Restart question (Revs v. Fire)

I had a similar situation to what you saw this weekend in a youth game.

IFK in PA for obstruction. Keeper makes a great save on the set play and collects the ball. Immediately heads to the top of the area to clear the ball. My position at the start of the play was on the goalline to monitor the area around the GK. As the keeper heads to the top of the area, I am running with him about five yards away.

When the keeper went to punt the ball, he was clearly in possesion of the ball outside the PA. His plant foot for the clear was about a yard or so clear of the PA. I immediately blew the whistle for the infraction and restarted with the ball just outside of the PA (ball just clear of the line marking the PA). I restarted here due to the fact that the infraction happens as soon as the keeper is in possesion (with hands) of the ball outside of the area.

Just my two cents.

Lane

 

I think you are "nit-picking" a little here for no reason - does it really make that much difference?

In any case, if you recall there was an altercation immediately after it - Joey Franchino said at halftime that Stoichkov bounced the ball off his face, presumably the reason for the caution. After all that got sorted out, and the Ref chewed Stoichkov's ear off, they (the Fire) seemed to just place the ball and the ref accepted it - I'm sure he probably thought if Stiochkov wanted to pull it back a yard or so after being such an idiot, what's the purpose in getting so fussy? He's not gaining anything, and no body else is concerned about it - get the game restarted.

 

It looked like Hristo placed the ball on that spot after the melee. It's possible that he pulled it back a little to give himself a little more room to bend or swerve the ball. I'm just grasping at straws here seeing as the ball was just blasted on goal, but for a player like that, I don't think 2 yards makes much difference.

If Corrie ordered the ball to be placed there, maybe he did that help him set the wall. There are grid lines there, so he might have cheated to make sure there were 10 yards. At region I Kevin Stott showed a clip of one of his games where he placed the ball slightly farther back in order to use the field's markings to ensure 10 yards. It was easy to judge encroachment and Etcheverry still scored on the free kick.

 

I know I would prefer the ball another yard or two outside of the area. Otherwise you have to dink the ball instead of getting anything on it.... unless the people in the wall or the goalkeeper are stupid or something...

 

Well, this is the Revolution that we're talking about.

 

I did not see this game, but if the call was a handling the ball by the keeper, it is the wrong call. It should have been an IFK for the keeper's team because Hristo, by moving with the keeper, was 'preventing the keeper from putting the ball into play', one of the 7 technical offenses in law XII.

 

That was my immediate thought too. Why did the GK go out of the area? Because the attacker was blocking him from putting the ball back into play. Seems like good refereeing would require you to do the fair thing and punish the offense for creating the whole situation in the first place.

But I agree that Hristo definitlely would have wanted that extra couple of yards for his kick in order to get it over the wall but still on goal.

 

Re: Re: Restart question (Revs v. Fire)

Hritso was walking with Brown, he wasn't preventing him from playing it. He was to the keeper's right standing away from him by a yard or so, so this wasn't an issue. I'm not even sure Hristo was paying attention to Brown, but he looked down and saw that they were both well out of the area and then put his hand up.

I think Brown just got confused by all of the football lines on the field and just lost track of where he was.

The ref team made the right call, he was a good three yards or so outside of the area.

 

I wouldnt call a deliberate handling in this type of situation....It is trifling and could be handled with a word to the keeper as you run by........

 

This drifts the thread a little bit, but it's related. It happened a while ago, but I've forgotten to ask about it.

In a rec game, the goalkeeper smothers the ball inside the six yard box. He gets up and for some reason carries the ball into the goal.

This was not a restart: the ball was in play and in the goalkeeper's posession. Is it a goal?

 

Two things, one, if the keeper handles the ball outside the penalty area, the restart is just past the penalty area line not two yards. Second, this never should have happened because the opponent was interfering with the keepers releasing the ball by moving with him and there should have been an IFK awarded to the keeper at that spot.

 

Re: Re: Re: Restart question (Revs v. Fire)

For the sake of discussion, assume that the referee concluded that, in fact, the football lines on did cause the player to be confused. (Another example: a player picks up the ball for a throw-in thinking it's gone out of play over the touchline, but it turns out it's only gone over the football sideline and is still on the soccer field...)

In the spirit of Law 1's requirements for soccer Field Markings, could the referee stop play and have a drop-ball restart in these sorts of situations?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Restart question (Revs v. Fire)

In a U-10 game, maybe you can do this as a referee. However, this was a top flight pro game. The Soccer lines are bright yellow on this field and all of the players knew this. I was only guessing that he was lost. A pro player should know better.

I also don't think Brown was prevented from releasing the ball on that play. Hristo had his back to Brown and he walked in a straight line up field ahead of Brown and to his right. An attacker has the same right to do that as a defender does. As I said earlier, I think the referee moved the ball back a little to make getting 10 yards on the restart a little easier to judge. For a player like Hristo, two yards farther back doesn't make much difference.

 

I think the main question here is whether the impact of the extra 2 yards back was to the benefit of Hristo, and the subsequent impact fixing the spot would have on managing the game itself.

With all the hustle and bustle with the yellow card, then getting all the players set up, having the ball a couple yards off isn't that huge of an issue. Sure he gets a little more space to curve the ball, but it's not as bad as what an earlier post indicated where he would only be able to "dink" it if moved forward.

Imagine what would have happened if the ref corrected the issue, though. First he gives the yellow and sets the wall. Then he see the ball 2 yards off and orders it to be positioned correctly. Then he would have to reset the wall a couple yards further back as well (which if I recall correctly did have attackers in it). After doing this and taking up his position, 2-3 minutes would already have passed. Not to mention about half that time you're talking about a hostile wall situation.

I think it was better for all just to discard the couple yards, get the kick off, and the players out of the wall and playing again. It was already a tense situation, no need to sacrifice control of the game just for a few yards on a free kick.

 

As a referee, I would let the restart take place from anywhere behind the point of the foul. The main goal should be to get the game restarted as quickly as possible, without the kicking team pushing the restart up beyond the point of the foul. Just because the infraction took place at the edge of the penalty area, why should the referee's handling of restarts be any different.

 

blades of grass are important

DFK ball placed just outside the penalty area boundry lines. In this case the closer the foul to the goal the more strict the placement. Poor mechanics not to insist the ball remain where the infraction occurred. If you do not believe a two yard or three yard difference makes no difference in this case then free kicks are not your speciality.
If there was some feeling on the part of the referee that the extra lines or an opposing player may inadvertantly have caused the keeper to become disoriantated. A caution is harsh in these circumstances and does not do the management of the match or the nature of the foul justice.

 

Re: blades of grass are important

The caution was for the keeper bouncing the ball off the head of the opponent, not for carrying the ball outside the box.

 

Re: Re: blades of grass are important

Thanks Statesman I was unaware! I assumed, as in all situations it works better if you see it. A bit lost though, the ball was was bounced off an opponent's head after the keeper stepped outside the boundry lines incident in the process of releasing the ball? Or was it in never released and thrown after the whistle in anger? In that case should not a red card should be considered?

 

That was the explanation given later in the match. I don't think the cameras actually caught the action of that happening, so I can't tell you the specifics. I believe the keeper tossed the ball up out of frustration from Hristo tipping off the ref, and it happened to lightly rebound off of Hristo himself from being in close proximity. Whether it was intentional or not, it certainly wasn't anything violent but definitely unsporting. I haven't really heard an exact report with the specifics, just bits and pieces. I wasn't watching the game that closely when it happened so I might be missing something, or completely off the mark for that matter and be confusing this with something else

 

Ok I need to get my head out of my ass. I've gotten this particular match confused with a few others that were going on. I wasn't paying much attention to the events at the time so please disregard my comments.