Encroachment on improperly taken IDKs

[boylanj64]

USSF and FIFA have been pretty clear that for a touch of the ball to be valid, whether on an IDK, corner, etc, it must be done with a clear kicking motion. Unaware of this, most players believe a simple tap on top of the ball should suffice.

If the ball is tapped and then shot, the decision is simple: no goal until touched again, and we have no problems.

However, when the ball is tapped and then kicked, defenders frequently assume it is live too early, and charge the ball before the second (proper) touch has occurred. If the shot hits one of these charging defenders, it is certainly encroachment, which would necessitate a caution to the encroaching defender. However, he is almost certainly acting in good faith, believing the ball live, and a caution seems rather harsh, but can a rekick for encroachment without a caution be appropriate?

Likewise, the attacker could be cautioned for "enticing" the defender into a cautionable offense, but again, they are almost certainly acting in good faith.

So, is a thorough explanation of the law, followed by a rekick without any sanctions, how this can and should be handled? Is waving "play-on" a possibility, judging the player's mutual ignorance "trifling?" Can/should advantage be applied?

[elgambitero]

USSF and FIFA have been pretty clear that for a touch of the ball to be valid, whether on an IDK, corner, etc, it must be done with a clear kicking motion. Unaware of this, most players believe a simple tap on top of the ball should suffice.

If the ball is tapped and then shot, the decision is simple: no goal until touched again, and we have no problems.

However, when the ball is tapped and then kicked, defenders frequently assume it is live too early, and charge the ball before the second (proper) touch has occurred. If the shot hits one of these charging defenders, it is certainly encroachment, which would necessitate a caution to the encroaching defender. However, he is almost certainly acting in good faith, believing the ball live, and a caution seems rather harsh, but can a rekick for encroachment without a caution be appropriate?

Likewise, the attacker could be cautioned for "enticing" the defender into a cautionable offense, but again, they are almost certainly acting in good faith.

So, is a thorough explanation of the law, followed by a rekick without any sanctions, how this can and should be handled? Is waving "play-on" a possibility, judging the player's mutual ignorance "trifling?" Can/should advantage be applied?

I have a second question to add to this from a incident that happened this season. (note, I'm not a ref)

IDK given about 25 yrds out from goal. Wall is set, everything fine. Our player nearest to the ball puts his foot on the side and top of the ball and rolls the ball infront about 1.5 revolutions of the ball, our kick taker strikes it and buries it.

The ref blows the whistle and says that it needs to be a 'kicking motion' and that you cannot touch the ball with the underneath part of your boot because that doesnt constitute the motion, even though our player basically rolled the ball in front of him as if you were taking a quick touch directily infront of you up the field.

I realize it has to be a kicking motion and not just a tap on the ball, but what does that constitute. So if i give it a little lovetap with my toe directly on the side of the ball and it rolls a revolution, it's not a kicking motion?

[boylanj64]

I have a second question to add to this from a incident that happened this season. (note, I'm not a ref)

IDK given about 25 yrds out from goal. Wall is set, everything fine. Our player nearest to the ball puts his foot on the side and top of the ball and rolls the ball infront about 1.5 revolutions of the ball, our kick taker strikes it and buries it.

The ref blows the whistle and says that it needs to be a 'kicking motion' and that you cannot touch the ball with the underneath part of your boot because that doesnt constitute the motion, even though our player basically rolled the ball in front of him as if you were taking a quick touch directily infront of you up the field.

I realize it has to be a kicking motion and not just a tap on the ball, but what does that constitute. So if i give it a little lovetap with my toe directly on the side of the ball and it rolls a revolution, it's not a kicking motion?

It depends, really, on what the ref saw. If you put your foot on top and roll/push the ball a full revolution, it likely is a kick, but I'd be reluctant to say without having been there.

[Another NH Ref]

USSF, by way of Jim Allen's web site, has been very clear that rolling the ball with the bottom of the foot IS sufficient to qualify as a kicking motion if the ball moves. Finding the exact article(s) is left as an exercise to the reader...

[boylanj64]

USSF, by way of Jim Allen's web site, has been very clear that rolling the ball with the bottom of the foot IS sufficient to qualify as a kicking motion if the ball moves. Finding the exact article(s) is left as an exercise to the reader...

I'm sorry, but looking through Jim Allen's site, and USSF's official ATR, I've got to say that you are wrong. First, from ATR 2008 13.5:

"The ball is in play (able to be played by an attacker other than the kicker or by an opponent) when it has been kicked and moved. The distance to be moved is minimal and the "kick" need only be a touch of the ball with the foot in a kicking motion. Simply tapping the top of the ball with the foot or stepping on the ball are not sufficient.

When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being "kicked" does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being "moved" does not, for example, include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not "kicked and moved" based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly.

The referee must judge carefully whether any particular kick of the ball and subsequent movement was indeed reasonably taken with the intention of putting the ball into play rather than with the intention merely to position the ball for the restart. If the ball is just being repositioned (even if the foot is used to do this), play has not been restarted. Likewise, referees should not unfairly punish for "failing to respect the required distance" when an opponent was clearly confused by a touch and movement of the ball which was not a restart.

The referee must make the final decision on what is a "kick" and what is "not a kick" based on his or her feeling for the game—what FIFA calls "Fingerspitzengefühl" (literally: “sensing with one’s fingertips”). The bottom line is that not everything that produces movement of the ball is a kick and thus would not legally put the ball into play in any of the kicking restarts."

Now, from Jim Allen's site:

"If we are dealing with a free kick, the requirements of Law 13 would apply completely: When the restart of play is based on the ball being kicked and moved, the referee must ensure that the ball is indeed kicked (touched with the foot in a kicking motion) and moved (caused to go from one place to another). Being “kicked” does not, for example, include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot. Being “moved” does not, for example, include the ball simply quivering, trembling, or shaking as a result of light contact. The referee must make the final decision on what is and is not “kicked and moved” based on the spirit and flow of the match. In all events, the ball must be put into play properly."

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=42

and another Jim Allen reference:

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=445

[whistleblowerusa]

USSF and FIFA have been pretty clear that for a touch of the ball to be valid, whether on an IDK, corner, etc, it must be done with a clear kicking motion. Unaware of this, most players believe a simple tap on top of the ball should suffice.

If the ball is tapped and then shot, the decision is simple: no goal until touched again, and we have no problems.

However, when the ball is tapped and then kicked, defenders frequently assume it is live too early, and charge the ball before the second (proper) touch has occurred. If the shot hits one of these charging defenders, it is certainly encroachment, which would necessitate a caution to the encroaching defender. However, he is almost certainly acting in good faith, believing the ball live, and a caution seems rather harsh, but can a rekick for encroachment without a caution be appropriate?

Likewise, the attacker could be cautioned for "enticing" the defender into a cautionable offense, but again, they are almost certainly acting in good faith.

So, is a thorough explanation of the law, followed by a rekick without any sanctions, how this can and should be handled? Is waving "play-on" a possibility, judging the player's mutual ignorance "trifling?" Can/should advantage be applied?
Your whole question is silly. What comes first? The kick or supposed kick or the encroachment? If the kick was considered putting the ball into play, the Referee would not stop play and caution anyone or order a re-kick. If the ball was not put into play by the kicker and the Referee has judged that to be the case there is really no encroachment or failure to respect the distance. The kicker has moved the ball closer to the defenders in both cases.
The failure to put the ball into play comes before the "encroachment" and the decision is made then for the first action. Also, it is no longer mandatory to caution a defender for "encroachment" or failing to respect the distance.

[boylanj64]

Your whole question is silly. What comes first? The kick or supposed kick or the encroachment? If the kick was considered putting the ball into play, the Referee would not stop play and caution anyone or order a re-kick. If the ball was not put into play by the kicker and the Referee has judged that to be the case there is really no encroachment or failure to respect the distance. The kicker has moved the ball closer to the defenders in both cases.
The failure to put the ball into play comes before the "encroachment" and the decision is made then for the first action. Also, it is no longer mandatory to caution a defender for "encroachment" or failing to respect the distance.

Maybe I wasn't clear; the scenario unfolds as: tap of the ball, defense charges to within a few yards, then the ball is kicked directly in to one of the charging defenders. The ball is in play, just not as early as the players assume it is.

[whistleblowerusa]

Maybe I wasn't clear; the scenario unfolds as: tap of the ball, defense charges to within a few yards, then the ball is kicked directly in to one of the charging defenders. The ball is in play, just not as early as the players assume it is.
If that is what you meant it isn't what you asked. It was clear that you were asking about what you thought was a mutual infringement. So, I read that as you not understanding which came first or what you should be doing.
You would not give any visual or verbal signal for advantage because there is not advantage. it is either a retake and no caution or play continues because ball is in play.

[boylanj64]

If that is what you meant it isn't what you asked. It was clear that you were asking about what you thought was a mutual infringement. So, I read that as you not understanding which came first or what you should be doing.
You would not give any visual or verbal signal for advantage because there is not advantage. it is either a retake and no caution or play continues because ball is in play.

Yes, I'm clear on the possible procedures; maybe that was what made my initial post overly complicated. I was looking for thoughts on which of the options others would consider best.

[nonya]

Maybe I wasn't clear; the scenario unfolds as: tap of the ball, defense charges to within a few yards, then the ball is kicked directly in to one of the charging defenders. The ball is in play, just not as early as the players assume it is.

Hmmm..sounds to me like the kicking team is using some type of unsporting behavior or trickery in order to get the referee to issue a card.

I really don't care what Jim Allen or anyone else says, they aren't on the pitch with me when I do a game. If that ball is touched and moved, it is a kick, I don't care if the attacker got down on the ground and headed the ball forward.

[chrisrun]

I'm sorry, but looking through Jim Allen's site, and USSF's official ATR, I've got to say that you are wrong. First, from ATR 2008 13.5:

I think you are looking at the 2007 ATR. Jim Allen says that the the 2008 ATR will be changed to say:

"Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot."

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=312

[boylanj64]

I think you are looking at the 2007 ATR. Jim Allen says that the the 2008 ATR will be changed to say:

"Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot."

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=312

You're right, my mistake

[OldAndNew]

I think you are looking at the 2007 ATR. Jim Allen says that the the 2008 ATR will be changed to say:

"Being “kicked” can include an action in which the ball is dragged by continuous contact with the foot."

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=312

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Jim Allen has said one thing is categorically right - and then shortly after, he 'does a 180'!

JA is the principal author and editor of ATR.

The other 'biggee' that he messed up on in the 2007 ATR (to be corrected in 2008 - which will put it back as in 2006!) is in regard to:

12.25 - Restarts for Misconduct. It will be corrected (per my SRI) to indicate that if play is stopped solely to deal with misconduct committed by a substitute or for misconduct committed off the field of play, the restart is a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (goal area exception understood) - NOT an IFK as currently incorrectly stated.

[refontherun]

USSF and FIFA have been pretty clear that for a touch of the ball to be valid, whether on an IDK, corner, etc, it must be done with a clear kicking motion. Unaware of this, most players believe a simple tap on top of the ball should suffice.

If the ball is tapped and then shot, the decision is simple: no goal until touched again, and we have no problems.

However, when the ball is tapped and then kicked, defenders frequently assume it is live too early, and charge the ball before the second (proper) touch has occurred. If the shot hits one of these charging defenders, it is certainly encroachment, which would necessitate a caution to the encroaching defender. However, he is almost certainly acting in good faith, believing the ball live, and a caution seems rather harsh, but can a rekick for encroachment without a caution be appropriate?

Likewise, the attacker could be cautioned for "enticing" the defender into a cautionable offense, but again, they are almost certainly acting in good faith.

So, is a thorough explanation of the law, followed by a rekick without any sanctions, how this can and should be handled? Is waving "play-on" a possibility, judging the player's mutual ignorance "trifling?" Can/should advantage be applied?

I think alot of this subject was covered here:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=799482

[Gary V]

12.25 - Restarts for Misconduct. It will be corrected (per my SRI) to indicate that if play is stopped solely to deal with misconduct committed by a substitute or for misconduct committed off the field of play, the restart is a dropped ball where the ball was when play was stopped (goal area exception understood) - NOT an IFK as currently incorrectly stated.
Then you'd better tell IFAB that they are wrong too. Some misconduct committed off the field by a player is a dropped ball, some is IFK.
If the ball is in play and the offence occurred outside the field of play:
– if the player is already off the field of play and commits the offence, play is restarted with a dropped ball from the position in which the ball was located when play was stopped, unless play was stopped inside the goal area, in which case the referee drops the ball on the goal area line parallel to the goal line at the point nearest to where the ball was located when play was stopped
– if the player leaves the field of play to commit the offence, play is restarted with an indirect free kick from the position in which the ball was located when play was stopped (see Law 13 – Position of Free Kick)
I'm of the opinion that Advice 12.25 was changed in 2007 in response to IFAB's change, but that either it was poorly done by USSF or was based on incomplete information from IFAB. I agree that it will probably be changed again for 2008, but not back to exactly the way it was in 2006/

[ref47]

see the new ussf memo of 11-18-08 covering the ifab additional instructions. the 'off the field distinction' is one of the things covered.