Corner Kick Trickery (Again)

[refontherun]

We've talked about this before, and as I recall, the general opinion was that this type action is pretty inane, but I had an incident last night that I would like some opinions on from a legality point of view.

U12B match. Team is awarded a corner kick. One attacker runs to retreive the ball. Just as he is placing the ball in the corner, I turn my head to observe the penalty area and spot my AR. As I'm doing this, I hear the coach instruct a different player to take the kick. By the time I look back to the corner, the first player is running away from the corner toward the front of the goal. At this stage, I am about eight feet from the corner where this all occurred.

The coach says "Ref, the balls been touched", then, as the second player is adjusting the ball with his foot (which I did not consider as the restart), the coach also tells his player, "The balls been touched." The player looks up with a "huh???":confused: look, and the coach repeats himself. The second player then says "oh, okay" and begins to dribble out of the corner toward the goal. I blew the whistle for the double touch and awarded an IDFK to the defending team.

Without going into my reasoning for making this judgement, I'm curious to know how others think they would handle the same situation regardless of the players' ages.

[boylanj64]

Well, a few things. If I don't see it, it's not touched. I'd have loudly said, "no, it wasn't touched," and possibly declared it will be a ceremonial restart.

Also, the coach ordering another player to take the corner, clearly with the intention of playing an already touched ball, constitutes a form of trickery from the bench, IMO.

[jkuterba]

Correct to call the IFK for defending team. You are ambiguous about the coaches though. Which coach was saying "the ball's been touched"? was it the attacking team's coach or the defending team? If it was the attacking team's coach that's just poor coaching on his part. If the defending coach said that, you might want to say "The ball has not been kicked and moved, so it is not in play yet". At that young an age, a statement like that might help. With older kids, U14 etc, it's their own fault for screwing up.

[Rufusabc]

If the players are talking I'm fine with it, and if it's the coach I'm not fine with it. But if you didnt see it kicked the first time, you are well within your rights to blow the whistle. You can always tell the coach, "Your tricked play worked, it tricked me."

R

[PVancouver]

Well, all four of you are saying an infraction should be called when, in fact, you have absolutely no idea if an infraction actually took place, and, considering the circumstances, probably didn't occur. I don't see how you can make this call.

At best, in the spirit of the game, you could claim, probably falsely or without actual knowledge, that the restart was not proper (ball wasn't stationary, in the correct spot, or wasn't kicked), and have the corner kick retaken.

[ref2coach]

Well, all four of you are saying an infraction should be called when, in fact, you have absolutely no idea if an infraction actually took place, and, considering the circumstances, probably didn't occur. I don't see how you can make this call.

Paul you are wrong. When the 2nd player in touched it the 2nd time in the dribble is was a violation. The poster stated he turned away. He called the play he did see.

[campbed]

Sounds simple enough assuming in both cases the "coach" was the attacking coach.

Trickery from the bench/coach, IDK coming out. It matters not how the play was executed.

If you did see the play unfold, and the players did it on their own, the ball was kicked and moved from here to there in your opinion, play on!

You'll get to know coaches that have this play in their playbook, and learn to expect/watch for this legal (when properly executed) play. We have a coach in our area who uses this play periodically in Region1 and Academy play.

[IASocFan]

Sounds simple enough assuming in both cases the "coach" was the attacking coach.

Trickery from the bench/coach, IDK coming out. It matters not how the play was executed.

If you did see the play unfold, and the players did it on their own, the ball was kicked and moved from here to there in your opinion, play on!

You'll get to know coaches that have this play in their playbook, and learn to expect/watch for this legal (when properly executed) play. We have a coach in our area who uses this play periodically in Region1 and Academy play.

I've seen this play in Iowa, so if you haven't seen it, be ready. I haven't seen a score off of it, but some good chances!

And I agree with Campbed's analysis (and others).

[PVancouver]

Even if you wanted to call "trickery" on this play, which is so poorly defined as to be practically meaningless IMO, I don't see how you can make such a call.

U12B match. Team is awarded a corner kick. One attacker runs to retreive the ball. Just as he is placing the ball in the corner, I turn my head to observe the penalty area and spot my AR.

The ball is being placed in the corner. ROTR turns and looks away from the corner.

As I'm doing this, I hear the coach instruct a different player to take the kick.

If he did this after the kick had presumably been taken, and then later insisted that the corner kick had been taken, I would agree that trickery, or at least deceit, was in play here.

By the time I look back to the corner, the first player is running away from the corner toward the front of the goal. At this stage, I am about eight feet from the corner where this all occurred.

Terrific. ROTR has no idea if the ball has already been legally put into play. All he knows is that the second player is running over to presumably take the corner.

The coach says "Ref, the balls been touched", then, as the second player is adjusting the ball with his foot (which I did not consider as the restart), the coach also tells his player, "The balls been touched." The player looks up with a "huh???":confused: look, and the coach repeats himself. The second player then says "oh, okay" and begins to dribble out of the corner toward the goal. I blew the whistle for the double touch and awarded an IDFK to the defending team.

I assume here that the "coach" is the attacking coach, and that when he said "the balls been touched", he meant by the first player who had initially brought the ball over to take the corner, and who subsequently left it for the second player (intentionally putting the ball in play, or not). If he was referring to the second player, then he sealed his own grave, so to speak. While ROTR thought the second player was "adjusting the ball with his foot", he was actually dribbling an in-play ball, intentionally making it appear as if he was adjusting the ball with his foot. Or not intentionally, since he either really didn't know that the ball was already in play, or was a very good actor. It would be difficult to determine who to caution on such a play.

[PVancouver]

Trickery from the bench/coach, IDK coming out. It matters not how the play was executed.

If you did see the play unfold, and the players did it on their own, the ball was kicked and moved from here to there in your opinion, play on!

Why does it make a difference whether the players do it on their own or not?

[refontherun]

Sounds simple enough assuming in both cases the "coach" was the attacking coach.

Trickery from the bench/coach, IDK coming out. It matters not how the play was executed.

If you did see the play unfold, and the players did it on their own, the ball was kicked and moved from here to there in your opinion, play on!

You'll get to know coaches that have this play in their playbook, and learn to expect/watch for this legal (when properly executed) play. We have a coach in our area who uses this play periodically in Region1 and Academy play.

It was the attacking coach.

My thinking at the time was, if neither the second player nor I knew the ball had been kicked and moved when that player approached it, it was not in play. The coach's input was irrelevant.

[code1390]

Why does it make a difference whether the players do it on their own or not?

Its fine for the players to do it, but the coach can't tell someone else to take it when he's trying to deceive the other team.

[PVancouver]

It was the attacking coach.

My thinking at the time was, if neither the second player nor I knew the ball had been kicked and moved when that player approached it, it was not in play. The coach's input was irrelevant.

So, while the coach might have been correct in that the ball, technically, had been legally put into play, you are going to decide that, despite not seeing the play, that this coach was incorrect.

But you are willing to nail his player for a second touch when he doesn't have any direct knowledge of whether the ball should be considered to be in play or not, and plays it as if it is in play.

While technically correct, assuming the ball was already in the corner arc when he began adjusting it or it came to a complete stop while he was adjusting it, it just doesn't make any sense to me to call this infraction. If the player himself doesn't even know he is taking a corner, how can you call him for a corner kick violation? And if the ball had been legally put into play already, then your call is still technically incorrect.

Suppose you were alert to the play and you realized that the first attacker had legally put the ball into play, and you would allow the second attacker to dribble it toward goal. But the second attacker isn't aware of what is supposed to be happening and picks the ball up to place it in the corner arc. Would you call handling? I would not.

With corner kicks, the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt.

[refmedic]

Ugh!! I was hoping that this issue had died a quick death, but alas, here it is again.

Trickery from the bench? Hardly. Is there any such thing? IMO, that is a coach who is coaching his players. Coaches are allowed to give tactical instructions from the technical area. If this way of taking a corner kick is a tactic (a tactic which is completely lawful) that the team uses, then giving his players instructions on that tactic is perfectly fine. There is also a problem with the use of the idea of trickery here. Trickery (to circumvent the law) is a cautionable offense under UB. Coaches cannot be guilty of UB, or any other cautional offense for that matter, under the LOTG. THe only person that could be guilty of trickery to circumvent the law here is one of the players.

The problem with this, though, is that the idea of trickery, as it relates to UB, is to punish a player who tries to circumvent the laws, which no one here did. IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR A PLAYER OR TEAM TO TRICK OR ATTEMPT TO TRICK THEIR OPPONENT!!!! It is not legal to circumvent the law by way of trickery, as in flicking the ball to yourself with the foot and heading it back to the GK.

The ball is in play from a CK when it is kicked (played with the foot) and moves. After that, it's in play, and free to anyone. Just because the other team doesn't know the ball is in play doesn't mean that it's not in play. Also, just because the referee doesn't know the ball is in play doesn't mean it's not in play. Just because you didn't see the player touch the ball doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're reason for calling this first touch a "no touch" would correlate to you telling a player who was laying on the ground bleeding from the face that the punch didn't happen because you didn't see it happen. That is patently false. IMO, you robbed a team of a perfectly legal restart and attacking opportunity.

I have never understood the propensity of referees to classify anything that they feel dosen't loot right to be "trickery". "Trickery" in our game is a very specific thing. There are things that we see on the field that don't look right. That doesn't mean that they are automatically illegal. In fact, if the only thing that you can come up with is trickery, then let it go. If it was a serious breach, you would know instantly and be able to come up with a better reason than trickery. There is a huge difference between a trick and trickery. Tricks to fool an opponent are fine. Trickery to circumvent the laws is not fine, and RARELY happens. Trickery to circumvent the laws is not what you have here. You manufactured a reason to stop something that you didn't like, even though it's not illegal.

If you are going to even think about using "trickery" to stop this cornedr kick, there is only one question that you have to ask yourself. What law did that player circumvent, or attempt to circumvent by way of trickery. Here you had a player who tried to trick their opponent by "technically" putting the ball into play without their opponent knowing about it in order to gain an advantage. Think about the last time you watched a college or professional baseball team perform some stupid little league trick to pick someone off at first base. They weren't cheating, they were tricking their opponent, and I usually smile when I see something like that work. The only reason that the coach told you that the ball was touched was to make sure that you didn't make the mistake that you ultimately ended up making despite his attempts to help you.

[boylanj64]

Ugh!! I was hoping that this issue had died a quick death, but alas, here it is again.

Trickery from the bench? Hardly. Is there any such thing? IMO, that is a coach who is coaching his players. ... {snip}

I think you miss what I considered trickery - the coach directed his player to go to the corner and take the kick. He did not initially say it was in play, even though he clearly believed it was. Therefore, I would view his words as having been intended to deceive the opposition - it is one thing to give directions, another to participate in deception from the bench.

I don't consider the subtle corner to be trickery, but rather the coaches words; he isn't a player, he can't participate in trickery, legal or not. I probably would have ordered it to be ceremonial anyway after the confusion and if neither I nor my AR saw a touch.

[refontherun]

So, while the coach might have been correct in that the ball, technically, had been legally put into play, you are going to decide that, despite not seeing the play, that this coach was incorrect.

But you are willing to nail his player for a second touch when he doesn't have any direct knowledge of whether the ball should be considered to be in play or not, and plays it as if it is in play.

While technically correct, assuming the ball was already in the corner arc when he began adjusting it or it came to a complete stop while he was adjusting it, it just doesn't make any sense to me to call this infraction. If the player himself doesn't even know he is taking a corner, how can you call him for a corner kick violation? And if the ball had been legally put into play already, then your call is still technically incorrect.

Suppose you were alert to the play and you realized that the first attacker had legally put the ball into play, and you would allow the second attacker to dribble it toward goal. But the second attacker isn't aware of what is supposed to be happening and picks the ball up to place it in the corner arc. Would you call handling? I would not.

With corner kicks, the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt.

Even if I had been aware of the touch by the first player, if I felt that the second player was not, I would proceed as if the first touch had not occurred. If the second attacker had taken the kick, even after adjusting the ball with his foot, I would have allowed play to continue.

Even if the player had adjusted the ball using his hands, I would have done nothing other than allow the kick to proceed. That would just make even more clear that the player had no idea the ball had been put into play (kicked and moved) by his teammate. As long as he took the kick legally from that point. I think that would be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Just for the record, given the apparent lack of knowledge of the "trickery" (perhaps a poor choice of words) and the intervention by the coach, a caution to the players would be harsh. The coach and I would have a polite chat after the game.

[Ref Flunkie]

I think you miss what I considered trickery - the coach directed his player to go to the corner and take the kick. He did not initially say it was in play, even though he clearly believed it was. Therefore, I would view his words as having been intended to deceive the opposition - it is one thing to give directions, another to participate in deception from the bench.

I don't consider the subtle corner to be trickery, but rather the coaches words; he isn't a player, he can't participate in trickery, legal or not. I probably would have ordered it to be ceremonial anyway after the confusion and if neither I nor my AR saw a touch.

Bingo. If he saw his player take the initial "touch" and then called another player over to "take the corner", then he is deceiving the opposition and should be dealt with.

[o5iiawah]

Ugh!! I was hoping that this issue had died a quick death, but alas, here it is again.

Trickery from the bench? Hardly. Is there any such thing? IMO, that is a coach who is coaching his players. Coaches are allowed to give tactical instructions from the technical area. If this way of taking a corner kick is a tactic (a tactic which is completely lawful) that the team uses, then giving his players instructions on that tactic is perfectly fine. There is also a problem with the use of the idea of trickery here. Trickery (to circumvent the law) is a cautionable offense under UB. Coaches cannot be guilty of UB, or any other cautional offense for that matter, under the LOTG. THe only person that could be guilty of trickery to circumvent the law here is one of the players.

The problem with this, though, is that the idea of trickery, as it relates to UB, is to punish a player who tries to circumvent the laws, which no one here did. IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR A PLAYER OR TEAM TO TRICK OR ATTEMPT TO TRICK THEIR OPPONENT!!!! It is not legal to circumvent the law by way of trickery, as in flicking the ball to yourself with the foot and heading it back to the GK.

The ball is in play from a CK when it is kicked (played with the foot) and moves. After that, it's in play, and free to anyone. Just because the other team doesn't know the ball is in play doesn't mean that it's not in play. Also, just because the referee doesn't know the ball is in play doesn't mean it's not in play. Just because you didn't see the player touch the ball doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're reason for calling this first touch a "no touch" would correlate to you telling a player who was laying on the ground bleeding from the face that the punch didn't happen because you didn't see it happen. That is patently false. IMO, you robbed a team of a perfectly legal restart and attacking opportunity.

I have never understood the propensity of referees to classify anything that they feel dosen't loot right to be "trickery". "Trickery" in our game is a very specific thing. There are things that we see on the field that don't look right. That doesn't mean that they are automatically illegal. In fact, if the only thing that you can come up with is trickery, then let it go. If it was a serious breach, you would know instantly and be able to come up with a better reason than trickery. There is a huge difference between a trick and trickery. Tricks to fool an opponent are fine. Trickery to circumvent the laws is not fine, and RARELY happens. Trickery to circumvent the laws is not what you have here. You manufactured a reason to stop something that you didn't like, even though it's not illegal.

If you are going to even think about using "trickery" to stop this cornedr kick, there is only one question that you have to ask yourself. What law did that player circumvent, or attempt to circumvent by way of trickery. Here you had a player who tried to trick their opponent by "technically" putting the ball into play without their opponent knowing about it in order to gain an advantage. Think about the last time you watched a college or professional baseball team perform some stupid little league trick to pick someone off at first base. They weren't cheating, they were tricking their opponent, and I usually smile when I see something like that work. The only reason that the coach told you that the ball was touched was to make sure that you didn't make the mistake that you ultimately ended up making despite his attempts to help you.

Well think of it this way, if on a corner, an attacker put the ball in position with his feet, and then lost his bottle for another player to take the kick, you'd allow it and certainly wouldn't consider it moved. Technically, the ball was kicked and moved and by the letter of the law, a defender could run up and steal the ball as well but you'd probably card him for DRST.

If the 2nd player ends up swinging a corner into the box, then no harm has been done. If he starts to dribble, then he should be guilty of using trickery, to circumvent L17

I think we would react the same way if we awarded an IFK 20 yards from goal, a player positioned it with his foot and another ran up and blasted it untouched into the goal

[Gary V]

Coaches are allowed to give tactical instructions to their team. The tactical instruction was the coach telling another player to take the corner kick. If the coach then wants to claim that the first player actually took the kick, then he is no longer acting in a responsible manner and should be dealt with accordingly.

The referee must also pay attention to Advice 13.5. It is the referee who decides when a ball has been put into play and when it has merely been repositioned for the restart. If the team is so tricky that they fool the referee who believes the ball was only repositioned, then they will suffer the consequences of their trick play.

[PVancouver]

Coaches are allowed to give tactical instructions to their team. The tactical instruction was the coach telling another player to take the corner kick. If the coach then wants to claim that the first player actually took the kick, then he is no longer acting in a responsible manner and should be dealt with accordingly.

The referee must also pay attention to Advice 13.5. It is the referee who decides when a ball has been put into play and when it has merely been repositioned for the restart. If the team is so tricky that they fool the referee who believes the ball was only repositioned, then they will suffer the consequences of their trick play.

I don't disagree but in this case, the order of events is unknown. It could have been "2nd player, go take the kick", 1st player kicks it, "ref, the ball was kicked".

If it was 1st player kicks it, "2nd player, go take the kick", "ref, the ball was kicked", which is what you are implying, I wouldn't call it trickery, I would call it idiocy. Why should a referee listen to a coach who so obviously contradicted himself?