Quick FK
- Thread starter Irish Tim
- Start date
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's a cop out when you're talking about a match changing decision when your approach has no basis in law and is against the intent of the law. There are lots of aspects of the job where I don't like I have to do it a certain way but I still have to because that's the job.
If you're finding that you can't respond to the concerns posted then perhaps that indicates you should reconsider your position rather than stating 'well, just because' and stubbornly sticking to it anyway. Sometimes it can be difficult to question whether you've been doing the right thing or not
Last edited:
But then you are effectively rewarding the defender for standing over the ball - something that he is specifically not allowed to do and can be immediately cautioned for. The defender wants to delay the re-start and you have let him do exactly that.
I agree too. In summary, as soon as I've had to intervene to manage something (and I am strict on stopping players standing over the ball wherever it is on the pitch) then the chances are it's going to be ceremonial. The only exception will be if I am trying to manage things from a distance (still on my way over) and the kick is taken. But if I get there and I'm controlling things then it's going to be fair to everyone.
Always an interesting topic. On the Arsenal vs. Porto incident, I am of the opinion that the referee has intervened according to Capn's criteria by asking for the ball; from that point it must be ceremonial. If the Porto players had been able to collect the ball themselves and execute this move, then fine. The referee could even have booked Fabianski for delaying the restart of play if it came to it, but again a ceremonial kick is required by nature. In fact, I cannot think of a back pass offence which wouldn't be managed in such a manner. And I recall Wenger's complaints about the decision were based on this reading of the game.
Secondly, as to my own matches, I would say 80% of quick free kicks around the box are taken about 5 yards away from the original offence, which is reason for me to ask for a retake. It allows me to have it both ways really, because I often tell the players I am happy for them to take it quickly, but it is their responsibility to do so from the right place. I also think you would be hard pushed to caution for failing to respect required distance on very quick free kicks; so you can make a rod for your back if you allow a quick one, the defending team inadvertently intercepts, and then breaks away. I know they have a duty to retreat ten yards, but sometimes that is physically impossible in the time an attacker tries to release the ball. Would others pull back in this situation or play on much like a botched advantage?
Secondly, as to my own matches, I would say 80% of quick free kicks around the box are taken about 5 yards away from the original offence, which is reason for me to ask for a retake. It allows me to have it both ways really, because I often tell the players I am happy for them to take it quickly, but it is their responsibility to do so from the right place. I also think you would be hard pushed to caution for failing to respect required distance on very quick free kicks; so you can make a rod for your back if you allow a quick one, the defending team inadvertently intercepts, and then breaks away. I know they have a duty to retreat ten yards, but sometimes that is physically impossible in the time an attacker tries to release the ball. Would others pull back in this situation or play on much like a botched advantage?
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
i think this may have been covered before somewhere, but it all depends on whether the defender makes a motion to block the kick or if its kicked at him, inadvertently or otherwise
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Whoah Nelly, let's hold our horses just a minute. Allowing the attacking team to take a quick free kick is one thing (and which I am all in favour of) but once the referee has taken complete control of the situation as he has done here, to the extent of actually taking the ball away from a player and holding it in his hands, you have completely different situation. At this point I think the referee has to go with a ceremonial free kick. To use Capn Bloodbeard's phrase, the referee has most definitely "inserted himself into the situation" here - and in a major, major way. If the ball had just been loose on the ground and the forward had run up and taken the ifk quickly with the referee a mere observer, that would be perfectly fine. But in this case, the referee has clearly taken charge of the situation and as far as I'm concerned once he's become involved in this way, the kick should become ceremonial.
Also, when I agreed with Capn Bloodbeard's post, I agreed with all of it, which includes this bit, "If you're physically intervening, [...] then you've made it ceremonial." I'm pretty sure that taking the ball away from the goalkeeper and setting it down on the ground is a physical intervention. The Capn also talks (quite correctly, again IMHO) about the "intent of the law" which I think most would agree, is about restoring an attacking opportunity to a team which has had that opportunity taken away from them by the illegal actions of the opponents.
However, in the case of the Porto vs Arsenal incident, there was no attacking opportunity taken away. If the intent of the quick free kick concept is to restore the "status quo ante" as quickly as possible and with the least amount of fuss then you surely have to consider the fact that the ball was not in the possession of an attacker who was then fouled (the more normal scenario) - it was in the possession of the defenders. Furthermore, the offence was not in the nature of a physical foul committed against an opponent and which deprives him of an offensive opportunity, it was a technical offence against the laws of the game. All in all, the incident in question is (to my way of thinking at least) one of the least justifiable examples of a quick free kick, especially given the way that the referee physically intervenes and takes control of the situation.
Far from restoring an attacking opportunity to a team unjustly deprived of the ball, as I see it he has, on the contrary, artificially manufactured a direct goal-scoring opportunity for a team which had at best a minimally advantageous attacking position before the offence occurred.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I would agree wholeheartedly that if the referee has handled the ball, then there's no QFK. Same if the referee chose to kick the ball to one of the players....or heck,even stop the ball from rolling away.
Peter's argument that this sort of infringement shouldn't result in a QFK is not entirely without merit (and presented in a manner worth contemplating). Even ceremonial is still 'manufacturing a direct GSO' (I don't like that phrasing personally, as it suggests that the decision is the fault of the referee and not a required outcome of the player's actions). Though of course there would be scenarios where a 'backpass' has clearly denied possession to an attacker who would have otherwise had a good attack...would I be guessing, @Peter Grove, that you would be ok with a QFK in those scenarios? and that your argument against a QFK is pretty much limited to these technical sorts of infringements with no opposing possession?
What about DHB by a defender with no attacker near?
Peter's argument that this sort of infringement shouldn't result in a QFK is not entirely without merit (and presented in a manner worth contemplating). Even ceremonial is still 'manufacturing a direct GSO' (I don't like that phrasing personally, as it suggests that the decision is the fault of the referee and not a required outcome of the player's actions). Though of course there would be scenarios where a 'backpass' has clearly denied possession to an attacker who would have otherwise had a good attack...would I be guessing, @Peter Grove, that you would be ok with a QFK in those scenarios? and that your argument against a QFK is pretty much limited to these technical sorts of infringements with no opposing possession?
What about DHB by a defender with no attacker near?
Hi
What the Arsenal incident points to is that the game has moved entirely to favouring the offending team. It is also reflected in the defending teams running to place a player in front of the ball at every free kick to prevent it being taken. Referees have asssited the fouling team by not dealing with it under the laws
In the Arsenal incident Martin Hanson was 100% correct to allow the free kick. Nowhere in the laws does it mention rights to the fouling team except where there is a caution, an injury another stoppage that requires the whistle to restart.
In this incident Ryan Giggs scores a perfectly good goal from a free kick. See third goal in the video. Lille protested by almost waking off and then protested formally to UEFA which was dismissed as there is nothing in the laws to prevent it.
Again referee 100% correct although he did not come out of it well because the game ended up under protest and a riot ensued. It is why referees now just go ceremonial to placate the offending team.
What the Arsenal incident points to is that the game has moved entirely to favouring the offending team. It is also reflected in the defending teams running to place a player in front of the ball at every free kick to prevent it being taken. Referees have asssited the fouling team by not dealing with it under the laws
In the Arsenal incident Martin Hanson was 100% correct to allow the free kick. Nowhere in the laws does it mention rights to the fouling team except where there is a caution, an injury another stoppage that requires the whistle to restart.
In this incident Ryan Giggs scores a perfectly good goal from a free kick. See third goal in the video. Lille protested by almost waking off and then protested formally to UEFA which was dismissed as there is nothing in the laws to prevent it.
PP62
Well-Known Member
I agree with this example. It's pretty much how I go about it.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I don't agree with this.
If you haven't already signalled that it's ceremonial you are clearly giving advantage to the defending team if you stop the attacker from playing just because the defence is setting up a wall and the goalkeeper is out of position.
Players should be expecting to play, be able to play, unless you tell them otherwise.
Why haven't you already asked the attacker if they want ceremonial?
PP62
Well-Known Member
I have never asked if they want it quick ever. I never will. If they take the free kick straight away then that by definition is quick and I am 100% happy with this; however, if I have stood over the ball for 5-10 seconds then it can't possibly be quick any more. I would at this point be asking defenders to move away (I know they shouldn't be there anyway but always are) so in effect I'm already managing the free kick. Also, I would be completely out of position with no angle for offsides and a poor view on pushing and shoving.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I agree with you on the 5-10 seconds. I think it is best if you know within a couple of seconds.
Who here asks the attacker then?
Who here asks the attacker then?
If it's close to the PA, I'll quietly ask the person who is obviously the kick taker if they want distance or just want to take it.
Most of the time, they want distance.
Once in a blue moon they answer by chipping the ball at the net.
On some occasions, the ball sneaks into the top corner as everyone admires it.
The rest of the time? Well wide and high.
Most of the time, they want distance.
Once in a blue moon they answer by chipping the ball at the net.
On some occasions, the ball sneaks into the top corner as everyone admires it.
The rest of the time? Well wide and high.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
As I have already indicated a couple of times in this thread, I am strongly in favour of quick free kicks being allowed - and that is pretty much regardless of the offence. But there are situations where it is not recommended such as when a disciplinary sanction is required or an injured player needs attention or when the referee has already intervened and is controlling the situation.
So while I agree with Goldfish that the referee was correct in allowing the Giggs free kick mentioned earlier, because it meets the generally recommended guidelines - especially the one that the referee has not directly intervened, the same is not true of the Porto free kick. As the Capn says above, "if the referee has handled the ball, then there's no QFK." To me, the two incidents are distinctly different, due to the distinctly different level of involvement of the referee.
I notice Capn Bloodbeard has reference to the website asktheref.com in his posts. They have replied to questions on quick free kicks many times. Here are extracts from some of their responses that I happen to agree with. A couple of the scenarios involved a referee taking hold of the ball, although neither of these was in reference to the Porto vs Arsenal game:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Thanks for the clarification @Peter Grove. I think many of us are on roughly the same page on this thread. I agree that if the referee has handled the ball, kicked it, trapped it then it's now ceremonial.
And there's a very good reason why I have asktheref in my sig. Glad to see you're a reader
And there's a very good reason why I have asktheref in my sig. Glad to see you're a reader
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
I do (did). If it's in their own half, they can play it as quick or slow as they wish and I won't be there to oversee. Once I'm in my dropping zone position, I blow the whistle to get them to take it (naturally hurries them up). If it's anything. Resembling an attacking position for a FK, and they haven't taken it yet by the time I get there, I ask the guy standing over the ball "quick or whistle?". He says "quick", I take 2 steps backwards and tell him to "play". He says "whistle", I tell him to wait for my whistle and then inform the entire world that this free kick is on the whistle and then do the rest accordingly (wall, my position etc)
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I see what you're driving at, but a quick FK has to be taken quickly. Doing it/allowing it whilst the defending team are busy setting up a wall under the expectation that it's now "on your whistle" is (IMO) unsporting and a ref who allows that deserves all the crap he gets as a result.
After awarding a penalty, you wouldn't suddenly blow your whistle for it to be taken before the goalkeeper was on his line and ready would you? Same principle for me.....
I've phrased it as "do you want me to pace out the wall?", but usually if that's necessary (ie. the opponents are clearly too close), they will say yes and it becomes ceremonial almost because I've asked the question.
You can usually get a good idea by looking at the taker's body language - someone who's looking for a QFK will be scanning his teammates positions and be right over the ball, wheras if this hasn't occurred to them, they'll be talking to teammates a step or two away from the ball or with the ball in their hands. It doesn't feel massively fair to me for the referee to suggest the idea of a QFK when it hasn't already occurred to the players, so I try to just give permission if their body language suggests they're already looking for it and assume ceremonial otherwise.
You can usually get a good idea by looking at the taker's body language - someone who's looking for a QFK will be scanning his teammates positions and be right over the ball, wheras if this hasn't occurred to them, they'll be talking to teammates a step or two away from the ball or with the ball in their hands. It doesn't feel massively fair to me for the referee to suggest the idea of a QFK when it hasn't already occurred to the players, so I try to just give permission if their body language suggests they're already looking for it and assume ceremonial otherwise.