2020-2021 England Referee Appointments (EPL+) [Rs]

I think Roger East was the last to use one in the EPL. Mark Halsey and Peter Walton both also preferred it, if I remember correctly.

 

No, but that's because DFKs inside the attacking penalty area are literally unlawful. Attacking IFKs can occur inside or outside the penalty area.

In the scenario you're suggesting, we'd have immediate questions about whether or not something should have been called a PK. In this scenario, everyone should understand the location of the restart is just slightly off--no one would question the veracity of the actual decision.

This is the question, though, isn't it? Does it have to?

Before I get accused of being contrarian for the sake of it... yes, ideal world you put the IFK on the line or right inside the penalty area to avoid any questions. Obviously better practice if you just make sure that happens as a referee.

With that said, two things...

First, no one cared.

Second, long ago in the Laws there was language about free kicks and throw-ins being taken from within one yard of the offence or ball going out of play. That language eventually disappeared, but I would argue the principle never has (it's not like we charge referees with finding the exact blade of grass, so there has to be some leeway involved). If the offence here took place at 17.5 yards from goal and the restart was inches outside the penalty area, from a law/tradition standpoint, I think everything is fine and within both the spirit and letter of the law--particularly when you go back to point one and recognize that no one cared.

We're hung up on the line here because the line defines the offence. Yes, it's best practice to make sure the restart occurs inside the penalty area. But I wouldn't make a mountain out of a molehil here--the IFK being a few inches outside the penalty area isn't actually unlawful.

 

If you're in the minority, you're in a minority that is correct! I wouldn't even call it that risky for Oliver. Look at everyone's body language on that field--it's the expected result.

Like you said, United tried to cheat the restart. By not intervening in an aggressive and overly proactive way--one that might then require Oliver to hold up play (giving United what they wanted)--Villa was able to take the restart quickly and score. So long as Oliver isn't engaging United in a way that they then become disadvantaged (e.g., he wasn't in the process of verbally warning the player who first blocked the restart and distracting him from defending obligations), everything worked out perfectly here. A free kick is supposed to be exactly that. When we can ensure that it remains a free kick, rather than a situation that is a mandatory caution, we're engaging in top-level officiating. That's what Oliver did here.

Caveat that there would be slightly different circumstances where Oliver's hands would be tied. I mentioned him engaging a defender (or even attacker) in conversation or warning. If the restart was truly several yards away and not in the correct vicinity, that would also required him to make this a ceremonial restart. But what actually happened? It's what every stakeholder in that match (both players and referee administration) wants and expects/accepts.

 

I was going to raise this. I didn’t think he did, but couldn’t tell from montage of available video... which is why I didn’t raise it!

I think the lack of the foam spot allowed this to happen. And once he set the wall and the ball was a foot or two back from where it should be... why make a fuss? At least, that’s what I think happened. Could be wrong.

 

According to whom?

It's hard to pick apart or rebut everything that comes after this clause, because I just simply disagree. Villa tried to take a quick free kick. A United player prevented him from doing so. Ergo, the ball was never put in play.

If Oliver wants to take a firm and aggressive approach at that point, intervening with a whistle, cautioning the United player in question, and making this a ceremonial restart, he would have been well within his rights as a referee to do so. But I know you've been watching the EPL for a long time... when does that actually happen at this level when it can be avoided?

He intervened quietly, if at all. Never made it a ceremonial restart. Villa regrouped quickly and restarted (the "yards behind the original spot" quote from you is a bit debatable but also somewhat of a red herring... was it truly taken from a spot that people didn't expect it from or that disadvantaged the defense unfairly? That's what matters. If it was 2 or 3 yards away but everyone understood what was happening, it really doesn't matter to the players.).

The point of a free kick is to allow an unmolested restart by the team it is awarded to. Oliver achieved that here with minimal intervention. If he had blown his whistle and got aggressively involved, yes, his hands are then tied. If this kick was truly taken "yards" away from an unacceptable spot, yes, you'd have to pull it back and make it ceremonial. But neither of those things happened. After a United player trying to cheat to stop a quick free kick, minimal referee intervention allowed the quick free kick to occur and a goal resulted. And no one complained. There's no problem here. Oliver didn't get himself in a situation. He got himself out of one with excellent refereeing that everyone accepted.

 

But this isn't true. The ball was never in play because not one of the 23 humans on the field thought for a milisecond this was going to count as a real free kick. There reaches a point where the practical has to trump the theoretical. This is a clear case. I've seen people in several referee groups and fora have a problem with this restart situation... yet no one on the field did. That should tell us everything. No one ever thought this was a "live ball." The only question was whether Oliver slams on the whistle, asserts himself, issues a caution and goes to a ceremonial restart or... does what he did. Both avenues have virtues and both avenues can be the best option in different situations. I envisage a slightly different situation that would require Oliver to make this ceremonial and go the caution route. But I think he had more than enough leeway here to do what he did.

Regardless, to say this was a "live ball" and that the ball was ever in play off the first kick? No one involved in the game ever believed or thought that. So neither should we.

Maybe. I can't speak to the rest of the game and whether or not earlier/more intervention would have been good or bad. But in this particular case... what does Villa want more?

Oliver "stopping the statue" with a yellow card and a ceremonial restart?

Or Oliver "stopping the statue" but not rewarding it and allow a quick restart that leads to a goal?

I find it impossible to debate this scenario without acknowledging that any other decision from Oliver--aside from the one he actually took--would benefit the defending team and reward misconduct from one of its players.