Question Number: 25428

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/15/2011

RE: Select Under 15

Doug MacIntyre of Rockville, MD USA asks...

I was watching my son play in a varsity high school game. His team had a DFK a little bit outside the corner of the penalty box. The ref marched off the 10 yards and there were 2 players on my sons team around the ball. The ref blew the whistle to restart play and one of the players on my son's team ran towards the ball but ran over it without touching it. One of the players in the wall broke immediately so that by the time the 2nd player from my son's team approached and kicked the ball, the other team's player was less than 5 yards away (probably more like 3). The ball did not hit him. My son's team wanted the other player to get a yellow card and have the kick retaken but the ref said no. What was the correct call? Would it have made a difference if the ball touched the onrushing player? Does it matter whether the team taking the kick goes ahead and kicks the ball? What if the 2nd player had stopped and not kicked the ball and pointed out the onrushing player to the ref?

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The referee probably decided that the infraction (failing to respect the 10-yard distance) was trifling because the ball did not hit the onrushing player. That may or may not be a valid opinion. Certainly cutting the distance in half limits the kicker's angle of where the ball can be placed, but it would have to be seen to know if that affected play or not.

If the kicker decided to not kick because of the encroachment, the referee should reset things and whistle again. A caution would be considered, or the player might be warned.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Doug
The question the referee has to ask is whether the encroaching defender had an influence on play. Many times when the ball is kicked, the taker has a focus on the ball only not influenced by an opponent's position and any encroachment unless there is contact with the ball is seen as trifling. Also the ball can be kicked to one side of the defensive wall and encroachment from the other side would also be seen as trifling
This is, I suspect, what happened in this case . However had the ball hit the encroaching player it definitely would have been a retake and the player cautioned.
Had the kicker decided not to take the free kick then the best advice is for the referee to reset the wall and warn the defenders about encroachment. The kick is then taken and a repeat of encroachment would then merit a caution.
What should not happen is where a perfectly executed free kick with the ball nestling in the goal either directly or from subsequent play is disallowed because the referee stopped play for encroachment just after the ball was being kicked. I suspect the the officials also missed the restart which can happen.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

There is no difference under high school rules regarding management of a free kick than under the laws of the game.

IMO, the referee made a poor choice not to order the kick retaken and caution one of the defenders who rushed the kicker.

It began with a good option - - since the ball didn't touch one of the defenders who were rushing the kicker, the referee wisely chose not to immediately stop play. Few things are as embarrassing as whistling the play dead only to watch the shot go directly into the back of the net. Wait and see pays dividends.

When the ball did not result in an immediate goal, the referee then has two options: stop play and caution the defender; or ignore the misconduct (failure to respect the distance) as trifling since it did not affect play. IMO, ignoring the misconduct is usually a mistake. It invites repetition on the next critical free kick. It assumes that the rush did not affect the kick (when players know that such pressure can affect the kicker - - which is why they do it!). Giving the attacking team two bites at the apple is, in my view, exactly the medicine necessary to stop the misconduct. Defenders may think twice about a strategy that only benefits their opponents.

Frankly, I've made the mistake your referee did. But, for a different reason. Because I was so focused on stuff happening away from the ball (the impeding near the keeper; a series of two closely marked opponents pushing and shoving for position; the attacker in the wall) I wasn't sure whether the first player kicked the ball or ran over it. (On an indirect free kick, the referee will always look for the first touch/kick of the ball. On a direct free kick, the danger areas are away from the ball.) Thus, I was not sure that the defender's didn't rush the ball until after it was kicked.