Legal Restart?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by swoot, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. swoot

    swoot Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States


  2. billf

    billf Member+

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    Collingswood NJ
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Country:
    United States
    Yes it was put into play legally.
  3. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Location:
    Mesa, Arizona
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Country:
    United States
    The first time I clicked this link, up came a video of a dog and a cat fighting over a cheeseburger. Seriously. Hahaha.

    Really, the player who took the kick, in hindsight, should have intentionally second touched, preferably by kicking the ball over the goal line, so that his team could have a chance to recover defensively.
  4. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Two things on this. It wasn't put into play with a foot, and the other players didn't seem to care. So, you have two choices. Call it back immediately or let it go as trifling. If you weren't looking for it, the play might be one of those where you see it but it really doesn't register in your brain as an incorrect restart until the player is going the other way with the ball. By the letter of the law, the play was not restarted.


  5. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Don't we already have a thread on this very play?
  6. campbed

    campbed Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    The ball was not put in play (kicked and moves) from OUR view.

    The referee had his view blocked by the body of the sliding kicker, and looks like he determined that it was kicked. So, that is all that matters. (Did his plant foot kick the ball? Looks it, away we go...)

    Law 5 says if the referee says it was kicked, then it was kicked. Right?
  7. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    I don't think so, but it's been flogged to death on SOCREF-L. I think the consensus there was no, it was not in play (i.e., "kicked" means "with the foot"), and should have been whistled, but the no-call was what the players expected.
  8. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
  9. Scrabbleship

    Scrabbleship Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    Easy to miss, it's a badly titled thread.
  10. ChomskyReferee

    ChomskyReferee Red Card

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    I'm bringing this thread back up because there's a new video I haven't seen discussed on here.



    Now it seems the argument with the original video is that the ball is in play. Law 13 states that the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves which is why I would call back the video I posted and tell them they need to kick it. I was thinking about these two situations and I came up with another, a keeper in his own penalty area using his hand to punch a ball into play while taking a free kick. I came to the conclusion that just because you are allowed to use a part of your body to play the ball, does not mean you are allowed to use it to put the ball back into play, especially when the Law uses certain terminology. Just like on a thrown in, I can "throw" a ball with my elbow, won't make it legal under the law.

    I think that in the case of both videos (granted if the referee has a clear view) they must both be called back as the ball has not been put into play legally. Any thoughts?
  11. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Doesn't say what order. It seems the criteria are satisfied.
  12. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    In the US at least it has been discussed many times over that "kicked" means with the foot. Both the slipping video from another thread and this one where he heads the ball should have resulted in re-kicks since the ball was not properly put into play. The real question which we never figured out is if this applies on a PK, where there is already a specific exception to the retake principle if the ball is kicked backwards.
  13. bothways

    bothways Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    forgive me for not explicitly stating the title of the thread!! it was meant to be humorous and get attention.
  14. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006

    Pretty sure that was china or somethin, judging from the announcers. They go by FIFA rules. The USSF interpretations are specious.

    Please show where the laws say the ball has to be kicked before it moves. The LOTG as written by FIFA do NOT specify an order that I can see. The ball moved and was kicked.

    And the referee thought so too, apparently.
  15. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    Don't the laws provide that a FK must be taken from the point of the infraction, and that the ball must be settled before it's kicked?
  16. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006

    Doesn't help. The ball was settled, even before the guy headed it.
  17. ChomskyReferee

    ChomskyReferee Red Card

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    "The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves."

    Is the very first requirement on Law 13 from the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees off of FIFA.com . Kicked means with the foot, I don't think anyone could argue that.

    Edit. Also by the way the very next requirement is "A free kick can be taken by lifting the ball with a foot or both feet simultaneously."
  18. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    It wasn't settled after he headed it, and neither was it in play.
  19. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I was going to post this but thank you for proving the point the point I was going to make. So in all instances this is not properly put into play.
  20. Yale

    Yale Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    You're joking, right? That means that no opponent can touch it between the time it is “moved” and the time it is kicked. If that's the case, why not just pick up the ball and “move” it to the opponent's goal line, and then “kick” it into the net?
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    Cliveworshipper, by your logic, the ball was not in play when it was headed. It was only in play once it was subsequently kicked, as both the "kicked" and "moved" portions of that clause need to be satisfied. You don't see the problems with that?

    First, since the ball hasn't been put into play when it is headed, anyone rushing in at that point from the 10-yard distance is not respecting the distance and subject to a caution. Second, what would the result be if a player somehow found a way to head the ball directly into the net from a DFK? Your reading of that clause creates a new sort of IFK, but one where the defenders cannot attack the ball until the second touch. If this were a viable option, why haven't teams exploited it? You'd be able to create momentum and circumvent established walls, as the defenders would be frozen to their position.

    The "and moved" portion of that text replaced the requirement that every restart must travel one circumference of the ball before there could be a second touch. I presume you're debating in good faith, but you're wrong here. Free kicks have to be kicked to be put into play properly.

    And the referee missed this/got it wrong because it's such an unusual and perplexing situation. I had to think twice--and for more than a few seconds--to be sure what the proper restart would be. This is one of those things that, in the heat of the moment, can easily get botched, so saying it's allowed because the referee allowed it here is not a strong argument.
  22. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    Page 41: "The ball is in play when it is kicked and moves."

    Okay, so you say that the ball is in play when it is first moved, and then subsequently kicked. But...

    Page 40: "For both direct and indirect free kicks, the ball must be stationary when the kick is taken."

    So by your logic, the player who took the second touch should have waited for the ball to stop rolling, then this would have been legal. Except that...

    Page 41: "The free kick is taken from the place where the infringement occurred or from the position of the ball when the infringement occurred (according to the infringement)."

    The ball is put in play a few yards away from the infringement, and this is not at all trifling, since it affects the placement of the defensive players attempting to defend the free kick. Perhaps you can let it go if the player heading the ball didn't actually move the ball, but are you really going to put up with that for 90 minutes?

Share This Page