I have suggested many rule changes in the past without much effect. However, I don't believe I have ever contemplated these two previously or seen them discussed. My first suggestion is that on indirect free kicks, neither the attacking team nor the defending team should be permitted within 10 yards of the ball. Phrases that could be added to Law 13 to describe the new law are bolded: Position of Free Kick Free Kick Inside the Penalty Area Direct or indirect free kick to the defending team: • all opponents are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball • if the kick is indirect, all players on the defending team, except for the player to take the free kick, are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts • all opponents remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play • the ball is in play when it is kicked directly beyond the penalty area • a free kick awarded in the goal area is taken from any point inside that area Indirect free kick to the attacking team team: Indirect free kick to the attacking team: [not to be italicized] • all opponents are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play, unless they are on their own goal line between the goalposts • all players on the attacking team, except for the player to take the free kick, are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play • the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves • an indirect free kick awarded inside the goal area is taken from that part of the goal area line which runs parallel to the goal line, at the point nearest to where the infringement occurred Free Kick Outside the Penalty Area • all opponents are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play • if the kick is indirect, all team-mates of the player to take the free kick are at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in play • the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves • the free kick is taken from the place where the infringement occurred Why make this change? Currently, the difference between direct and indirect free kicks are minimal. In fact, direct free kicks are often treated like indirect free kicks for tactical reasons (one player taps the ball a short distance for another player to drive to confuse the opposition). Restricting team-mates of the kick taker to a 10 yard distance would prevent the free kick itself from being a good goal-scoring opportunity, which I believe was the original intent of the separation of indirect free kicks from direct ones. In order to reduce the onus of enforcement of the new rule, my second suggestion would be to convert offside to a direct free kick offense. Since offside infractions can only occur in the opposite half of the field, it is not likely that a goal will be scored from a free kick resulting from an offside call. However, it would be much more likely to score such a goal than from goal kick, which until recently was "indirect", so many may resist this change. On the other hand, a goal may now be scored from a kick-off, so maybe allowing offside free kicks to be direct would not be so hard to swallow after all. (Both earlier rule changes took place in 1997.) One of the silliest events in soccer occur when the center referee has to keep his hand held up while a long free kick resulting from an offside call makes its way downfield. Everyone knows that it is highly unlikely a goal will be scored from such a kick, and yet referees are forced to hold their hand up in the air time and again for this common infraction. I would delay discussion of semantics of the rule change verbiage (I highly doubt my proposed suggestions are optimal) until there is a consensus that the basic reasons for the changes are good.
Is this solving a problem? You're putting more restrictions on an offense in a game where people complain there isn't enough scoring. Most changes are to improve competition or problems with the game - like the passback to the keeper was to eliminate time wasting.
Since the post is too long to quote... Your first bold bullet is already something which is used in practice, and I agree with it. Codifying it just makes it official. I don't agree with your 2nd and 3rd changes. Free kicks are awarded for law infractions and are awarded to a team to put their opponents at a disadvantage, even on IFKs. This seriously limits the advantage gained by a free kick. Now the kick becomes just putting the ball back in play. Finally, DFKs are for penal fouls, IFKs for procedural stuff. Rule changes are necessary to change problems, not compensate for how the game is played. This isn't basketball.
Up until 1903 all free kicks were indirect. The International Board altered the law in 1903 to permit a goal to be scored from a free kick awarded for what we now consider penal offences.
I think it would only confuse the game. Any major law changes this far into the game... i think could ruin alot of younger players experiences.
In order for a rule change to be taken seriously, in my opinion, there must be a problem to fix. I believe your position is that the problem is an IFK can be a goal scoring chance?? So what? any possession within shooting distance of the net should be a goal scoring chance. The attackers, with an IFK still have to deal with a second touch, albeit sometimes a small one, and there is still a wall to get over/around. I don't really see a problem that this is trying to solve.
As you point out, indirects don't really mean much any more. I think it would be better to get rid of them all together rather than make this rule change. Getting rid of them all together would at least get rid of the confusion related to indirects.
I'm assuming the confusion to which you refer exists in the minds of the players. It's not hard to deal with, if you think they are confused, just shout out, "Indirect lads" as you are raising your arm. I don't think we need to change the laws to deal with it. That said, the elimination of the "travels the distance of its own circumference" requirement did somewhat blur the distinction between the two restarts.
RIGHT! Make all IFKs, DKs. If you think you get confusion and disagreements with passbacks to the keeper, wait until you give a penalty kick! I think we can live with the confusion. If my u10s could understand the difference, I sure we can expain it to parents and other adults!
The confusion I was referring to was: Ref forgets to raise his arm (or does so too late) and team puts ball in net. Goalie lets the ball in because he thinks the ref is giving an indirect signal but it's really direct. Goalie lets the ball in because he thinks it hasn't touched anyone, but the ref says it brushed some one on the wall. This scenerio would be a DFK (instead of IFK), not a PK.
A DFK in the penalty area is a PK. If you are proposing that this is a different kind of DFK, then you are reintroducing the confusion.
So we've got some DFK's that turn into PK's but some that don't? And that's not confusing? Be careful of what you wish for, in case you get it. And always be aware of the law of unintended consequences. I don't see IFK's as that much of a problem. If the coaches do their job and explain the differences to the players, we'll all be on the same wavelength.
Right now you have two types of fouls in the box: fouls that are penalty kicks, and fouls that are free kicks. All I am saying is, do the same exact thing as you do now, but don't require the ball to touch another person on the free kick restart.
The problem is that currently there is little difference between an IFK and a DFK. As mentioned above, the primary difference now is that what otherwise be a DFK in an opponents' penalty area is automatically upgraded to a PK. There is clearly already a signficant difference between these two situations. However, outside of an opponent's penalty area, an IFK and DFK are essentially the same. Leagues from youth to recreational to pro understand that one player only needs to tap a ball slightly to another player to convert what is nominally an indirect free kick into a direct free kick. I doubt that there is a signficant difference in the likelihood of success between the two, although I don't have statistics to back myself up (perhaps an in depth study could be done). To me this little tap has always seemed like a cheat, a cheap work around that lowers the integrity of the game. I find it interesting most of you feel that infractions that currently result in an indirect free kick should be treated (almost) the exact same way as infractions that currently result in a direct free kick, unless the infraction occurs in an opponent's penalty area. Then we all agree that there should be a signficant difference in the punishment awarded for the two types of infractions. While many direct free kicks outside the penalty area on shot directly on goal, many are not. This implies that there must be some value to taking a free kick indirectly even though a direct free kick was awarded. Corner kicks, although nominally direct, are almost always indirect in practice. That is, I would bet (again, I don't have actual statistics), that a very high percentage of goals resulting from corner kicks are scored indirectly. Yet corner kicks are often considered to be "scoring opportunities". (Despite the fact that the Columbus Crew only score once per 210 corner kicks--I do have that stat.) While one could argue that there is no offside on a CK but there is on an IFK, my rebuttle would be to consider again the large number of DFKs that are actually taken indirectly. In short, the problem is that the punishment (outside of the penalty area) is nearly the same for two distinctly different classes of fouls, and I believe that the difference in the punishment awarded should more nearly match the crimes. The difference should be actually significant and not merely semantic. Maintaining semantic but meaningless differences in the game (e.g. the ball on the kick-off must move forward) is silly, IMO. Since the subject of PKs was brought up, another point to make is that IFKs, awarded close to the goal area, have a high probability of success, much higher than they would have if offensive players were forced to retreat 10 yards. And a much higher probability of success than they deserve, IMO. The punishment for picking up a backpass, which often seems excessive or is not called because the punishment seems so severe, would be lessened by the new rule. In fact, it was an infraction my own rec league team's penalty area (impeding, not a back pass), that resulted in a goal, which was the inspiration for my original post.
Our Vancouver friend is also forgetttn that fact that one the ball is touched on an indirect kick (that tap) the defenders can now charge down the ball. I would venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of free kicks for the offense in the attacking zone are direct...probably 99 out of 100...so why muddy the waters? I think the confusion stems from the players AND coaches not knowing the rules. And what is the proper restart for the violation. On the whole, as we know, most IDFK's are for NON-contact violations, PIADM, pass back to keeper, impeding the progress, etc...An IDFK is a lesser scoring chance than a DFK... R