B16. PIADM a few yards outside the PA to the side. R raises arm at time of the call. R tells kicker it is indirect. R moves back defenders, and whistles for the kick without re-raising arm. In conformity with Murphy's law, the ball goes directly into the goal, the GK desperately going after the ball but failing to get a touch. Select the best answer: Is this (a) a CF that should never happen. (b) a retake (c) a goal kick (d) (a) and (b) (e) (a) and (c) The relevant passage from the LOTG: Indirect free kick signal The referee indicates an indirect free kick by raising the arm above the head;this signal is maintained until the kick has been taken and the ball touchesanother player or goes out of play. An indirect free kick must be retaken if the referee fails to signal that the kick isindirect and the ball is kicked directly into the goal. Ball enters the goal • if a direct free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal isawarded • if an indirect free kick is kicked directly into the opponents’ goal, a goal kickis awarded • if a direct or indirect free kick is kicked directly into the team’s own goal,a corner kick is awarded Scenario two. Same facts, except GK gets a finger on the ball as it goes into the goal?
Wouldn't both be a GK? Even if the GK touches the ball in attempting to save it's still a GK. If he announced an IDFK, then there should be no arguments, right? I may be missing something. Derp, I missed the PIADM. Should be direct, no? If he says it's indirect and he's wrong, but he SAYS indirect, it's irrelevant at that point, no? Once it's taken it's taken and can't be taken back, right? Rasied arm, "indirect", written in stone once the play is back in play. Ref's gonna have some 'splainin' to do post-match though.
No, if the keeper touches it then it is a live ball as it rolls into the goal. good goal. Nope, PIADM is a IDK. He isn't trying to trick you that way. If he doesn't keep arm raised it is a retake, but if he doesn't raise his arm AND it goes directly into the goal it states a GK. So, which takes precedent. Although it does state that if it does go into the goal that it is a rekick. My Answer is D. Funny thing. In my GJV game Thursday... Offside call at the 30yrd line (football lines). My CR raises his arm. Team boots it over the defense and continues to roll. (turf field) There goes my CR sprinting down the field with the arm raised until it was finally touched 70 yards later by the other teams GK... I had a good chuckle...
PIADM is IDFK, ok, thanks, I need to re-clarify my acronyms and what they mean. "low header preventing play", for example, right? Thanks for the education, I love learning, especially through mistakes here that don't impact a real-life game.
Yes that is one example, but the more likely scenarios are feet up in the air in a dangerous manner or playing on the ground.
CF = complete f*ckup? What a mess. I'm going with e in the first scenario because the CR did signal the IDK even if he didn't hold the signal as long as he should have *and* he told the kicker it was indirect. The second scenario is even worse. Your choices are award the goal or fake a sudden heart attack.
It seems like it has to be a retaken in the first scenario. Regardless of the referee stating before the kick that it is IFK the law says the signal must be maintained until the second touch, so the ref failed to do so. In the second scenario we aren't given clear instruction but unfortunately I think you have to award the goal. With no IFK signal given the defenders have to assume its direct and in that case the keeper getting a finger on the ball is irrelevant.
I had a PIADM on a college spring ladies game on Saturday, about 8 yds outside the PA. I'm standing there with my arm up and the kicker asks "direct or indirect?"
The first scenario should result in a retake. The second scenario is more questionable. The retake only happens if the ball is kicked "directly into the goal". If the keeper touches the ball then it wasn't direct. By the letter of the law it would seem that the goal should stand. I've never noticed that paragraph before. Before you posted the LOTG I was leaning towards a goal kick in the first scenario. The more you know... I guess the takeaway is don't forget to put your arm up. And keep it up. I was talking to a ref who got chastised by an assessor because on an IFK the ball was kicked deep and rolled and rolled and rolled before being touched a second time. He ran down the field keeping his arm up the entire time. The assessor thought that looked silly and said he should have put his arm down. He politely disagreed.
That happens to me two or three times a season, and it seems to come more often in the higher-skilled games.
The crappy part of this whole thing is that under NFHS it's a goal kick in the first scenario. So the ref screws up gives the attackers the idea they can score directly then takes the goal away. Ew...
I think about 3-4 times a season when I signal for an IDK the player taking the kick just stares blankly at me for a few seconds and then ask "So can I kick now?" Them thinking I am holding up my arm to tell them to wait to kick...
I think both scenarios have to be a retake. The first one for the reasons stated above. The second one for the reason that there is a long-held principle that the only right a defensive team has on a free kick is the right to not be unjustly interfered with by the referee. I think a referee who fails to hold their arm up an on IDFK falls precisely under this topic. Even if the R "announces" it, you can't assume the GK was aware without knowing for sure. An astute GK will see an IDFK coming in not having been touched and will just let it go. So, yes, it's a total cluster****, but you have to do the right thing, which is a retake in both scenarios.
If a ball goes directly into the net it's a retake. If anyone else touches the ball before it goes in, including a tip by the GK, it's a goal with quite a few pissed off players especially the GK. Ask me how I know. cmonref. please be careful about classifying playing on the ground as a dangerous play. That's how rumors get started. Yes playing on the ground can be dangerous, but only in situations where the player on the ground puts himself or an opponent in a dangerous situation. ie blocking an opponent from playing the ball safely.
On the field, without the advantages of a sterile Law Book environment, I am going Goal kick on the first, retake on the second. 1) There is an indication for IFK, then the kicker is TOLD it is Indirect, then he kicks the ball into the net. Seems easy for me. Goal kick. 2) On a IFK, once the ball is kicked, the arm remains up for only one player, the GK. Every other player has freedom to kick it or not. The keeper needs to know if he should touch it. Take the verbal announcement out, take the initial indication out, and who is harmed by the lack of signal, the GK. The ref screws up, and the keeper pays the price, I don't like it. Retake.
That shouldn't be the takeaway from this, because it's mixing apples and oranges to an extent. In the scenario presented in this thread, the referee has made a clear mistake by not putting his arm back up for a ceremonial kick that is likely to result in a chance on goal--it's not a question of him lowering the arm too early, he never had it up for the restart after the initial call. In the type of scenario you're referencing, there's no chance of a goal being scored and yes, there reaches a point where you should put the arm down on IFKs such as offside restarts once it becomes abundantly clear it's not going to result in a goal and/or the ball is obviously going to go out of play. Professional level referees are taught to not run that much (or at all) while maintaining the IFK signal. Don't let this nightmare scenario cause you to draw a different conclusion. As to the initial post... in the scenario as presented, I have a goal kick for two reasons. First, the practical reason is that the attack shouldn't have a second bite at the apple just because the referee screwed up. Second, technically speaking the LOTG say the kick is retaken if the referee fails to signal. It does not say it is retaken if the referee fails to maintain the signal (even though the text obviously says, right above, that the signal is supposed to be maintained). In the scenario described, the signal was made and it was clear to the attack (which is the important part in this case). The guy who tried to score knew it was an IFK, and the referee had signaled IFK initially so people saw it. Don't compound the error by giving the attacking team an undeserved chance. The spirit of the laws say goal kick and the text gives us the loophole to go that route. Scenario two, with the goalkeeper getting a touch? There technically is no right answer. You cannot award the goal (unless you are absolutely certain the goalkeeper acknowledged a verbal signal from you about it being IFK and absolutely certain that other people know it... even then, your argument probably isn't going to work). And because the LOTG talk about retakes for only the ball going "directly" into goal, there's no clear remedy. I think this is one of those scenarios where you have to make something up in order to get the retake, which is the call most people will ultimately accept. The wall moved. The kick went before the whistle. Or just an honest "mea culpa, we're doing this one again."
Some history that I looked up while thinking about this scenario, which some might find interesting: The current LOTG is consistent with its precursor (The Interpretations of the Laws that made up the second half of the Magic Book before the second great re-write last summer), which were consistent with the prior Q&A: all only address an IFK ball going directly into the goal without any signal. Like the current Laws, those sources were all silent on an un-signaled (or inadequately signaled) IFK that did anything other than go directly into the goal. The now-defunct ATR addressed those aspects: If the referee fails to give the correct signal for an indirect free kick or fails to hold it for the required period of time, the indirect free kick must be retaken, regardless of the outcome. This also applies to an incorrect signal for a direct free kick. That interpretation goes farther than the Laws/Interpretations ever (as far as I can tell) did -- and I find it a bit hard to square the expansion from a specific scenario to every scenario in which the arm is un-raised. (Though I would not have trouble squaring it with additional specific scenarios that were not addressed,such as the GK touching an un-signaled IFK -- it has the same logic: a player was disadvantaged by the lack of a signal. But if the un-signaled IFK was kicked as a cross anyway, who cares if it was signaled -- no one was disadvantaged.) So, back to the scenario I posted. (Which is close to a scenario that happened in game over the weekend -- I was the trail AR, so really just an observer as it played out.) To me, two things are obvious: If the R had not raised his arm at all, this would clearly be a retake under the current laws. If the R had properly raised and held his arm, this would clearly be a goal kick. But what happened in the scenario I posted is in between (which is why I thought it might be interesting -- R signaled and told the kicker initially, but didn't put his arm back up. Under the ATR, that would still be enough to mandate a retake. Is that the best result? I suppose one could contend that if the arm was up the coach or a teammate could have reminded the kicker it was indirect. Nonetheless, I think the GK is the least bad option. (This is what the R in the real example decided, after checking with the lead AR to see if it had been touched by the GK. The kicker's coach was still upset about it after the game.) As to the alternate scenario (touch by the GK), I share MassRef's view and reasoning that you can't give that goal (which I would guess was the imagined scenario that led the ATR to say that the IFK should always be retaken). As JA used to say, not every error has a good solution in the LOTG. And hopefully we all avoid this scenario. (As a further aside in an already-too-long post, IIRC, before the first great re-write the guidance on signalling an IFK was until touched or clearly not going to enter the goal. I always wondered why it changed.)
On the second scenario - socal and Massref say you cannot award the goal, and the kick should be retaken. Doesn't that just give the keeper another chance to make the save? What if the second scenario is changed so that the keeper does make the save and pushes the ball out for an apparent corner? Are you still going to order a retake?
Make what save? A goal couldn't legally be scored. We are presuming--at least I am--that the goalkeeper is attempting to stop the shot because he doesn't know it's IFK. Deflected out for a corner is another grey area and I'd probably go the path of least resistance, which is to just give the corner, particularly if no one even notices you didn't signal correctly.
Thats kind of my point. If a goal cant be scored neither can a save be made, so if a goal cannot be the result than neither can a corner.
There is no good answer. This is about choosing the least bad path after a referee error. The referee misled the GK, so it is fundamentally unfair to let that be an element in a goal scoring. (If pressed, I could also argue that my decision was complete consistent with the formal advice previously given by USSF in the ATR, and nothing relevant in Law 13 has changed that would usurp that guidance.) With the retake vs CK, its hard to say which is less fair. If I ever screw up this badly, I'm probably just going with the CK as it is less difficult to manage and less likely that something else screwy happens. (I totally don't get why it matters whether the GK's touch is a save or not. Either you retake the kick or you award the corner because it was last touched by a defender.) At the end of the day, when forced to choose between giving an unfair goal and ordering a retake, I'll take my chances on the retake. (And that interpretation has perfect symmetry with the IFK that goes into the goal when the R unfairly fails to signal the IFK. ) But - we should never have to deal with this because it is an entirely avoidable scenario.