From Jim Allen's site http://www.drix.net/jim/ "SHOOTER LOSES SHOE Your question: Sorry to bother you, but, as you know, I sometimes get "sucked into" debates that come out of nowhere in the vast array of websites that seem to have sprung up all over the country. Apparently there is one ongoing in [my state] right now which has had various "instructors" putting in their two cents (without ever identifying themselves, of course), and all giving different solutions. I guess soemone got tired of the debate and turned to me for clarification, and as it's one of these "you know what you should do, but show me what aspect of the Law I use to defend it" category, I thought I should turn to USSF before I respond. Basically, it's a variation on one of the oft-quoted questions. It's the old one about a player close to goal taking a shot and apparently "scoring". However, in the act of kicking the ball, his shoe flies off striking the keeper before the ball crosses the goalline. I guess for the purposes of the discussion, the statement was made that we are to accept that the 'keeper was hit as he prepared to make the save, and it did indeed impede his ability to do so. Now, I say, I'm disallowing the goal. The question here is am I going with a DFK for striking (albeit accidental), or am I going with IFK for "dangerous play"? Or am I totally wrong, in which case I'll mail back my [high-level referee] badge and instructor's certificate?????? USSF answer (November 18, 2002): Although the loss of the shoe was inadvertent and accidental, it was also careless. A careless act of striking toward an opponent is punishable by a direct free kick for the opponent's team, taken from the spot where the object (or fist) hit (or would have hit) its target (bearing in mind the special circumstances described in Law 8). If the kicker's shoe had been removed when an opponent tackled for the ball, there would be no punishment for either player." Based on this scenario, what would you do if a keeper was clearing a ball and his shoe flew off and struck an attacker standing in the penalty area???? Scott
Of course, this could never happen! Oh, by the way, in my indoor game Monday night, one of the field players somehow lost a shoe. Not sure how it happened. On your question, I would probably call obstruction on the attacker or dangerous play by the keeper - depending on the positioning of both players. I would also hold the IFK until the keeper had time to retie his/her shoe. ___ Flame away.
No...never happen! BUT!!! doesn't it seem that USSF is painting itself into a bit of a corner on this one. If USSF says that we stop play and give a direct free kick in the situation they described, wouldn't one assume that the advice would be to give a PK in my scenario??? Now of course, our collective sense of fair play would stop any of us from doing that, but what about the first year ref that reads Jim's site and then tries the same logic on my scenario?!?! Love to be a sideline observer to watch the you-know-what hit the fan then!! Scott
This is definitely youhaddabethere! Presuming the lost shoe to be "accidental" (careless), there are four things within LOTG than you can do: #1. Award a PK to the attacker, #2. Decide the foul were trifling and do nothing, #3. Consider the attacker interfering with the goalkeeper (but it has to look like that!), #4. Stop play for the injury and restart with a DB. You pick the one that best fits the situation. #4 gives you a little extra time to think.
Scott, I guess my response would be that it depends. In the situation that USSF responded to, it was clearly stated that the shoe striking the keeper had an affect on play. In your scenario, I would question whether the shoe striking the attacker would have an affect on play. In other words, did the shoe striking the attacker affect his or her ability to play the ball. 99.9% of the time, the answer is going to be NO given the nature of punts. The punt is going 50 to 80 yards upfield generally well over the head of the attacker, so the striking of the shoe did not affect play. In that case, it's a trifling foul -- no whistle. The only caveat is that if the attacker was injured by the shoe, then whistle as soon as the ball is nearing it's point of landing and drop ball up there after the injury is dealt with. Now, if you've got a situation where the keeper is having to play the ball off the ground and an attacker is approaching like Shearer's goal last weekend. Then in that situation, the ball and shoe both strike the attacker with the shoe apparently injuring the attacker or causing him to lose an apparent scoring opportunity, then you'd be in the right to whistle the foul and award a PK.
I don't know how we arrive at the "careless" judgement, as we need to look at the context: Reckless, careless, or with excessive force The implication seems to be that the player realized his boot would come off, and took the kick anyway. I see it more as the player's lace became loose, and he didn't realize it would come off, as I can't see any situation where the player would actually "want" to play without the footwear, this puts him at a disadvantage. My choice: Dangerous play, and IFK for the opponent. With, of course, either a stoppage to replace the boot, or, if in the waning moments and a delaying tactic, off the field to repair the equipment and an immediate return when he's properly equipped. All flames gratefully accepted!