Quick Restart

[chrisrun]

A defender near midfield is under pressure, and makes an errant pass that heads back towards the keeper in his box. The GK picks up the ball, thinking it's not a deliberate pass back, but the ref disagrees. The ref blows the whistle, and the keeper drops the ball, as no one is quite sure what the call is. Two attackers were sprinting after the ball, and after the ref blew the whistle, they quickly set the ball, passed it, and easily scored.

Now the defending team is protesting because they didn't even know what the call was, while the attacking team says it's their right to have a quick restart. How would you handle this situation?

[whitehound]

A defender near midfield is under pressure, and makes an errant pass that heads back towards the keeper in his box. The GK picks up the ball, thinking it's not a deliberate pass back, but the ref disagrees. The ref blows the whistle, and the keeper drops the ball, as no one is quite sure what the call is. Two attackers were sprinting after the ball, and after the ref blew the whistle, they quickly set the ball, passed it, and easily scored.

Now the defending team is protesting because they didn't even know what the call was, while the attacking team says it's their right to have a quick restart. How would you handle this situation?Point to the center circle and get ready for the worst......You should think about the call and the ramifications before you make it.....if you did.....live with it.

[reFnCoach]

Now the defending team is protesting because they didn't even know what the call was, while the attacking team says it's their right to have a quick restart. How would you handle this situation? I'm assuming you're focusing your question on the restart and not whether the call was appropriate one. The attacking team took the restart correctly based on the foul that was called... it's goal!

[Caesar]

First thing you do is check to make sure the recipient of the IFK wasn't offside - which happens more frequently than you'd think in these sorts of situations, with only the 'keeper back.

But everything everyone has already said is correct. You made the call, the attackers took the quick kick that they're entitled to - there's nothing else to it.

[Ref Flunkie]

As long as the ball was positioned correctly and not moving, it has been restarted properly and is a goal. Smart attackers, dumb defenders.

[Gary V]

USWMT scored just such a goal a couple years ago, as the defenders and/or keeper were still arguing the call with the ref.

Players don't have to know "what the call was" - they only need to see what the restart will be. Assuming the ref properly pointed direction of restart and indicated an IFK, the kicking team is free to go when the ball is placed correctly.

As far as the validity of the original "pass-back" call, any ball that is kicked from midfield all the way back to where the keeper can pick it up sounds pretty deliberate to me - not kicked in an errant direction. YHTBT, YMMV.

[HoldenMan]

errant pass - is that a miskick, or a kick that went in the wrong direction?

Only IFK it it was passed deliberately to the keeper.

Apart from that, and assuming all the laws are met, the goal is fine.

I had a situation like that a few months ago. Keeper was standing there whinging, an attacker ran up, put the ball down, slotted it away.

no other person touched it,so goal disallowed. As he said, with a grin, "Hey, I just saw an open goal!"

If it works then I would say this is excellent application of the QFK

[uniteo]

was the recipient of the pass in an onside position (spare the lectures about "onside" not being a word, please)

Good for the attacking team. The refs usually won't let my U-14 team take a quick free kick.

[billf]

Well, errant backpass is a judgement call, but in this situation the referee called a backpass, so hashing out if that was the correct call or not is kind of a moot point. I think what was suggested here is fine, but if there are any doubts about the call, the referee is going to have a really tough go over the rest of the game.

[XYZ]

From the description, a defender near midfield was making a pass under pressure. The defender evidently had possession so the ball didn't go to the keeper as a result of a deflection. The law does not require that the keeper was the intended recipient, only that the ball was deliberately kicked. If it was a "pass", it was, by definition, deliberate. If it was a miss-hit pass (as opposed to a deflection), the keeper can't handle it. If the description is anywhere close to being accurate, the call was correct.

[chrisrun]

For arguement's sake, let's assume that it was a passback, though not a clearcut one, and the ref made the correct call for an IFK. Assume the attackers were onside, and let's also assume that the goalie had no idea it was a passback. He saw the ref put his arm up for an IFK and assumed, along with the rest of his team, it was for offside on the attackers.

The question of the quick restart comes more from the spirit of the calls. Usually an attacker has the ball or is going for the ball, and a defender fouls him. If he hadn't been fouled, he'd have the ball and be off and running. The reason the attackers get a "quick restart" is because the defender interrupted the original flow of the attack. Don't penalize the offense from the original flow for something the defense did.

But in this case, the offense didn't have control of the ball. It was a technical infraction inside the box. And by allowing the quick restart, you've basically given the attackers a goal. Like I said, there is the letter and then the spirit of the law. I might have called the goal back, stating the ball was in the wrong spot, giving the defense the chance to at least know that the call was against them and not for them.

[Statesman]

In instances as this it may be a good idea for the referee to slow the match down. After blowing the whistle you put the arm up to indicate an IFK, but don't clarify immediately who it is for. With the player's attention you can then gesture that the kick will indeed be for the attacker's, but ask for the ball from the keeper. When you get the ball, be very deliberate in where it should be placed, the whole while continuing to talk to the players. Be fussy. Although there is only so much you can do, it is certainly better than to allow the attackers to exploit a very rare situation. An IFK should never be a PK!

[HoldenMan]

xyz - the law specifies that the keeper must be the intended recipient 'after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate'

As for Statesman's suggestion - would you do the same if it was any other free kick, say a DFK, or IFK for impeding or dangerous play (something where the attacking team has been disadvantaged and not a technical offence)?

[Statesman]

As for Statesman's suggestion - would you do the same if it was any other free kick, say a DFK, or IFK for impeding or dangerous play (something where the attacking team has been disadvantaged and not a technical offence)?

Of course not. As I'm finding myself say quite often these days, there are crimes against the opponent and there are crimes againt the game. Where was the opponent in the passing back to the keeper infringement? Not involved. The referee is to restore fairness to the game. Awarding a virtual penalty kick for a trivial IFK offense is very harsh. The spirit of the law is not for this situation to develop in that manner. Would you be technically correct in allowing a quick restart and a goal? Sure. Is that for the good of the game? Nope. This is the beauty behind the laws -- they are at our disposal, we are not breaking them, and yet we work them to fit the situation as they were intended instead of being hard-nosed and going "by the book" to the point the game is not fair. Sometimes the laws of soccer applied in the most technically accurate manner possible just isn't fair!

However, when there is a crime committed against the opponent, they deserve every advantage they can from the situation. It is their free kick from a foul committed directly against them, taking away their advantage, and thus the restart is at their disposal to do with as they please.

The idea behind the restarts is to resume the game similar to the state it was in before the violation occurred. In the passing to the keeper example no attacker had an advantage, or the ball for that matter, or was involved in the play. If you removed the violation, an attacker would not be passing the ball to an unguarded teammate in the penalty area with an open net to score. However, because the crime was still committed the attackers are granted a minor restart -- the IFK as opposed to the DFK -- which is notably trickier to score from. For all intents and purposes, an IFK is restarting the game by one player passing the ball to another, just as if the game never stopped! This is the spirit behind the restart, and the referee should honor this and not allow it to be abused by entrepreneuring attackers, turning a pass into a penalty kick.

Keeping in line with the restart as a way to resume play in the same state before disrupting, when a foul is committed against the opponent, it was their ball all along! The quick restart pass to a teammate unguarded with an open net IS the same condition that existed at the time the foul occurred -- the ball in possession of the attacker with a teammate nearby going towards goal. There is no need for the referee to interfere, and in fact this would be the ideal restart! It is as if the game is rewound to the moment before the foul, and then allowed to continue without the foul occuring!

[whitehound]

For arguement's sake, let's assume that it was a passback, though not a clearcut one, and the ref made the correct call for an IFK. Assume the attackers were onside, and let's also assume that the goalie had no idea it was a passback. He saw the ref put his arm up for an IFK and assumed, along with the rest of his team, it was for offside on the attackers.

The question of the quick restart comes more from the spirit of the calls. Usually an attacker has the ball or is going for the ball, and a defender fouls him. If he hadn't been fouled, he'd have the ball and be off and running. The reason the attackers get a "quick restart" is because the defender interrupted the original flow of the attack. Don't penalize the offense from the original flow for something the defense did.

But in this case, the offense didn't have control of the ball. It was a technical infraction inside the box. And by allowing the quick restart, you've basically given the attackers a goal. Like I said, there is the letter and then the spirit of the law. I might have called the goal back, stating the ball was in the wrong spot, giving the defense the chance to at least know that the call was against them and not for them.Very creative thinking but not defendable within the LOTG.

[whitehound]

xyz - the law specifies that the keeper must be the intended recipient 'after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate'

As for Statesman's suggestion - would you do the same if it was any other free kick, say a DFK, or IFK for impeding or dangerous play (something where the attacking team has been disadvantaged and not a technical offence)?you contradict yourself. The ATR says that the ball need only be deliberately played to an area where the keeper can reasonably be expected to play the ball. We cant read minds so you dont know if they DELIBERATELY kicked to the keeper so all you need to decide was
A)was it played or misplayed
B)is it to a spot where the keeper could pick it up

if so IFK and please dont make up a bunch of extra crap like I am reading in the milqutoast posts above. If the keeper touches the ball illegally in the PA it is an IFK...you dont waste time to allow the defense time to set up you do what you always do in a FK situation........as little as possible to allow the quick restart.

[whitehound]

In instances as this it may be a good idea for the referee to slow the match down. After blowing the whistle you put the arm up to indicate an IFK, but don't clarify immediately who it is for. With the player's attention you can then gesture that the kick will indeed be for the attacker's, but ask for the ball from the keeper. When you get the ball, be very deliberate in where it should be placed, the whole while continuing to talk to the players. Be fussy. Although there is only so much you can do, it is certainly better than to allow the attackers to exploit a very rare situation. An IFK should never be a PK!How close would the attackers have had to be to the keeper to change your answer?

[HoldenMan]

[QUOTE=whitehound]you contradict yourself. The ATR says that the ball need only be deliberately played to an area where the keeper can reasonably be expected to play the ball. We cant read minds so you dont know if they DELIBERATELY kicked to the keeper so all you need to decide was
A)was it played or misplayed
B)is it to a spot where the keeper could pick it up[QUOTE]

I didn't contradict myself at all.

I also wasn't referring to the ATR (it's easy to forget this is a US-based site).

but the ATR can't override the law, which DOES say the keeper must be the intended recipient, as per the quote I provided. I think the purpose of the ATR clarification is to state that the ball doesn't have to be directly passed to the keeper, but a player can still kick a ball for the keeper which goes to an area near the keeper - it's all about using your judgement if the defender was trying to get the ball to the keeper. If so, and it's handled, IKF. If not, then no offence.

If a defender attempts to kick or pass the ball, even under control, and it is misdirected and inadvertantly heads towards the keeper the keeper may pick it up. It's not enough for the kick to be deliberate, it must be 'deliberately kicked TO him (the keeper)'.

An 'errant pass' could have been this. Or it could have been a pass intended for the keeper that was inaccurate or falling short of the mark (or even heading for goal), so the keeper had little choice but to handle it. I just wanted to say that to make it clear I'm not arguing the original call.

[Gary V]

For arguement's sake, let's assume that it was a passback, though not a clearcut one, and the ref made the correct call for an IFK. Assume the attackers were onside, and let's also assume that the goalie had no idea it was a passback. He saw the ref put his arm up for an IFK and assumed, along with the rest of his team, it was for offside on the attackers.Why would the keeper assume it was for offside? Did he see the opponent kick the ball? - because nobody else did. If he assumed this, he assumed wrong. The Laws and referee are not meant to nullify mistakes made by the players.

The ref signals are slightly different. For offside, refs usually do the IFK signal first, and only signal the direction if there is confusion. For a foul, penal or technical, the ref signal is FIRST to point the direction, then to put the arm straight up for the IFK.

the law specifies that the keeper must be the intended recipient 'after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a teammate'Where does it say this? Law 12 says: • touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked
to him by a team-mate;Nothing about intends it to go to the keeper. Only that the teammate deliberately kicked the ball toward him. The USSF interpretation for the last 6 years in Advice to Referees, approved by FIFA, has been that we do not read players minds for their intent. We only see what they do. If it wasn't a miskick or deflection - and I fail to see how that could be, as the original post had the ball going from midfield to the penalty area - then it's a deliberate kick, and the keeper picked it up. Simple.

[Statesman]

How close would the attackers have had to be to the keeper to change your answer?Whatever my gut tells me about the situation is what I ultimately go with. There are no mathematical formulas that referees use to calculate the appropriate decision. There are no "if A then B" logic structures to implement. But, by the sound of your posts you already know everything about the game and we are obviously wrong, so I see no point in continuing.