Well, no. I'd respectfully submit that you have a moral obligation not to award a goal if you've called an IFK, signaled incorrectly, and then had the goal get "scored" simply because the goalkeeper didn't notice your lack of signal and attempted to block the shot and deflected it into the net. In all the other possible permutations, yes, I think you have wiggle room on what constitutes justice. But allowing a goal that's only scored due your mistake and covering it up because no one noticed is several steps too far.
Not sure I follow. In this same scenario, if the shot hits the wall and goes out for a corner, are you going to require a retake? If not, why would the goalkeeper deflecting it out be any different? There is technically no right answer for any of this. Cop to your mistake and do the retake if that's the most just scenario. Ignore the mistake and keep going with the next phase of play or restart if that's more just. But don't allow a goal, no matter what. That's the best I can come up with.
It seems to me you are allowing the defending team a free shot at preventing a goal here, because if the keeper punches the ball out (or it deflects off the wall) you award a corner but if a defender touches it and it goes in you retake the IFK. This seems unfair to me because the defending team commited the offense that resulted in the IFK. Now granted you could argue a corner is at least as good an opportunity to score as an IFK from outside the box, but I think you should either retake (which if I'm reading socal correctly is what the depricated ATR says) or not regardless of the outcome. This is kinda making my head spin. I'm just not going to forget to keep my arm raised, period .
So those going against the explicitly stated law and wanting a goal kick on the first scenario I have two questions. What if a different player than the one you spoke to about it being indirect takes the kick? If we are going to give the keeper another chance in scenario 2 here because you assume he may not have seen or heard your IFK proclamation why do we not give the same benefit to the kicking team? Either way we are talking a goal scoring scenario in the first instance that the referee screwed up. If you give the goal kick here this is no different than a violation on a PK and I feel this is a protestable error. I think the old ATR may have even stated that, or maybe someone said that at our advanced clinic the year when the language was added. Either way I would say this is a letter of the law violation by the referee if you don't give a retake.
I'll elaborate on the scenario that happened to me since some of you say this should not happen, and for the record I agree that 99% of the time it should not. This happened in my 2nd year as a referee. In my case I called a dangerous play about 20 yards out and called out right away indirect kick. The attacking player just put the ball on the ground and shot the ball at the goal. The goalkeeper reacted and tipped the ball but the ball ended up in the net anyway. I had almost no time to react and put my hand up to indicate that it was an indirect kick but everyone including the GK heard that I said indirect kick. I allowed the goal to stand and actually reported this to the tournament director after the match. He also allowed the goal to stand and basically told me that since everyone was aware that it was an indirect kick the goal stands. As for the argument at hand. It does not sit well with me that the goal should count, but I also don't like the fact that the attacking team has 2 chances to score because the referee didn't or wasn't able to raise his hand for the signal. By the book we have to give a retake, but in practical situations, like Massref and others have suggested, wiggle your way out of it and make the right call by the players and the game.
Here's my mechanic, which would help in avoiding such an event from recurring. Any and all times I am making a call for an indirect kick, I put my hand up AS I blow the whistle. This takes out any question at the beginning. Then I KEEP my hand up until the kick is taken. UNLESS, it becomes a ceremonial restart such as the wall needs moved, at which point we're now on the whistle, and I simply raise my arm before blowing the whistle. If we're talking about a drop zone issue, it's rarely on a quick free kick, so my plan still works 99.9% of the time. On the rare occasion that there is a quick out IDFK blasted to the other side of the field, I drop my arm when I need to take off sprinting, and raise it again only if absolutely necessary. Which in 19 years as a referee has never happened to me. In fact the only occurrence I can think of at all was a professional game in another country last year, where a GK took an IDFK from an offside call that went the whole distance of the field and ended up in the back of the net on the other end, only to be called a goal kick because no one else touched it. In that case the referee was still around midfield with his hand up.
Well, that's a key bit of information that you're changing. Yes, if you're not certain the kicker knew it was an IFK (and, to be clear, it was presented in the original scenario in this thread that the referee would have been certain), retake is the appropriate option. But I laid out how it's not a letter of the law violation. The LOTG says the retake must be taken if the referee fails to signal. In the original scenario, the signal was made--it just wasn't maintained. The Laws don't explicitly say you must have a retake if the signal isn't maintained. Of course you should maintain the signal, particularly in a goal-scoring situation, but we're not talking about a protestable error.
And I think you are making an assertion that is incorrect. The part about maintaining the signal is literally in the same breath as giving us the signal. It's a package deal. And even if you want to try and twist the words that way, the signal isn't being given when the kick takes place. The whole point of the signal is to be maintained until then ball can be scored, if you aren't going to show that then what's the point at all? Lets just call it like it is, you are giving more benefit to the defense in both scenarios than you are the attackers even though the law leans the other direction. Equality is not present here.
Of course it's supposed to be a package deal. That's why referees aren't supposed to make this mistake and why we have this thread in the first place. But you started talking about "letter of the law" and "protestable errors." My point is that a strict reading of the letter of the law says the restart must be retaken if the signal is not made. That's the letter of the law. The signal was made. No one is going to win a protest over this in any type of competition with a competent authority. So when an MLS referee drops the IFK signal a few seconds before an offside restart gets a second touch, is the match protestable? And if it's not in that case, why is there a different standard in a goal-scoring situation? Look, I'm not trying to advocate there's some good, virtuous result here. The entire thread is premised on the referee screwing up. It should never happen at any sort of serious level, so we're (hopefully) talking about relatively low level soccer. The way out of something like this is to get the most just result within the Laws. It's going to depend on a number of factors. If you or anyone else takes the position that it always has to be a retake, that's fine. I think that indicates a narrow perspective on the referee's role in managing a match, which is why I engaged here. But it's a perfectly defensible position. No, let's not. Because that's not true. I'm giving the benefit to the person or persons or team that was unaware of the initial signal. As I said explicitly when you just brought it up, if the kicker is unaware it's an IFK, then you go with the retake. My first answer and all subsequent posts in this thread have been in response to a scenario and premise where the attacker taking the shot knew it was an IFK and the goalkeeper didn't. If this thread had started with the goalkeeper being aware of the IFK and the kicker not having a clue, I'd have an entirely different answer.
So you are arguing that maintaining the signal is a package deal as written but not the letter of the law? You realize how little that makes sense right? Because there isn't a specific mentioning of the proper restart in the laws to contradict the decision. It's in black and white, if the referee fails to give the IFK signal on the free kick (which means maintaining it during the kick) and it goes directly in the goal it's a retake. It's the same as if the attacking team violates law 14 (the three special violations excluded) but then ball goes in, we give a retake. It doesn't matter if it seems fair that they get a second shot, that's the law. The only difference in this case is the referee violated the laws and not one team or the other. But all you are doing is creating inconsistency for the sake of saving yourself some grief, rather than doing what is written. IFAB is so infrequent in giving us direction on these oddball scenarios that is seems ludicrous to me that when they actually do it, we instead go against them. But that is what you did. Re read the scenario, no where does it say the keeper didn't see the IFK signal or didn't hear the ref say it was indirect, it's just said they desperately tried to save the ball. You could argue they would only do so if they thought the kick was direct but then you are giving them the benefit of the doubt and not doing so for the kicking team who may not have heard you despite you telling them or thought you said something different. In either case you are making assumptions rather than just dealing with facts. The referee didn't put the arm up for the kick it went directly in the goal, its supposed to be a retake.
The parenthetical is your interpretation. It is not black and white in the laws. In the scenario, the referee did give a signal, just not fully A bit pompous there. And not at all what we are doing. There is no way out of grief on this -- the ref F'd up and it is only question of who is giving the grief. What we have here is a failure to communicate . . . We are not giving a greater benefit of the doubt to the defense. You can change or ignore the scenario being discussed all you want. In the scenario that was presented, the R signaled initially, and told the guy who took the kick. The teams are being treated exactly the same: where there is fair reason to believe a team was disadvantaged by the referee's mistake it must be retaken. No, we are using the actual facts: the referee did signal; he just failed to do so fully. I'll state my view again, and withdraw from this thread: I do not believe the Laws provide an answer here and I do not believe either result is protestable. It's a CF caused by the R. Had the R not told the exact guy who kicked the ball that it was indirect, I would join you in saying the retake is the far better solution. But that's not the scenario. And as I said, I would criticize your decision to do a retake either, as I think it is equally justifiable under Law 13. But pretending that this is clearly answer in Law 13 is not just being a book referee, it is putting one's own gloss on the language and then rigidly applying it.
Nope. I think it makes perfect sense. How can you say something is black and white when you have to add a parenthetical to explain your position? I would suggest that the wording in the Laws is not there for the reason you think it is. It's not there to bail a referee out of a scenario where he signals an IFK and then doesn't put the signal back up, after the attacking team acknowledges it's an IFK. It's there for the technical reason of a goal being scored off a restart that inherently must be an IFK. So a simulation call. Or an offside decision. Or a passback violation. In situations like that, the restart absolutely must be an IFK and everyone knows it, per the Laws. This clause gives every referee in the world an explicit remedy if they fail to signal that appropriately. If you think the IFAB wrote this language specifically to account for referees who call PIADM correctly and then fail to maintain the signal, we're at an impasse. Because there's not a chance in the world that's true. Sorry, but yes, I'm going to make the assumption that a goalkeeper is only attempting a desperation save because he thinks it's a DFK, particularly absent any evidence to the contrary. I'm making some real world assumptions here. If we're at a level where goalkeepers are diving to save IFKs when they know it's a DFK then we're operating at one that I haven't been acquainted with in a long time. And I'm also working under the assumption that when @socal lurker says the referee tells the kicker it's an IFK, we have some level of certainty or even confirmation that the message got through. Also, you're playing fast and loose with the facts when you say in this passage the referee didn't put his arm up because it suggests there was only a verbal instruction that there was an IFK called--the initial post says he did put his arm up, he just didn't maintain it. I don't know what we're arguing here. This isn't happening in any one of my games so if you're chastising me personally for saying I'd do this, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm merely offering my advice to someone in this scenario that there are multiple ways to move forward when this happens. You are clearly adamant there's only one. And that is defensible, as I said, and apparently is the only path that will work for you and the only one that matches your outlook on the role of a referee. But I'm not going to concede your assertion that the letter of the law demands your approach and any deviation from that approach is protestable. With those apparent set of facts established, I don't think there's anything left to discuss here.
I'm sorry but what? You and MassRef have now both admitted that the referee didn't give the full signal, but despite that and the fact that the laws indicate it must be maintained you are willing to fully commit to denying a team a goal. Rather than split the difference and award the retake, which is what the laws say to do. Maybe you take it that way but you are admitting the referee screwed up, but then jumping further into the murky gray area you perceive is there rather than use what's already written. Again I disagree. I went with what you wrote. As this whole argument is based on playing verbal gymnastics with the scenario and then the law, I don't feel like I'm out of line in pointing out that you end up taking away the goal in both scenarios. In neither case do you rule in favor of the kicking team. Again you are saying the referee almost signaled correctly. Is that like being almost pregnant? Which is it, did the ref signal correctly or not? Again I will point out that this is one of the very few instances where the IFAB chose to address a loopy scenario. Why not go with it rather than trying to make up something based on flimsy justification.
Fair enough? Didn't you agree they were a package deal, I added the parenthesis to make sure no one forgot that portion of the signal. Which is in writing. The reasoning for the wording is fairly obvious I never denied that. They don't want the kicking team or the defensive team to have confusion with regard to what kind of kick is being taken. if you don't continue to give the signal then what guarantee does either team have that you haven't changed this to a DFK after some introspection. Maybe you realize contact was made and it can't be IFK. I don't know, but I'm not going to make the assumption that either team had a full understanding of the process when I didn't do my part of the job. We probably are at an impasse but I doubt it has anything to do with me associating this scenario only with PIADM. I was never attacking you personally but I do believe that you and SoCal carry a lot of weight here as your opinions are almost always agreeable and well thought out. With that said I think there needs to be discussion to flesh out those thoughts so no one walks away thinking the grey area of the laws is the place we should always default to. This is a critical decision in a game that is going to take away a goal or let one stand with some contention. Referees need to be exceedingly careful and well reasoned if they are going to take that stance rather than go with what I believe is covered in the laws.
You're introducing this as if we're admitting something we previously denied. The entire thread is based on this fact. It's a fact. The referee screwed up and didn't give the full signal. No one is denying that. No one has ever denied that. The debate--such as this is a "debate," since there's been no acknowledgement of any of the points we are making--is that it's not a protestable error and the part you are claiming is "black and white" is not as clear as you're claiming. The referee signaled. The referee didn't maintain that signal, as he was supposed to do so. But the remedy only talks about a retake if the referee "fails to signal," which is ambiguous. That's the point we're making. If you want to stake your entire argument on "fails to signal" not being ambiguous enough to give the referee wiggle room, that's your right. But you're never going to convince me otherwise. I suspect @socal lurker is in the same boat. You can point it out as many times as you want, but it's not true. The IFAB didn't decide that this is the one place where they would legislate an oddball Bigsoccer theoretical. It's about ensuring there is no technical violation of the Law and having an IFK restart, like a passback, suddenly be sanctioned as a DFK because the referee forgot to signal.
The Laws are a package deal. All sorts of components are supposed to be read together. It's a comprehensive document that needs to be understood in full. But when you're talking about black and white and protestable errors, you're talking about explicit language. The language here is explicit that the referee has to signal. He did. The maintenance of that signal is supposed to happen, of course. But the maintenance language is omitted from the remedy. You presume it's implied. I also presume it's implied. You think the fact that it's implied means failure to follow the remedy when the signal isn't maintained means it's a protestable error. I don't. I think you're missing my point. Take PIADM out of the equation for a moment (because, quite honestly, PIADM vs. a DFK for attempting to kick can be a judgment call). Think about passback violations or simulation or stopping play to issue a card for dissent. Restarts that--black and white--MUST be IFKs with absolutely no wiggle room for the referee. It's not about preventing confusion from either team. The language is a necessary escape clause for what to do when an IFK must happen but a referee never gives the signal and a goal is then directly scored from the restart. The point of this language is to reassert that it's still an IFK and the kick must be retaken if the referee team realizes the error. Because, if the error is not fixed and this game, let's say, is on video, that is the protestable error that we're looking for. My reference to the PIADM call is laid out more clearly in the passage above. I do think it's important for understanding why this passage is in the Laws. I don't think it's a personal attack, and I hope you don't think our counters to your arguments are attacks. I just think you're wrong here. We don't think we're defaulting or trying to find a grey area--we think this is a grey area and the clause, as written, doesn't apply as universally as you think it must. I don't think we're going to get any closer on this, so I'll bow out now, too.
If you are looking for me to acknowledge your points then I will. The laws do not specifically spell out the scenario where the referee gives an IFK signal, however brief, then lowers it to set up a free kick, then fails to resume the signal before allowing the kick. I think trying to call that different than what they do spell out is reaching. Again, my opinion. But if you feel that gives you the wiggle room you need then so be it. The point I won't back down from is the logic behind awarding the retake. If as you say, this was simply about not allowing this to become a DFK and keeping it an IFK then why wouldn't FIFA take he same stance as NFHS and say it's a goal kick regardless of the referee's error. Instead they acknowledge the referees error, which I believe is deceiving to the teams, and allow a retake rather than fully denying a goal or awarding one that shouldn't count. I hope you can see where I'm coming from at least in that regard. Edit: obviously the logic behind the law ultimatley doesn't matter but I feel like sometimes we lose the historical reasoning for laws. Let the passback arguments begin.
This is still going on? As a referee you have two options everyone knew it was an ifk through your previous indicators and would proceed as normal or they didn't know in which case you give the ifk. In a real game situation if the kicker knew it was an ifk through my verbal communication and the keeper did not know and the ball goes directly into the net or out of bounds I would use a bit of common sense and award a goal kick.
I have to agree with @fairplayforlife here and see this as a classic example of the IFAB trying to save a few words on something that they think "everybody knows". I just have to think that they intend the "fails to signal" to mean "fails to signal in the correct way". Especially as previous incarnations of the LotG wrote it as "fails to raise his arm" and the change from that to today's language is only necessary if they thought that raising the arm wasn't the full extent of the signal they intended. It is also interesting to note that that same previous LotG also had the added "The initial indirect free kick is not nullified by the referee’s mistake." Of course that doesn't prove anything but it sure seems like they didn't want to the remedy to be different depending on what happenend after the incorrect signal.
I feel this is one case of creeping requirements. (Yes, I write software.) It has been best practice to hold the signal until the first touch or ball-out-of-play for a long time, mainly to reduce on-field tantrums after the fact. All of a sudden it is being interpreted as a protestable failure by the referee if they don't. I just don't know you get from A to C here. If they gave the signal and then stopped giving the signal, they therefore gave the signal and met the requirement.
The requirement is that they hold the signal until a touch happens, if they don't hold it until then how can you conclude that the requirement has been met? No, it has been required procedure for a long time. That's because you ignored B. The (possibly) protestable error isn't that the referee didn't hold the signal long enough. It is the (again possibly) incorrect re-start that comes from the referee ignoring that he didn't hold the signal the prescribed time and thus picks a different re-start than the one the LotG says that mistake should result in. Is making an incorrect re-start enough to make the game/incident protestable? I don't know but it sure seems like a factual error on the referees part.
Normally I'd agree with you but this is one of the few places where how to deal with a refereeing mistake is actually clearly spelled out, why would you ignore it?