I have just downloaded and printed the 2005 Fifa Q&A. http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/Q&A2005_E.pdf. We have reversals of some of the 2004 Q&A. This sould make quite a few people happy regarding the elimination of the keeper and "Full Possession" concept introduced last year. Law 11, AR must wait to flag OS until the OS player touches the ball even if he is the only one going to ball. Law 13, CR forgets to raise arm to indicate IFK and ball enters goal, retake the IFK. I am sure there are others, happy hunting.
Interesting. It seems that if the ball goes directly into the goal, the attacking team gets to rekick. Since the question mentions directly, can we assume that if a keeper did not know that it was an IFK and tips the ball barely as it went into the goal, we would NOT be rekicking, but instead awarding a goal?? Doesn't seem quite fair. I guess it's time we start to practice getting the hand up BEFORE we blow the whistle. Scott
I still think we should get rid of indirect free kicks all together. Have only direct free kicks and penalty kicks. Avoids all this confusion.
If under 10 players can understand the difference, I don't see why confusion should be an issue. When a referee makes a call, he needs to make sure the players know what the call is and what the restart is!
Very few under 10 players understand what an IDFK is, even after I explain it to them on the field (most look at me with deer in the headlight eyes). Shoot, many U14 players dont understand it. The only area I see a point for IDFKs is the penalty area because you shouldnt get a PK for playing it to the keeper or dangerous play.
I agree. Your examples wouldn't be a PK, they would be a DFK instead of an IFK at the spot of the foul.
I know this post is a month and a half old, but I read it and it made me curious. Would you really prefer to reward a DFK from one yard if the ball was played back to the 'keeper and he touched the ball just off his line? I would think that the logistics of an IFK from that distance would be nightmarish enough. ~Justin
All Indirect Free Kicks called against the Defense in the Goal box come out to the 6 yard line. It's still a scramble, but at least you have a chance.
I don't think anything would change. The free kick would be on the 6, because no attacking free kicks inside the goal area. The defense would set up a wall on the goal line. Same thing would happen if it were Direct or Indirect. Currently, if the attacker wants to slam it in, he'll have some one tap the ball and then do it, so it's basically direct anyway. The EPL experiment showed that it was a disadvantage to be that close, and the ball usually got passed back for a better angled shot.
Awarding a DFK would be inconsistent with the rationale behind IFK vs DFK. IFKs are awarded for technical infringements, also known as "crimes against the game." DFKs are awarded for penal infringements, also known as "crimes against the opponent." Passing to the keeper is a technical infringement, hence the IFK restart.
Yes, I understand the rationale for the IFK restart, but at this point in the game's evolution, I think that IFKs are a useless restart that only add confusion to the game.
"If I don't read, and my soul be lost, ain't nobody's fault but mine.." I think that's absurd. As if in rugby every restart should be a scrum, or in American football every penalty should be 5 yards, or in basketball every foul should result in a 1-and-1 free throw. Let's get rid of the dropped ball while we're at it, because it makes the game simpler I've a better idea--why don't we educate soccer fans around the world so that they're less confused by the game? And if they can't be bothered to learn...well, whose problem is that? I'll start by making a slide show presentation about the offside law that uses areas of active play. You can work on the distinction between technical and penal fouls.