If an indirect free kick offense occurs in the goal area, then the IDFK occurs from the goal area (six-yard) line closest to where the offense occurred.
What was the offence and where was the location?
You don't like this law, but we are there to apply law.
I don't understand that at all.
The referee didn't stop play and restarted with the TI. However, in law he should have stopped play after the first block/save and awarded the IDFK.
it says the referee will stop play which makes it a requirement to imo. It's not stops play if, or unless, or if the referee stops play, it's a clear singular action to take.
If it's not an offence can you play advantage?
While I understand how you are parsing that, I'm not convinced that is what IFAB was trying to say. Alas, they are so consistently imprecise in their language, Lewis Carroll's head would spin.* I don't think they meant to imply that the interference was itself an "offense," but simply to mean that if the player commits a DFK foul, then the restart would be a DFK. It really doesn't make sense to say it is an "offense" for a player to play the game when the player hasn't been sent off--and may not even know he will be. But I can't argue with your linguistic interpretation. And more often than not, the restart is going to work fine, as the IFK is often a relatively innocuous restart. (I can't promise that, at the level of games I do, I wouldn't find an alternative "interpretation" if I felt that IFK was going to be fundamentally unfair.)
Yeah, in theory, perhaps, but since the only time that we are supposed to play advantage on a send off is if there is an immediate goal scoring opportunity, it seems unlikely that we have the opportunity to say something that complex. And if we just say something as simple as "we'll be coming back with the red" may make the player think he might as well do something stupid with nothing left to lose. (And in the real world, this is such a rare scenario, expecting that we will think that through so thoroughly in the heat of the moment is pretty unrealistic.)
Time to amend the law. If the referee can stop play for a serious injury why not stop play to send off the offender before he gets the chance to interfere with play? In theory, it could be up to 45 minutes before the ball goes out of play (and in reality, could easily be 5 minutes if you watch Pepball). Just say, "If the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds, the referee will stop play, send off the player and restart play with a dropped ball in accordance with law 8, unless a more serious offence has since been committed". (E.g. the player on a RC commits another foul - or someone commits a retaliatory offence against the player waiting to be sent off.) Tricky to get the wording right, but there needs to be discretion to stop play sooner than as presently worded.
Compared to some of the stuff in the law that's implicit (or ambiguous), this is nowt. It's just shorthand for "unless an offence has been committed that warrants a more serious sanction than an IDFK".
I think that's 100% the takeaway from this discussion. Deliberately or not, IFAB have effectively created "playing the ball after the ref has deemed you are due to be sent off" as an IFK offence.
Yes but for me not as much as two other points. If this is the case then any player with a chance of playing the ball legitimately has to guess now, was the challenge I made two minutes ago a yellow card or red card challenge? And Knowing ifab I am confident they did not mean to make this an offence for the reason above.
