A&H

Quick free kick and position of corner kick

S

samogonochka

New Member
Level 3 Referee
Hey whistle gurus,
I have 2 trivial questions:
1. Free kick taker is agitated because of foul. Ball is stationery, opposing player is slowly moving away, kick taker is not happy with a speed of opponent and recklessly kicks a ball at opponent with clear motives of getting him a caution for preventing a quick play. Could that be considered as a caution to free kick taker, and game is restarted by the same team, as an opponent didnt have required distance? Or its direct free kick to opposiing team as ball was kicked recklessly?
2. Position of corner kicks. Ball crosses goal line to the left of goals. Everyone expects corner kick to be taken from the left. However corner kick taker decides to take corner from the right. He is not wasting time, its just ball stopped behind the goals closer to the right side. Should we insist on left hand side or allow to take a kick from the right?
Thanks
 
The Referee Store
1. Kinda need to see this. I'm not sure what you mean when you pair reckless with trying to get him cautioned. If you mean reckless in the sense of Law 12, motive has nothing to do with it--it could be a USB caution for recklessly kicking the ball at an opponent, which would be a DFK. But that is pretty unusual--more likely the kicker has just squandered his free kick and the ball is in play.

2. It should be taken from the correct side. Which side can be a significant advantage/disadvantage depending on the kickers the team has available. (And yes, players will casually try to take kicks from the wrong corner because they know it is better for their team.)
 
Thanks lurker,
1. Yes, Law 12.. kicking a ball at the opponent... its not that unusual, i have seen it many times when its fairly obvious that free kick taker wants to kick at the opponent deliberately... just happened this sunday and i let to retake a kick, however want to investigate it further
2. Where does it refer in the rules on the position of corner kick? I couldnt find

Thanks again
 
samogonochka said:
Thanks lurker,
1. Yes, Law 12.. kicking a ball at the opponent... its not that unusual, i have seen it many times when its fairly obvious that free kick taker wants to kick at the opponent deliberately... just happened this sunday and i let to retake a kick, however want to investigate it further
2. Where does it refer in the rules on the position of corner kick? I couldnt find

Thanks again
Click to expand...
Procedure in law 17

The ball must be placed in the corner area nearest to the point where the ball passed over the goal line
 
Gotcha... perfect..thats was i was looking for... went through this few times... must be selective vision at my age :))
 
2. Law 17 quoted above is pretty clear.

1. I have a feeling you did not intend to make it any more complicated by say it was 'recklessly' kicked at the opponent in the OP. I think what you meant was it was basically deliberately kicked at the opponent. Leaving the word 'reckless' out for the moment. It's a 'you have to be there' scenario. There is only one question you have to answer. Did the opponent fail to respect the required distance for the free kick? If he is walking away (all be it slowly) and makes no attempt to move into the path of the ball then usually the answer to my question is no, which means you let play continue. If the answer is yes (he is not walking away or makes a sideways move to intercept the ball) then you caution the opponent and retake the kick.

Now 'recklessly' kicking the ball at an opponent is a subject of its own, at a restart or general play. You consider that separately to "failing to respect the required distance" . For example if a player falls on the ground in a challenge and another player deliberately kicks the ball at his head from close range and with force this could even be a red card. If in general play or restart the ball is kicked at an opponent's feet (which the OP is likely to be the case), I would not classify it 'reckless' even if done deliberately.
 
samogonochka said:
Thanks lurker,
1. Yes, Law 12.. kicking a ball at the opponent... its not that unusual, i have seen it many times when its fairly obvious that free kick taker wants to kick at the opponent deliberately... just happened this sunday and i let to retake a kick, however want to investigate it further
2. Where does it refer in the rules on the position of corner kick? I couldnt find

Thanks again
Click to expand...

What I was saying is unusual is that it rises to the level of being a Law 12 offense. One put it well—it takes more than just kicking the ball at at an opponent’s legs to try to get a failure to respect the distance call. Typically you are either going to decide there was a failure to respect the distance and caution/relics for that reason, or you’re going to simply let play continue because the kicker wasted tot FK by trying to get too cute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
socal lurker said:
What I was saying is unusual is that it rises to the level of being a Law 12 offense. One put it well—it takes more than just kicking the ball at at an opponent’s legs to try to get a failure to respect the distance call. Typically you are either going to decide there was a failure to respect the distance and caution/relics for that reason, or you’re going to simply let play continue because the kicker wasted tot FK by trying to get too cute.
Click to expand...
It is indeed unusual that it rises to an offense. However, reading the OP literally, this would be one of those cases. The defending player has done nothing wrong (he is retreating, albeit slowly) and the free kick taker has recklessly kicked the ball at him. The ball is therefore in play when kicked and the restart would be a DFK to the defensive team and a caution to the kicker.
 
Russell Jones said:
It is indeed unusual that it rises to an offense. However, reading the OP literally, this would be one of those cases. The defending player has done nothing wrong (he is retreating, albeit slowly) and the free kick taker has recklessly kicked the ball at him. The ball is therefore in play when kicked and the restart would be a DFK to the defensive team and a caution to the kicker.
Click to expand...
Reading his post #3, he probably didn't mean 'reckless'. But if indeed it was reckless you would be correct, although not explicit in law for a free kick, it is implicit. And reinforced by this for law 15:
1565072641054.png

However it would be a very hard sell for "kicking the ball at someone's feet" being reckless.

The interesting question is though, what do you do if you deem both offences have occurred, reckless kicking of the ball at the opponent (lets say not at his/her feet to make it easier to sell) AND the opponent failing to respect the distance?
 
one said:
Reading his post #3, he probably didn't mean 'reckless'. But if indeed it was reckless you would be correct, although not explicit in law for a free kick, it is implicit. And reinforced by this for law 15:
View attachment 3624

However it would be a very hard sell for "kicking the ball at someone's feet" being reckless.

The interesting question is though, what do you do if you deem both offences have occurred, reckless kicking of the ball at the opponent (lets say not at his/her feet to make it easier to sell) AND the opponent failing to respect the distance?
Click to expand...
Nice question :)

Given my intense dislike of 'Stand On It' and the delaying of free kicks, I'd be tempted to simply caution the defensive player. At the end of the day, if you knowingly put yourself where you are not allowed to be then to some extent you face the consequences of that. A bit like if someone stoops really low to head a ball that could be more easily kicked then they can't be surprised to be in harm's way!

However, if I was clear in my own mind that the attacker had unnecessarily blasted the ball at the defender in a reckless manner then I'd reserve the option to caution both of them!
 
one said:
Reading his post #3, he probably didn't mean 'reckless'. But if indeed it was reckless you would be correct, although not explicit in law for a free kick, it is implicit. And reinforced by this for law 15:
View attachment 3624

However it would be a very hard sell for "kicking the ball at someone's feet" being reckless.
Click to expand...
No, it's also explicit in Law 13:
If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, deliberately kicks the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Alright, let's dive down a rabbit hole.

So, we've given a caution for kicking the ball at an opponent in a reckless manner. Now, what of the restart?

Given that the ball is not in play from a free kick until after it has a) been kicked and b) clearly moved,
and,
given that the reckless offence is completed at the instant the player kicks the ball (and therefore before it has clearly moved),

are we obliged to conclude that the free kick has not been taken?
 
Errrr ... if the ball has been kicked with sufficient force to demonstrate recklessness then I'd wager it has clearly moved!

That said, I'm still not sure of the correct restart. My instinct is that the two offences are simultaneous and therefore I'm penalising the more serious (the reckless kick rather than the technical offence). But I certainly stand to be corrected!
 
The goal kick clarifcation including the phrase ‘genuinely did not have time to leave the area’.
Do IFAB expect we apply similar to respecting the required distance from free kicks?
 
Russell Jones said:
Errrr ... if the ball has been kicked with sufficient force to demonstrate recklessness then I'd wager it has clearly moved!

That said, I'm still not sure of the correct restart. My instinct is that the two offences are simultaneous and therefore I'm penalising the more serious (the reckless kick rather than the technical offence). But I certainly stand to be corrected!
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with Russell... unsporting behaviour would be the more serious offence. As the ball still not technically in play, its restarted again by an attacking team, with yellow card shown to the kicker....its one of those situations where you can feel that kicker had only one idea in his mind: to kick the ball at opponent as hard as possible...
 
I don't think the two offences occur at the same time. Both players should be boked uf they have committed offences
 
We are so far down the rabbit hole that every assertion should start with 'arguably' or 'allegedly' :)

Theoretically, arguably these two offence didn't happen at the same time. For one thing, the ball was kicked at the defender because he was too close. So I'd say failing to respect the distance comes first. But I can see an argument for offences at the same time.

Again theoretically, if the offences were at the same time, the law is clear on how to determine the more serious offence. It is in therms of sanction first (both cautions) then restart. The reckless offence is a DFK. The other one is a retake, hmmm, its also a DFK. Then physical severity, that definitely means the reckless offence, which means DFK to the opponents. (And just in case you are wondering tactical impact is next)

Having said that, in practice, if you are going to caution both players, no one would have a clue what the restart should be and you can get away with whatever restart helps you best manage the situation and should be able to wriggle your way through a LOTG justification if you are asked why by an assessor.
 
bester said:
The goal kick clarifcation including the phrase ‘genuinely did not have time to leave the area’.
Do IFAB expect we apply similar to respecting the required distance from free kicks?
Click to expand...
Yes, this has always been the case on free kicks outside the area and see no reason why it would change going forwards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top