http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/jan/24/worlds-craziest-free-kick-video hmm- what if he does it at a penalty kick
The dive after Durovski realizes he's squandered the chance and wants another go is pretty hilarious. CR's at the wall and doesn't have the best view, or he'd have seen how little contact there was that "upended" Durovski. That said, I'd have a hard time sorting out if the "header" put the ball in play or not. Even more so on a PK. edit: Thanks for quoting the applicable law(s) below, bothways.
code- you are 100 percent correct- "KICKING" MEANS "MOVING" THE BALL AT A RESTART Question: In an indirect free kick, does the attacking player running over and stepping on the ball by put the ball in play? Many teams I play against use this technique in the indirect free kick. The second touch is then shot straight at the goal. I argued that the ball did not move so it was not in play. Therefore a goal from the second touch should not be allowed. After the game the opposing argument went to the point that any touch on the ball would result in some amount of movement of the ball. The ball may rock back and forth on the ground. The wall of the ball may be compressed and move by the touch. I interpreted the law as, the referee should be able to see the movement, not theorize about it. I was told this is a very controversial topic and is not clear. Is there a basic way to clear up the answer? Are there discussions online where I could read more? The link below seems to agree with my argument? http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=25 The ball must move a perceptible distance from "here" to "there" to be considered in play through a kick. If the "kicker" only steps on top of the ball and does not kick it, and therefore the ball has NOT moved from "here" to "there," the kick was not properly taken and must be repeated. It is not a cautionable offense. Answer (October 18, 2010): The ball has to be KICKED in any free kick restart. Not stomped on or blown at or headed, but KICKED. In addition to be being kicked, it has to move somewhere, going from here to there, just as we say in all our publications, and most specifically in the USSF publication "Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game," which can be downloaded from this site at http://www.ussoccer.com/Referees/Resource-Center/Zone-1.aspx . Unfortunately, too many referees allow the silly tricks of simply touching the ball, rather than kicking and moving it as required by Law 8 (the movement at the kick-off be "forward"), Law 13, Law 14 (the movement at the penalty kick must be "forward"), and Law 16. These referees are wrong, but the allow players to continue to do it incorrectly.
It's pretty clear that the ball has to be kicked with the foot in order to be put into play, but the laws seem to be quiet on what to do when the ball is moved by some other method other then the foot. We would have to assume that since the ball has not been put into play, then it would be a re-take. Ah but now the PK situation, one of the few times where an infringement before the ball is put into play can result in a change of the restart. But I think that this could qualify as a feint, and would apply the laws accordingly.
How is it a "feint"? I'm actually a bit torn on how I would handle on a PK. First option is to rule that the ball was not kicked and therefore is simply not in play (Law 14: "the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves forward") and must be retaken. And if I'm essentially giving the smart @$$ a retake, he's also getting a caution for delaying the restart. But an argument might be made that the same logic that applies to a ball kicked backwards or the wrong kicker taking the kick (which the 2006 Q&A referred to as "considered to be an infringement of the procedure in Law 14") and rule that heading the ball, just like kicking the ball backwards, is an infringement of the procedure in Law 14 that results in an automatic IFK for the defending team. This is going out a bit on a limb as it not directly supported by any guidance, but it does seem conceptually consistent with the guidance on kicked bacrwarrds or kicked by the wrong player.
I'm with SoCal on being torn as to whether this is the correct procedure on a PK, though I totally see where you are coming from. I know the "backheel" is specifically mentioned as it supersedes the put into play properly principle and becomes and IFK. I don't know if a ball headed or kneed or anything would also follow along with this. This would be an interesting case to send up to US Soccer for a ruling.
Given the way the play unfolded I don't see how the referee would have been able to get to a quick whistle. I think the ball isn't in play so you have to retake it along with a very stern talking-to. Now the IFAB will have to issue some equally ridiculous statement on handling the situation. I wonder what it is about players that makes them try to come up with as many ways as possible to circumvent the LotG.
The ball must be kicked. The ball is not in play from the header. The restart is not a retake; the kick was never taken in the first place. If this were a penalty kick, the same logic would apply. The IFK restart only applies if the kick is subsequently taken after the infringement. In this scenario, there is an infringement, but the kick was not subsequently taken. It doesn't matter which player commits an infringement, the restart must remain PK.
Yes. My language was sloppy. Not 100% correct, which is my point. The 206 Q&A, which is captured in the ATR, says that if a PK is kicked backwards it as an IFK regardless of what else happens, even though the ball was never in play because a PK is not in play until it is kicked forward. Nonetheless, IFAB ruled that as an infringement of the procedure of Law 14, it warranted an IFK -- tossing aside the general proposition that a restart cannot change if the ball is not put in play. That, along with the wrong player taking the kick, have been singled out for special treatment and automatic IFK for the defending team, presumably because they are perceived as sufficiently egregious affronts to the nature of a PK that the PK is forfeited. So where's the dividing line? Are those the only two possible exceptions? Or is there a guiding principal that can be applied in other similar situations? And if so, is this, heading the ball on a PK, also a sufficient affront to the game that it should be treated akin to the other two?
so on the head free kick restart, are we making him do it again what if he fell and used his head or used his hand- if he used his hand, is it a handling offense, or is it a retake, since the ball was never put back into play what is he or she does this at a corner?
If the ball is not in play, it's not in play. If you get fed up with the antics you can always caution for USB or perhaps DRS. There was a video clip discussed here not too long ago where the taker of a free kick slipped, fell and knocked the ball forward with his knee. The other side took possession and scored. The consensus here was that the goal should have been called back, because — the ball was never properly put into play.
IDFK: Player 1 puts his foot on the ball (not moving it as defined above), Player 2 kicks the ball to Player 3. Do we just ignore the touch from Player 1 and classify the touch by Player 2 as the "second touch", or do we still have to bring it back for an incorrect restart?
Thanks. Just wanted the clarification. "Player 2 getting second touch" was a typo, obviously meant P3. I'd 'Rep' you, but this forum is a piece of shit and only shows the button to me when it feels like it.
I think were this to happen the players from the other team would come at the ball the moment they thought it was touched. I've learned that even though USSF has these special rules about how to put the ball into play with a kicking motion to avoid "trickery" the other team is seldom confused. To me that's the crux of the issue, if the opponents aren't confused with the ball being put into play, then let's play.