By whom? I haven't found such a definition in any of the dictionaries I've checked but, then, I've only checked a dozen or so.
That is the definition of kicked according to USSF. Did you forget who we work for? (at least the US refs). Here is the passage in the Advice to Referees: This is not the only instance where the word kick is clarified to mean "touched by the foot," in those exact words. Whether this is how you would see the restart called in a FIFA match I do not know, but there is certainly no contradiction. I do not believe a situation of controversy would ever arise in a FIFA match under this definition as the teams do not waste their time with such a meaningless tactic. To be quite honest, in all my years of service I have never seen this happen, and if it did I'm quite positive FIFA's position would be whatever that particular referee decides in that particular game is how it would be enforced for that instance. There simply will not ever exist a document that clarifies the statement any further than it already has been unless for some bizarre reason the tactic suddenly becomes commonplace and requires an ultimate ruling.
The first time I knew of this play, was when the USA used it unsuccessfully in the 2000 Olympics. After that I know several youth teams have used it in Iowa - including one of my referee friend's U12 team.
This "trick play" has always imrpessed me as a rather juvenile trick. One team wants to be able to tap the ball and allow a teammate to dribble the ball towards the goal while another team wants to be able to use the foot to tap the ball repeatedly to adjust the ball within the corner kick arc without being accused of a "double touch." If this play is so great, why don't we see it being used at the highest levels? Maybe I missed the MLS teams or Manchester United using this play!
For years now, players have attempted to start a game with a little touch. Touches that would never cause the ball to roll its full circumference. Too often, be it a kickoff or IFK or what not, the referee stuck by the letter of the law and said, "No son, the ball was not in play yet because it had not travelled its full circumference. Retake the kick." We had too many failed restarts. Restarts should be a simple thing. Get the ball back in play. As a result, I believe FIFA/USSF changed the wording so that circumference was out and a touch is in. No more botched restarts due to the ball not moving far enough. In that spirit, a corner kick is nothing more than a direct free kick in the corner. Opponents are even prevented from encroaching closer than 10 yards too! Why would a simple touch not be acceptable in this situation? Surely not just because of popular convention. And if a player starts to dribble in from the corner, the defense should be all over it. If not, shame on them for just watching. The players should be coached in a manner so that as soon as the ball moves, go get it.
Most of the time teams don't cover the corner kicker. They usually have a responsibilty to cover somebody else. If the corner kicker starts dribbling in somebody is going to have to leave a player unmarked. I'd imagine that using this play would allow the kicker to get in pretty far before he is challenged and that quite a few offensive players would end up open due to the confusion.
(Apologies all round: I realize this is a little against the general run of the conversation (which I'm following with interest) but I would like to respond to this question.) Actually, there are at least 2 questions being asked. One was raised specifically by you and it was to that which my comments were addressed. It's something like this: “Isn’t this trick corner kick just the same as the other kinds of deceptions, such as ball fakes and disguising the ultimate direction of a throw-in, that happen all the time in soccer?” My answer is no. My reasons for saying so are as follows. 1. All the other examples of “deception” you summoned involved the implementation of skill during the run of play. 2. The trick corner kick, on the other hand, takes place during a stoppage in play: in fact depends on the restart of play being disguised as something else. 3. In my opinion, this is a categorical difference. Moreover—and also in my opinion—the trick corner is something soccer is better off without for precisely the same reason: it emphasizes mere trickery over established soccer skills. Is it as bad as, say, an attacker shouting “keeper” to keep a defender away from a ball he’d otherwise have taken? Probably not, but it’s still a cheap trick rather than a good play.
Interesting. Because in the version of the trick corner that I saw, the ball was "put into play" by A1 stepping down on the top of the ball. If any motion was generated, it was simply that of the ball being mashed slightly into the turf. Nevertheless, A2 was allowed to dribble the ball toward the box. Based on what I've seen in this thread, the general consensus is that this particular iteration of the trick corner should not have been allowed.
Statesman quotes Advice to Referees 13.6 above. Much of this text is word for word from the 1997 Memorandum when "kicked and moved" was instituted. Specifically for corner kicks, Advice says: Jim Allen's site http://www.drix.net/jim/ has further exposition on the topic: Note that this (definition of "kick" and "spatial displacement") applies specifically to a kickoff and PK's, where the ball must move forward . It remains to be seen whether this applies to other restarts.
That is correct. Deformation of the ball alone does not constitute movement, which is why the play was whistled dead in the 2000 Olympics. I guess my statement earlier about rocking in position was erroneous, but I have yet to see that happen as well. The main point to be taken from this is to look at the intention of the attackers. If they truly are attempting to get the game restarted with a tap of the ball, let them restart the game. There's bigger fish to fry out there and there is nothing inherently illegal about this so-called trick play. The ONLY thing they cannot do is simply step on the ball. I believe this interpretation comes primarily due to the intent of an IFK over a DFK -- if all players had to do was depress the top of the ball to get the game restarted it would take away the difference between the two.
The reason most teams don't cover the corner kicker is that the keeper can usually handle any dangerous balls kicked from the corner. The defense also usually gives up marking at least two guys due to manning the goal posts. It's also ineffective to cover the corner kicker due to his bad angle for a shot on goal. But once that ball is in play, the situation changes. Men come off their posts, offsides comes into play, blah, blah blah... And if two players go to the corner, usually a defender goes out to the 10 yd mark to help out. In this case though, the kick takers were more skilled in disguising their intent. You can bet that the 'offended' team won't let that happen again.