Question Number: 18853

Law 13 - Free Kicks 4/22/2008

RE: High School

Gary of Nashville, TN USA asks...

I was watching a high school boys game yesterday when there was a tripping foul called on the white team at about the 20 yard line, on white's side of the field. Players start to line up for a wall, and the blue team (kicking) asked for 10 yards. Could not hear if the referee told the kicker to wait for the whistle.

The referee moved the line back a yard or so and was moving into position to watch offsides - though he never turned his back on the players, when the kicker kicked the ball without waiting for a whistle. Ball went through the wall and was caught by the goalie.

Referee then blows his whistle, and states kicker did not wait for the whistle restart, and awards another kick. Blue player kicks again and scores.

Had the first shot gone in the net, I can understand allowing the rekick. But somehow my sense of fairness was bent out of shape by the notion that the goalie successfully stopped a rocket shot from 20 yards, then was scored upon by a redo kick allowed by a referee following the letter of the law. The goalie stopped the ball, seems like the spirit of the Law should say "let play continue" whether there was a whistle or not.

I liken this call to an quick offsides play in which the ball is scooped up by the goalie, even though an offsides player may be close to the goalie and be involved in the play. Typically, we drop our arm, don't call the offsides, and allow the goalie to punt the ball. To call the offsides and force the goalie to put the ball on the ground and kick from the offsides spot - would be following the letter of the law - but would give a greater advantage to the offending team than not calling the offsides. We do this all the time.

It just seems the more appropriate, and fair, call would have been to allow play to continue, let the goalie punt the ball, and then warn the kicker to wait for the whistle next time.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

First the offside scenario: if the keeper gets the ball did the opponent really interfere with play? You are not really giving advantage. In the US we can only give advantage for violations of Law 12 not Law 11. WHat the referee did here was follow the letter of the Law and he awarded the kicker who tried to cheat a second shot. I would agree with you that the Spirit of the Law has been broken. You say the referee was in sight of the kicker. I wonder why he didn't blow the whistle to stop the kick. That said, he allowed the kick to proceed so he could have said he gave a signal which,obviously, the kicker saw.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Again, offside first -- if the keeper has the ball in his hand how could an offside player have interfered with play, interfered with an opponent or gained advantage from being offside so no signal was necessary in the first place, correct?

The free kick -- the referee didn't follow the advice offered in 13.3 of Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game. Once he is so misinformed you can bet the mortgage he'll try to make something up to cover up his lack of knowledge. Happens all the time. You notice the referee failed to caution the unsporting behavior demonstrated when the kick was taken before a signal was given. There are many things happening at the taking of a free kick and the referee is initially supposed to just do nothing until he knows what the kicker wants to do. Just hang around and watch and see what falls out.

If the defenders are demonstrating they will delay the kick by doing any numbers of things we still wait and see what the attack wants. Once it is clear they are being stymied by cheaters then the referee gets involved. If this is the first free kick he just reams anyone failing to respect the required distance loud enough for all to hear and gets then to at least ten yards [read 13-17 yards here] and tells them next time he has to intervene on behalf of the kickers they'll be closer to 20-25 yards [it is at least 10, right?]. If they, either side, don't get the message on the next free kick air out your yellow card and force the point. Bottom line is you aren't going to muck about with cheaters. Tell 'em, force 'em to listen, then whack 'em in the head till they figure out you're serious.

After that work on throw-ins where the ball left the field. Life gets ever so much easier when you don't have to constantly "remind" them to play fair...

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

"Offsidus Interruptus" - nuff said.

I'm sure the player recognized the referee's signal to take the kick. If the kick was muffed after that, too bad. Keeper saved it, let's continue on with the game.

If the player obviously and blatantly kicks early the ref should call it back. It has to be so blatant that it would be an affront to the game to let it go without comment. And the player should be cautioned for his efforts.

You mention that you didn't notice whether the ref told the player to hold the kick. Maybe the ref is thinking, "Crap, I goofed up and didn't tell him not to kick. I can't caution now." He gets out of his first mistake by making a second one.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Let?s talk a second about advantage as it applies to the referee's consideration of anticipating and thinking about the reasons to do so.
Law 12 of fouls and misconduct does state within its contents provisions where other laws apply. The most poignant example would be law three where substitution violations are mentioned in the cautionable section. What we can do is consider a violation of other laws as trifling or trivial and thus allow play to continue which is what we do in your law 11 exception uninterrupted but we cannot apply advantage to an incorrect restart.

Example a goal kick if the kicker retouched the ball it is an indfk. Lets say the keeper fluffed it a bit just outside his area, an opponent nearby that could intercept so he pursues the ball rekicks it only to see it deflect to an attacker who is in on goal. You cannot apply advantage on a restart violation

Now lets say the keeper saves a shot and unthinkingly drops the ball down at his feet unaware of an opponent in behind suddenly he realizes the opponent is close and he tries to use his hands to regrab the ball touching it twice this is an indfk but the ball is knocked over to an opponent who slots home a goal. This is a correct application of advantage because the two touch restriction for a keeper is listed in law 12 where law 16 it states the ball must (a)leave the area and (b) not be touched a second time by the kicker

Law 15 has this same two touch restriction as law 16 but if a throw in by a team-mate goes direct to the keeper in law 12 it states if the hands are used an indfk is awarded. Yet if the keeper only deflected the ball to an opponent who scores if a referee correctly applies advantage, the goal stands.

Law 5 stipulates a referee must restart play after a stoppage. We permit quick restarts as the team fouled has a right to continue its attack and by mental consent we allow such as we have no reason to indicate anything other than by the direction of our arm who fouled and the direction the kick occurs. Thus by not having the kick retaken we are in effect saying they had our signal to go ahead.
This could have been used by the referee in your scenario to do as you suggested to keep things balanced. It is a bit messy but your solution was certainly feasible.

In situations where a referee HAS intervened or has been requested to intervene it should be in my opinion a whistled restart and that fact is REQUIRED to be conveyed to all players verbally and visually with eye contact with the kicker and consent by the kicker he has understood that is what it will be!

The point is IF the referee is retaking a free kick, law 13 states CLEARLY if the opponents are within 10 yards we could retake, so that option does apply.

If the referee has stated we wait and the kicker did not wait this is a cautionable action and a yellow card shown to the kicker, especially after a save or a missed shot being recalled for another opportunity.
I say this because personally I make it crystal clear we are WAITING and the player is being obtuse to not heed that clarity!

The last point though is WHY is the team requesting the ten yards?
A referee must be proactive is ensuring a FREE quick is FREE by getting on the opposition to enforce that 10 yard minimum compliance. "Ten yards NOW! gentlemen!" is not in my opinion active interference as is, "WAIT for a whistle! "
Cheers