Question:
Referee awards IFK for a defender playing in a dangerous manner. Let’s say 23 yards from goal. Attacking team lines up for the kick and takes it quickly. Referee fails to give correct signal for IFK. Attacking teams kick ends up in net. Obviously you cannot award the goal. What is the correct restart for this situation?If I read ATR 13.9 (2006) correctly, it does not spell out what the restart after the referee fails to signal IFK is. It does spell out what happens if the referee signals IFK when it was clearly a DFK restart. You retake the DFK. FIFA Q&A 13.6 states to retake the IFK for failure to signal correctly. This situation is clearly a referee mistake and not one by either team. Which document (Q&A or ATR) is correct?

I remember being taught that the restart is retake the IFK but I cannot find supporting documentation from USSF only FIFA Q&A. Could you please help clear this up?

USSF answer (April 3, 2007):
Let’s look at it logically. What does Advice 13.9 say?

13.9 SIGNAL FOR INDIRECT FREE KICK
The failure of the referee either to give the correct signal for an indirect free kick or to hold it for the required period of time does not change the nature of the restart, nor does it alter the requirement for a subsequent touch of the ball for a goal to be scored.

What does the Q&A say?

6. An indirect free kick is awarded to the attacking team outside the opponents’ penalty area. The referee fails to raise his arm to indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal. What action does the referee take?
“He has the free kick retaken because of the refereeÕs mistake. The initial indirect free kick, is not nullified by the referee’s mistake.”

The Q&A answer makes sense because the referee’s failure to give an IFK signal changes the dynamics of the play–the attacking team might have set up and executed the kick differently if it had known that it was an IFK instead of DFK (one presumes that the ball going directly into the net was a deliberate consequence of the team attempting successfully to achieve that result) and so the retake of the IFK restores the status ante quo. The same reasoning would apply if the referee gave an IFK signal for what should have been a DFK restart (e. g., among other consequences, it unfairly misleads the defenders into not defending against the possibility of a goal being scored directly).

There is no disconnect here and no problem. The correct solution is to have the kick retaken.…

Question:
I have seen lately that referees are not calling charges on the keeper inside his/her penalty area when the keeper is either attempting to control the ball or is in control of the ball. I have always been taught (over 20 years of officiating experience) that the goalkeeper cannot be legally charged inside the penalty area while in control or possession of the ball unless the keeper is playing the ball with his/her feet. I have recently been told by senior ranked (State 5 or above) referees that this is no longer the case and that the keeper may be fairly charged just like any other player on the field and does not have special privellages inside their penalty area. In reading the Advice to Referees Section 12.16 I believe it says that “While the ball is in the possession of the keeper, it cannot be lawfully played by an opponent and any attempt to do so may be punished by a direct free kick.” I also believe I read in the Advice to Referees Section 12.23 that charging a keeper in possesion of the ball should be considered a violation of law 12 and a direct free kick awarded unless the keeper is playing the ball with his head, feet or etc… This would seem to me that nothing has changed and that charging a keeper who is not playing the ball is still illegal. Can you clarify this for me?If you have answered this previously I must have not been able to find it and would appreciate a reference where I can find this answer.

USSF answer (March 30, 2007):
No matter what you may hear from “senior ranked (State 5 or above) referees,” the facts are contained in the document you cite, the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL
The goalkeeper is considered to be in possession of the ball while bouncing it on the ground or while throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, while throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to strike the ground. As noted in Advice 12.10, handling extends from shoulder to tip of fingers. While the ball is in the possession of the keeper, it cannot be lawfully played by an opponent, and any attempt to do so may be punished by a direct free kick.

12.17 PREVENTING THE GOALKEEPER FROM RELEASING THE BALL INTO PLAY An opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper’s release of the ball into play. While players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, they may not try to block the goalkeeper’s movement while he or she is holding the ball or do anything which hinders, interferes with, or blocks the goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play. An opponent does not violate the Law, however, if the player takes advantage of a ball released by the goalkeeper directly to him or her, in his or her direction, or deflecting off him or her nonviolently.

12.18 THE “SIX-SECOND” RULE The goalkeeper has six seconds to release the ball into play once he or she has taken possession of the ball with the hands. However, this restriction is not intended to include time taken by the goalkeeper while gaining control of the ball or as a natural result of momentum. The referee should not count the seconds aloud or with hand motions. If the goalkeeper is making a reasonable effort to release the ball into play, the referee should allow the “benefit of the doubt.” Before penalizing a goalkeeper for violating this time limit, the referee should warn the goalkeeper about such actions and then should penalize the violation only if the goalkeeper continues to waste time or commits a comparable infringement again later in the match. Opposing players should not be permitted to attempt to prevent the goalkeeper from moving to release the ball into play.

12.23 CHARGING THE GOALKEEPER Referees must carefully observe any charge against the goalkeeper and call as an infringement of Law 12 only those charges which are performed carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force (direct free kick), are performed in a dangerous manner (indirect free kick), or prevent the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands (indirect free kick). Charging the keeper who is in possession of the ball must be considered an offense because, by definition, the charge cannot be for the purpose of challenging for control of the ball (see Advice 12.16). A goalkeeper can be otherwise legally charged if the ball is not in the goalkeeper’s possession (see Advice 12.16) but is being played by the goalkeeper in some other manner (e. g., dribbled at the feet, headed, etc.).

To sum it up: The goalkeeper in possession of the ball AND preparing to put it into play may NOT be charged or otherwise interfered with. However, the goalkeeper may be charged FAIRLY when both the ‘keeper and the opponent are striving for possession of the ball.

And could it be that this is what the senior referees were saying and that you might have misunderstood?…

Question:
Gentlemen, has there ever been any instructions, memo, etc., on the procedure that the referees must follow in respect to what their duties are on monitoring the handshake process that the youth players and coaches do after the game is completed?USSF answer (March 30, 2007):
Here is what the Federation has to say on the matter, excerpted from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

5.2 REFEREE’S AUTHORITY
The referee’s authority begins upon arrival at the area of the field of play and continues until he or she has left the area of the field after the game has been completed. The referee’s authority extends to time when the ball is not in play, to temporary suspensions, to the half-time break, and to additional periods of play or kicks from the penalty mark required by the rules of the competition.

The custom of exchanging handshakes after the game is not universal practice. It is an invention of American youth soccer–and not even followed at all levels of American youth soccer. There is no accepted format.

Referees are instructed to leave the field quickly and quietly when the game has been completed. This is to avoid problems with coaches, parents, and players. If the handshake ceremony is a rule of the competition, then referees would likely have to remain behind to monitor it–but only if the rules of the competition explicitly require it.…

Question:
While reading your past answers to questions you said that if a player is more than 1 yd from the touch line during a throw-in it is a violation of the rules. Yet in the Fifa questions and answers 2006 their answer to the question “Is there a maximum distance away from the touch line from which a throw-in may be taken?” is No. Which is the correct answer.USSF answer (March 28, 2007):
You (and many others) have fallen under the spell of the written word, not taking into consideration the meaning behind it. The IFAB (the folks who write the Laws of the Game) and FIFA (the folks who administer the game throughout the world) do not always use precise terminology in either the Laws of the Game or the memoranda which support them. They are very fond of obfuscation, leaving lots of wiggle room to allow the referee to judge acts in their current context. That is why the answer in the Q&A has confused and misled you and others.

By saying, “No,” the Q&A tells us that no, there is no maximum distance, because there is only the single distance of one yard/meter from the correct point on the touchline from which the ball may be delivered and put back into play. Whether the exact distance of the point of putting the ball back into play is only one yard/meter from the actual place where the ball left the field is at the discretion and in the opinion of the referee. Both the discretion and opinion of the referee, as well as the referee’s determination of the distance, are traditional and accepted throughout the world.…

Question:
On another site, I found this “debate” and the subsequent answer by FIFA. But it seems that it is a “cart-before-the-horse” answer and may need to be further discussed. As an Instructor, I want to be clear on the proper interpretation.The question was: “Law 14 states that the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward. Therefore, if the ball is kicked backward or sideways, the ball is not in play and so a free-kick cannot be awarded. I have checked back as far as FIFA Q&A 1990, and until Q&A of 2005, it was always stated that the kick is retaken. From Q&A 2005 it states that an Indirect Free Kick is awarded. Would you kindly give further consideration to this question and advise me?”

Response from FIFA Referees Dept was: “Thank you very much for sending us your question. Regarding your question we would like to clarify the following:
As stated in Law 14-The penalty kick: If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following situations occurs: The player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game: (this is the case). The referee allows the kick to proceed. If the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restart the match with an indirect free kick…

We hope this response can clarify your question. If you have any doubt or any further question, please do not hesitate to contact us.”

My understanding, kicking the ball forward is how the ball is put back into play and isÊnot an ‘infringement’ like those in other section of Law 14 (such as encroachment, position, etc.) which would carry an IFK award. To say it is to be considered part of the IFK restarts means that the restart of a PK takes a ‘back seat’ to the infringements. ÊBut if the infringements can only occur AFTER the ball is kicked, since the law tells us that the kick is allowed to proceed BEFORE we make out decision (the ‘analysis’ past of Law 14), would this not be a re-take? If no, then is every bad kick (other than forward) now an IFK?

I say this because if, before the ball is kicked, a teammate of the kicker enters the PA but then withdraws BEFORE the ball is kicked, is it an IFK? I would say no because since the ball is not in play, the infringement was ‘corrected’ and the law is satisfied. The player realized their error and, in the spirit of the law, corrected their error. Am I splitting hairs here?

USSF answer (March 22, 2007):
We are very surprised that FIFA responded at all to this question from an unofficial source on “another site.” Anyone who has such questions should go directly to their area coordinator of instruction (if such an office exists in their state), who will take up the matter with the state director of instruction.

In point of fact, we had already answered this question, back on January 3 of this year:

In its infinite wisdom, the IFAB has chosen to set aside, at least in respect of Law 14, the tradition that an offense that occurs when the ball is not in play cannot affect the restart. For the reason for the change in the 2006 edition of the Advice to Referees, see the Laws of the Game 2006, Law 14:

Infringements/Sanctions
If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken and, before the ball is in play, one of the following situations occurs:
The player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
– the referee allows the kick to proceed
– if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
– if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred.
//deleted//
A team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game:
– the referee allows the kick to proceed
– if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
– if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts the match with an indirect free kick to the defending team, from the place where the infringement occurred.
//rest deleted//

We would suggest that referees not apply this procedure to any set of circumstances other than precisely those given in the Law and in the Q&A.…