Question Number: 24575

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/11/2011

RE: Competitive Adult

Brian Butterworth of Bakersfield, Ca USA asks...

I watched an interesting scenario in a high school varsity boys game. It was a very physical and competitive match. A friend of mine was refereeing the match so I was able to talk to him after the match. While I thought he handle it very well, I am not sure he was totally correct.
Red keeper is taking a goal kick but mis-kicks the ball towards the corner of the penalty area. Blue attacker and the keeper race toward the ball just outside the penalty area. The keeper fouled the attacker just inches outside the corner of the penalty area. No DOGSO at this point because the attacker was not running towards the net. The player that was fouled sees that the net is wide open and immediately gathers the ball and sets it about a foot away from the spot of the foul but just inside the penalty area for a quick kick. The keeper gets up and commits a hard foul on the player taking the kick AFTER the ball is kicked. The ball did not go in the net. The referee cautioned the keeper, awarded a penalty kick and a goal is scored. The players and coaches all seemed to be ok with it all.
This raised a few questions for me.
1) The original foul occurred inches outside the PA. Just because ball was placed inches inside the PA, it didnt seem quite right to award a PK. I can see allowing the quick kick attempt from inches inside the PA because the net is wide open. But technically the kick should have been taken outside the PA. I think that I would have awarded another free kick from just outside of the PA.
2) If the keeper had kicked or punched the ball away a split second BEFORE the quick kick was made, could this be a case for DOGSO? It seems to satisfy the 4 Ds but the ball is not in play yet. I looked to see if that was a factor for DOGSO but was not able to find anything saying that ball must be in play. Gray area maybe?
3) If the keeper had jumped into the path of the quick free kick thus failing to respect the minimum required distance, could this be grounds for DOGSO? Or just a caution for failing to respect minimum distance and restart with IFK? I realize that it is the keepers job to defend the net but his foul denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Even at this level of play with as fast as everything happened it appeared that no one really knew what to do. I think that is why there was not much complaining with the referees decision. The referee took control of the situation and everyone went with it. Again, I am just trying to learn from this.
Thanks for your insight.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

1. Normally placement just inches away from the correct spot is not a problem. OK, there's a line between the correct and incorrect spots, and that line means something - whether the restart should have been a PK or not. But except for the foul by the keeper, probably no one would have complained about the placement of the free kick. Yet because of the second foul which resulted in a PK, the placement in this case did matter. I think, if this was a bang-bang play, the referee could sell the decision to restart in the correct place.

2. If the ball is not yet in play, the restart remains the same - the free kick for the original foul. So it would not be a DOGSO situation - DOGSO requires the offense to be one which is punished by a free kick. The offense itself is not punished by any kind of kick, because the correct restart has previously been established. It's just a caution while the ball is out of play for delaying the restart or not respecting the distance on a restart; pretty much your choice of what you call it, but I'd go with delay.

3. Most likely the goalkeeper would be using his hands to block a shot. Under no circumstances can the goalkeeper be charged with DOGSO for any offense involving using his while inside the penalty area. But if the keeper did not use hands, or if it was another opponent - you bring up an interesting question. I'd say it's still not DOGSO, because the original free kick has to be retaken. The offense which caused the caution did not generate a new restart.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brian
Thanks for taking the time to outline this detailed scenario. Here are my thoughts
The quick free kick cannot be taken from inside the penalty area. That is clearly from the wrong place as any restart inside the penalty area must be a penalty kick or an indirect free kick. Anywhere else on the field of play a few feet makes little difference. But here it is clearly taken inside the PA and that is not allowed. The referee should have stopped the kick or if it was taken to have it retaken from the correct spot. He can still caution the goalkeeper for his hard contact on an opponent on the QFK but that does not change the restart.
A foul cannot be committed until the ball is in play. So let's say that the ball is kicked/handled away before the kick is taken from the correct place then that player is cautioned for delaying the restart of play and the free kick is taken. It cannot be denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity as the ball is not in play and the restart is still the original free kick.
However if a defender fail to respect the required distance before the ball is properly put into play, the referee should stop the restart to deal with this infringement. The free kick must be retaken even if the ball has been kicked before the referee signals to deal with the situation. After the referee has cautioned the player for failing to respect the required distance, the original free kick must be retaken as required by Law 13. It cannot be a DOGSO.
What is probably okay in this scenario is that one can argue that the foul happened on the free kick taker after the ball was in play (albeit that the free kick was taken from the wrong place). That is indeed a pretty rare event and as the foul did not deny an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity it also cannot be a DOGSO (as the ball has already gone presumably with the foul having no impact on the outcome) but it can be a caution and a free kick in this case a penalty.
The lesson here is that the referee should seek to prevent the problem rather than struggling to find a cure after the problem has set in. IMO the play should not have been allowed to restart except from the correct place. Then it was all nice and tidy. I suspect though with two cautionable fouls, with one inside the penalty area that perhaps the conceding team was relieved with a penalty and a caution as it easily could have been a dismissal.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The results in high school should be the same as under TLOG, but the analysis sometimes is different.

Location of the first restart. If the foul occurred just outside the penalty area, the restart should not be permitted to take place inside the penalty area. The referee should not permit the attacking team to take a quick free kick in a spot that is closer to the goal than the foul. Moreover, if the referee decided that the foul occurred inside the penalty area, the referee should have awarded a penalty kick. Either way, this was an error in the application of the laws/rules. (We've assumed that the first foul occurred after the ball left the penalty area - - that is, when the ball was in play following the original goal kick.)

If the referee had decided to hold up the kick being taken from the wrong location (but had not yet communicated the decision by the time of the quick kick and second act by the keeper), the 'decision' trumps the announcement. The second act would be treated as occurring when the ball was not yet in play regardless of what the kicker did. Thus, the keeper's action cannot be a foul (which by definition requires that the ball be in play). It still can be punished as misconduct. The correct restart would be to retake the kick outside the penalty area after dealing with the misconduct by the keeper). In high school, a keeper who is cautioned and shown the yellow card must be substituted.

Note: under TLOG, misconduct that occurs when the ball is out of play is not an 'infringement' punishable by an indirect free kick - - - the restart is always for the original reason the ball went out of play. Thus, under TLOG, the player will not be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity when the ball is out of play. Under high school rules, the answer is the same, but the reasoning is a bit different. NFHS rules require a 'foul' for DOGSO, and, by definition, conduct that occur when the ball is not in play is not a foul.


Finally, assuming the referee had decided to allow the kick to be taken from the wrong location (an error in the application of the laws), the referee would award a penalty kick for the keeper's second act as the foul occurred inside the penalty area. The referee might then sendoff the keeper for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity if ITOOTR the keeper's foul had an effect on the shot going wide of goal.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

1. You don't say where the FOUL by the keeper occurred. Granted the kick was taken from the wrong spot but as you say it was just a DFK and only inches from where the spot of the foul was. Referee error. Should note that the keeper could not have fouled the opponent INSIDE the penalty area as then the ball would not have been in play.

2. Of course not. the ball HAS to be in play to consider DOGSO. Not a gray area, it's black and white.
3. No. He has interfered with the restart. The restart is NOT an IDFK it's a retake which in this case is a DFK and the referee should move it outside the penalty area