Referees that only allow ceremonial free kicks

[CapnBloodbeard]

Invariably I've found a quick kick is in the wrong place anyway, but more than that I don't want the aggro anymore.

I've done the "you've been disadvantaged, so go quick to restore it" and ended up with pages of paperwork I don't need. If it's a shooting position, I'll control it. Self preservation and all that.

I really have zero patience for this sort of thing. You're stating that you're happy to rob a team of a goal because you lack the [insert word of choice here] to referee the game? If you don't want the aggro of refereeing, find an easier grade or a different hobby. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the law and game you want to referee to make life easier for yourself, and damn the 22 players on the field.

O. A player who exploits that momentary confusion or hesitancy with a shot on goal, is in my opinion flirting with the spirit of the game and the ref who allows it (9 times out of 10) will be dealing with more than a bit of indignation at what is widely perceived as "cheating". Each individual situation merits it's own judgement call where "quick free kicks" around the penalty area are concerned and that has to be made in consideration of the temperature of the match. Generally speaking, for me, a "quick free kick" pass or cross is fine whether it ends up with a goal being scored or not and it's normally acceptable to all at grass roots level, a "quick free kick" shot isn't.

Whereas this reasoning is just bizarre. Do you realise that you're actually claiming that a defending team deserves to be rewarded for committing a foul by the referee doing everything he can to ensure the opponent's fouled attack is as interrupted as possible? What do you think the purpose of the free kick is?
The defending team didn't have 10 players behind the ball before the foul - that's probably why they committed the foul. So how do you get the idea that it's 'fair' that, as a reward for committing the foul, they now get to take their time in getting 10 men behind the ball in tactical positions? You see the difference between position and organisation before the foul and after the foul - thus where you argument of 'fairness' is...well, grossly misplaced?

A "quick free" is fine unless around the penalty area when a quick free kick simply becomes a shot at an open goal.

So what's wrong with that?

 

[bester]

The point is many referees cause their own problems when managing "quick freekicks" and then swear off all quick freekicks near the area as a consequence of the badly managed ones causing them, or others, problems.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

I really have zero patience for this sort of thing. You're stating that you're happy to rob a team of a goal because you lack the [insert word of choice here] to referee the game? If you don't want the aggro of refereeing, find an easier grade or a different hobby. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the law and game you want to referee to make life easier for yourself, and damn the 22 players on the field.

With reference to the above point where in the laws of the game does it say that you have to allow a quick free kick?

The point is many referees cause their own problems when managing "quick freekicks" and then swear off all quick freekicks near the area as a consequence of the badly managed ones causing them, or others, problems.

I still don't quite get you, what is a badly managed "quick" free kick, is a "quick" free kick not actually managed at all, I think that's the main point here.

Mod edit: have merged this for you mate. Have some giggles with the multi quote feature next time? It's brill! SM

 

[bester]

Precisely, all you need to do is stay around 10-yards away from the freekick location and give them an opportunity to play it quickly.

 

[Kes]

Whereas this reasoning is just bizarre. Do you realise that you're actually claiming that a defending team deserves to be rewarded for committing a foul by the referee doing everything he can to ensure the opponent's fouled attack is as interrupted as possible? What do you think the purpose of the free kick is?
The defending team didn't have 10 players behind the ball before the foul - that's probably why they committed the foul. So how do you get the idea that it's 'fair' that, as a reward for committing the foul, they now get to take their time in getting 10 men behind the ball in tactical positions? You see the difference between position and organisation before the foul and after the foul - thus where you argument of 'fairness' is...well, grossly misplaced?

I wasn't aware the LOTG were a philosophical work my friend.
Nor am I claiming that the defending team deserves to be rewarded for committing a foul. That's just the way you want see it.
It certainly isn't about "fairness" either, it's just what has become accepted practice for the reasons I gave above. If you want the LOTG to be "fair" to the attacking team whenever a foul is committed then presumably you wouldn't ever stop play to issue a caution or red card (as per the LOTG) just in case the attacking team wanted to take it quickly (?) Like I said before, horses for courses. My reasoning may seem "bizarre" to you, but it's exactly the same reasoning as others on here and of countless referees I've seen at various levels as both a ref and a player.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Kes, your last post completely ignores every reasoning you've provided in this thread. You did provide your reasoning on claims of 'fairness' - and if your argument is that the defending team has the right to ensure a goal is not conceded from a QFK and have the right to set up a wall to block a shot - then there's no 2 ways around it; you're arguing that the purpose of a free kick is to benefit the defending team. The LOTG states what the idea behind a FK is. Find that passage

There are only 2 reasons I've ever heard of for not allowing a QFK

1) The horrendously misinformed notion that it's unfair, which forgets that the defending team didn't have a wall before the foul, so why should they have the right to have one after? I find it difficult to believe that 'countless' referees have applied that reasoning. Every referee I've seen use that reasoning abandons it after their first year or two once somebody points out the obvious fact I just mentioned.

2) Referees who simply lack the courage to do the right thing yet have no qualms about screwing a team out of a goal to make their money a little easier earned.

Never heard any others

A "quick free" is fine unless around the penalty area when a quick free kick simply becomes a shot at an open goal.

So what's wrong with that?

I still don't quite get you, what is a badly managed "quick" free kick, is a "quick" free kick not actually managed at all, I think that's the main point here.

A badly managed kick is when a referee confuses the situation. Runs in and starts directing players around, for instance.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Kes, your last post completely ignores every reasoning you've provided in this thread. You did provide your reasoning on claims of 'fairness' - and if your argument is that the defending team has the right to ensure a goal is not conceded from a QFK and have the right to set up a wall to block a shot - then there's no 2 ways around it; you're arguing that the purpose of a free kick is to benefit the defending team. The LOTG states what the idea behind a FK is. Find that passage

There are only 2 reasons I've ever heard of for not allowing a QFK

1) The horrendously misinformed notion that it's unfair, which forgets that the defending team didn't have a wall before the foul, so why should they have the right to have one after? I find it difficult to believe that 'countless' referees have applied that reasoning. Every referee I've seen use that reasoning abandons it after their first year or two once somebody points out the obvious fact I just mentioned.

2) Referees who simply lack the courage to do the right thing yet have no qualms about screwing a team out of a goal to make their money a little easier earned.

Never heard any others


So what's wrong with that?



A badly managed kick is when a referee confuses the situation. Runs in and starts directing players around, for instance.

Absolute nonsense and I do hate it when "colleagues" on here start talking about lack of courage, It has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of courage!!

I go back my earlier point, PL referee's do not allow quick free-kicks in and around the penalty area? Why? Because it causes so much hassles and can destroy your match control. The kind of quick free kick I am referring to is the goalkeeper lining up his wall etc and a player then able to put the ball into an open goal. It used to happen a lot in the PL but now does not, why is that?

Don't start quoting the LOTG as it states nothing about do or don't allow quick free kicks.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Refusing to allow something - particularly something match changing - because you're afraid you'll get yelled at or it might start to get a little difficult for the rest of the afternoon (under the 'match control' excuse) is showing an absolute lack of courage. I can't imagine how you could possibly consider it anything else.

How do you know PL referees don't allow QFK? Maybe the players don't try? Ever seen the player try and the referee pull it back for no reason?

Of course as a referee you need to take your cue from the attackers actions, whether they look like they want to take it quick or if they're milling around and taking their time. That will tell you everything you need to do. If it's reached the point when the defence are setting up their wall then quite a bit of time has elapsed, and the referee needs to make a decision there. By that point the attacking team have, through inaction, invited a ceremonial restart. Some referees will say you should ask the attacking team what they want - probably a good idea if you happen to be in the area at the time of the foul as it still gives them an opportunity. If you're some distance away then the attacking team are probably waiting for you to set it up if you've reached them before they've done anything.

A 'poorly managed' QFK would be one where the referee's actions would suggest it's ceremonial without it actually being so.

At grassroots, the most likely scenario for a QFK attempt is when the keeper is out of position - either the keeper committed the foul, or he wants to run out to yell at the referee. Absolutely no reason to deny the QFK in either of those cases on principle.

And if you think that the LOTG say nothing about QFK then you need to reread it. They're referred to explicitly and implicitly in several sections.

 

[Kes]

The LOTG states what the idea behind a FK is. Find that passage

I don't seem to be able to. Maybe you could quote it on here?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I don't seem to be able to. Maybe you could quote it on here?

Hmm, seems to have been removed. Interestingly, the reasoning behind a red card for DOGSO has also been removed...

Anyway, wasn't anything groundbreaking. Was just about the purpose of the free kick was to restore the advantage that has been lost due to the foul. Clearly, denying the attacking team their right to a QFK so the defending team can put themselves in a better position than they were before the foul is completely contrary to that. Perhaps it's been removed as it fails to take into consideration off-the-ball fouls that don't actually affect play.

 

[Kes]

Hmm, seems to have been removed. Interestingly, the reasoning behind a red card for DOGSO has also been removed...

Anyway, wasn't anything groundbreaking. Was just about the purpose of the free kick was to restore the advantage that has been lost due to the foul. Clearly, denying the attacking team their right to a QFK so the defending team can put themselves in a better position than they were before the foul is completely contrary to that. Perhaps it's been removed as it fails to take into consideration off-the-ball fouls that don't actually affect play.

Maybe it's because quite simply, having a "free" kick (ie without an opponent challenging you as you do it and with them needing to be at least 10 yards away) is considered more than enough "restoration of advantage".

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Refusing to allow something - particularly something match changing - because you're afraid you'll get yelled at or it might start to get a little difficult for the rest of the afternoon (under the 'match control' excuse) is showing an absolute lack of courage. I can't imagine how you could possibly consider it anything else.

Once again nonsense, based on this logic, a referee making a decision based on how it will effect his or her match control is actually because they lack courage and are afraid they may get yelled at for the rest of the afternoon.

Agree to disagree on this one, who are you to question my courage?????

Your not allowed an opinion on this forum...pathetic!

 

[ASM]

There is only one single reason in Law to not allow a 'quick' free kick and that is that you need to administer disciplinary sanctions against an offender.

However I have little issue with any referee who wishes to manage free kick situations carefully, particularly in the final third. Similarly I don't have problem with a referee who does not wish to employ this technique.

Each to their own. As long as a referee applies the same technique to both sides throughout the game there will be few complaints from the vast majority of participants.

Let's keep a perspective here.

 

[SM]

Settle down lads. Keep it civil or posts will be removed, forum users barred from posting any further on the topic.

Why do we always end up with entrenched black and white positions? Large parts of the lotg are nothing but grey areas. Which is handy or this forum would be crazy boring with us agreeing all the time

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Maybe it's because quite simply, having a "free" kick (ie without an opponent challenging you as you do it and with them needing to be at least 10 yards away) is considered more than enough "restoration of advantage".

Really. A free kick with a well organised 10-11 defenders in front of you including a wall that the keeper has carefully positioned is comparable to, say, a fast counterattack with the defence outnumbered and the keeper out of position. Clutching at straws Kes - I don't even think you believed that post!

Once again nonsense, based on this logic, a referee making a decision based on how it will effect his or her match control is actually because they lack courage and are afraid they may get yelled at for the rest of the afternoon.

!

Strawman, Cheshire (your entire post was, not just the part I quoted). You know very well that's not what I was saying. Take a breather and try again ;-)

 

[Cheshire Ref]

I am really not interested in anything you have to say as you are simply now trying to goad me. We battle with players each and every weekend and then come one here to voice an opinion and battle with each other.....ridiculous!

 

[Russell Jones]

Blimey, is it any wonder that players complain about lack of consistency from referees when we have such a massive disagreement over something so frequent and game changing as the protocol for free kicks near the penalty areas?! .

@CapnBloodbeard, whilst I'm 100% with you regarding how this should be managed, I don't think it's fruitful to characterise those who see it differently as lacking courage. These are referees who obviously take their officiating seriously (why bother being on here otherwise?) and have simply found an alternative method that seems to work for both them and the players. And at the end of the day, ceremonial FKs are clearly the 'norm' at all levels these days so it's no wonder that something unusual like a quick FK has the potential to cause issues.

For those advocating 'ceremonial only', I sincerely hope that if a fouled player gets up quickly, places the ball and takes it before you get there, then you're not going to pull it back (assuming there's no need for a card etc)? And for those, like me, arguing for flexibility, I take it that once you've said it's on the whistle then the chance for a quick FK is lost? So that just leaves the scenario where the referee has made it to the spot of the foul but not yet indicated that it is on the whistle. In THAT scenario, I can truly see no proper justification for disallowing or stopping a quick FK. We certainly wouldn't do so in any other area of the pitch and given that one of our primary roles is to ensure 'fair play', surely our sympathies should lie more with the team offended against than the team doing the offending??

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

ok Cheshire. Well, I'm disappointed you feel that way, because that was not what I was doing at all - but if you misrepresent what I wrote then it would certainly seem that way. Incidentally, I've also only voiced my opinion ;-)

Russell - I was simply stating that this particular approach is one that lacks courage. I've made plenty of decisions - significant ones too - on the field myself that I know in hindsight - heck, knew at the time - were incorrect because at that time I lacked the strength or courage to make the correct decision.

If you feel that because most kicks are ceremonial, that's why issues are caused - then isn't this one of many areas where referees are creating the problem? (other areas are more universal ones, like dissent tolerance). As for 'method that works' - we're not talking about different tolerance levels for dissent. These are match changing decisions, and if a team wants to utilise their right to the quick free kick, then denying that goal because the referee simply doesn't like quick free kicks isn't good enough, and cannot be justified.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Blimey, is it any wonder that players complain about lack of consistency from referees when we have such a massive disagreement over something so frequent and game changing as the protocol for free kicks near the penalty areas?! .

@CapnBloodbeard, whilst I'm 100% with you regarding how this should be managed, I don't think it's fruitful to characterise those who see it differently as lacking courage. These are referees who obviously take their officiating seriously (why bother being on here otherwise?) and have simply found an alternative method that seems to work for both them and the players. And at the end of the day, ceremonial FKs are clearly the 'norm' at all levels these days so it's no wonder that something unusual like a quick FK has the potential to cause issues.

For those advocating 'ceremonial only', I sincerely hope that if a fouled player gets up quickly, places the ball and takes it before you get there, then you're not going to pull it back (assuming there's no need for a card etc)? And for those, like me, arguing for flexibility, I take it that once you've said it's on the whistle then the chance for a quick FK is lost? So that just leaves the scenario where the referee has made it to the spot of the foul but not yet indicated that it is on the whistle. In THAT scenario, I can truly see no proper justification for disallowing or stopping a quick FK. We certainly wouldn't do so in any other area of the pitch and given that one of our primary roles is to ensure 'fair play', surely our sympathies should lie more with the team offended against than the team doing the offending??

Russell I think the best thing to pull from this is "flexibility". I am not saying that every free kick should be ceremonial and of course we do in fact have to be flexible. I just disagree with a quick free kick being taken on the edge of the box when nobody is expecting it and a player is allowed to simply put the ball into an empty net.

I have heard several talks from several PL referee's who often talk about managing a game by refereeing to players expectations and I think this is a prime example of this.

 

[Kes]

Really. A free kick with a well organised 10-11 defenders in front of you including a wall that the keeper has carefully positioned is comparable to, say, a fast counterattack with the defence outnumbered and the keeper out of position. Clutching at straws Kes - I don't even think you believed that post!

On the contrary mate, I totally believe it. Because it's the truth. If it weren't, they'd have thought of something else with which to reward attacking teams by now. If you think long and hard enough about it - I'm sure you'll eventually understand what I mean.
What you describe above is a specific situation. Sure it happens, but 95% of free kicks are given when that's not the scenario. Again, the reward of having all the time in the world (within reason) to, unchallenged, measure up and then execute either a pass, cross or shot at goal with the opposition all at least 10 yards away from you is as good as it's ever going to get bar a penalty.
I rather think it's you that's clutching at them old straws chap.