- Soccer Rule Referee Resources
- Home
- Ask a Question
- Articles
- Recent Questions
- Search
- You-Call-It
- Previous You-Call-It's
-
VAR (Video Assistant Referee)
- Q&A Quick Search
- The Field of Play
- The Ball
- The Players
- The Players Equipment
- The Referee
- The Other Match Officials
- The Duration of the Match
- The Start and Restart of Play
- The Ball In and Out of Play
- Determining the Outcome of a Match
- Offside
- Fouls and Misconduct
- Free Kicks
- Penalty kick
- Throw In
- Goal Kick
- Corner Kick
- Common Sense
- Kicks - Penalty Mark
- The Technical Area
- The Fourth Official
- Pre-Game
- Fitness
- Mechanics
- Attitude and Control
- League Specific
- High School
- Common Acronyms
- Meet The Ref
- Advertise
- Contact AskTheRef
- Help Wanted
- About AskTheRef
- Soccer Rules Changes 1580-2000
- Panel Login
|
- Soccer Referee Questions on Soccer Rules
You-Call-It 32 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 a yard or so outside the penalty area and quickly kicks the ball to an onside team mate who scores. The referee cautions the keeper and is pointing towards the centre indicating kick off!
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 over. The referee converses with the ARs. The nearest AR says 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 for illegal handling, that restart location was outside the penalty area. Your match, your decision, your reputation!
Our Hintlaw 1
law 5
law 6
law 12Our 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 boundary 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! Fairness to both teams and the game to not ceremonially restart here is a disservice. The loss of ball possession and a goal resulting from such a technical infraction does not fit the spirit of the game nor inspire a feeling of fairness. In other words this should never have occurred!
Ensure the wait for the whistle signal to let all know that we are not going to allow a 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. . A referee should ALWAYS look to the AR to communicate. Its a two way support system, do not jump the gun in signalling definitive decisions without confirming facts or considering all options. If you want to maintain a good reputation in your matches you require more correct decisions than correcting confusing choices! That was our Question YOUR Answer is...AskTheref.com Educating and Amusing The Soccer Referee Since October 11, 1999<-->
|
- Soccer Referee Extras
- Saturday, November 23, 2024
<>
|