises, making contact with Yellow No5 and tripping him, thereby stopping the attacking movement.

When evaluating whether this incident constitutes Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), the referee must consider the following elements:

- Distance to Goal: Yellow No5 is moving directly toward the Red goal and is within a realistic scoring distance.

- Direction of Play: The attacker is progressing straight toward goal, with clear attacking momentum.

- Control or Likelihood of Control of the Ball: Yellow No5 has played the ball forward and remains in position to continue his run, indicating a high likelihood of regaining control if not fouled.

- Number and Position of Defenders: a) The goal is unguarded due to the use of the flying GK, b) Red No2 is positioned too far to the left side of the play and cannot realistically challenge Yellow No5 before a potential shot on goal. Consequently, Red No2 cannot be considered an active deefender capable of preventing the goal-scoring opportunity

Decision:

Tripping foul by Red No4 on Yellow No5, sanctioned by a Red Card to Red No4 for DOGSO-Foul.  The restart would be a DFK to the Yellow team and the Red team would have an accumulated foul

Mentoring points for Referees:

In futsal, situations involving a flying GK frequently create unguarded goal scenarios, which significantly increases the likelihood of DOGSO when an attacker is fouled while moving toward goal. Referees must carefully evaluate the position of remaining defenders and determine whether any defender has a realistic possibility of intervening before the attacker can shoot.

The white team is employing the flying GK tactic, with the GK wearing a blue jersey. White #7 attempts a pass to his flying GK, who is positioned inside his own half of the court.

At this moment, the referee must:

• Be aware of whether the ball has been touched by an opponent after the GK’s previous release.
• Monitor potential infringements related to the four-second rule and the GK’s participation in play.
• Remain attentive to any act that may unfairly deceive opponents.

Just before the pass is initiated, the flying GK, located inside his own half, loudly shouts “No, no, no,” clearly indicating awareness that the ball may not legally be played again by him.

As the pass reaches him:

• The flying GK deliberately steps over the ball.
• He does not touch it.
• The ball continues its trajectory and crosses the end line.
• The referee stops play with a whistle.

Technical Analysis
The GK does not touch the ball. Therefore: There is no technical infringement related to a second touch, and the ball simply goes out of play over the goal line.Since the ball crosses the goal line without touching the GK, there is no offence committed and the play stops solely because the ball has left the field of play.

Restart

If play was stopped only because the ball went out of play, the correct restart must be determined in accordance with the LOTG. However, the referee stopped play for another reason (e.g., uncertainty regarding possession or an external factor), then the dropped ball procedure applies: If play is stopped and no infringement has occurred, the restart is a dropped ball for one player of the team that had or would have gained possession, if this can be determined. Otherwise, it is dropped for one player of the team that last touched the ball.

Mentoring Referee Learning Points

- Anticipate GK participation when a team uses the flying goalkeeper.

- Be fully aware of the “second touch” restriction in the GK’s own half.

- Distinguish between verbal team communication and unsporting verbal distraction.

- Ensure the correct restart based strictly on the reason play was stopped.

- Apply dropped ball procedures accurately when no offence has been committed.

Many of you will be familiar with the expression: “Technically correct, but practically wrong.” This clip provides an excellent case study for referee development.

In the UEFA EURO third-place match between Croatia and France, Croatia leads by one goal with 0:47 remaining. A goal clearance is awarded to the blue team. The blue goalkeeper (No1, in yellow) appears to initiate a substitution to bring on a flying goalkeeper (No10) to create a 5–0 attacking structure. For whatever reason, the substitution does not occur, and the goalkeeper remains on the field. As White No9 presses aggressively; the blue goalkeeper drops the ball in preparation for the goal clearance. Importantly, the match clock does not restart at the drop, it remains at 0:47, and only restarts when the goalkeeper kicks the ball.

Technical Analysis by the LOTG

Strict application of the Laws of the Game would lead us to consider:

- The GK has put the ball into play

- He then touches it again before it has touched another player.- This constitutes a "double" touch offence.

If this second touch denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), the correct disciplinary sanction would be:

- Red card if DOGSO is clearly established.- Yellow card if the opportunity does not meet the DOGSO criteria.From a purely technical standpoint, this is defensible and aligned with the Law.

Spirit of the Game & Match Management

However, elite officiating requires more than technical accuracy. It requires context awareness, football understanding, and application of the Spirit of the Game.In this situation:- There is no element of deception or tactical misconduct.- The GK’s intention is clearly to facilitate a substitution and transition to an attacking setup.- The error arises from poor execution and misunderstanding of procedure, not from unsporting behavior.

A rigid disciplinary sanction in this scenario would likely feel disproportionate to the futsal and competition context.  The match officials chose an elegant solution:

- Retake the goal clearance.

- Reset the clock to 0:47.

This approach preserved:

- Fairness

- Match control- Credibility- ProportionalityMost importantly, it reflected an understanding of the game rather than a mechanical application of the Law.
Mentoring Reflection

As referees, we must constantly ask ourselves:- What is the football expectation here?- Is there misconduct or simply a procedural error?- Will my decision increase acceptance and credibility?- Am I solving the problem or escalating it unnecessarily?

At FIFA level, we look for referees who combine:

- Technical knowledge

- Emotional intelligence- Game understanding- Courage to apply common sense appropriatelyThe key learning point is not whether the Law could justify a sanction, it is whether applying it strictly serves the game in that moment.

In your own matches, the outcome may depend on:

- Your level of competition

- Your match temperature- Your personality and communication skills- Your credibility with playersThe best referees are not those who are only technically correct. They are those who are correct for the game.

At 15:41, POR No7 delivered a pass to her pivot, POR No14, who controlled the ball with her right foot on the side opposite the defender in order to execute a turning movement. As POR No14 completed her turn toward the opponents’ goal, Fixo TAN No11 committed a holding offence by grabbing her left arm and jersey. At the moment of the foul, the TAN GK was positioned in and guarding the goal, while POR No7 became an active attacking position with no defending player between her and the goal.

Decision / Restart

The foul committed by TAN No11 is clearly flagrant and requires the referee to immediately evaluate whether the offence constitutes a Stopping a Promising Attack (SPA) or Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), applying the considerations outlined in Law 12 (LOTG Futsal, p.82). As highlighted in the Laws, “the goal being guarded does not mean that a DOGSO offence cannot be committed, and the goal being unguarded does not mean that every offence is DOGSO” (p.83).

In this situation, the presence of POR No7 in a clear active attacking position without defensive opposition upgrades the attacking phase from a promising attack to an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity. According to the DOGSO decision table (p.85), the criteria are met: 

• no attempt to play the ball, and
• offence committed outside the penalty area.

Therefore the final decision is:

DFK to POR team (recorded as an accumulated foul against TAN),

Red Card to TAN No11 for DOGSO – foul offence.