Here's a question that a friend of mine and I have been arguing about: A team is given a DFK and requests that the referee set the wall. The wall is initally in the proper place. Two players (A and B) stand in position to take a shot. One player runs up to take the kick and dummies. Reacting to the dummy in a manner with timing that would have been legal had the kick been taken by A, a defender (C) starts to run towards the ball. Meanwhile, B runs up to take the kick. C stops his forward movement immediately upon recognizing that in fact it is B, not A, taking the kick. At this point he has taken two large strides directly towards the ball. What do you do (including any cautions given) in the following situations? (Should you have blown the whistle immediately when C took the strides?) (1) B takes the kick and hits C. (2) B takes the kick and hits the wall or the keeper saves it. (3) B takes the kick and scores. (4) B reacts to C's movement by stopping and not taking the kick. (5) B reacts to C's movement but cannot stop himself from touching the ball. The ball does not strike either C or the wall, but simply moves forward a few feet. (6) B takes the kick, deflecting off C for a goal. Or, for a corner. Or, for a throw. (7) B takes the kick and it deflects off the keeper or wall for a goal, or a corner, or a throw. (8) B takes the kick and it deflects off C resulting in an advantageous position for the offense. (9) B takes the kick and it deflects off the wall or keeper resulting in an advantageous position for the offense. Sorry if this seems overly long, but we were having an overly technical debate about this.
The dynamics of play make some of these tough to call. Here's the easy ones first. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 just keep playing. No harm done by the encroachment of player C. Maybe have a quick word with him, if possible. As for the others, much would depend on the tone of the game and the attitudes of the players to the situations. 1 and 6, I'd probably let play continue if the encroachment by C didn't make a big difference. Definitely count the goal off the deflection. If he blocks it with his face or upper body, the encroachment may have made a difference and a retake would be in order. If the ball hits C in the foot at 8 yards, it would have hit him at 10 yards. Keep playing. 4 and 5, probably retake the kick.
Re: Re: Encroachment question Well, there were sort of two questions here. The other was whether play must be stopped if C does not impact the ball, given that C did not (in your judgment, but it also seems quite clear) intend to encroach. That is to say, obviously there is a difference between 10 yards and 8 yards. However, there is some doubt as to whether the player taking the kick will actually adjust anything based on encroachment of this sort or whether the kick is going in the same place regardless of what the wall does. If the former, clearly encroachment should be punished regardless, at least morally speaking. If the latter, an argument could be made for only punishing it when it has an effect. My friend was arguing that as long as the player went ahead and took the kick in the spot he planned to anyway and didn't appear to react, the encroachment was meaningless and should be ignored. This strikes me rather as a choice that gives the defense a benefit for an illegal act - the defense gets to block additional area compared to what they should normally be able to do and the keeper is able to adjust his stance or thinking accordingly if he so chooses but there is only a foul some of the time. Thus sometimes, and in fact I might argue most of the time, the defense will gain an advantage from doing so. So I am pretty certain that play should be stopped unless an advantage is gained by the attacking team. My friend, however, agrees with nsa in that play should only be stopped when C directly interferes and as a direct results of his being two yards too close. For that matter, in the case where B stops and does not take the kick, it seems to me that if you do not card the offender and simply reset and start the kick again, the defense has had a chance to preview the manner in which the offense would ideally take the kick and has done so for free (unless persistent infringement applies). As for the cautions, you could argue that expulsion from the game is punitive, cautions are meant to correct, not punish. And since the player did not intend to create this situation, it should be assumed that a caution will not change his behavior in the remainder of the game as far as free kicks go. Obviously players play differently with a caution, but not in this manner. So it does seem to me that upon stopping play, one has to decide between allowing the defense to gain in some manner (finding out the kick the offense intended to take IS an advantage) without punishment (since the kick would simply be repeated from the same spot) and handing out a caution that is punitive rather than corrective in nature.
Re: Re: Re: Encroachment question There is no manditory caution listed for either the delay of the restart or failure to respect 10 yards. It must serve a purpose and is discrestionary. The directives for delaying the restart or failure to respect 10 yards are explicit in the Law and in the FIFA Q&A. Although we can accept a bit of trickery and having no impact a defender could be forgivin if advantage is in the attacker's favour. Your match, your decision, your reputation. What level of player or game management do YOU feel necccessary? Law 13 Free Kicks Infringements/Sanctions If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance: the kick is retaken http://www.fifa.com/refs/qa_E.html When taking a free kick awarded to their team, may players use feinting tactics to confuse opponents? Yes. It is permitted and is part of football. However, if any opponents move nearer than 9.15m (10 yards) from the ball before it is in play they are cautioned for failing to respect the required distance.