Question Number: 32330

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/24/2018

RE: Amateur Adult

Lawrence of Croydon, England asks...

The goalkeeper has the ball in his hand. The striker is standing in front of him, and the keeper kicks the striker. The ref awards a red card to the keeper and awards an indirect free kick in the box. Should this of been a penalty?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Lawrence
I assume you mean an attacking IDFK? A kick of a player is a penal offence punished by a direct free kick or penalty kick after the player is dismissed for violent conduct.
If it was an outbound IDFK to the defending team the referee decided that the attacker interfered with the release of the ball by the goalkeeper which is an IDFK restart and that offence happened first before the foul by the GK on the attacker.
Not sure what the referee was thinking here if it was an inbound IDFK ? As that is a clear error in Law the decision and outcome of the game can be protested.
The only red card offence that is punished by an IDFK restart is where a player uses insulting offensive and abusive words or gestures.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Lawrence,
which way is the INDFK? If the referee awarded the attacker an indfk THAT would make no sense.

If an INDFK was awarded against the striker for interfering with the release albeit a hard to sell the VC against the keeper, it could occur as a foul by the striker and then only violent misconduct against the keeper after the fact.. Thus the keeper retaliated and drew the card not a foul

If the referee had decided the keeper deliberately tried to injure the attacker using the ball as a weapon, disguised as a punt out, perhaps hoping to draw an INDFK from the attacker for interfering with the release. Given this was observed by a neutral official as a premeditated act of VC and a striking or kicking foul the restart is a PK if it occurs inside the PA. The keeper sent off reducing his team to 9 outfield players plus a new keeper. If the restart was an INDFK for the attackers then it opens Pandora's box for protest as an incorrect restart!

A word of caution, strikers are not above trying to be where they do not belong to agitate the keeper. Certainly a player/keeper must answer for his or her actions but rarely would a keeper do this without provocation. There is a push on to really enforce the 6 second rule to stop the delays, to encourage release of the ball. Strikers will no doubt claim their right to a piece of grass and hang out in front of keepers or casually stepping in front of a direction the keeper might have wished to go. Hold those strikers accountable because to evoke this reaction by the keeper for them is a dream come true.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Lawrence,
As my colleagues have indicated, the only way this could be possible is if the referee had already decided to stop play for an indirect free kick to the goalkeeper's team for something the striker did (possibly preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball) before the keeper kicked the striker. This would be an unusual sequence of events but technically possible.

If the indirect free kick was for the striker's team after play was stopped for the kick by the keeper that would be incorrect, the restart would have to be a penalty for the attacking team.