Referees that only allow ceremonial free kicks

[deusex]

Playing one of the (maybe four) games I play a season on Sunday we had a ref that wouldn't allow me to take a quick free kick within 30 yards of goal.
I said nothing of course but this kinda p*ssed me off a bit.
My team has been wronged and I should be allowed to take full advantage of a QFK if I so wish.
Not allowing it is an advantage to the fouling team, just because you don't want to deal with the fallout of a QFK goal.
I think not allowing them is cowardly refereeing tbh.

 

[oh liner]

I find it strange that in a lot of my games players expect you to blow the whistle on all free kicks.

I will repeatedly say "all free kicks are quick free kicks unless I say otherwise" or "on you when your ready

When you ref an academy game though, bang and they're off !!!

 

[zarathustra]

After my first game I was advised to make all free kicks near goal on the whistle.

I know that the fouled team can take a quick one if they like, but I've never had any complaints, and the players seem to expect it.

 

[MatthewC]

During an assessed game in my first season I awarded a DFK about 25 yards from goal. As I approached the fouled player, he got up and put the ball on the spot he'd been fouled at. He turned to me and asked if he could take it quickly. There were no defenders in the vicinity so I told him to go for it. I hadn't noticed that the defending team were in the process of lining up their wall, so the GK was standing on the post, paying no attention to the ball. The attacker stuck it straight down the middle into the open net. Defending team were furious 'you've got to tell us at the beginning of the game if you're going to allow quick free kicks!' but I allowed it nonetheless. I've also allowed another team to take a similar quick free kick since then, with a similar outcome. I don't see the problem with it. Most keepers have the common sense to stay switched on until they've been told 'on the whistle', if not, tough luck!

 

[HRW]

If you want to take a quick free kick then by all means do so, but don't come whinge to me if you lose possession - you took it quick. On the other hand if I tell you we're waiting for the whislte, then we'll wait until I am ready.

generally sets the scene and everyone knows the score. Obviously if there are delays / standing over the ball / interfereances then we'll come back.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Playing one of the (maybe four) games I play a season on Sunday we had a ref that wouldn't allow me to take a quick free kick within 30 yards of goal.
I said nothing of course but this kinda p*ssed me off a bit.
My team has been wronged and I should be allowed to take full advantage of a QFK if I so wish.
Not allowing it is an advantage to the fouling team, just because you don't want to deal with the fallout of a QFK goal.
I think not allowing them is cowardly refereeing tbh.

Thanks, perhaps I should appear in Wizard of Oz?

 

[Kes]

If it's within shooting range of the goal, I (rightly or wrongly) always assume that the team awarded the free kick will want to take the shot, in which case, the defending team should have every right to construct a wall first. If the attacking team want to take it quickly within range of goal then so long as it's a pass or a cross, I'll generally allow it. If the FK was awarded say, just outside the area within shooting range and they opted to take a "quick shot" (assuming of course the FK is direct) I'd probably call them back and order it retaken if they scored from it.

 

[PP62]

"Quick" is the crucial word for me. If a player is fouled and he or one of his team mates take the free kick immediately then I have no problem with it. When we have an attacking free kick near the penalty area the same applies. However, once I get to the ball/free kick position I feel it now becomes too late for it to be a quick free kick. If I have asked the defending players to start retreating and an attacker now asks for a quick free kick I won't allow it.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

It's nothing other than cowardly refereeing with no understanding of the LOTG or spirit of the game. It doesn't come up very often, fortunately, and you judge how the attacking team are acting if they're wanting it quick or ceremonial. Give them the opportunity, but if they're milling around or setting the ball and walking backwards, odds are they expect it ceremonial.

But always be prepared for a quick kick - ESPECIALLY if the keeper has run out of his goal to argue with you or an opponent. Nothing worse than having to disallow a goal because you didn't see the kick.

If it's within shooting range of the goal, I (rightly or wrongly) always assume that the team awarded the free kick will want to take the shot, in which case, the defending team should have every right to construct a wall first

Really? Why? Did they have the wall before the foul? The purpose of a free kick is to benefit the attacking team, not the defending team. You're actually going out of your way to disadvantage the attacking team rather than keep it as close to how play was before the foul. In short, you're missing the point of the free kick with that approach.

After my first game I was advised to make all free kicks near goal on the whistle.

I know that the fouled team can take a quick one if they like, but I've never had any complaints, and the players seem to expect it.

Do yourself a favour and forget that advice. It's completely wrong and ignore the purpose of a free kick.

 

[deusex]

Thanks, perhaps I should appear in Wizard of Oz?

Oh Brian, you don't?
You're more than capable of dealing with the fallout from a QFK goal.
I can't think of any other reason not to allow it. Being fair to the fouled against team is more important than my match control

the defending team should have every right to construct a wall first

Got to agree with Captain: they really don't

Mod edit: have merged your posts mate. Have a go with the multi quote feature next time! It's awesome fun! SM

 

[Peter Grove]

[...] the defending team should have every right to construct a wall first.

Where are you getting that idea from? That is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law. The team that has just committed an offence against the laws of the game has no rights whatsoever under those laws. They have the duty to retreat 10 yards without being told and that's it.

 

[Kes]

Really? Why? Did they have the wall before the foul? The purpose of a free kick is to benefit the attacking team, not the defending team. You're actually going out of your way to disadvantage the attacking team rather than keep it as close to how play was before the foul. In short, you're missing the point of the free kick with that approach.

Got to agree with Captain: they really don't

Where are you getting that idea from? That is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the law. The team that has just committed an offence against the laws of the game has no rights whatsoever under those laws. They have the duty to retreat 10 yards without being told and that's it.

Okay chaps. I do realise that the defending team have no actual say in the proceedings of a free kick against them. I get that, always have.
It doesn't alter the fact that after you've blown for a free kick near the penalty area or certainly within shooting range, everybody then generally stops (rightly or wrongly) running around and spends the next few seconds waiting to see what's happening/going to happen. At this point, there is disorganisation and perhaps a bit of confusion, maybe from both teams. 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.

 

[Russell Jones]

@Kes . I understand your sentiment ... but like the others I don't agree with it. For me, it's simple. If I've got to the location of the FK, then I'm involved and will be very quickly saying it's on the whistle unless the kicker specifically asks me different. If, however, the attacking team takes the kick (cross, pass, shot, whatever) before I get there, then that's completely fair game and a defending side complaining about that will get short shrift (and probably a yellow or two!)

 

[Tealeaf]

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.

 

[MatthewC]

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".

By your own criteria, how is a quick free kick shot any difference to a quick free kick cross or pass that results in a shot and goal? So you wouldn't allow a player to shoot from a quick free kick, but you'd allow him to tap the ball 2 meters to a teammate for him to then shoot? How is that not exploting the defending teams 'momentary confusion'? How can you possibly describe this as 'cheating'? They've been awarded a free kick, they've got every right to get on and take it if they like, and take it in whichever way they choose.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

I have to disagree with most of you other than @Tealeaf we had a spate of these right up to the top level a few years back but how many do we have now? When was the last time you saw a top official simply allow a player to pop the ball into an almost empty net?

Coincidently I had this on Sunday, goalkeeper lining his wall up and the player puts it in, I blow and ask for a re-take, I got a bit of a complaint from the taker but not one other player, had I allowed the goal then my match control would be destroyed, simple as that. Free kicks in or around the penalty area will be ceremonial every time for me.

 

[Monotone Whistle]

Funnily enough, I had one of these for the first time in about 3 yrs, last Sunday. I allowed it after the player asked, by shouting "Play" and legging it away from the ball. The shot was on target and the keeper saved it, hardly a word was said. I feel by verbally communicating that play is continuing, at least I am giving tacit approval.

I try and avoid getting into any discussion about whistles, etc. and try and let it flow. I'd rather it wasn't taken quickly, but if the attacking team ask, and I'm happy with the situation, I'll allow it as described above.

We should also remember that if we have stopped play to caution or send off, or other situations as described in the bible, then we have to restart with the whistle anyway. It's the Law.

 

[Kes]

By your own criteria, how is a quick free kick shot any difference to a quick free kick cross or pass that results in a shot and goal? So you wouldn't allow a player to shoot from a quick free kick, but you'd allow him to tap the ball 2 meters to a teammate for him to then shoot? How is that not exploting the defending teams 'momentary confusion'?

Matthew, if you don't already know the answer to that one mate then I'm not going to bother trying to explain.

How can you possibly describe this as 'cheating'?

I didn't. I said that it was widely perceived as so.

They've been awarded a free kick, they've got every right to get on and take it if they like, and take it in whichever way they choose.

Like I said above mate, horses for courses. Managing the expectation of the players makes for a better game of football and less drama to deal with.

 

[bester]

Well executed quick freekicks don't cause match control problems there is only a problem when the referee gives him the impression that the freekick is going to be on the whistle.
If you're standing a yard from the position of the freekick then everyone thinks it's on the whistle...
The defence will invariably be looking at each other when the opposition score from a quick one unless the referee has messed up.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Well executed quick freekicks don't cause match control problems there is only a problem when the referee gives him the impression that the freekick is going to be on the whistle.
If you're standing a yard from the position of the freekick then everyone thinks it's on the whistle...
The defence will invariably be looking at each other when the opposition score from a quick one unless the referee has messed up.

I am not sure I get your point here or whether you have actually made one?

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