Question Number: 26167

Law 13 - Free Kicks 4/12/2012

RE: N/A

Peter Grove of Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire England asks...

This question is a follow up to question 26152

In his answer, referee McHugh states: 'If it has not been kicked and moved then a very quick whistle is required to prevent the kick progressing with perhaps a goal being disallowed.'

I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason why the whistle would be needed in this scenario. The player tapping the top of the ball has not committed any offence. It's just that he has not put the ball in play. The next player on his team who kicks the ball and makes it move is the one who has taken the free kick.

If the ball goes directly into the net from this kick, no goal has been scored as it was in IFK. If the ball subsequently touches another player, play continues as normal.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

I think this would come under 'proactive refereeing'.

If you allow the play to continue when the first touch has failed to put the ball into play, then there's the potential for a lot of trouble if the attacking team either kick the ball directly in the goal (thinking they've had a touch), or the 2nd player dribbles off with the ball.

I'm sure you can imagine what the necessary decision there would be, and it would not be well accepted at all.

Sometimes it's better to prevent a potentially controversial situation before it occurs - you'll save yourself a lot of hassle.

I'm not necessarily saying I'd intervene here - in fact, I've never done it myself, even though I have found myself in this situation, but I can definitely see the justification for it.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
In Law you are perfectly correct. However refereeing is not just about the Laws but also managing situations and an exercise in human relations. If a team believes that a tap on top of the ball has put the ball in play then the referee may have to deal with a match control situation when he has to disallow what the team believe is a perfectly good 'goal' and restart with a goal kick. In my opinion it would be better, if possible, to prevent the restart and then ensure that the kick is taken properly.
That may not always be possible but the referee can take cues from the position of the player that is taking the tap, has it happened somewhere else on the field of play, reaction of players or indeed has the ball moved sufficiently for the ball to be in play. Indeed if the opponents are of the view that the ball was put into play then the 'best' decision may be to allow the goal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46pnEQXfIu8
I have posted a link to a video of a Greek league game where a player stepped over the ball and supposedly touched it into play. The 2nd player then ran off with the ball much to the protest of some players who were certain that the ball was not touched (video showed that they were correct). Anyway some players stopped, others continued and a goal was scored. Cue WW3. While it is not a perfect example where a referee has doubts about a free kick being put into play, it does show the merits of stopping play and restarting again 'correctly' . In Law the correct decision would have been an IDFK for a double touch.
It also highlights how a simple 'touch' can cause so much match control problems for the referee team. Refs should act to prevent such situations happening which is the reason for my comment. However if the referee does not want to be proactive and stay entirely within the law then that is fine.
I know which route I prefer if it is open to me.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

If the IDFK is taken in such a way that the tap did not move the ball sufficiently to put it into play, then as you say, the ball entering the goal would result in a goal kick for the defending team. Ref McHugh's point was the referee has the means to deal with a potentially volatile situation (an assumed goal being called off is always a volatile situation) and there are times when that is appropriate. Is it against the Laws or the spirit of the game to do so? No. It may not be the black and white answer, but it is a perfectly valid approach to managing play in a game.