Question Number: 14821

Law 18 - Common Sense 2/10/2007

RE: Competitive High School

Tony Messina of Kingsport, TN 37660 asks...

I do not understand a couple of rulings given in the 2006 FIFA Q&A. Since it is in the Q&A it must be gospel, but it does not seem to be consistent with other parts of Law 14. I find this to be very confusing.

FIFA Q&A 14.8 At taking of a PK, the kicker heels the ball back to another attacker who kicks the ball into the goal.

Q&A says to give an IFK to defense and says nothing about a caution. Seems to me that the ball was not kicked forward initially and therefore was never in play....seems it would be more consistent to allow a retake of the PK and to caution the player who heeled the ball backward (not only was he unsporting, but he had to have at least moved his foot past the ball first in order to heel it).

I thought kickoffs and PK's were the only two kicks that had to go forward, and had to be retaken otherwise.

Q&A 14.4 is similar...another attacker other than the designated kicker runs onto the ball after the referee whistles and kicks the ball. In that case they did recommend a caution and at least the ball probably went forward, but the Q&A does not seem to care whether the ball ended up in the net or not, they give IFK to defense. If it had gone in the net, would a retake not seem more appropriate?

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Ball in play or ball not in play Law 14 requires the ball to be kicked forward. He didn't so he looses his chance at a penalty kick -- dubious logic, no; this is a special situation and only bound by Law 14. Yes it seems confusing but in the long look it now falls to the logical, yes?

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I'll have to totally disagree with Ref Fleischer and anyone else that thinks this is even remotely logical. When I asked USSF why this aberration in Law 14 existed they were as perplexed as I was. One of the very basic tenents of the LOTG has been that a restart cannot be changed regardless of what happens until the ball is in play. At a penalty kick the ball is not in play until it is kicked and moved forward. Now, for whatever reason, even if the ball is NOT put into play, the restart magically becomes an IFK for the defense. If FIFA had decided this was unsporting behavior and we were to issue a caution, I'm ok with that. But to take away the opportunity of the fouled team to complete a penalty kick for what is a trivial misdeed not only flies in the face of logic but is also unfair and a terrible punishment for a slight crime. What's next/ Award a goal to the opponent's if the kicker kicks over the ball and then kicks it? I fully expect this to be changed soon

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

It is logical in that it follows directly from the text of Law 14, which was changed in 2005:

"If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before
the ball is in play, one of the following situations occurs:

The player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
? the referee allows the kick to proceed
? if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
? If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts
the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team
...
A team-mate of the player taking the kick enters the penalty area or
moves in front of or within 9.15 m (10 yds) of the penalty mark:
? the referee allows the kick to proceed
? if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
? If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts
the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team
? if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper, the crossbar or the goal
post and is touched by this player, the referee stops play and restarts
the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team"

It is not logical in that it is inconsistent with other Laws. Elsewhere, if a restart has not taken place, anything that happens is misconduct only and cannot change the restart. (Unless you consider a bad throw-in, where the throw-in is given to the other team, as being a change in restart.)

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Tony,
They like to tinker with these anomalies every so often I think just to prove we actually read them! Lol! These quirky additions are the product of those with too much time, too much or perhaps too little imagination, too little reading of the actual laws and perhaps too many brewskies.

The laws were rewritten in the mid ninety's because for a simple game the idiosyncrasies of the law their very nuances became a complete encyclopedia of what ifs and when evers. We try too hard in my opinion to cover every aspect of events with no room for interpretation or a dissimilar thought. I recall when I first read this heel kick tidbit I was of the opinion it was a tricky play to use the back of the heel to back kick the ball towards an unsuspecting keeper in other words the kicker had his back to the keeper either for a fancy shot or a knock forward for a teammate to run on to.

Now if we swing the foot over the ball and catch it with the heel on the way back so the ball does not roll forward I was of the opinion that it would be a caution and a retake for going beyond a simple feint and basically wasting time as the ball is not kicked forward.

Both these situations just seem weird simply because in my 40 years of playing refereeing and watching I had NEVER EVER seen anyone do it! I have NEVER seen a player other than the designated PK taker ever run in and kick the ball UNLESS the PK kicker at least nudged the ball slightly to comply with kick portion of the PK restart ??

In the past few years we saw the the Q@A reflect some odd contradictions like the keeper possession of the ball and being able to to challenge him safely while the ball was IN his possession. That lasted in their books for only one year before they realised how idiotic it was and in that time referees at the top level in their countries were confused and even forgot to apply the addendum correctly as if you could apply an incorrect action correctly?

The recent switch from drop balls to indfk on the part of nominated subs on the match roster performing illegal substitutions is one I tend to agree with but if you look to what is considered an outside agent their actions result in drop ball restarts an unnominated sub is in fact an outside agent and reflects that in point 7.1 yet in 7.2 we allow an indfk? To me I prefer the INDFK for both because it is in my opinion a team foul incurred. I get that the ball is out of play once it crossed the goal line and as an illegally scored goal it can not stand but if we are dropping the ball at the edge of the 6 as an outside agent not a sub or a player is being held responsible why is an indfk for a stoppage of play for the recognition the outside agent is on the field before that goal is scored????

7. The referee allows a substitute who has not been nominated to enter the field held of play and the latter scores a goal. What action does the referee take?

7.1. If he realises his mistake before the match is restarted:
The goal is not awarded. He should instruct the [player (bad choice o fword here)] to leave the fi eld of play.
The player who has been substituted may return to the
field of play or be replaced by another nominated substitute. Play will be restarted with a dropped ball on the goal area line parallel to thegoal line at the point nearest to where the ball passed into the goal.

7.2. If he realises his mistake after the match has restarted
The goal is allowed. He should instruct the player to leave the fi eld of play. The player who has been substituted may return to the field of play or be replaced by another nominated substitute. He continues the match and reports the situation to the appropriate authorities. If the play was stopped to do so, it will be restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped*.

In the case of a substitute entering illegally to prevent a goal we punish the use of the hand but not the foot?? As an iNDFK offence since both deny the goal both actions are blatantly wrong why apply the DOGSO #4 but not Dogso #5 of the send off list?

13. A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the fi eld of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?
The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.

13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take?
The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the
opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.

It is my hope that FIFA and the IFAB will make any unfair act by any team on or off the field of play while the ball is in play is at minimum an indfk restart for the opponent either at the site where the ball is or where that action took place if on the field..
If that unfair act denies a goal or prevents a scoring opportunity that player or sub responsible is sent off.

Restarts for striking, throwing and spitting should be permitted as the most advantageous for the aggrieved team and any part of the fouled player or the player conducting the misconduct or infringement is in any contact with the field of play bring the foul or misconduct location to that point . That way a hold off the field inside the netted area of the goal may result in an indfk restart and a send off or a PK and a send off if any part of either player involved is in contact with the goal line! Close up the loop holes that award cheating play with cop out drops and no punishment befitting the crime!
Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 14852