I'm on board with everyone but was surprised to read in both LOTG and Interp. of LOTG that it is clear that charging occurs within playing distance to the ball and impeding occurs outside PD. Does not give qualifications. It is only in the ATR that says we can call "charging" away from the ball and therefore upgrade a hard physical challenge away from the ball from "impeding", to a "charge". Is there a discrepancy here?
No. It is specified that for an off-the-ball charge to be punished as an impeding foul, the charge must otherwise be fair (i.e. not careless, reckless, or excessive). If the charge is careless, reckless, or excessive, the charge is, by definition, a charging foul.
Oh ya, sure I got that part. What I was referring to is playing distance... LOTG states that a charge occurs within playing distance, and impeding occurs outside of playing distance, with no qualifications. It do not see where it says anywhere that we can call for a charging foul when the ball is outside the playing distance. I believe only the ATR instructs us so.
LOTG does not require that the ball be within playing distance for a charging foul to occur. "A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offenses in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless, or using excessive force: ... charges an opponent"
Oops, I meant the interpretations of the LOTG, that defines the terms: The act of charging is a challenge for space using physical contact within playing distance of the ball without using arms or elbows. Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. I sure ain't no lawyer, but it seems that the offense that is listed in the LOTG, is defined here as having the requirement of being within playing distance. Don't get me wrong, I'm still calling an unfair charge away from the ball as DFK, just something I noticed as I re-read it before I was going to post a comment on this thread that caught me off guard.
You do have an out, pushing is one of the DFK offenses. So "charge" while not within playing distance is a push
Please drop "unfair charge" from your vocabulary. You have to decide what made it unfair, and that determines the restart. If it is withing playing distance of the ball, it is either nothing (a legal charge) as described in the I&G, or if it is careless/reckelss/with excessive force is it a DFK for charging. If it is not within playing distance it is (a) nothing/trifling, (b) an IFK (for impeding because it is other wise legal as a charge), or (c) a DFK if it is C/R/EF (who the &*$# cares whehter you call it charging on pushing - we don't have to signal anything besides DFK). But it doesn't work to say that if it is "unfair" it is a DFK -- both (b) and (c) are unfair, but have different results. All that said, I've still never seen something in a game I've called that I felt was a (b) rather than an (a) or a (c). And I don't recall seeing it called in a game I've wathced, either.
If done without the use of arms or hands, "pushes an opponent" is a stretch. Perhaps this is a perfect situation to apply "tackles an opponent." I've never quite understood what "tackles" was for. I still don't understand why the I&G goes to the trouble of limiting "charging" to "within playing distance" in a section that primarily addresses careless/reckless/excessive. Sure, you can get around that provision by calling the offense something else, but why doesn't the I&G let us call an off-the-ball reckless charge a charge? - QC
FWIW, when a foul like this is called in basketball at the high school level, it is supposed to be reported as a push.
Player: What's the call? Ref: Kick Player: I didn't kick 'em, I tripped him. Ref: (to self: WTF cares) It is a direct kick. This. If there is physical contact, go with the DFK. It is not necessary to explain what your call is other than DFK or IFK. Sometimes the less you say, the better. Your actions may be right, but your reasons may be wrong.
Questionable whether either boy would have gotten to the ball. However the ref was clear that the shoulder barge by the defender was from behind the attacker - therefore yellow - reckless. Now in my mind that equates a penalty. An IFK was given from the spot -(middle of the box) about 10 yards from the R goalpost and 10 yards from the end line. Neither coach protested. I think our coach felt we got lucky and the other coach felt no call was better since the barge was questionable. But once a yellow is given in the box I thought PK follows.
NO, no, no, a thousand times no. The question as to whether it is a direct free kick (which becomes a PK in the PA) is whether one of the 10 specific direct free kick fouls in the LOTG have been committed. The ONLY question as to whether there is a PK is whether one of those 10 fouls was committed by the defense in the PA. Whether that offense warrants a caution (yellow card) is entirely irrelevant. (Indeed, albeit in unusual situations, you coudl have a red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity that resulted only in an IFK.) And there are numerous cautionable offenses that coudl take place in the PA that would not involve a PK. In addition to the possibility discussed above, you could have a defender reckelessly playing in a dangerous maner or trickery to circumvent the pass back rules, each of which would involve a caution followed by an IFK.
Interesting Scenario and not sure how to address it. U18 Boys game yesterday, I'm on the line. Attacker and defender both chasing a ball towards the end line. Attacker saves it but momentum takes both players off the field. Goalkeeper is standing on the goal line. The ball bounces off another attacker inside the six and back to the attacker who had run off the field. Defender still off the field of play and GK on end line(both were at contact). I ruled not offside. Ball went out for GK. Thoughts?
That is interesting. Defender and attacker were both still off the field when the ball was played? My guess then is they're both deemed to be on the goal line for offside purposes, and therefore even with each other (and with the keeper who's parked on the line), ergo no offside. Tricky situation! ATR says this: It's silent regarding the attacker similarly situated, but it's hard to see why he would be treated any differently.
Firstly, you did well to keep things simple with the common sense goal kick restart. No need to complicate things with a restart that would have "opinions" attached. Secondly, and ultimately more important, go back to the wording of the law: A player is in an offside position if...he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. Since defenders past their own goal line are deemed to be on the goal line, it is impossible for the attacker to be nearer to it than the defenders.
Don't get around (here) much anymore, but ... U16 Tournament semi-final yesterday, pretty physical, my son's team trailing 4-1 @ HT. We edge back to 4-2, then 4-3 on a PK called for tripping, then, with less than 10 minutes remaining - a first for me, but certainly not a first - an opposing field player reaches down and picks up the ball with his hands, in his own area. A second PK is called, converted, final score 4-4, direct to PKs (tournament rules, field needed for next game). We win 4-2 on PKs and advance to the championship game (where we lost). So what's the question? Does it matter why the player picked up the ball, if it was still in play? He said he heard a whistle, which others heard (from the adjacent field), and there's no reason to dispute that. Our referee had not blown his whistle, had not stopped play in our game, so (I think) he felt forced to call a PK. He actually conferred with both coaches before the PK was taken, and all three agreed that was the proper call. Was any other option available (drop ball, maybe) under these circumstances? If not, was the PK call sufficiently 'unfair' so that we should not have tried to score? And if yes, unfair, should the referee have expressed his opinion and suggested that we not (try to) score the PK? I could go on, but I think that's enough to work with for now. Thanks in advance!
If a whistle from the stands is heard I think there is something about an outside agent and a dropped ball. That might be NFHS though. Unfortunately in tournaments there are many whistles going at once so that excuse I feel can't really be used. Harsh but just my opinion.
That's a tough one! If you know there was a whistle from the other field you and you are sure that contributed to the player picking up the ball you can absolutely sell a drop ball, but it will take a lot of explaining. I know it's abnormal but I really like that you went over to the coaches and the three of you discussed the situation. Now another game with different personalities might not end up with a good outcome, but in glad it worked out for you. Can you tell us what that convo was like?
Sorry if I wasn't clearer, but I was not the ref - just a parent watching my son's game. I agree with the idea of the ref explaining the call to both coaches. Although I was happy that our team advanced, we all felt for the player whose foul was in one sense clearly unintentional.
The ref definitely had the power to determine that a whistle other than his interfered with the game and commence a drop ball restart.
It must be said that the wording says "a spectator" blows a whistle. No reference to a referee on another field, etc., since the Laws don't really contemplate games on multi-field sites. One reason for referees to try to use a different whistle than the guy on the field next to them. If I hear a whistle from a nearby field, I will almost always call out "Not ours! Keep going." or words to that effect. Having said that, why do you need to pick up the ball after a whistle? Yeah, stupid, but, in the long run, we also don't need to encourage defenders who aren't goalkeepers to make saves by picking up the ball and then claiming, "I thought I heard a whistle." Or the parallel situation of a defender who scoops up the ball with both hands, forgetting that she isn't the goalkeeper today. Yes, I've had it happen.