Question Number: 15119

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/4/2007

RE: Rec Under 15

Todd Schwebke of Rockford, IL USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 15042

I recently took a state coaching certificate course. on the test was a questions as follows: A player 'fairly' charges another player. Neither player is involved in the active play. The Referee calls a foul. What is the restart - Direct or Indirect?
First of all, I don't understand how a charge can be fair and called a foul at the same time. Secondly, under the Laws of the Game, a charge is a Direct free kick. The answer we were given is that it is an Indirect free kick. Why? Is it because it was a 'fair' charge away from the ball?

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Todd,

It is an astute observation that charging is a direct free kick offense. So, why should "fair" charging which would normally not be called a foul be punished with an indirect free kick if this action is performed away from the ball? The reason the test you took gives you the answer it does is because it uses the United States Soccer Federation's Advice to Referee's on the Laws of the Game as a primary reference.

ATR 12.22 states that charging an opponent off the ball in an otherwise fair manner is to be considered the same as impeding the progress of an opponent, even though there is contact.

That is why you got the question wrong on your test. But now you know.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Before the general rewrite of the Laws of the Game in 1997 this was one of the indirect free kick offences:

Quote

2. charging fairly, i.e. with the shoulder, when the ball is not within playing distance of the players concerned and they are definitely not trying to play it;

End Quite.

This is just one of those things left out of the Laws that remains an historical part of The Game. So, a fair charge away from the ball is an offence punishable by an indirect free kick.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

Todd, this is a tricky question. I agree that using the word "fair" seems like a foul is out of the picture here. I would suggest reading Mr. Montanino's excellent answer. He hit it spot on. This has also confused me before.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Todd,
definately not a "fair" question in my opinion as it subverts the rational of why such physical contact is allowed .

A Fair Charge is in fact an incorrect term which refers TECHNICALLY the only legal physical contact a player can make against an opponent PROVIDED the ball is within Playing Distance that is shoulder to shoulder! Playing distance is the speed of play at about two to three steps to get to the ball.

While we can see the shoulder to shoulder contact as reasonable and only the ball is too far to be playable then I can agree that impeding and an INDFK could be considered But JUST BECAUSE we have shoulder to shoulder does not mean the contact is in fact FAIR. I use my shoulder to ram an opponent unexpectedly away from play there is nothing fair about it
Note these two FIFA Q@A from Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct

24. A player is charged when the ball is not within playing distance.
What action should the referee take?

If the referee considers the charge on the opponent to be careless, a
direct free kick * or a penalty kick will be awarded.

25. A player stops the progress of an opponent by physical contact. What action does the referee take?

The offending player is punished with a direct free kick for holding an opponent * or penalty kick.

To my mind both the force used and why such an act was in progress must be weighed before a decision is reached. Shoulder to shoulder by two opposing players running side by side where the ball is being pursued but is NOT within playing distance could fit this neat little version but I personally think the ATR in this instance is wrong for choosing to see any unnecessary contact away from play as indfk just because it is a shoulder to shoulder action.
Cheers