Deflected back to the kicker.

A VERY hypothetical situation - I'm looking for a response from the LOTG (if there is one). I'd hope we'd all apply the spirit of the law etc.

If a free kick taker (player X) takes a free kick and it hits the referee before going back to X who takes a touch and then does his stuff... What is the restart?

And what if its an IFK inside the opposing teams penalty area...

Jtpetherick1 said:

A VERY hypothetical situation - I'm looking for a response from the LOTG (if there is one). I'd hope we'd all apply the spirit of the law etc.

If a free kick taker (player X) takes a free kick and it hits the referee before going back to X who takes a touch and then does his stuff... What is the restart?

And what if its an IFK inside the opposing teams penalty area...

Click to expand...

IFK to the opponents for the double touch.

Hitting the ref is only a DB if it causes a change of possession or creates a GSO. Possession didn't change from the hit to the R and can't be a GSO to a player not entitled to play the ball.

Aside: this happened recently in a US game (I believe it was second tier professional). No one apparently noticed the issues in the instant they happened. Shortly thereafter the team that took the original kick scored. I believe the R wiped the goal and went back to a DB. (Not sure if that was because the R team missed the double touch issue or decided the interference provision should apply.)

(That IFK to the opponent doesn't offend the SOTG to me either, though I suppose we could add additional details that might make me see it differently.)

Jtpetherick1 said:

A VERY hypothetical situation - I'm looking for a response from the LOTG (if there is one). I'd hope we'd all apply the spirit of the law etc.

If a free kick taker (player X) takes a free kick and it hits the referee before going back to X who takes a touch and then does his stuff... What is the restart?

And what if its an IFK inside the opposing teams penalty area...

Click to expand...

Without looking, I assume scenario 1 would be a dropped ball for player X's team at the point it touches the referee, and scenario 2 would be a dropped ball to the opposition goalkeeper.

I would say a "spirit of the law" interpretation is definitely a dropped ball to the team of the player taking the kick.

By giving an IFK to the opposition you are allowing a change of possession to take place pretty much solely due to the ball having touched the referee.

OK it's not an immediate change of possession and so technically perhaps not justified by the letter of the law but the whole reason for the dropped ball after the ball touches the referee (in certain defined scenarios) was to prevent an unsporting outcome.

I think the following clause applies here:

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”

Click to expand...

It's just my opinion but I think what football would want and expect here is a dropped ball restoring possesion to the team that lost it due to the referee's involvement (albeit inadvertent).

Totally agree with Peter on this one, no way am i punishing the attacking player for a double touch.

Any sort of play stopped in the penalty area always results in the ball going back to the defending goalkeeper now (i think) no matter who has the ball before the stoppage.

I'm with Peter but likely to go with a retake but dropped ball seems to be more in line with the spirit of the law.

I must also add the same situation and if the ball goes out instead of back to X, then the correct and expected restart (within spirit of law?) Would be a TI, GK, CK to opponents. So not sure if IFK to opponents is bad as it sounds.

If the initial FK was being taken by the GK in his own area, it hits the referee and he then takes a second touch inside his area, can we not say that giving the IFK in that situation would have created a GSO?

GraemeS said:

If the initial FK was being taken by the GK in his own area, it hits the referee and he then takes a second touch inside his area, can we not say that giving the IFK in that situation would have created a GSO?

Click to expand...

I don't think we can--there was no GSO from hitting the ref, there was one from the GK's poor decision to play the ball after it hit the ref.

This scenario is just one of many from the potential can of worms of the new rule about hitting the ref. Prior to the change it's and easy call with the IFK to the opponent. IFAB could have, but chose not to, include a more general "referee believes the interference unfairly affected play" (which could be better worded). But IFAB has been fixated on detailing specifics instead of the general concepts that long formed the Laws.

And I think I'm less sympathetic to the FK taker than others--it's a FK and he hit the ref with it? That's the player's poor decision or execution.

socal lurker said:

And I think I'm less sympathetic to the FK taker than others--it's a FK and he hit the ref with it? That's the player's poor decision or execution.

Click to expand...

We don't know if that's the case though do we? The OP just says the ball struck the referee, it doesn't describe how exactly that happened. Maybe the referee misinterpreted where the kick would go and moved into the path of the ball just as it was struck.

If we are covering unlikely scenarios, how about the ball bounce off the referee, deflects off another defender and goes into goal? If you are giving the IFK for OP then you should allow a goal here.
Retake or DB would be incorrect in law but it is what football expects, within the spirit of law (the part that address creating a GSO).