Attacker in the wall

[bester]

If you penalise an attacker for being closer than 1 metre from the wall is it a mandatory yellow for failing to respect the required distance?

Saw this question somewhere else and don't recall a yellow card being shown but don't see why it wouldn't be.

 

[es1]

No

 

[socal lurker]

If you penalise an attacker for being closer than 1 metre from the wall is it a mandatory yellow for failing to respect the required distance?

Saw this question somewhere else and don't recall a yellow card being shown but don't see why it wouldn't be.

I think the question is why would it be.

Nothing in the 1 yard restriction in Law 13 suggests a caution—the team is losing a scoring opportunity, which seems sufficient sanction.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

As it's a formal free kick set-up with a wall, referee should be requiring the offender to move before whistling for the kick to be taken.

 

[bester]

As it's a formal free kick set-up with a wall, referee should be requiring the offender to move before whistling for the kick to be taken.

Yes, I was assuming that all required distances at a free kick had been enforced before the referee whistled for the free kick to be taken and that the player had infringed between the whistle and the ball being played.

 

[one]

If you penalise an attacker for being closer than 1 metre from the wall is it a mandatory yellow for failing to respect the required distance?

Saw this question somewhere else and don't recall a yellow card being shown but don't see why it wouldn't be.

Though the laws have not made this specific scenario a mandatory caution, you would not be incorrect in law if you caution. The wording in Law 12 is: "failing to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a dropped ball, corner kick, free kick or throw-in" which easily applies to your case and can even be interpreted as mandatory.

As a side note, the 1m attacker distance from wall is a reasonably new requirement. A similar 2m requirement for throw in was bright in without asking for a caution if not complied. The caution was made mandatory in later releases. I suspect we may get a change/clarification in law for the specific wall case as well.

 

[one]

I think the question is why would it be.

Nothing in the 1 yard restriction in Law 13 suggests a caution—the team is losing a scoring opportunity, which seems sufficient sanction.

See post above on we don't necessarily need the specific wall clause in Law 13 to make it a caution. Law 12 should/could be sufficient. Nothing in Law 17 suggest a caution for a "respect the distance" offence for a corner kick but Law 12 is sufficient.

Just about any offence cause losing an opportunity or giving the opponents a second opportunity which is a sanction in its own. If it is sufficient or not is a matter of opinion. For example if defenders move closer than 10 yards at a CFK, if a goal is not scored, one could say attackers get a second chance of scoring a goal from the CFK and it is sufficient sanction. Yet a caution is regarded as mandatory.

 

[bester]

As a side note, the 1m attacker distance from wall is a reasonably new requirement. A similar 2m requirement for throw in was bright in without asking for a caution if not complied. The caution was made mandatory in later releases. I suspect we may get a change/clarification in law for the specific wall case as well.

It took a season after the drop ball law change for drop balls to be added to the cautions for required distance, although The FA were releasing quiz questions saying it was a mandatory caution during that first season.

 

[socal lurker]

See post above on we don't necessarily need the specific wall clause in Law 13 to make it a caution. Law 12 should/could be sufficient. Nothing in Law 17 suggest a caution for a "respect the distance" offence for a corner kick but Law 12 is sufficient.

Just about any offence cause losing an opportunity or giving the opponents a second opportunity which is a sanction in its own. If it is sufficient or not is a matter of opinion. For example if defenders move closer than 10 yards at a CFK, if a goal is not scored, one could say attackers get a second chance of scoring a goal from the CFK and it is sufficient sanction. Yet a caution is regarded as mandatory.

While I see the point, I don’t think that is what is intended. FRD I. General is interfering with the opponent’s ability to restart play. This is different, as it doesn’t interfere with the other team starting play, but results in the loss of a restart. I don’t think FRD is intended to apply here. But I understand a differing view, as it is far from clear.

 

[one]

While I see the point, I don’t think that is what is intended. FRD I. General is interfering with the opponent’s ability to restart play. This is different, as it doesn’t interfere with the other team starting play, but results in the loss of a restart. I don’t think FRD is intended to apply here. But I understand a differing view, as it is far from clear.

I also see your point. So long as we can agree that cautioning for FRD in OP specific scenario is not incorrect in law, I am good.

There are a couple other odd scenarios for FRD as well, own team mate in a dropped ball which can attract a caution and opponent in a kick off which doesn't have a caution.