Question:
A common issue continues to come up in games. The issue revolves around the ceremonial restart after a foul is called. The common misperception is that the defense has the right to a whistle by the referee prior to restart if they choose to build a wall. Furthermore, it is the understanding of most players, that if one of them stands in front of the ball so as to require the referee to tell him to move. That this automatically gives them a dead ball situation and ample time to set the wall.

There are 3 reasons for a signal required before a free kick restart, if my understanding is correct:
1. If a card is issued
2. If an injury has taken place
3. If the OFFENSE request a wall relocation.

Otherwise it is the offense’s right to put the ball back in play immediately. As a referee I am aware of this, and there have been numerous discussions about this at meetings and clinics and the logical position is that the defense should not gain an advantage by commiting a foul. Problem is that the players never see this info and TV games further confuse the matter, in that pro players know how to get a signal restart, and the announcers rarely infuse it in their commentary, thus creating the impression a whistle is required any time there is a wall situation. Could you please confirm/elaborate on this issue briefly for us so we can make the info available to Team representatives.

USSF answer (December 7, 2007):
You will find all anyone, even players and coaches, could possibly care to know about this matter in the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game,” which you may purchase (or view online) at ussoccer.com. The pertinent portions of the Advice are 13.1-13.4. Thousands of other referees have taken advantage of this opportunity. Your group could be next.

Normally, we instruct referees to allow the kicking team to take the kick quickly, if they wish, without interfering with it. However, if, in the opinion of the referee, the defenders are too close to the kick, he or she should avoid playing into the defenders’ hands and becoming an unwitting player on their team — the referee has done the work of the defense by delaying the restart of play and has not made the defenders pay any price for this benefit. Once the referee has decided to step in to deal with opponents who are too close to the kick, the threshold for a caution has been met.

The defending team has only two rights at a free kick:

(1) The right to retire immediately a minimum of ten yards away until the ball is in play, i. e., is kicked and moves. Any player who fails to do so runs the risk of being cautioned and shown the yellow card for failure to respect the required distance at a free kick, no matter what they may see in professional games.
(2) The right not to be diverted by the referee interfering with the action in other than a ceremonial free kick situation. This is what the referee is doing when he or she starts talking with the opponents — even if saying nothing more than to back away — or, worse, when the referee is actively engaged in being “the first brick in the wall” while still allowing the kicking team to kick whenever it wishes. The Advice lays out a fairly simple set of rules — keep your mouth shut, unless you have to or are asked to step in — in which case the free kick automatically becomes a ceremonial restart and the first thing out of the referee’s mouth had better be an admonition to everyone that the free kick cannot now be taken without a signal by the referee. The kicking team has rights too: the right to a “free” kick, free of interference from the opponents and, if they wish to take the kick quickly, free from the interference of the referee. The referee cannot abdicate the responsibility to ensure that the free kick is indeed “free.”…

Question:
Indirect free kick for attacking team just outside the (opponents’) penalty area. An opponent moves closer to the spot of the kick before it’s taken and then he deliberately touches the ball with his handles. Ok caution, but retaken indirect free kick (for infraction law 13 – distance) or penalty kick (for handling)?

USSF answer (December 3, 2007):
We presume you meant that the opponent handled the ball rather than touched the ball with his handles (plus, we are not entirely sure where his handles would be).

What you describe is a classic example of the section in Law 5 that requires the referee to punish the more serious violation when a player commits two or more offenses simultaneously. Here, the opponent violated Law 12 by failing to retreat the required minimum distance (and compounded his offense by clearly interfering with the free kick). For this alone, the referee would stop play, caution the opponent, and restart by having the IFK retaken. However, the opponent also committed a foul by touching the ball with his hands after it had been put into play. For this alone, the referee would stop play, caution the opponent for committing a tactical foul if appropriate, and restart with a DFK (or, in this case, a PK if the handling occurred inside the opponent’s own penalty area).

Given that the two infringements were committed at the same time, the referee should stop play, caution for the failure to respect the required distance, and restart with a DFK (or PK if the handling occurred inside the opponent’s own penalty area). There is no issue of sending off the opponent for interfering with an obvious goal scoring opportunity because a goal cannot be scored directly from an indirect free kick.…

Question:
In a game I was refereeing, a team tried to take a corner kick with one player toe-touching the ball without the ball moving and another player taking off with it on a dribble. I called for a re-start asking the players to actually move the ball.

What is the correct ruling for restarts on corner kicks and indirect free kicks? Does the ball need to rotate or be passed with the foot in order to have a legal re-start? Toe-Taps? Are they still legal?

Answer (October 15, 2007):
It is clear that you will be a good referee, as your instincts meet the gap in your knowledge. Now it’s simply a case of bringing your knowledge up to the level of your instincts.

In the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” you will find this excerpt, ATR 13.5, which deals with when the ball is in play. It also applies to corner kicks. (And to answer your specific question: No, toe-taps are not legal, and never really were.)

13.5 BALL IN PLAY
The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the “kick” need only be a touch of the ball with the foot in a kicking motion. Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient.

When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” does not include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being “moved” does not include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly.

The referee must judge carefully whether any particular kick of the ball and subsequent movement was indeed reasonably taken with the intention of putting the ball into play rather than with the intention merely to position the ball for the restart. If the ball is just being repositioned (even if the foot is used to do this), play has not been restarted. Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish for “failing to respect the required distance” when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart.

The referee must make the final decision on what is a “kick” and what is “not a kick” based on his or her feeling for the game-what FIFA calls “Fingerspitzengefuehl” (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”). The bottom line is that not everything that produces movement of the ball is a kick and thus would not legally put the ball into play in any of the kicking restarts.

Question:
I’ve been questioned for advice by a junior referee on the following situation:
Referee whistles a foul that would call for an IFK restart. However referee fails to signal IFK, kick is taken, and the ball travels directly into the3 opponent’s goal.

What is the current consensus on the referee’s next action? Restart? (Retake, Goal-Kick, or Center-Kick?)

Answer (July 9, 2007):
The Questions and Answers 2006 tells us:
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 referee’s mistake. The initial indirect free kick, is not nullified by the referee’s mistake.

7. A player takes a quick free kick and the ball goes into goal. The referee has not had the opportunity to indicate that the free kick was indirect. What action should the referee take?
Order the kick to be retaken as the original offence only merited an indirect free kick but the referee did not have the opportunity to give the recognized signal.

This information is repeated in the Laws of the Game 2007, under Additional Instructions and Guidelines for Referees:
LAW 13 – FREE KICKS

Procedure
//deleted//
An indirect free kick should be retaken if the referee fails to raise his arm to indicate that the kick is indirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal. The initial indirect free kick is not nullified by the referee’s mistake.…

Question:
Does the ball need to be stationary in the goal area before it can be kicked? A parent on my team said that she witnessed in a game that her daughter was refereeing a keeper that was rolling the ball out and a defender kicking the ball into play while the ball was still moving in the goal area.ÂI have looked this question up in “Advice to Referees”, “FIFA Laws of the Game” and the 2006 question and answers and cannot find in any of these publications that the ball has to be stationary only that it has to be on the ground in the goal area.

USSF answer (April 11, 2007):
The fact that the ball is stationary at a goal kick is one of those things that the makers of the Laws, the International F. A. Board (IFAB), have left out, because they assume that “everyone knows” that the ball must be stationary. (In fact, if you had been watching one of the EPL games yesterday on Fox Soccer Channel, you would have seen the referee make the kicking team take a goal kick again, simply because the goalkeeper had kicked the ball while it was still moving.)

Here is an answer we gave back on September 26, 2005 that explains the technicalities of the matter:
An excellent question. Nowhere does it state specifically that the ball must be stationary for goal kicks, but it is implied in Law 17 for corner kicks (and in Law 14 for penalty kicks). The specific statements in Laws 8 and 13 that the ball be stationary for the start and restart of play and free kicks also imply that the ball must be stationary for all kick restarts. (Note: This answer was first published on July 9, 2001. Nothing has changed since that time.)

Law 8
Procedure
//snip//
* the ball is stationary on the center mark
//snip//
* the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward

//snip//

Law 13

Types of Free Kicks
//snip//
For both direct and indirect free kicks, the ball must be stationary when the kick is taken and the kicker does not touch the ball a second time until it has touched another player.

Law 14
//snip//
Position of the Ball and the Players
The ball:
* is placed on the penalty mark

Law 16
Procedure
* the ball is kicked from any point within the goal area by a player of the defending team
//snip//
[the inference here being that if the ball was at “any point” it was stationary, but you could probably argue that one either way]

Law 17
Procedure
* the ball is placed inside the corner arc at the nearest corner flagpost
[the inference here (and in Law 14) is that if the ball is “placed,” it is stationary]
//snip//
* the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves
//snip//

In all cases of a kick restart, the ball must be stationary before being kicked. It is not in play until it has been kicked and moves (forward in the case of kick-off and penalty kick).…

Question:
I am having some trouble understanding the difference between these two offenses. screening I believe is when the player has the ball under control without using his hands, arms, legs or body to protect his control of the ball, if an offense has occurred the opponent is awarded a DFK.Impeding the progress, I believe would be when the ball is not under control, the player deliberately prevents the opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the shortest path to the ball, the opponent would be awarded an IFK.

If the opponent is impeded in his progress to the ball by a player using his arm, legs, hands or body (what else can a player impede and opponent with) is the opponent awarded a DFK? Thank You for your time, great web site.

USSF answer (April 10, 2007):
“Screening” is not necessarily an offense, though the word is certainly used that way by various people. To “screen” someone illegally is to block that person’s view. It is most applicable in relation to a player in an offside position “screening” the view of the opposing goalkeeper (or possibly an opposing defender).

You might perhaps mean “shielding,” which is when a player has possession of the ball and does not wish others to take it away. (This is also called “screening.”) When shielding, a player may use the body and arms to protect the ball, but the arms may not be used as tools to push the opponent away. (In other words, the player may not contact the opponent with the arms.) That would be the offense of either pushing or holding, depending on what was done.

Shielding becomes impeding when the player who is shielding the ball does not have possession and cannot establish it.

Here is a definition of impeding from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game”:

12.14 IMPEDING AN OPPONENT
“Impeding the progress of an opponent” means moving on the field so as to obstruct, interfere with, or block the path of an opponent. Impeding can include crossing directly in front of the opponent or running between the opponent and the ball so as to form an obstacle with the aim of delaying progress. There will be many occasions during a game when a player will come between an opponent and the ball, but in the majority of such instances, this is quite natural and fair. It is often possible for a player not playing the ball to be in the path of an opponent and still not be guilty of impeding.The offense of impeding an opponent requires that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and the opponent is normally absent. If physical contact occurs, the referee should, depending on the circumstances, consider instead the possibility that a charging infringement has been committed (direct free kick) or that the opponent has been fairly charged off the ball (indirect free kick, see Advice 12.22). However, nonviolent physical contact may occur while impeding the progress of an opponent if, in the opinion of the referee, this contact was an unavoidable consequence of the impeding (due, for example, to momentum).

12.15 PLAYING DISTANCE
The referee’s judgment of “playing distance” should be based on the player’s ability to play the ball, not upon any arbitrary standard.

The restart for holding or pushing is a direct free kick, taken from the spot of the offense. The restart for impeding is an indirect free kick, taken from the spot of the offense.…

Question:
I was curious about restarts in indoor soccer. I once heard that all restarts are direct but I always thought it was based on the case (contact vs dangerous play etc.). Could you explain this to me?USSF answer (April 7, 2007):
The indoor rules published by USSF tell us that all indoor restarts are direct. However, at the moment, many indoor facilities have their own modifications of the Laws. You should ask if your indoor facility’s program is affiliated with the U. S. Soccer Federation before going any farther.…

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.…