Question Number: 32849

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/27/2018

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32843

Ref of Syd asked a question regarding subsequent event following an IDFK in the opponents penalty area.

Have we all assumed the IDFK did not have a second touch by a teammate?

Only thing mentioned by Ref of Syd regarding the taking of the IDFK is that 'it is taken'. Can we not presume it is taken correctly. I ask as a number of the panel suggested that a goal was not denied, which influences how this incident is treated.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Russell,
I did mention that the DH had to be the second touch but yes if the INDFK already had a double tap then it is a DOGSO and red card. The way the question was worded implied it was kicked directly towards the goal. In point of fact I have seen this on occasion and watched in admiration at a keeper who stood aside to let the ball go into the goal recognizing the referee had his hand up signalling it was an INDFK !
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
I did suggest in the original answer that perhaps the player saw a touch that caused him to handle the ball deliberately. The question though was posed in a way that it was an IDFK so a goal could not be scored directly. As to presuming anything that is not part of referees decision making. If we see the IDFK was touched before the shot or that the shot was deflected slightly then it is a red card and a penalty kick.
One of the most important decisions that a referee has to make is to decide whether to dismiss a player or not. The team plays short, the player misses the next game and probably a fine. It cannot be done on a presumption. Either the referee saw the IDFK being touched or not and that will guide the decision making.
I watched an English Championship game involving Leeds at the weekend. The equalizing goal was a deliberate handling. It happened at speed and to the match officials it looked like it could have come off the players chest. Replays showed it was his arm that played the ball into the goal. There was I would say at least 8/9 simultaneous appeals by Forest players for handling. The referee went across to the AR and both could have presumed based on reactions, the way the goal was scored there was every chance that it was handling which was a caution, the goal disallowed and a DFK restart. The goal was awarded as nothing could be presumed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1NiZ7MsieJ4

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Russell,
The question makes no mention of a second touch, nor does it hint at one. Speaking for myself, I did not answer it as if there were a second touch.

The whole tenor of the question as far as I could tell, centered on whether only a yellow card should be given since a goal was not denied (as you can't score directly from an indirect free kick).