Category: Law 13 – Free Kicks

Law 13 – Free Kicks

Law 13 - Free Kicks

INDIRECT OR DIRECT FREE KICK IN THE PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
Does the ball have to leave the area on every free kick? For example: Offside is called and the ball is in the area coming out. I play the ball to a teammate who is also in the area. Is this legal? Or, my keeper makes a save and he rolls the ball to me and I am in the area, can I collect it or does it have to leave the area.

USSF answer (November 2, 2009):
You have actually asked two completely different questions. We will rephrase them and answer each separately.

1. Must a free kick taken by the kicking team from within its own penalty area leave the penalty area to be in play? The answer is yes. If the ball does not leave the penalty area and enter the remainder of the playing field directly, the kick must be retaken.

2. If the goalkeeper makes a save in his/her own penalty area and then releases (rolls, throws, or kicks) the ball to a teammate who is inside the penalty area, may the teammate play the ball? The answer is yes.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

MANAGEMENT OF FREE KICKS

Posted on by

Question:
Question:
As a spectator, coach, player and referee, one of my pet peeves is what I see as poor management of free kicks in the so-called “Danger Zone”, where referees in the competitions where I operate seem to immediately make all such free kicks ceremonial, denying dangerous quick free kick attacking opportunities for the offended team.

As a referee, I strive to be the absolutely best that I can be, so I spend hours each week studying all the official and unofficial material I can get my hands on. But looking at the February 10, 2009 directive on Free Kick and Restart Management, I walk away confused on this subject. The directive accurately quotes FIFA on this subject: “If a player decides to take a free kick and an opponent who is less than 10 yards from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue”, and offers the clarifying point “If the kick is taken, it has not been prevented from being taken and play must be allowed to continue.”

But later it states “Intercepts the QFK after the kick is taken: The referee may exercise discretion depending upon whether he/she felt the defender deliberately prevented the ball from being put into play.”

The only way I have come up with to reconcile this in my mind apparent inconsistency within the directive is to say that, in the event of an intercepted kick, an infraction has been committed if the defender, previous to the actual kick, prevented the kick from being taken in some even slightly other direction, pace, angle, etc., at some point beforehand, and that the fact of the interception may rightly lead the referee to draw that conclusion (in particular based on the skill level of the players involved).

Does it sound as though I have this right?

USSF answer (October 20 2009):
We hope this response from Brian Hall, the USSF Manager of Assessment and Training, will help you.

Thank you for “striving to be the absolutely best that you can be” and for being a student of the game. Your dedication is very much appreciated.

Now, in terms of your question, there are two important terms:
“Deliberately prevents” and “intercepts.” Both are used in the Laws of the Game and have been used in the 2009 Directive “Free Kick and Restart Management” for this purpose.

“Deliberately prevents” is an action that must result in a caution. This is “moving/lunging/advancing toward the ball.”

“Intercepts” is a situation in which the attacking team knows the defender is in the area and still puts the ball into play (attacker assumes the risk of putting the ball into play). The defender does NOT move/lunge/advance toward the ball.

A situation that may result in a caution for intercepting is the “statue” that is mentioned in the Directive. A player may move within several feet of the ball/restart and NOT “deliberately prevent” because he does not lunge at the ball with his foot but the referee judges his actions are cautionable because the player’s actions were, in general terms, preventing the ball from being put into play quickly. For example, a player who has been warned on prior occasions from running directly in front of the ball (thereby becoming a “statue”) to slow the restart. These involve situations in which the referee has, most likely, tried preventative measures and the player(s) have not responded because they are using it as an unfair “tactic.”

The Directive also uses the example of a player running from behind the ball and makes contact thus denying the attacking team the chance to put the ball into play appropriately. This is not moving/lunging/advancing toward the ball but, nevertheless, cautionable.…

Law 1 - The Field

PURPOSE OF THE GOAL AREA

Posted on by

Question:
Why is the “goal box” markings required, when all the rules that I’m aware of apply only to the “penalty area”? What special rules apply only to the “goal box”?

USSF answer (October 16, 2009):
There is no “goal box,” but there is a goal area within the penalty area. The goal area has changed shape, size, and role several times during its history. Nowadays its primary roles are to provide a place for the goal kick to be taken and to act as a buffer zone for dropped balls and for opposing indirect free kicks within six yards of the goal.

If play is stopped inside the goal area for some reason other than a foul or misconduct, the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped (Law 8).

A free kick awarded to the defending team within the goal area may be taken from any point inside that area (Law 13)

An indirect free kick awarded to the attacking team inside the goal area must be taken on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred (Law 13).

A goal kick is kicked from any point within the goal area by a player of the defending team.…

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY VS. SCORING SITUATION

Posted on by

Question:
Situation: Tournament play, U-11 girls. An IFK is awarded due to the keeper picking up a passback (questionable in the first place as it was a mis-kick in the U-11 age group that went spiraling backwards off a weird bounce, and did not appear deliberate IMHO).

Anyway…as a result, the IFK is about 7 yds out and directly in front of the goal. The CR makes it a ceremonial (of his own accord, but in this age group, ok)and puts the defensive team on the goal line before allowing restart. Meanwhile the kicking team has one player standing with her foot on top of the ball, clearly planning to do a “touch restart” (which is no longer legal of course).

The CR blows the whistle for play, the offensive player does indeed simply touch the ball with the bottom of her foot, and then the second offensive player strikes the ball. The keeper comes up with the ball and saves the goal.

Now, just after the keeper catches the ball the CR blows the whistle.

He correctly asserts that the IFK cannot be restarted with a top touch ubt must instead be “kicked and move”. Therefore – he allows the offensive team a second opportunity at the IFK (one assumes out of thinking that the ball was not put in play). This time they restart correctly, and they score.

Happily this was not a game deciding goal, but it remains on my mind.

The result of allowing the re-take seems wholly outside of the Spirit of the Game, the offense should not receive a second opportunity from 4 yds out because they botched the restart by not obeying the LOTG.

However…the LOTG do say that the ball must be “kicked and move” in order to be in play.

Could one allow that the first player’s light touch did not put the ball in play since it never moved, but that the striking player did then put the ball in play? (becoming the first touch in considering IFK goal scoring) Seems a bit of a stretch and could be unsporting if done intentionally to confuse the defense.

If I were in the CR spot I should hope I would have noticed the obvious intent to do a touch restart and caught this before it developed and became problematic. IMHO the CR blew a second opportunity to avoid this by not whistling hard and immediately when the tap was made. His whistle was late, not coming until the ball was struck and actually in the keeper’s possession…only a second since the kick was so close…but well after the error.

Per the LOTG it seems to me that the CR did what he must by allowing the re-take. At the same time, it seems at odds with the Spirit of the Game. Is this one that could go either way based on the opinion of the CR?

I think if I had made all those errors and got stuck in this spot I would have been inclined to allow the defensive team the possession.

The offense had fair opporunity. If another IFK came up I would have been diligent in informing the team of the correct mode of restart.

Would I be wrong?

In your esteemed opinions…what would be the proper response if one was caught in a situation like this?

USSF answer (October 6, 2009):
In our esteemed opinions, the correct referee action would have been to allow play to continue. Both you and the referee have jumped to the wrong conclusion, confusing putting the ball into play and a situation in which a goal can be scored. The Law requires, as you state, only that a ball is kicked and moved to be in play. That happened. The ball was tapped, which means nothing in a restart, but it was then kicked by a player directly to the goalkeeper. A second touch of the ball — by any player on either team — is required for a goal to be scored, but not for the ball to be in play.…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

GETTING TEN YARDS

Posted on by

Question:
At a free kick when managing the wall for a ceremonial free kick, should the referee pace off the 10 yds or just determine where the 10 yds are and set the wall there? I had been told that the best way was to just determine where 10 yds is and set the wall there (if players were pushing the issue 10 yds could grow). Had a young ref who went to regionals and was told that he should pace off the 10 yds.

Could not find this addressed in the ussf procedures guide.

USSF answer (October 5, 2009):
We had thought this would have been covered in the entry-level referee course.

There are numerous ways to get the ten yards. Each referee must determine which works best for the particular situation. Here are some of the ways to get the correct minimum distance at a free kick — if the kicking team does not make it quite clear that it wants to take a quick free kick.

1. Learn how far ten yards is — radius of the center circle, radius of the penalty arc — and keep it in your mind, asking the players to move back the distance you have determined is correct.
2. Be the “first brick in the wall,” getting there (without walking it off) and instructing the players to be no nearer than your position to the ball.

Under no circumstances may the referee deliberately require the defending team to retire more than the mandatory minimum distance of ten yards. However, ten yards is where the referee says it is (in his or her judgment).…

Law 13 - Free Kicks

TWO-FOOTED KICK?

Posted on by

Question:
In a recent game in England, player Diamenti (of Aston Villa?) strode to take a penalty kick and placed his right foot near the ball when it skidded at the ball. His left foot struck the ball and it appeared that the ball was hit by two feet into the goal. The referee awarded the goal.

On play back it was seen that Diamenti’s left foot (his kicking foot) impacted the ball first and in the briefest period of time possible off his slipped right foot. (Naturally, Diamenti ended up on his back.)

Without replays in slow motion the referee was as puzzled as the fans as to what happened.

Is it permitted to take a penalty kick with two feet striking the ball at the same instant, and why not?

USSF answer (October 1, 2009):
According to the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees:

LAW 13 – FREE KICKS
[snipped]
A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously.

…
Law 13 - Free Kicks

RIGHT OF DEFENDING TEAM AT FREE KICK

Posted on by

Question:
I was an AR during a tournament U14 Boys game. The ball as headed out of Red’s defensive end about 10 yards from the half line.

Red committed an IFK foul via dangerous play in my clear view, but could not be viewed by the referee. I raised my flag and gave it a wave, which the referee acknowledged and blew his whistle.

Unfortunately, this was about 5 minutes into the second half and therefore I indicated the incorrect direction for the restart (Red kick). BEFORE play was restarted, the direction was corrected, but Blue clearly recovered better than Red and quickly restarted play. The kick was made directly to another Blue player, who shot on goal and scored with the referee indicating a good goal and moving to the center circle for the restart. Red’s coach was understandably upset and complaining his boys did not have time to get back on defense.

Blue’s coach was saying nothing.

The referee came over to me to discuss the goal. We both agreed there was no misapplication of the LOTG, so a protest would not be upheld. We both agreed no matter what decision we made, one team was going to be upset. I asked the referee if he had signaled/indicated for Blue to wait for his whistle, and the referee said no. The final decision came down to this question – What is the right thing to do for the game? The answer was to not count the goal, and restart with Blue taking an IFK from the original spot of the foul. The confusion occurred due to our (mine for indicating incorrect direction, and referees for not requiring a ceremonial restart) error. Red of course was happy, and the amazing part was Blue’s coach made NO issue of the decision.

Our review of the incident yielded a learning point of making sure to use a ceremonial restart in future similar situations.

The question is, does USSF agree with our decision on the field?

Final note, Blue went on to win the game 2-1 and I made certain to greatly compliment Blue’s coach after the game for his touchline behavior (meaning he didn’t make any sort of scene or any display of dissent & Blue was on my touchline) as well has his team’s response which was to continue to put their energy into playing football, and not put their energy into the referees.

USSF answer (August 25, 2009):
Although normally we stress that the guilty team at a free kick has zero to very few rights, and thus neither deserves nor may demand any special treatment, in this case the officiating crew confused them and violated the defending team’s right not to be misled by the officials. Therefore, the restart must be ceremonial in nature.…

Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct

SPOT OF THE RESTART

Posted on by

Question:
Near the end of a hard fought 1-1 game, I whistled a handling offense by the defense just outside the penalty area. At least 2 defenders remained in position for an instant just in front of the spot of the foul, but the momentum of the ball caused it to roll 3-4 yards to the side. An alert attacker set the ball at this new position and took a quick shot at the goal as this location was not obstructed by defenders. The quick shot went wide and so I indicated a goal kick.

However, had the shot gone in I had to wonder how I would have handled this volatile situation. The defense could protest that the kick was not from the proper spot (if they were alert). Or, if I disallowed the kick certainly the offense would protest.

I think the proper procedure would have been to be alert to this quick kick tactic and whistle a second time as the ball is set in the wrong location and before a quick kick is attempted, and insist the ball be placed at the spot of the foul. Then, if the player quick kicked anyway everyone has heard the second whistle as evidence that play was not properly restarted.

Had the kick scored in the original scenario and I had not time to whistle for proper placement of the ball, I think the proper but unpopular decision would be to deny the goal and retake the kick from the proper location. In this case a few yards from the spot of the foul is VERY significant to restarting play unlike a restart near midfield.

Please advise. Thank you, this site is the best.

USSF answer (August 19, 2009):
The farther the infringement (and thus the ball) from the goal being attacked, the less the referee cares about finding the exact blade of grass on which to have the free kick taken. As the infringement moves closer to the goal, the more exact the position of the ball for the free kick should be. Although in this case the ball does not seem to have moved appreciably closer to the goal, it may have given the kicking team a better angle, so the restart should be stopped immediately, if possible. If that is not possible, then have it retaken properly — and admonish the defenders (no caution necessary) for hanging around.

If all else fails, the key is making a decision and sticking to it. Your opinion is protected in Law 5, as quoted here: “The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.”…

"Inventive" Refs

BALL IN PLAY FROM KICKS COMING OUT OF PENALTY AREA

Posted on by

Question:
On a kick by the defense from within its own penalty area (could also be a goal kick), what is the restart if the ball is kicked backwards and goes over the goal line between the boundaries marked by the sides of the penalty area?

I’m asking because this scenario was posed to me by a USSF State Referee. His amazing explanation, which he said was confirmed by [a high-ranking referee and USSF manager], was as follows. The penalty area only has three sides: the line in the field that is 44 yards long (the “18 yard line”) and the two lines on the sides. The line that is at the back of the penalty area is the goal line; the goal line is not part of the penalty area.

Therefore, a ball that is kicked out over the goal line, as described, has left the penalty area and is in play briefly as it crosses the goal line. Therefore the restart is a corner kick because the last player that touched the ball was a defender.

I disagree. Law 16 says “The ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty area.” In my scenario, the ball has not gone into play; therefore the kick must be retaken.

A corner kick would be the correct restart only if the ball exited the penalty area and crossed the goal line between the corner flag and the side of the penalty area….but that is not the scenario we’re discussing (I was shocked by the State Referee’s answer, therefore I confirmed exactly where he said the ball went out).

Please help. Thank you.

USSF answer (July 29, 2009):
We are extremely disappointed with the “USSF State Referee” who has falsely quoted the high-ranking referee and USSF manager.  His explanation is indeed “amazing”; however, the correct information for this situation is entry-level material.  In this situation the ball must leave the penalty area and enter the field to be considered in play.  If the ball leaves the field without exiting the penalty area and entering the field proper, the kick is retaken.…

"Inventive" Refs

NO OGSO POSSIBLE IF THE BALL IS NOT IN PLAY

Posted on by

Question:
In a fast break away one player with the ball makes an attack. About two yards outside the top of the penalty area the goal keeper fouls the attacker. Advantage is not applied. In the opinion of the referee, the foul (a DFK) does not merit a card of any type. The whistle is blown, the restart of a direct free kick is announced by the ref, the ball is placed, and the whistle is blown to restart play. Before other defenders can arrive the attacker starts to take what seems to be a certain goal scoring opportunity at an unguarded net.

Before the shot is taken the goal keeper places his foot on the ball, stopping any chance for a quick shot. Other defending players then arrive, making an advantageous quick restart impossible.

In the opinion of the referee the keeper has clearly denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be sent off. The referee believes that by every standard of common sense and of Fair Play the goal keeper has breached the Spirit of the Laws, and that the Laws were written to prevent and to punish this very type of misconduct.

But by the letter of the Law, the referee is not sure that he has the power to do so. As the ball was not in play when the event took place, there was not & could not be an “opponent moving towards the player’s goal”. Although the goal keeper’s action will cause him to be cautioned, he will not have caused “an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Because the ball was not in play when the keeper broke the Law(s), his act of misconduct will not nor could not cause a free kick or a penalty kick to be taken. That is, when the ball is out of play the restart will always remain unchanged.

The referee knows that the world is an imperfect place, that life can be hard, and sometimes bad things happen to good people; but it seems egregious if the LOTG allow the keeper to remain in the game.

Your views?

USSF answer (June 25, 2009):
No view, simply the Law: The goalkeeper cannot have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity, as the ball was not in play when he committed his misconduct. Sometimes life is not fair. Caution the goalkeeper for failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a free kick; show the yellow card and restart with the original direct free kick, ensuring that all opponents are at least ten yards away when the ball is put into play.

We might also have hard words with the referee for not being proactive in the first place and preventing the goalkeeper from doing what he did.…