Dealing with "The Statue"

Discussion in 'Referee' started by AlextheRef, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    Careful... the directive, as you posted, clearly states:

    Therefore, if a defender within the 10 yards radius lunges at the kick and blocks it, this is cautionable. Moving "forward" is not a requirement. Moving towards the ball, however, is.

    The Week in Review from last year covered this situation where New England scored a goal against Columbus, as Wells Thompson stuck his leg out to block a free kick, springing a break that led to the NE goal. The WiR clearly indicated:

     
  2. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    IMO, the referee should allow play to continue in this situation, and the defender should be cautioned at the NEXT stoppage for FRD, regardless of whether or not he makes contact was the ball.

    FIFA and the USSF have seemingly come to the conclusion that only DR, not FRD, exists as a cautionable offense.

    Suppose a defender, standing two yards from the spot of the free kick, puts his foot out and intercepts the opponents free kick, but the ball deflects off him and into the goal. Do you caution him?
     
  3. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    I don't think you would be wrong to do this. Whether it has the intended impact on your game is another question entirely. I would guess the USSF higher-ups wouldn't agree with this process, but I think in the right circumstance, the idea has merit.

    Personally, no, I would not do this. The defender may have intended to infringe on the Laws by doing this, but due to his actions (or stupidity), the goal is now valid. I think that is punishment enough.

    Having said that, by the book the referee would not be incorrect to caution the defender anyway because of his intent. I would not criticize anybody who chose to do so.
     
  4. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    (Please define what I put in red. You may find it to be a difficult task.)

    That situation was from TWO years ago, and was clearly prior to the USSF directive being written.

    I had a major problem with the USSF's interpretation of the defender's action, and disagreed with the Staff opinion expressed in the USSF position paper put out on this situation. In particular, disagreed with Sandy Hunt, the author of the paper, in person at a clinic the very week that it was issued.

    http://209.197.7.122/v7c5x3f7/cds/D...1118c&dopsig=a84d9c8bcff4fd3b0c0dd7084812e2cd

    My contention was that she was incorrect in her definition of the key phrase from the ATR.

    "The key phrase to remember when viewing the attached clip is, “able to control the ball without moving toward it.”

    I advocated that the language of the current documentation only prohibited a physical change of location of the defender, not just sticking out his leg while standing still. That was the widely accepted definition of "moving toward," and the ATR specifically stated that a defender closer than ten yards was allowed to "control the ball without moving toward it."

    Her opinion was that movement by any body part in the direction of where the ball was, even as it was flying through the air, not just from where it was kicked, constituted "moving toward it." I thought that was rubbish.

    I even inquired about a couple of test cases. One was the defender jumping straight up and heading the ball, the other had the player stationary and sticking his leg out to the side play the ball. She told everyone in the room that these were offenses and that the kick needed to be retaken in each case.

    Now a couple of years later we have new leadership in the USSF referee office and they write, "The defender DOES NOT move, lunge or advance directly toward the ball to intercept or prevent – the leg/foot is to the side and the player is stationary or moving back."

    Now one can debate the NE/Columbus play and argue about whether or not the leg which blocked the ball was extended forward or to the side or at some angle inbetween, but there is no disputing that the defender was stationary and not himself moving toward the ball.

    I do know this. The wording of 13.3 of the ATR was changed shortly after our disagreement over this play. The supporting language in the documentation for her position was added. I guess that's a benefit of being on the instructional staff. However, I find it amusing that the directive from this year seems to contradict was put into the ATR that summer.

    I wish that the poobahs would just keep it simple. All they have to do is render a decision that a free kick must be "free from interference by the opposing team." Write that any defender closer that ten yards from the point of the kick cannot PLAY the ball, but the ball may be played into the player. Use the same concept which every referee is already familiar with from judging a handling offense, namely hand to ball is an offense, but ball to hand is okay.
    The result would be that any defender within 10 yards could not actively play the ball, but wouldn't be penalized if the ball were kicked into him first.

    I told members of the National Instructor Staff this a couple of years ago, but they elected not to go this route. Instead they have elected to contort the current wording of the previous documents in an attempt to make it support what they believe. What they need to do is admit that the previous words don't say what they want, declare them incorrect, scrap them, and craft a clear and easily enforceable standard. (I recommend "player to ball" and "ball to player.")

    BTW there is next to no support in the FIFA LOTG for the convoluted and confusing position expressed in the USSF ATR and position paper regarding "moving toward." FIFA doesn't addresss movement inside the 10 yard distance just the fact that an opponent is located within that area.

    FIFA says the following:
    "If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance:
    • the kick is retaken"

    "If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, intentionally kicks the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but neither in a careless nor a reckless manner nor using excessive force, the referee must allow play to continue."

    "If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue."
     
  5. AlsoRan

    AlsoRan Member

    Aug 17, 2005
    This distinction between moving toward the ball (cautionable) and intercepting the ball (play continues) was a point of considerable discussion at the Northern California clinic taught by Herb Silva in April of this year. Dr. Silva made the point that in order to be sanctioned, the defender must be moving toward the ball at the time the ball is kicked. Once the ball is kicked, the player is free to move any which way he pleases to intercept the ball.
     
  6. vetshak

    vetshak Member+

    May 26, 2009
    Minnesota
    If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow my definition from what I consider to be a fairly well stated clarification:

    I agree, it shouldn't be that hard to define this. I think it could simply be left at "in the opinion of the referee" and they might trust us to use common sense.
     
  7. CalCard

    CalCard Member

    May 5, 2008
    CA
    So MrRC,

    Were you actually in Las Vegas at the R-IV Regionals in 2007? I was there and I don't recall anyone actively disagreeing with the paper/position/video.
     
  8. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    My question is why would you feel a defender should have a right to deliberately block a ball, either before or after a kick is taken, when he is standing only two yards from the point of the free kick? Perhaps he doesn't have time to retreat the full 10 yards, but clearly he should not deliberately interfere with play while he is within those 10 yards, don't you think?


    IMO, the LOTG contain irreconcilable differences.

    Law 13:
    If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance:
    • the kick is retaken

    Law 13 Interpretation:
    If a player decides to take a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m from the ball intercepts it, the referee must allow play to continue.


    Neither of the above discuss why the opponent is within the 10 yards or what he might be doing. MrRC does have a good argument that the LOTG seem to give the opponent carte blanche, as long as he does not actually prevent the restart. He could lay down one inch from the ball and apparently not be guilty according to the LOTG (play is to continue). Alternatively, he could get a running start and slide tackle the ball, provided it was kicked first by the attacking team, and not be guilty.

    I hope I am missing something.


    I don't see why the attacking team must assume a risk of contact with defenders who are within 10 yards of the kick. If contact is made, the kick should be retaken. The only risk to the attacking team should be that a) the enemy has been alerted to plan A, and b) the enemy now has more time to prepare for the free kick, since it must now be retaken.

    I would argue that the USSF is deliberately using the most benign interpretation of the LOTG's word "intercept" on purpose in order to minimize the damage to the spirit of the game. Sure, you can argue that a more liberal interpretation should be used, but this would only detract from the spirit of the game even more, and you could end up with the examples I gave above as being legitimate plays, at least according to Law 13 Interpretation.
     
  9. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    PV,
    Please allow me to clarify.

    1. I don't believe that a defender within the ten yard area should be allowed to deliberately (actively) block the kick either before or after it is taken. My personal opinion is that goes directly against the concept of a "free" kick.

    2. However, the wording of the USSF ATR (summer 2007 version and previous), past USSF position papers on quick free kicks, along with the FIFA LOTG state that he can. I happen to disagree with all of these documents, but I'm not the governing authority and my opinion doesn't matter on the big stage.

    3. Sandy Hunt advocated a personal opinion that the kick should be free from such interference and I agree with that. Where I disagree with her is that she believes that the current wording of the ATR supported her personal opinion that such action by a defender was illegal. As you have astutely noted, it practically says the opposite! :eek: In short, I was trying to tell her that even if the authors of the USSF papers and ATR intended for such action to be impermissible, that is NOT what they wrote and we have to either go by what is written or admit that it does not say what we want or need and change it. What is absurd is to try to interpret the current wording in some strange manner and claim that it means something else.

    4. To further illustrate my point...
    That is certainly one way of reading the 2009 directive. It is also in complete disagreement with the position articulated by Sandy Hunt both personally and through the 2007 USSF position paper about the NE/Columbus incident.
    It seems that from 2007 to 2009 all that the USSF has done on this issue is write something which has illicited conflicting statements from high level instructors and is certain to cause even greater confusion amongst the rank and file referees. Apparently, Dr. Silva believes that the 2009 directive has overturned the 2007 position paper. BTW I read that passage about extending the leg to the side while stationary in exactly that manner, but I did not understand the 2009 directive as saying that a player can be moving towards the ball when intercepting it, which you claim is how Dr. Silva is teaching it.

    5. I advocate a complete deletion of the current language concerning the taking of free kicks in the aforementioned documents, and a total rewrite of the LOTG interpretation and USSF policy on this point, from scratch. It is the only way to eliminate all the confusing and differing instruction and make free kicks truly "free."
     
  10. MrRC

    MrRC Member

    Jun 17, 2009
    One more comment.

    I would question your assertion that the USSF is using a passive or "benign" definition of the word "intercept."

    I've had instruction from one of the big boys that the following play is perfectly legal.

    A DFK is awarded to White. Red #3 is standing a mere four yards directly in front of where the ball is spotted for the free kick. Instead of kicking the ball forward, White #7 elects to pass the ball sideways towards White #10, who is seven yards away. Red #3 was not moving at the time of the kick, but after it has been taken he takes advantage of his position within ten yards of the restart by quickly running in between the two opposing players and intercepting the slowly passed ball.

    The action of Red #3 was clearly not a benign or passive interception of the kicked ball, but he certainly did not interfere with the opposing team putting the ball back into play. He simply benefited from his previously illegal position, which the opposing team apparently made trifling (or even legal to use stronger language) by electing to restart play with him closer than the required 10-yard distance, to make an otherwise legal play.
     
  11. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Who, Dr. Herb Silva?

    The directive states

    The implication is that if the defender DOES MOVE toward the ball, or this leg/foot is not "to the side", the free kick is to be retaken.

    That is far different from "Once the ball is kicked, the player is free to move any which way he pleases to intercept the ball."



    I can't discuss the Gonzalez-Thompson case, because the MLSnet highlights do not show clearly what happened. Thompson initially appears to back away from the DFK, so it is a bit of a mystery to me how he ended up within 2 yards of the kick. What actually happened is not clear at all.



    I did not say this. I said it is the LOTG that practically says the opposite. The ATR said and currently says "may not thereafter claim infringement of the distance requirement, even if the ball is kicked to the infringing opponent, who thereby is able to control the ball without moving toward it". So even older ATR's had the "without moving toward it" clause, which can reasonably be interpreted, and was later specifically interpreted, to include "an act that makes a difference in the play, such as blocking the kick".



    "Dr. Silva made the point that in order to be sanctioned, the defender must be moving toward the ball at the time the ball is kicked."

    Actually, a player could be running away from the ball at the time of the kick, but if he came from behind the ball, he clearly must be sanctioned according to the directive. But it is difficult to read "If the attacker knew where the defender was at the time the QFK was taken, then the likelihood that the defender prevented the free kick from taken is minimal" without thinking that an attacker does have carte blanche to do whatever he wants, if the attacker knew where he was. Yet the very next statement implies that the defender is very restricted: "The defender DOES NOT move, lunge or advance directly toward the ball to intercept or prevent – the leg/foot is to the side and the player is stationary or moving back." I interpret "leg/foot is to the side" means "it is not stuck out away from the body in an attempt to make contact with the ball".



    In my opinion, a player who is not failing to respect the required distance, i.e. is dutifully retreating to 10 yards when the kick is taken, should be allowed full participation once the kick is taken, despite the fact that he has not yet retreated the full 10 yards. Players that deliberately delay their retreat have no such rights, IMO. Just because a free kick should be retaken because of a FRD does not necessarily mean a FRD caution must be handed out, IMO.



    Law 13 should be changed to say:

    If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is deliberately closer to the ball than the required distance, and interferes with play or an opponent:
    • the kick is retaken

    This would allow kicks to be retaken without requiring either cautions to be issued in order for a kick to be retaken (it is beneficial to have some leeway in this regard), or that ALL kicks be retaken when opponents are within 10 yards (for whatever reason, whether they interfered with play or not).

    If the opponent is deemed by the referee to have not been deliberately too close to the ball at the time of the kick (in some sense, failing to respect the required distance), then he should be allowed to subsequently interfere with play without sanction (or restart). In this sense, the attacking team "assumed the risk" by putting the ball in play before the opponents had a chance to retreat 10 yards.
     
  12. GKbenji

    GKbenji Member+

    Jan 24, 2003
    Fort Collins CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yikes. All this is where trying to parse all the, um, stuff vomited up by Jim Allen, USSF, USSF, etc. etc. just gets us into trouble. As I see it, dealing with encroachment on free kicks is where a ref needs to read the game and read the players to come up with the correct course of action. It takes experience and a feel for the game.

    Sometimes a quick "Get back" to the defense works just fine.

    If asked, get in and manage the wall.

    Sometimes the ref must step in an make a kick ceremonial before the kickers ask for 10 yards. Does it look like there is no possibility the kickers will take it right away and the defense is encroaching? Great opportunity to step in, manage the wall, and maybe deliver a warning that you don't want to have to do it again. Also helps dispel the "must ask for it" myth (and it is a myth IMHO).

    Other times, in spite of defenders encroaching, you might want to just keep quiet and watch what happens.

    A good ref will read the players for the cue for what course of action best suits that particular free kick. There are no black and white, hard and fast rules for managing the wall. I think that encroachment needs to be handled more proactively when possible, and not reactively in response to a request.
     
  13. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Vomited? That is a little harsh, don't you think? Why "must" a ref "step in an make a kick ceremonial before the kickers ask for 10 yards"? Sure, the referee has a right to do it, even according to the USSF, but why "must" he? The Free Kick and Restart Management directive states that the referee may [unilaterally] decide to slow down the tempo of the match for game control purposes (for example, to have an extended/formal conversation with a player). Presumably, that could include a conversation with a player or players who are failing to respect the required distance.

    But in general, yes, the attacking team must request "that the minimum distance requirement be enforced against the opponents."

    The LOTG only say that a whistle "is needed" to restart play "for free kicks when the appropriate distance is required". Technically, I would think the "appropriate distance" is required on ALL free kicks, but since the LOTG also state that the whistle is NOT needed to restart play on free kicks [NEC], clearly the LOTG must be referring to something else regarding whistled restarts.

    So when IS the "appropriate distance" required, and by whom is it required? I would think when the attacking team requests that the full 10 yard requirement be enforced.

    One can argue that it doesn't matter WHO decides the appropriate distance is "required", either the referee or the attacking team, but USSF has made it clear that it should not, in general, be a unilateral decision of the referee.

    I don't see why, if a referee feels it would be easier to get the required distance by physically managing the wall than by continuing to verbally manage it, he can, if there is any doubt that the attacking team might still be interested in a non-ceremonial restart, simply ask them. If the attacking team agrees to a ceremonial, there are no issues.

    All of this discussion has little to do with the player that clearly fails to respect the required distance in situations where the free kick is not ceremonial, which is the main issue being debated.
     
  14. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    But in general, yes, the attacking team must request "that the minimum distance requirement be enforced against the opponents."

    And again for the one hundreth time, I will say you are totally one hundred per cent wrong on that account.

    And because of your attitude and the attitude and mis beliefs of tons of referees in this country, we have teams that are coached to stand 2-5 yards from the ball to interrupt the ability of the attackers from taking a kick, whether or not quickly or otherwise.

    The defense has only one job in the case of a free and that is to retreat 10 yards. JA has said this over and over again. If you as a referee decide that it is okay to stand 5 yards from the ball on every free and you will not interfere unless the attackers ask for it, then you are not doing the job you are put out on the field to do.
    There is NOTHING in any book about the minimum requirement being the responsibility of the attacking team, and crap posted like this only allows for coaches to teach this and drill it into the players to stand there against the rules and the SOTG.

    And I will tell any defender who is in that zone to get out right now, and don't let me have to tell you again for the rest of the game. I don't wait for the attacker to ask, I say it from whatever position I am in on the field during the taking of the first kick.

    R
     
  15. GKbenji

    GKbenji Member+

    Jan 24, 2003
    Fort Collins CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was intentionally a bit pejorative, because often these "clarifications" often do little more than muddy the water more. Oy. And fine, change "must" to "may", but your parsing below is exactly the kind of literal nitpickiness I am railing against.

    [/quote[
    But in general, yes, the attacking team must request "that the minimum distance requirement be enforced against the opponents."[/quote]

    Again, no. A myth, and one that can easily be stamped out in ways I mention: if it seems clear the attackers are making no move to quickly take the kick, get in there and make it ceremonial before they need to ask. I do this quite a bit, have never had the attackers get mad at me by mis-reading their intent, and it serves notice that there is no need to ask. Another, perhaps harsher, way is to simply step in and card the encroachment right off the bat.

    It is required always, by the Laws. The guidance lets us know when the ref might choose not to penalize the encroachment with the prescribed penalty (a yellow card), but the required distance from the kick is never an option. That's why there is no need for the attackers to "ask for 10", and the referee can step in to enforce the Laws whenever he sees fit. How hard is that to understand?

    The good referee will manage the situation as the game situation requires. He will use whatever communication tools are necessary, be proactive in some cases, wait and see in others.
     
  16. sokol

    sokol Member

    Aug 4, 2004
    This issue is one of the reasons why I have always been in favor a change to the entire restart protocol. One great way to improve the flow of the game, discourage cynical fouling a little bit and not disadvantage the attacking team is to allow any restart to be taken with the ten yard radius of the foul. If the kick is taken from the spot of the foul it is direct, but it can be taken as an indirect anywhere ten yards from the foul, and the defenders still only need to be ten yards from where the foul occured and not ten yards from the ball. So if you get fouled, you can pick up the ball and run it to an spot you want to take a quick free quick, avoiding any "statues." It would also let teams strategize a little more on set plays near the goal (and theoretically discouraging fouling near the goal a little more). I would also like to see a more specific protocol for determining when the kick has actually been taken (as sometimes you see a team touch the ball as if playing it short, and if the other team pressures quickly they just pick it up and pretend like they are still setting up the free kick). I wouldn't mind requiring that the ball always be stopped using a hand, and once you take your hand off the ball then any touch with the foot puts the ball in play.

    I know there are issues, the biggest one in my mind being the difficulty of estimating ten yards between two blades of grass as opposed to 10 yards from a ball. If it could somehow be implemented though I feel it would be an improve the overall flow of the game and eliminate some of the cheap forms of gamesmanship which pop up.

    In thinking about this, I'm surprised nobody has developed a precise way to measure ten yards for an official. It seems like you could design a laser pointer or something to automatically establish ten yards, and that would also be a way to improve the flow of the game. Anyone heard of any ideas like that?
     
  17. Gary V

    Gary V Member+

    Feb 4, 2003
    SE Mich.
    How about this simple solution? If the kicker has to ask for 10, and the ref then finds any opponent inside 10 yards, that opponent gets a caution. If the kicker asks and there is no one within 10 yards, the kicker gets a caution. Either way the restart has been delayed, right?

    I'm being somewhat facetious of course. But I think you would quickly see most defenders moving to 8-12 yards from the ball; you certainly wouldn't see those statues at 0-3 yards anymore.

    Alternatively, we could start cautioning the statues who clearly are nowhere close to estimating 10 yards correctly.
     
  18. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    There is a significant difference between your verbal admonishments and going ceremonial. I don't know how one can read the Free Kick and Restart Management Directive and conclude that the referee has the right, according to the USSF, to unilaterally decide to make a free kick ceremonial, without "Confirmation of Ceremonial Kick From Attackers" or "Team Indicates They Want a Ceremonial Restart".
     
  19. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    This seems like the simple solution to me.
     
  20. snolly g

    snolly g Member

    Aug 21, 2008
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    clean, serviceable, practical... and in the games i've played, it seems to be how it's done anyhow.

    so... anyone care to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
     
  21. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    There is a significant difference between your verbal admonishments and going ceremonial. I don't know how one can read the Free Kick and Restart Management Directive and conclude that the referee has the right, according to the USSF, to unilaterally decide to make a free kick ceremonial, without "Confirmation of Ceremonial Kick From Attackers" or "Team Indicates They Want a Ceremonial Restart".

    Sigh.....All I can tell you is that IF the defending team is standing within 5 yards of the ball every time there is a free kick and the referee does NOTHING, then again, WHY IS IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ATTACKERS?

    Who gives a crap about the directive? Since 99% of the referees have never ever read it, and we have people on this board who have read it telling you that you are wrong!
     
  22. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    USA v Honduras tonight
    73:20

    Davey Arnaud standing about 7 yards away. No movement (other than to protect his face and gonads). The free kick is taken directly at Arnaud who just flinches because of the force of the kick.

    The Panamanian referee tweets and cautions Arnaud. :rolleyes:
     
  23. AlextheRef

    AlextheRef Member

    Jun 29, 2009
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ah so you saw what I saw! I was in the stands directly behind the goal in that situation and I could have sworn that Arnaud did not move. Things are tough to critiscize when you only have a quick glimpse of a situation (which explains how challenging the referee's job is).

    If Campbell is from Panama, why is he still in the competition? Weren't the United States referees sent hom because the USA made the quarterfinals? Wouldn't it make sense that, since Panama made that stage as well, that why would send home the Panamanian referee?
     
  24. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Panama is now out, so their referees are still available. You can't send everybody home...
     
  25. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, Campbell is from Jamiaca.
     

Share This Page