You Call It Our Questions YOUR Answers AskTheRef.com

Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules

You-Call-It 9

Question...

Defender under pressure kicks the ball back towards the keeper who uses his hands to pick the ball up just barely inside the penalty area ahead of the hard charging attacker. The ball was being vigorously pursued by the attacking player who had pressured the kick in the first place. The referee stops play and signals an indirect free kick. The keeper upset spikes the ball (which bounces towards the attacker) and keeper is arguing vehemently with the referee. The attacker spots the ball just outside the penalty area and quickly kicks the ball to an onside team mate who scores. The referee proceeds to caution the keeper for dissent and awards the goal.

The nearest AR is standing silently at the touchline at about 6 yards from the goal line shaking his head. The furthest AR also comes charging on over. The referee converses with the ARs before the kick off. The nearest AR says I think the attacker who pressured the pass had it glance off his foot when he tried to intercept the original pass before the keeper used his hands. The furthest AR says well if it was an indirect free kick, that restart location was outside the penalty area. Your match, your decision, your reputation!

Our Hint

Law 1 Law 12

Our Answer...

This question raised the specters of four vary large issues. It also presents a problem. Is there more than one correct answer and is there a best answer? Our idea as a group this should be a ceremonial restart with a caution to the keeper as none of us feel we would permit the restart to go ahead! That said since the referee did choose to allow it just WHAT could be done or result once the dust settles!

(1) WAS the indfk not an indfk but a drop ball?
Law 12 ? touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate
Can a referee CHOOSE to ignore the fact if a ball is deflected off an opponent or a teammate for that matter EVEN if he is sure the intent of the deliberately kicked pass was TO the keeper? Is a drop ball for an inadvertent whistle an acceptable solution?

(2) WAS the restart location trivial or unacceptable in law?
Is this a blade of grass restart? Do the lines mean anything given the infringement could ONLY occur from inside the penalty area?

(3) WAS the caution issued correctly?
The keeper was arguing with the referee the ENTIRE time. Nothing says the referee was arguing back or involved in any other action other than watching the resulting restart and goal. Does the phrasing of the question imply that the caution was for actions prior to the goal? Could the caution be for a continued harangue even up to and after the goal?

(4) WAS the mechanics of all three (referee and ARs) acceptable?
In our opinion it was faulty to say the least. The ARs undermined the referee! Whether or not the referee was spot on he did decide to allow things to happen as they did. While the ARs could offer further advise they must act in a more professional manner.
Could the referee reasonably ignore the ARs if they were certain that (a)the ball was deflected and (b) the restart indfk location was outside the penalty area? Is a referee in cautioning the keeper, a reasonable act if he allows the restart and awards the goal?
Was the near AR correct in how he demonstrated an issue with the goal?
Could the far AR have thought he was required to come to the aid of the referee because of the dissent by the keeper and thus was positioned better to judge that restart location? If a restart is incorrect, it is not too late to go back and fix something.

Thoughts
It is a simple fact that protests and misapplication of ABSOLUTE law must be defined by exacting standards as opposed to arbitrary facts concerning play which remain an OPINION by the referee.

Those who say the restart location is trivial must understand that protests on misapplication of law are VERY, VERY specific. To award a restart outside the penalty area boundary for an offence which can ONLY occur inside is no different then if a penal foul outside had the ball location on the penalty area line thus must be a PK . This is just not permitted and if knowingly done is protestable.

Yet if the referee in seeing the restart felt the ball was say overhanging the penalty area boundary lines by a bit, thus believing the restart to be inside the penalty area EVEN if the AR says it was not or there is a proof positive camera picture later showed it was completely outside as a fact concerning play it is not generally disputable. A referee can say it looked inside and the goal stands but he can not say it was only a bit outside thus trivial, the goal would not stand and the protest upheld. If the restart location is decided as incorrect then it is NOT too late to go back and change that decision. AR advice can be accepted as NEW evidence.

We can let a defender's slide tackle poke a ball free from an attacker and that ball go directly to the defending keeper. If we are of the mind it was a defensive stab to knock a ball off the attacker rather then the fact the ball went to the keeper who used his hands, it is not considered because it was in our opinion not a deliberate kick to the keeper but an attempt to knock the ball off or away from an opponent.

While we are told not to consider the intent of a foul we are asked to assume a reasonable idea of just what the defender is up to when he passes the ball back to his keeper.. We can argue in spirit that the ONLY intent of the insertion of this law was to prevent time wasting but we also must consider the laws limiting the time to grasp a ball and the non ability to re-grab that ball make these passes MORE for relieving pressure than time wasting. Wasting time is NEVER really it anymore; this tactic is a release of pressure and distribution of the ball to a safe area

A deflection of the ball off a team mate or opponent is not caveat in law as a reason to deny the law 's application. We can certainly consider it as a reset, and as a fact of play it would stand, but it is not DIRECTLY stated only inferred! Those who watched the Scottish premier game where the referee did award the indfk after the ball had had glanced off the opponent can attest even at the elite level there seems to be a divergence of opinion.. Yet we can not fault those who hold the opinion that any opposing touch on the ball be it deliberate or accidental makes this law, in point of fact, disappear.

Admittedly our take on the caution and showing a yellow card after the goal is not swayed by those who lay claim play was stopped to show a caution to the keeper. Play was stopped for what was an indfk offence. It was the keeper's decision to argue and leave his net unguarded, a bad idea under any circumstance! This provided a rare free kick that was truly free for the attackers, whether we believe the keeper's cause just or not, the dissent seen in attitude, word and deed occurs after the first whistle. If the referee does not engage the keeper but realizes the restart is in fact proper, in his opinion and a goal results he is not obligated to caution for past dissent but do you really think the keeper has decided to shut up at this point? USB or dissent could easily be in effect after the ball crosses the goal line and no one but the referee will know when enough was enough! A referee can choose the restart over the need to caution for that misconduct at that time. Dissent generally has a prolonged expiration date where the perpetrator cannot shut up.

Any one of three possible restarts could conceivably be undertaken.
We could have a drop ball after cautioning the keeper if we agree with the 1st AR.
We can retake the indfk and still caution the keeper if we accept the 2nd ARs observation as to the restart location was outside the area thus incorrect and not agree with the 1st AR.
We can restart with a kick off and still caution the keeper provided it was for the continued dissent following the goal

That said our decision here as referee in signaling an indfk inside the penalty area is it SHOULD BE 100% ceremonial in nature! In other words this should never have occurred! Ensure the whistle sounds to let all know that we are not going to restart! There will be a showing of at least a yellow card to the keeper regardless of any after talk with the ARs that might lead the referee to a different conclusion. Fairness to both teams and the game to not ceremonially restart here is a disservice. The loss of ball possession and a goal result of such a technical infraction does not fit the spirit of the match.

That was our Question YOUR Answer is...

Mike a Referee from Chino Hills CA USA

No goal. The area outside the penalty area could not have been from the place where the foul occurred. The attacker's IFK was not a proper restart, so the referee can still fix this situation. The referee can change the IFK restart to a dropped ball. Though the dissenting keeper remains cautioned.

A similar question had been posted in the Ask the Referee section of the USSF website (ussoccer.com). From the March 2006 Archive (II of II), the following answer was provided:

"According to Law 12, a direct or indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offense occurred (keeping in mind the special circumstances for kicks involving the goal area). While the referee should not be overly fussy about having the offended team restart from the specific and particular blade of grass on which an offense occurred, neither should the referee allow the kicking team to put the ball into play from any point that suits them best. The closer to goal the offense occurred, the less latitude the referee will give the kicking team for placement. "

I would add to this answer what is stated in ATR 5.5. "A trifling offense is one which though still an offense, has no significant impact on play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to." Clearly, the proximity of this offense to the goal had a significant impact. Were the defenders caught off guard by the incorrect placement? The referee had signaled an IFK offense that could only occur *within* the penalty area. This area is clearly marked in accordance with Law 1. By placing the ball outside this area, there is no doubt that the attacker has disregarded both the nature and the place of the foul. This Law 12 infringement of the IFK is neither trifling nor doubtful. The goal should not have been awarded.

In this case, the referee had already awarded the goal. Can referees change their decisions? Possibly. Law 5 states: "The referee may only change a decision on realizing that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match." Play had not restarted due to the IFK infringement, so the referee can now correct these mistakes. The goal is no longer awarded. The keeper did not commit a foul as the ball was last touched by the attacker, not the defender. In accordance with Law 8, the restart is a dropped ball from the place the ball was located when the referee initially stopped play.

AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999

<-->

Soccer Referee Extras: Sunday, November 24, 2024
Offside Question?
Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

<>
Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Recent Questions

Click Go to view all recently posted questions