trival or pivotal?

[Grizzlierbear]

A defender under pressure kicks the ball back towards his keeper. The keeper uses his hands on the ball just inside the penalty area at the outer left corner. The referee blows for an INDFK against the keeper for illegal use of hands. The keeper upset drops the ball and goes out to confront the referee. An attacker grabs the ball and spots it just outside the PA and takes a quick kick to an unguarded teammate who blasts in an easy goal! What if anything do you need to do?

[blind_clown]

A defender under pressure kicks the ball back towards his keeper. The keeper uses his hands on the ball just inside the penalty area at the outer left corner. The referee blows for an INDFK against the keeper for illegal use of hands. The keeper upset drops the ball and goes out to confront the referee. An attacker grabs the ball and spots it just outside the PA and takes a quick kick to an unguarded teammate who blasts in an easy goal! What if anything do you need to do?

signal goal and quickly backpedal well into the other team's half

[Claymore]

signal goal and quickly backpedal well into the other team's half
Yup. Stupidity on the part of the keeper is not your problem.

[USSF REF]

If I'm reading it right this question is one of -- Was the restart taken from an acceptable location?

Clearly, you allow a quick kick in a case like this, but was the restart done properly. The law specifies that the ball must be within one yard of the infringement. That said, in a case like this whats the difference between 1 and 2 yards. It depends on who you ask. Clearly the defenders would want you to bring it back to have the ball placed properly prior to the kick, and likewise the attackers would see it as a trifiling breach, no doubt.

According to the STRICT letter of the laws -- you would be required to bring the ball back and take the kick over again, IF the ball was farther than 1 yr from the IFK offense.

What would I do, what would the game require? Assuming the player who scores the goal was onside (with the GK out that far, it might be a factor), I point to the center circle, GOAL!

KEEP keep your mouth shut and get back in you goal, else you could be punished by the other team.

[Statesman]

Perhaps I'm visualizing this scenario differently, but I cannot see how allowing the restart in this circumstance serves the game. No doubt the act of a keeper leaving his PA to confront the referee will draw some attention, as this is basically an automatic caution. So, you have a hot keeper and a few teammates protesting the decision in a potential mass confrontation - and while this goes on some attacker spots the ball, kicks it to his buddy, who kicks it into an open net. And we're allowing this?

First of all, you have the issue of the keeper's misconduct. Cautioning him alone requires a ceremonial restart. Secondly you have the temperature of the game to think about. Nobody is going to be focused on the restart at this point, they are going to focus on the confrontation. This is not an enterprising quick kick to gain a strategic advantage. It's the attackers using the confrontation to score a goal behind their opponent's back. There's nothing fair in that.

So, be a diplomat. Be direct and factual about the call, issue the caution for dissent, and restart with a ceremonial kick. Cool the temperature of the game down and restore fair play. There's a lot more going on here than the attackers scoring off a quick kick.

[indybar]

I dunno, but I think it depends on how serious the confrontation is. Sometimes it's not worth getting into your pocket as it will just further heat up the game. Moreover, awarding a goal would certainly make the keeper learn his lesson.

[BC_Ref]

Perhaps I'm visualizing this scenario differently, but I cannot see how allowing the restart in this circumstance serves the game. No doubt the act of a keeper leaving his PA to confront the referee will draw some attention, as this is basically an automatic caution. So, you have a hot keeper and a few teammates protesting the decision in a potential mass confrontation - and while this goes on some attacker spots the ball, kicks it to his buddy, who kicks it into an open net. And we're allowing this?


Why shouldn't we be allowing this? I'm loathe to protect a team from their own stupidity - and even worse, take away a goal from their opponents, who were the "victims". If they decide to pay attention to me and not the play, that is THEIR choice. Depends on the situation, but I'd allow it if at all possible. Otherwise, I'd hopefully blow the play dead ASAP - before it hits the back of the net, or I'll end up with two confrontations for the price of one.

As far as your cautioning goes, my view is that the goal would tend to wipe out the caution. Unless the keeper basically follows me up to the half, I'd generally not yellow card him if a goal was scored in these circumstances.

[Grizzlierbear]

Just so we are clear the illegal use of hands by the keeper is for the PASSBACK violation INSIDE the PA!. The passback is an INDFK restart.

IF A referee awarded a DFK restart inside the PA as in law it MUST be a PK at the 12 yards spot otherwise it sets up the groundwork for a protest as a misapplication of the laws.

Also USSF REF where in law does it say 1 yard?

Here in this situation we are awarding an INDFK NOT a DFK for the crime of a PASSBACK violation. Now if the incident WAS impeding or PIADM the location of the exact blade of grass might not be so crucial. IN this case however it is for a keeper's illegal handling of the ball which can ONLY occur inside his PA.

IF the keeper had of deliberately handled the ball outside his PA we would then have a DFK restart with possible coloured cards also in action besides the keeper's additional rant. THIS IS A FAR MORE SERIOUS FOUL and little in the need of fairness would be considered if a goal resulted in the quick restart here unless the cardable nature was SO significant it could not be overlooked!

!I did not mention this but aside from the quick kick is it not feasible that the arm signal may not have been given for an INDFK unless the referee was verbal? The ball placement OUTSIDE the PA would give that impression that perhaps the keeper was accused of being guilty of DH and the rant he was on was to dispute a wrong call?

I will grant you that a keeper to be distracted by any call is in itself not justification to take away a legal goal. AS the restart DID in fact have two players touch the ball it certainly fulfills that specific INDFK criteria.

In truth my whistle is sounding even before the goal is scored not necessarily because I am GOING to show a card to the keeper (quite likely though) but I feel in law the restart MUST be inside the PA borderlines where the handling offence occurred! I think the restart from outside would in effect set up a protested situation based upon the misapplication of the laws.

If the ball was placed on the borderlines or completely inside the PA close to where the keeper passback violation occurred I see a legally taken restart and may well look to the AR confirm, award the goal, backing up waving the keeper away or if the keeper is too aggressive or obtuse he will be awarded at least a yellow for persistence in the face of stupidity!

Admittedly I lean in the direction of Statesman 's opinion for the reasoning with the added bit about my feelings of why the borderlines are significant here. In my humble opinion a ceremonial restart for this technical breech of the law was set in stone once the quick kick was taken from outside the penalty area. We are easily justified in cautioning the keeper as he likely prevented us from making it KNOWN the restart NEEDED to be blade of grass not generally close by

The game ends 1 to 0 this incident was protested.
Mr referee what was your decision?
As a fact concerning play it was a passback violation.
Mr referee was it by the teammate of the keeper who circumvented the law?
No, the keeper choose to use his hands on a deliberately kicked ball.
Mr referee you awarded the opposition an iNDFK for this violation?
Yes.
Mr referee did you signal the restart correctly?
Well the keeper was protesting and I was distracted but YES
Mr referee where was this INDFK taken from?
From about 1 yard ouside the penalty area?
Mr referee A passback violation can only occur inside the PA.
Well I did not think the restart location needed to be exact
HMMmmm we see! Gentlemen the replay will be next saturday at 2 thank you!

[allan_park]

Guys,

this is not only the "beautiful game"; it is also the "simple game". Invariably, as referees we get ourselves into trouble whenever we forget the second of those sentiments.

As a general rule, anytime we are faced with a situation where there are multiple responses to events on the field (almost every decision we make), common sense and the "keep it simple" solution is almost always the best.

In this scenario, the offence was handling a "pass-back". The correct punishment for this is an IFK - no more. As such, IMHO, we should almost invariably look to do a ceremonial restart in this type of situation (an IFK in the penalty-area is never a good thing, so keep it simple). For whatever reason the goalkeeper here has decided to make it more of an issue by confronting the referee, but this actually makes it easier yet, for there is your justification (not that it was needed) to make it a ceremonial restart.

Let's not get clever - it's not our job to "teach the goalkeeper a lesson"; nor do we want to hand out punishment that does not "fit the crime"; so, blow the infringement; deal with the 'keeper's misconduct; restart with a ceremonial IFK inside the area.

No one will get upset with any of that - even the team scoring the goal will know they were trying it on, and wont be surprised that it's "disallowed". The alternative is just creating problems for absolutely no reason.

[ref47]

i have called this 3-4 times in the last year. each time i have run to the spot of the infraction, pointed direction, raised my arm for ifk signal and not interfered with play. one adult keeper did protest loudly, but stayed alert to play. one keeper did not drop the ball and i took it away from him and spotted it. oh, no one was quick enough to benefit with a goal.

that said, i agree that in the situation opening this post, the misconduct by the keeper might be a reason to stop play, issue card, then restart. and taking the restart outside the pa would be a problem for me. while i would not be overly sticky about the exact spot, outside the pa would be a different restart. it's like calling a foul outside the pa and allowing the spot of the ball on the pa line. no no.

[Ref Flunkie]

Let's not get clever - it's not our job to "teach the goalkeeper a lesson"; nor do we want to hand out punishment that does not "fit the crime"; so, blow the infringement; deal with the 'keeper's misconduct; restart with a ceremonial IFK inside the area.


This is where I go to the side of allan_park and Statesman, the punishment does not fit the crime. How often do you see IDFKs at the top of the area result in goals? Not very often. In this case you are giving a free goal to the attackers because of a pass back. This wasn't a hard foul or something that stopped a goal scoring opportunity, this was just a pass back. I think if you allow the goal, all you are saying is "See what happens keeper when you mess with me and my calls, the other team gets a goal...neiner neiner!!". I thought the point of the game was to have two teams compete fairly, to be punished fairly, and to limit our involvement as much as possible.

[blind_clown]

The mass confrontation is exactly why we can get away with allowing the goal. They aren't going to see the kick was taken a foot outside the box when the keeper picked it up a foot inside. As with any free kick, read the advantage gained by the ball moving slightly. If we're doing it slow, it's a huge difference that close in. But if it's for a short pass/quick restart, it really doesn't make a difference. The outer left corner of the PA is 28.42534 yards from the center of the goal. The offense occured probably 27 yards or farther, the kick, probably within 30. We're looking at a 5-10 yard pass and then a shot. The moving of the ball clearly has no effect and ordering a rekick would be whistling a trifling offense. The defense has the same opportunity to defend either location.

The other factor is the defense put the ball where it was. When you blew the whistle the keeper's rights were to put the ball where it was, not move it.

Some of you seem to be saying the defending team has the right to delay the restart by protesting the decision (also a right). Does that make sense?

[BTFOOM]

This is where I go to the side of allan_park and Statesman, the punishment does not fit the crime. How often do you see IDFKs at the top of the area result in goals? Not very often. In this case you are giving a free goal to the attackers because of a pass back. This wasn't a hard foul or something that stopped a goal scoring opportunity, this was just a pass back. I think if you allow the goal, all you are saying is "See what happens keeper when you mess with me and my calls, the other team gets a goal...neiner neiner!!". I thought the point of the game was to have two teams compete fairly, to be punished fairly, and to limit our involvement as much as possible.

I don't see the result of the play described here (a goal for the attacking team) as a 'punishment'. The attacking team simply used quick thinking to take advantage of a situation. I don't see that the ref in this situation did anything wrong at all. The game is played by the players. If they decide to do something stupid, it's THEIR fault, not the ref. [/quick aside]I coach a girls U-10 team. We were in a tournament this past weekend when my defender, reacting to a deflected ball, reached down and picked it up. Noone else within at least 10 yards and she only touched it for a second. Ref makes correct call and gives PK. Was this 'fair'? I say yes, the ref's job is to call the game.[/end quick aside]

Lastly, I think that a ref calling the goal back would be interfering with the game. The only possible reason the ref should have stopped the goal would be if the ball were placed rather far from the original spot or if the ball were rolling/bouncing. Sorry to the goalie and rest of team.

[whipple]

One way to look at this is that for a technical infraction, such as a passback, it is we, the referee, who has interfered in the game. Allowing one team to captialize on our interference flies in the face of the spirit of the game. This is why we have indirect kicks, so that our interfernce cannot directly impact the outcome of a match. We cannot let either team use us to gain an unfair advantage over an opponent.

This is very different from a penal foul, where the deed of an opponent has created the unfairness and interfered, and we signal the restart, but the interference is not ours, all we are doing is setting things right. Were it a penal foul the quick restart would be only fair, an extension of play, and a goal scored under such a circumstance would stand.

In Griz's example, since it was our interference that stopped play, it is incumbent upon us to ensure fairness to both teams with the restart.

One may also want to know why the keeper was compelled to dispute the call. It is possible that the ball actually deflected off his teammate and was not a deliberate pass back? Possibly it was a bad call. Therefore by ensuring the fairness to both teams of the restart, even if we are wrong, we have not compounded the unfairness.

[Claymore]

At the end of the day (and depending on the age group we're talking about), the players have a responsibility to know the rules of the game as well, and to be smart about their play.

Assuming the call to be correct in this situation - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - it is the player's responsibilty to defend first and ask questions later, particularly so close to goal. The referee has performed his function in making the call and signaling the restart; from that point on, it's the player's game. Taking the ball out of the net in this situation is an unwarranted (IMO) insertion of the referee into the game itself.

[vabeacher]

I agree with Ref47, the best way to prevent a quick restart is to quickly move to the spot of the foul, and make it clear that you need the restart taken from exactly that spot. For and IFK in the area, you'll usually have numerous defenders encroaching, which will give you the opportunity to call for a ceremonial restart, while you move the wall back.

The keeper will almost always argue this call, since he wouldn't have played the ball with his hands if he felt the pass was intentional. All the times I've made this call, the keeper has come to me with the ball in his hands, most keepers are smart enough not to give the ball to an attacker after having committed a foul.

[USSF REF]

This is where I go to the side of allan_park and Statesman, the punishment does not fit the crime. How often do you see IDFKs at the top of the area result in goals? Not very often. In this case you are giving a free goal to the attackers because of a pass back. This wasn't a hard foul or something that stopped a goal scoring opportunity, this was just a pass back. I think if you allow the goal, all you are saying is "See what happens keeper when you mess with me and my calls, the other team gets a goal...neiner neiner!!". I thought the point of the game was to have two teams compete fairly, to be punished fairly, and to limit our involvement as much as possible.

After looking into it I have to admit, I don't know why I was convinced last night that there was this one yard idea. Grizz is right to point out the law says the kick is taken from the point where the infringement occurred. I must have had my wires crossed with throw-in. Damn, I hate when I do that.

And based on what Grizz said, I think he's right you would have to have the restart inside the area in this case. So I change my mind and say the ball must be in the PA.

Now let's consider it from that scenario. Same situation, BUT the player taking the IFK took the kick from the exact same spot where the infringement occurred.

I don't know why we're looking at this as a "punishment" issue. The punishment is the IDK. In fact, I see it as an issue of opportunity. The team taking the IDK has the same rights to resart play quickly as any other time. I would consider losing the chance to book the keeper/or player who passed the ball a wash with the team having their fair chance to restart play quickly.

Some people have argued that allowing this restart quickly will be causing problems. I think the simplest thing to do is just allow the restart to happen, and not to interfere in the play. I think holding them up would just be punishing the team who is taking the kick, not the other way around.

Of course, the smart keeper would never drop the ball right there. Generally, as a keeper in those situations I would pick the ball up and throw it IMMEDIATLY to a teammate or at the very least I would carry the ball or throw it to the referee.

[Ref Flunkie]

I don't see the result of the play described here (a goal for the attacking team) as a 'punishment'. The attacking team simply used quick thinking to take advantage of a situation. I don't see that the ref in this situation did anything wrong at all. The game is played by the players. If they decide to do something stupid, it's THEIR fault, not the ref. \

If the referee engages the goal keeper in explaination, I think the referee DID do something wrong here if he lets a quick kick proceed. The referee's engagement of the keeper in discussion removes the option for a quick kick. And lets be real here, you are punishing the keeper for coming out to argue by allowing the goal. Yes the quick thinking (in my opinion, somewhat lame) of the attacking team was part of the punishment, but in the end, the referee has allowed a cheap goal on a technical infraction. Quick kicks in general are used to keep up the attack after it has been stopped by a penal foul, not to surprise a goal keeper when he happens to be out of position as a result of play. Believe me, I am all for punishing whiners and complainers, but part of me feels that this is a "gotch ya" play on both the part of the referee and the attacking team.

[USSF REF]

One way to look at this is that for a technical infraction, such as a passback, it is we, the referee, who has interfered in the game. Allowing one team to captialize on our interference flies in the face of the spirit of the game.

I can't see this point. It's our job to punish for these situations, but if that is to be considered interference then ANY time we stop play, we're interfering. If you use that logic then why not order a ceremonial kick every time and forget about quick restarts.

The point here is the team who commited the infringement still has no rights at the ensuing free kick, the other team can do what they like with the ball as long as they take the kick from the right place. The reason for this restart is the foul comitted by the defending team, not because you arbitrarily decided to stop play. Don't take away a valid goal scoring chance just because you are afaird of retribution from the keeper or anyone else. Of course, if the ball wasn't in the PA like Grizz says, then you can't allow it. Depends on the circumstances though.

[blind_clown]

One way to look at this is that for a technical infraction, such as a passback, it is we, the referee, who has interfered in the game. Allowing one team to captialize on our interference flies in the face of the spirit of the game. This is why we have indirect kicks, so that our interfernce cannot directly impact the outcome of a match. We cannot let either team use us to gain an unfair advantage over an opponent.

This is very different from a penal foul, where the deed of an opponent has created the unfairness and interfered, and we signal the restart, but the interference is not ours, all we are doing is setting things right. Were it a penal foul the quick restart would be only fair, an extension of play, and a goal scored under such a circumstance would stand.

In Griz's example, since it was our interference that stopped play, it is incumbent upon us to ensure fairness to both teams with the restart.

One may also want to know why the keeper was compelled to dispute the call. It is possible that the ball actually deflected off his teammate and was not a deliberate pass back? Possibly it was a bad call. Therefore by ensuring the fairness to both teams of the restart, even if we are wrong, we have not compounded the unfairness.
The team infringed the laws of the game and the referee is interfering by calling it? :confused:
The keeper was compelled to dispute the call? Did the ref make him come over and talk? :confused: