Futsal Laws of the Game

---

Analysis of Clip 2025-09:

As White17 attempts to pass the ball to teammate White #15, Blue #7 executes a slide tackle to intercept it. During this action, the ball contacts Blue #7's right arm while he is inside his penalty area. According to Law 12 (p.72), the ball clearly makes contact with Blue #7’s arm in a position that could constitute an offense, but was it a natural position to support his body during the slide tackle?

FIFA Panel Decision:

According to Law XII (p.72), the ball clearly makes contact with Blue #7’s arm in a position that could constitute an offense. However, this clip does not provide a definitive decision: It could be considered either a handball offense or not.  

The decision ultimately depends on the referee’s judgment - whether the arm was in a natural position supporting the body during the slide tackle or not.  

The Expert Panel believes Blue7 unintentionally made contact with the ball while attempting to block it. His arm was not positioned at a full 90-degree angle to support his body, it was extended laterally. By doing so, the defender took a risk that the ball could strike his hand/arm and his arm wasn't in a natural position.

Restart: DFK (accumulated foul) for the White team, which is a Penalty Kick restart. No misconduct.

Following a counterattack by Black #16 along the technical area touchline, the White team's goalkeeper (#8, green jersey) exited his penalty area and attempted a sliding challenge toward Black #16 and the ball. Before any contact occurred, Black #16 played the ball forward toward goal. Subsequently, White GK #8 made contact with Black #16’s standing (left) foot.

As the challenge by White GK #8 is evident, the referee must evaluate the manner in which it was executed, applying the following considerations:  

- Speed: The GK approached the challenge with significant speed.  

- Intensity: The force of the challenge was considerable. Additionally, once the GK initiated the slide tackle, he was on the ground and had no ability to control his body or adjust his movement. 

- Point of Contact: GK #8 made contact with the sole of his right foot directly on the side of Black #16’s left ankle, which was his standing foot.  

- Ball Contact: The goalkeeper did not make contact with the ball.  

Given these considerations, the challenge meets the criteria for Excessive Force, as it endangers the safety of the opponent. Therefore, this constitutes Serious Foul Play.

FIFA Panel Decision: 

DFK (accumulated foul) for the Black team and Red card to the White team GK No8 for SFP

Comments:

Good teamwork from the officiating crew in recognizing the severity of the challenge. Note the lead referee coming on the field to stop the GK #8 walking toward Referee 2. However, the lead referee, who was well-positioned near the incident (and should have whistled the challenge), should have focused on the challenge itself rather than following the ball - as seen in the final replay. Maintaining focus on the point of contact rather than the ball would have ensured an immediate and decisive recognition of the Excessive Force used by GK #8.  

This highlights the importance of "prioritizing player safety over ball tracking" in such situations, especially when a high-intensity challenge occurs just after the ball is played away.

Starting from his defensive third, Blue #19 initiated a counterattack along the touchline on the bench side. As he approached Green #5, he passed the ball to his teammate Blue #5, setting up a potential one-two combination. While making his run past Green5, the latter obstructed his movement. The referee now needs to assess the nature of Green5’s action. As Blue #19 attempted to continue his run, Green #5 extended both arms and pushed him off balance. Blue #19 was in the early phase of his sprint and had not yet reached full speed, which is a key consideration for disciplinary action.

FIFA Panel Decision: The correct decision is an impeding with contact offense, classified as a careless foul. The restart is a DFK (accumulated foul) for the Blue-team, and since the action lacked reckless force, no caution is required. (LOTG 12, p71).

Note: The 3rd referee (in red), positioned near the challenge, should have focused on the 'potential' challenge as it unfolded, rather than mirroring the referee’s perspective. By doing so, he could have either avoided Blue #19’s or caught it. 

Blue #9 allowed the ball to pass and positioned himself between the ball and Yellow #12 to shield possession. In doing so, Blue #9 extended his left arm to prevent Yellow #12 from moving around him to the left. While executing this shielding action, Blue #9's left arm made contact with Yellow #12's face, specifically with the elbow. This is the type of situation where the referee must determine if the arm was used as a "tool" for blocking or as a "weapon" to endanger the opponent. The referee must assess whether the action was performed with disregard for the safety of the opponent or if the force used exceeded what was necessary for shielding. Although Blue #9 raised his arm to face level, there was no noticeable swinging or cranking motion directed toward Yellow #12's face. As the contact is a hard surface (elbow) on a soft surface (face), it is reckless.

FIFA Panel Decision: DFK in favor of the Yellow team for the striking offense, with a caution to Blue #9 for a reckless action. 

As Black #14 receives the ball from a teammate and takes a small touch, Red #1 immediately moves into contest possession. A clear challenge for the ball occurs, and the key consideration for the referee positioned near the action is to accurately assess the nature of the challenge. Did the defender make contact with the ball? What was the defender’s speed and control upon initiating the challenge? How was the challenge executed, and where was the point of contact—both in terms of location on the opponent and the part of the body used in the challenge?

FIFA Panel Decision

The decision for this challenge falls under LOTG, Law XII, p.80. Red #1 failed to make any contact with the ball, as his challenge was initiated too late. A key indicator for the referee is that Red #1 launched himself into the challenge — any player who does so loses control of their body. The speed of the challenge was high, and contact was made on the rear of Black #14’s right foot, which was also his standing leg. Considering all factors, this challenge constitutes a tackle with excessive force, endangering the safety of the opponent.

Restart: DFK (Accumulated Foul) for the Red team, with a send-off for Red #1 for SFP.

At 22:55, Blue #20 and Red #17 challenged each other for the ball. As Blue #20 gained control, he tried to kick the ball to a teammate. The ball rebounded on the right foot of Red #58 and briefly touched the left arm of Red #17, in an unintentional manner. Then Red #17 gained control of the ball, dribbled Blue #21 and Blue #19, to finally shoot at the Red team goal, scoring a goal.

The Futsal LOTG (Interpretation and Recommendations page 156) are very clear about such incident:

Handling the ball: If a player scores in the opponents’ goal after accidentally touching the ball with their hand/arm, without the ball having been deliberately played by any other player thereafter (a deflection does not count as deliberately playing the ball), the goal must be disallowed and an indirect free kick is awarded to the opponents.

However:

• If a goal is not scored and the hand/arm did not make the player’s body unnaturally bigger, play is to be continued.

• If the ball goes off the pitch over the goal line, a goal clearance is awarded to the opponents.

If a player scores a goal after a team-mate has accidentally touched the ball with their hand/arm, including immediately thereafter, the goal is awarded.

FIFA Panel Decision: Goal is denied and an Indirect Free Kick (Not an accumulated foul) for the Blue team is taken from where the handball offense occurred.

In this scenario:  

- At 6:11, the goalkeeper (GK) dribbles the ball from his defensive half into the opponent's half, under four second limit,

- By 6:09, he re-enters his own half while retaining ball possession,  

- At 6:03, the GK crosses back into the opponent's half, maintaining ball control, still under the four second limit,

- Finally, at 5:55, the GK ends up in his own half, where he releases the ball, before the four second limit, by passing it to a teammate.

Per the latest LOTG version (circulated via email earlier) - Interpretation and Recommendations for Law 12, p157:

"If the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball and enters the opponents’ half, the referees stop the four-second count. If the goalkeeper then returns to their own half without having lost control of the ball, the referees restart the count from zero"

FIFA Panel Decision
No infringement

During a goal clearance, White team goalkeeper #49 released the ball into play, aiming for teammate #11, who is not looking at the ball. As Black/Red team #88 closed in on the ball with a clear opportunity to gain possession, GK #49 picked up the ball again, preventing Black/Red team #88 from pursuing a clear possession.

FIFA Panel Decision

By handling the ball again after releasing it without any other player touching it, GK #49 violated Law XVI. The correct restart is IFK to the opposing team, positioned on the top of the penalty area line closest to where the offense occurred.

To assess the GK's action, the referee must assess the following:  

- The distance between the offence and the goal

- The general direction of the play

- The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball

- The location and number of defending outfield players, as well as the goalkeeper

- Whether or not the goal is “unguarded"

The correct disciplinary action is a red card for White team GK #49.