A&H

Law 12

callmemyref

callmemyref

Well-Known Member
Hi, can you please explain below? How can physical offence against the teammate be indirect free kick?

And wat do they mena by indirect 'or' direct free kick? Why is it unclear for me?
thumbnail_image003.png
 
The Referee Store
a) because that's what Law states
b) because the opposition players aren't directly affected in any means by the action
c) depends on the nature of the offence as per the rest of Law 12. Consider Playing in a Dangerous Manner v. Tripping an Opponent.
 
Max2 said:
a) because that's what Law states
b) because the opposition players aren't directly affected in any means by the action
c) depends on the nature of the offence as per the rest of Law 12. Consider Playing in a Dangerous Manner v. Tripping an Opponent.
Click to expand...
Is trying to get the ball and being not in a control of the body in a dangerous manner without contact is always IFK? Or can it be DFK as well?
 
callmemyref said:
Is trying to get the ball and being not in a control of the body in a dangerous manner without contact is always IFK? Or can it be DFK as well?
Click to expand...

Yes it can. The action just has to be (in your opinion) careless, reckless or excessively forceful... 😉
 
It can be either, as you can give IFK for "dangerous play" or DFK under any of the "attempting to..." offences (attempting to kick etc.)

The distinction generally used is the IFK is given if the opposing player feels they have to pull out in order to avoid injury (this is the actual law behind the "high boot" shouts you'll often hear and why they often shouldn't actually be given), wheras a DFK is more common if it just happens to miss without the opponent taking evasive action and/or if the referee thinks the attempt is intentional. But that's not particularly clearly laid out in law, so any answers to this will be along the lines of suggestions and ways to approach a decision rather than black and white LOTG answers.
 
GraemeS said:
It can be either, as you can give IFK for "dangerous play" or DFK under any of the "attempting to..." offences (attempting to kick etc.)

The distinction generally used is the IFK is given if the opposing player feels they have to pull out in order to avoid injury (this is the actual law behind the "high boot" shouts you'll often hear and why they often shouldn't actually be given), wheras a DFK is more common if it just happens to miss without the opponent taking evasive action and/or if the referee thinks the attempt is intentional. But that's not particularly clearly laid out in law, so any answers to this will be along the lines of suggestions and ways to approach a decision rather than black and white LOTG answers.
Click to expand...

could also be a careless/reckless challenge as a DFK, which does not necessarily require contact
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
socal lurker said:
could also be a careless/reckless challenge as a DFK, which does not necessarily require contact
Click to expand...
I think that's what I was saying? You're certainly right, but as we already define "attempting to" fouls as also being either careless/reckless/dangerous, I don't think it contradicts what I wrote?
 
GraemeS said:
I think that's what I was saying? You're certainly right, but as we already define "attempting to" fouls as also being either careless/reckless/dangerous, I don't think it contradicts what I wrote?
Click to expand...
My point was that it isn’t only the “attempt” offenses that can be a DFK without contact. The CREF offense of tackles/challenges doesn’t have an “attempt” element, but could still be a DFK offense if the opponent manages to avoid the contact.
 
socal lurker said:
My point was that it isn’t only the “attempt” offenses that can be a DFK without contact. The CREF offense of tackles/challenges doesn’t have an “attempt” element,
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it does. 😉
(Unless of course, I've misunderstood your post?) 😎
 
Kes said:
I think you'll find it does. 😉
(Unless of course, I've misunderstood your post?) 😎
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with.

the only “attempt” offenses are kicking, striking, and tripping. (Well, really spitting at and throwing at are essentially attempts, too, but not written that way.

But nothing in the definitions of the other DFK offenses (other than impeding) require contact to be an offense. A reckless tackle that doesn’t make contact is still a DFK. (So, too, could a careless one, though in the real world we’re almost certain to consider it trifling and not whistle it.)
 
callmemyref said:
Is trying to get the ball and being not in a control of the body in a dangerous manner without contact is always IFK? Or can it be DFK as well?
Click to expand...
I think you are going about this the wrong way. You are defining the action in you own ways unrelated to laws of the game and then try to fit it in to no foul/DFK/IFK which are laws of the game concepts.

See and define the action in terms of laws of the game concepts. For example "playing in a dangerous manner" or "attempting to kick an opponent carelessly" or "the action was not careless". All these are clearly explained in the laws of the game. Once you do this your decision comes naturally, logically and as per lotg.
 
Problems stem from removing the concept of "intent" from law 12, which required a referee to judge what was in a player's mind. It was always a get-out if an obvious foul was just a mistimed tackle - but it's crept back in with the criterion for its not being DOGSO in the PA if it's a genuine attempt to play the ball (i.e. judged on the player's intention). It's also still there in the "attempt to" wording: "What was the player trying to do?" involves an assessment of intent and/or whether there was any reasonable chance of doing it. It's all compounded by the introduction of "careless" as a criterion for a foul, as that implies so long as you trip and kick an opponent carefully it's not an offence.

It transfers into the foul or dive discussions - if a player sticks out a leg and the opponent might have avoided it but chooses not to change direction and instead runs into the leg, who's at fault? Sticking out the leg could be deemed an attempted trip, and no contact would be needed (though now an attempted trip could include some clear physical contact and if the player keeps going but has lost some ground on other opponents or has lost a better angle for a shot, and the foul will probably not be penalised, hence the "within his rights to go down" argument).

I'm not sure any of this deals with the OP! And I must admit, I missed the change when hitting anyone other than an opponent became a DFK offence - another change after over a century of its being IDFK (apart from the late 90s for a few years when there was nothing about restart of play after cautionable or sending-off offences).
 
bloovee said:
but it's crept back in with the criterion for its not being DOGSO in the PA if it's a genuine attempt to play the ball (i.e. judged on the player's intention).
Click to expand...
Whilst genuine was bandied about and think made its way into the explanation it is not in the law, and the law says simply, "it was an attempt for the ball".
We aren't looking at intent of the player, we are looking at the action, was the action an attempt at the ball, no need for mind reading.
 
I am a little baffled by the way everyone is not answering the questions the OP asked. And so many people getting tied up in knots over a Law that seems crystal clear.

1 OP asked how a physical offence against a TEAM-MATE can be an indirect free kick.
It can't. There isn't really any IFK offence against a team-mate; which is why it is not listed as an option, only DFK or penalty.

2 OP asked what they mean by indirect free kick "OR" direct free kick
Again a simple answer: Dangerous Play is a physical offence against an opponent. This earns an IFK. All other physical offences earn a dfk or a penalty.
 
JamesL said:
Whilst genuine was bandied about and think made its way into the explanation it is not in the law, and the law says simply, "it was an attempt for the ball".
We aren't looking at intent of the player, we are looki ng at the action, was the action an attempt at the ball, no need for mind reading.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that but it says "an attempt to play the ball". If it was in the explanation, I assume it can still be a helpful distinction, e.g. when a tackle is made from behind where the player has no chance of reaching the ball without a foul.
 
Dan56 said:
I am a little baffled by the way everyone is not answering the questions the OP asked. And so many people getting tied up in knots over a Law that seems crystal clear.

1 OP asked how a physical offence against a TEAM-MATE can be an indirect free kick.
It can't. There isn't really any IFK offence against a team-mate; which is why it is not listed as an option, only DFK or penalty.

2 OP asked what they mean by indirect free kick "OR" direct free kick
Again a simple answer: Dangerous Play is a physical offence against an opponent. This earns an IFK. All other physical offences earn a dfk or a penalty.
Click to expand...
Law doesn't specify "against an opponent" for PIADM - it could be an act which endangers a team-mate, e. g. a "scissors kick" close to a team-mate's head.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
Law doesn't specify "against an opponent" for PIADM - it could be an act which endangers a team-mate, e. g. a "scissors kick" close to a team-mate's head.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Broadly, I think it is implicit in the Laws that PIADM requires disadvantaging an opponent. But beyond that, as to your specific example, Law 12 does explicitly say that a scores kick is permissible unless It is dangerous to an opponent.

(I do agree that the language of PIADM (unfortunately like too many parts of the Laws) is less than perfectly clear.)
 
bloovee said:
Problems stem from removing the concept of "intent" from law 12,
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why people keep saying this. The concept of intent was never removed from Law 12 in its entirety.

It was only removed from being required for one particular subset of offences (those that fall nowadays within the CRUEF guidelines).

It always remained - as it does to this day - in several other areas of Law 12.
 
JamesL said:
Whilst genuine was bandied about and think made its way into the explanation it is not in the law, and the law says simply, "it was an attempt for the ball".
Click to expand...
True, but the fact that it is in the explanation (where anybody who cares to look can easily find it still) shows that it was part of the IFAB's thinking in relation to this offence and so (IMHO) makes it valid for a referee to consider it also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top