IFK's in Penalty Box

[VincentNC]

Hi -- I'm preparing a presentation of the LOTG for folks new to the game. In particular, I'm looking for a list of the scenarios where the attacking team would have and IFK either just on the penalty box line or inside the box (i.e. goalkeeper holds the ball > 6 seconds, defender plays the ball back to keeper who uses his hands, etc). Can anyone please add to the list of these scenarios where an IFK can occur inside the penalty box by the offensive team.

Thanks.

Vincent

[tmaker]

I'm sure you're aware of how very seldom you'll even see IFKs at all. Barring offsides calls, it is highly rare to see one, especially inside the box. But you're quite right to think about keeper violations, since there are five IFK situations that involve the keeper, only one of which goes against the offense (preventing the keeper from releasing the ball). The other two, dangerous play and obstruction, are unusual at best, but it shouldn't be too hard to generate scenarios of these.

1) A defender tries to clear the ball from the box with a scissors kick, right next to the face of an attacking player;
2) A defender tries to head the ball away from a level below the knee of a rushing striker about to kick the ball in;
3) A defender impedes an attacker's progress toward goal by cutting between the attacker and the ball, with no attempt to play the ball itself;
4) On a direct free kick restart from outside the box at 25 yards or so, a keeper obstructs an attacker in order to prevent him heading in the ball, no contact being made with the player himself

...and so on.

[nsa]

A defender punches his goalkeeper on the goal line. If you stop play to send off the defender for VC, then the restart would be an IFK.

BTW - it is called the penalty area.

[Begin math lesson]
A box is a three-dimensional container!
[End math lesson]

[Ref Flunkie]

I must disagree about the fact that these rarely happen, especially in youth matches. However, it looks like the major ones have been listed so far. Dangerous play is probably the most frequent one that is run into next to the goalkeeper infractions.

[Caesar]

In the situation you describe,the following situations could occur in the PA, and are penalised with a IFK:

- GK handles ball for more than 6 seconds
- GK handles ball after he has released it from his posession and another player hasn't touched it
- GK handles the ball after it has been deliberately kicked to him by another player
- GK handles the ball after he has directly recieved it from a teammate's throw-in
- A defender plays in a dangerous manner
- A defender impedes the progress of an opponent
- A defender commits an offence for which the referee has to stop to administer punishment, for which a DFK restart is not appropriate (eg Violent Conduct)

A IFK is also awarded against a player if he prevents the opposing GK from releasing the ball. I would, however, like to see a player do this while standing in his own PA - I'm going to make a safe bet it doesn't apply here :D.

[stillgreyhound]

allow me to add:
An otherwise legal tackle committed not in the vicinity of the ball.

[Jeff from Michigan]

A defender punches his goalkeeper on the goal line. If you stop play to send off the defender for VC, then the restart would be an IFK.

BTW - it is called the penalty area.

[Begin math lesson]
A box is a three-dimensional container!
[End math lesson]

I'm not sure that it advances the understanding of soccer to import the protocols and lack of sensibilities of the Political Corretness movement to a referee message board.

If you want to call it the "Penalty Area," nobody will complain about it....though to be honest, I susepct that very few people will be impressed. If others prefer the more colloquial term, a gracious debater will simply let it pass. We know what he's talking about...and in some parts of the country, that' s simply what people call it.

[billf]

allow me to add:
An otherwise legal tackle committed not in the vicinity of the ball.

I don't understand this one.

[stillgreyhound]

from the atr:
12.22 CHARGING AN OPPONENT AWAY FROM THE BALL
A player who charges an opponent in an otherwise legal manner (i.e., not carelessly, recklessly, or
with excessive force) but with the ball not within playing distance has infringed the Law. Such an "off
the ball" charge is considered a form of impeding the progress of an opponent (even though contact
has occurred) and is thus penalized with an indirect free kick restart for the opposing team. If the
referee considers the charge to be careless, reckless, or involving excessive force, the restart is a direct
free kick.

[Caesar]

allow me to add:
An otherwise legal tackle committed not in the vicinity of the ball.
This is covered under the sixth point I listed, please see my original post.

This point merely indicates a situation to which USSF's interpretation of the foul of impedance applies. It is ancilliary, not an independant offence.

This interpretation should not be considered binding outside the US, although it is indicative and a useful guide.

[IASocFan]

allow me to add:
An otherwise legal tackle committed not in the vicinity of the ball.

If you aren't tackling the ball, what are you tackling? American football tackles probably come under misconduct, and probably include pushing and/or holding.

[stillgreyhound]

This is covered under the sixth point I listed, please see my original post.

This point merely indicates a situation to which USSF's interpretation of the foul of impedance applies. It is ancilliary, not an independant offence.

This interpretation should not be considered binding outside the US, although it is indicative and a useful guide.]
Carefull study of the ATR(I keep it next to the porcelain throne) showes that while impeding usually does NOT involve contact the foul I described above most certainly does which is why I thought it important to highlight..I am a bloody yank so I live and die by the ATR...........mostly ;)

[Caesar]

]
Carefull study of the ATR(I keep it next to the porcelain throne) showes that while impeding usually does NOT involve contact the foul I described above most certainly does which is why I thought it important to highlight..I am a bloody yank so I live and die by the ATR...........mostly ;)
Nonetheless it's still an interpretation on the fundamental foul of impedance... not a new foul. Just being pedantic :D.

[stillgreyhound]

Nonetheless it's still an interpretation on the fundamental foul of impedance... not a new foul. Just being pedantic :D.I have been accused of that in the past. Although not with the actual word pedantic......I have to admit I went to the dictionary to look that one up.

[whipple]

If you aren't tackling the ball, what are you tackling? American football tackles probably come under misconduct, and probably include pushing and/or holding.

While both a "tackle" and a "charge" are methods of challenging, a "tackle" normally refers to dispossessing an opponent of the ball with one's feet, and legally contacting only the ball, whereas a "charge" is uses the body to disposses the opponent, by forcing them away from the ball. It would, therefore, be difficult to tackle an opponent off the ball, though it could be tripping or kicking, both fouls where the restart is a DFK, whereas if the opponent did not have the ball, he could still be charged in an otherwise legal manner, and the restart would be an IFK.

Yes, I know it is nit-picky, but it has been that kind of day.

Sherman

[But Referee]

If others prefer the more colloquial term, a gracious debater will simply let it pass.

If one is a gracious debater, is that one step closer to the enlightened position of Master Debater?

"A flute with no holes, is not a flute....and a donut with no holes, is a danish"
Basha, Zen philosopher , as quoted by Ty Webb, Caddyshack

[Caesar]

If one is a gracious debater, is that one step closer to the enlightened position of Master Debater?

"A flute with no holes, is not a flute....and a donut with no holes, is a danish"
Basha, Zen philosopher , as quoted by Ty Webb, Caddyshack
It was hardly a material fact that you were correcting, rather a matter of insignificant semantics.

[nsa]

I'm not sure that it advances the understanding of soccer to import the protocols and lack of sensibilities of the Political Corretness movement to a referee message board. ...
Jeff, it also doesn't help to be void of a sense of humour.

Perhaps I should have sprinkled around a few more smilies for those with a rigid object input their output. :)

At least I contributed a valid example to the initial question. ;)

[But Referee]

It was hardly a material fact that you were correcting, rather a matter of insignificant semantics.

"Lighten up Francis"
Sgt. Hulka, Stripes

[stillgreyhound]

"Lighten up Francis"
Sgt. Hulka, Stripes
Laugh it up, fuzzball!
Han Solo, Star Wars