Question Number: 30888

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/12/2016

RE: High School

Dave of Johnstown, PA USA asks...

In NFHS rules for the foul of Charging, it states that the restart is a DFK.... with the the exception of "Art 4".

Article 4 states: 'A player shall not charge into an opponent when neither player is within playing distance of the ball.' Penalty. In the case of this manner of a foul the restart is an IDFK.

However, in FIFA LOTG, Law 12 Fouls & Misconduct charging is always noted as a DFK. There doesnt appear to be any subtlety for charging not being a DFK.

Can you better explain the reason for the nuance of an IDFK under NFHS? I would like to better understand the subtlety and the reason for what appears to be a noteworthy difference between rules/laws.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
Going back many years in the game physical contact was more prevalent and charging was a more common occurrence. Goalkeeper could be charged outside the goal area and physicality was a part of the game. So I suspect that the law makers were of the view that as a legal charge was not punished when challenging for the ball then a similar charge could be an offence much like obstruction, a form of impeding, which with contact had an IDFK restart. At one time USSFs view was that a player who charged an opponent in an otherwise legal manner (i.e., not carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force) but with the ball not within playing distance has infringed the Law. Such an 'off the ball' charge was considered a form of impeding the progress of an opponent (even though contact has occurred) and is thus was penalised with an indirect free kick restart for the opposing team. If the referee considered the charge to be careless, reckless, or involving excessive force, the restart was a direct free kick* (or penalty kick). That has all now been superseded by laws updated over the years on impeding and with contact so when any contact foul is called it must be a direct free kick restart. I suspect NFHS rule is a legacy from that approach.
I had always questioned how a referee could determine that a charge off the ball was careless or not which meant the difference between a DFK and an IDFK. If the players simply charged an opponent and nothing much happened was the referee going to call that as an IDFK or did it need for the player to be knocked over / down to be deemed careless and a DFK restart. I suspect that the IDFK was rarely if ever called.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Dave,
Referee McHugh gave you a good background on the USSF rule concerning charging. In the NFHS, this rule was called Charging at the Improper time before it was changed to the current rule, and was considered a form of obstruction which results in an IDK. However, I agree with you that a DK seems like a more appropriate penalty in today's game. This is especially important with the NFHS emphasis on reducing rough play. I do think that you should send a rules proposal recommending this change to the NFHS Soccer rules Committee. An online rules change proposal form is available at: http://www.nfhs.org/RuleChangeProposal I look forward to seeing your proposal on the agenda at the January NFHS Soccer Rules committee meeting. Thank you for your observations. I hope that you have a very successful fall high school season.