Question Number: 31190

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/21/2017

Scott of Livermore, CA USA asks...

Law 12 states; 'If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick'. This seems to be an unnecessary statement, as it should be obvious that you would apply advantage and then award the PK. However, it makes me wonder since the Law specifically mentions holding. Is this also true for an illegal charge or push?

Say an attacker has a break away with a defender right behind him. The defender makes contact with the back of the attacker about 20 yards out. The attacker slightly stumbles and the contact continues into the PA where the attacker falls. You decide the initial foul occurred on the 20, and continued into the PA. Is it an IDFK at the 20 or a PK?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
The reason holding is mentioned is because it is a continuous foul which can occur over a number of yards. So it is unlike a charge or a push as those are contact fouls. There is no continuous contact and further contact is usually a second foul. Advantage can be and should be played on the first foul particularly when the second foul is ore advantageous.
In your example the push at the 20 yard mark would result in the players coming apart at the point of contact. If there is a second foul contact inside the penalty area then it is a penalty. I would expect it to be two separate fouls not one.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Scott,
Perhaps the reason this statement was included is that this aspect of the law has been misunderstood by quite a few referees. I've seen enough debate on forums and social media - and questions on here - to know that there are quite a few referees out there who, like many players, would go to where the foul begins in a continuous holding foul like this.

As Ref McHugh states, being a 'continuous' foul this is somewhat unique. The same principle applies to all other fouls when there are consecutive fouls - attacker is tripped outside the PA, regains his feet, referees holds the whistle to see what happens, then is tripped again inside the PA. This is a foul.

One thing to be careful of with this though - is the second one really a foul? Often the player may still be off balance from the first contact, and any slight contact is enough to bring the player to ground. It may be that the contact which finally knocks him over isn't actually a foul, in which case you go back to the first one as no advantage. So be careful of this.

Having said that, it certainly is possible for some fouls like pushing and charging to be continuous. The same approach applies for the same reason - the principle of advantage.

Incidentally, in your scenario, you asked if it would be an IDFK or a PK. If it's an IFK outside the PA it's an IFK inside the PA. This would constitute charging or pushing, which is a foul - so a DFK outside or a PK inside.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Scott,
I'm pretty sure the reason why the IFAB felt it necessary to spell this out is that wasn't at all obvious to a lot of people, including many referees. I would say the mere fact that some referees used to give free kicks outside the penalty area for this (and that some still do) demonstrates this.

Most fouls are given at the point of initial contact. For instance, to take a slightly different twist on your second scenario if a push or charge occurred outside the penalty area and the player stumbled forward for a while before eventually falling over inside the penalty area, a free kick would be given outside the penalty area where the push occurred, not a penalty. It could easily seem to some people that the same principle should be applied to holding and as I say, it is apparent that some did apply this principle.

Personally, I don't feel that a push or charge is likely to occur as a continuous offence in the same way that holding does, while a player is in forward movement into the penalty area. In almost all cases these would be contact fouls and if a push occurred outside the area and the referee played advantage, another push inside the area would be a second foul. As Ref Wright correctly states, pushing or illegal charging outside the area would be a direct, not an indirect free kick.