Related to the other thread about the pass back to the keeper... There was a dangerous play in the Sweden v. Bulgaria game refereed by Mike Riley. I. Petkov (Bulgaria) used a very high kick to clear a ball over the end line and in the process kicked Ibrahimovic (Sweden) in the head. Petkov clearly got the ball first but also nailed Ibrahimovic pretty good. The position is RIGHT on the end line about 8 yards outside the post - very near the edge of the 6 yard box. Riley blows the whistle, shows yellow to Petkov and then awards an IFK for dangerous play. I really thought this was a strange set of decisions. I have always felt that when you made contact and actually kicked the opponent, that it has now elevated to a foul, not dangerous play. I can sort of see Riley's decision, that Petkov did successfully play the ball first, so how can you give a foul there -- he just cleared it in a dangerous manner. But it sure seems that if he was kicked in the head hard enough to warrant a caution (which IMO he was), then it should have been a foul and PK. What do you guys think about this situation? On a related note -- how about the placement of the wall in this situation. As I said, the ball was right adjacent to the endline 8 yards outside the post. Riley placed the entire wall at the near post letting them stand in a line straight up the field from the near post. I know that you can stand on the goal line between the posts and be closer than 10 yards, but I didn't think that you should be allowed to be off the goal line and closer than 10 yards. In other words, the wall should have been moved back inside the post so that they were 10 yards from the ball. The defense could still put guys on the goal line between the post and the wall -- so they'd wind up with an L shaped wall, but I thought that the wall should not have been allowed to stand perpendicular to the goal line at the near post.
In most cases you are correct, kev, but sometimes you have to judge what the players are trying to accomplish. I didn't see the play, but it sounds like Petkov perhaps was not aware of Ibrahimovic trying to make a play as well. He was kicking to clear the ball away and did not know there was a challenge coming. The first question to ask is: If he knew he would end up kicking Ibrahimovic, would he have performed the action? Most kicking comes from an attempt to depossess the opponent of the ball. The player swings in his foot, misses the ball, and wallops the opponent. In this case, Petkov is the one with the ball and he is making a clearance. In fact he succeeds, but makes contact with Ibrahimovic. Granted the manner in which the ball was cleared is certainly dangerous play. The second question to ask: Who made contact with who? If Ibrahimovic ran into the foot of Petkov this is not kicking as the contact itself was not caused by Petkov. Regarding the wall, the players are allowed to line up on the goal line within 10 yards if there is no space left. This means what is says: on the goal line, not angling out from the goal line. However, Riley may have just been mentioning it to the players without a ceremonial free kick. Do you know if Sweden asked for the kick to be held up to ensure adherence to the Laws? If they didn't, Riley was probably just sorting out the initial confusion before Sweden restarted the game. If it was a ceremonial restart then Riley may have erred in setting the wall.
As I said on another thread, I discussed this incident extensively with a fellow referee. This is the conclusion I came to, which I think might have been Riley's reasoning: The moment Petkov raised his boot as high as he did, he committed an IFK foul by playing in a dangerous manner. The foul has occurred and, effectively, play has been stopped in the referee's mind. His follow through caught Ibrahimovic hard, but it is misconduct because it occurred after play has been stopped. That's how you get the IFK and the yellow card. The "fouls" didn't occur simultaneously; if they had, they you punish the more severe offense (kicking) and award the PK. Now, that's the technical justification for Riley's call. The real justification is a "spirit of the game" one. No one--at that level--expects a PK for that type of play. Justifying a PK for a "kicking" offense would have been overofficious refereeing, when everyone is accustomed to (and satisfied with) an IFK for such a play.
That's exactly what I was looking for MassRef - the "technical" justification for the call. From a spirit of the game standpoint, I agree that a PK probably isn't the right thing to do. Statesman - it was a ceremonial restart. If I remember correctly, he moved a couple guys back to the wall at the near post.