The Referee
Well-Known Member
The attacking team kicks an indirect free kick directly towards the opponent's goal. The ball deflects off of the opposition goalkeeper's hand and enters the goal. Does the ref award the goal?
IDFK deflected into the goal
- Thread starter The Referee
- Start date
Goal. Can't find the exact location in the LotG, but it is indeed a goal if an indirect free kick is touched by a second player (attacking/defending/ and enters the goal.
The Referee
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the replies. The laws say that if the ball is kicked directly into the goal, award a goal kick but I was unsure how to interpret 'directly' so I thought I'd double check.
It's interesting that teams tap the ball to a teammate who is instantly closed down when taking an IDFK close to the goal rather than smash the ball at a defender standing on the goal line to deflect it in.
It's interesting that teams tap the ball to a teammate who is instantly closed down when taking an IDFK close to the goal rather than smash the ball at a defender standing on the goal line to deflect it in.
Goal, next, (easy one that)
What I do and I'm sure most people do is to tell the goal keeper if it's direct / indirect. Then you hope the keeper knows the laws and if its coming directly at him without touching anyone he can let it go into the goal knowing it'll be a goal kick, rather than possibly attempting to save and it going in off of the keeper for a goal.
I tell everyone it's an indirect free kick by raising my right arm
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I would not recommend telling the GK anything. The Laws have a signal for indirect--the upraised arm. Especially at younger ages, certainly reasonable to announce that it is indirect, but no reason to single out the GK.
Well, tell him if he asks!
I had one ask last season if it was indirect because I penalised a handball. I don't think handball has ever been indirect in my lifetime, but the keeper was pretty old. Or maybe it's one of those myths.
one
RefChat Addict
Myth amongst some new and young referees with little knowledge of the laws. At least here in Aus. If it's deliberate, it's direct. If it not deliberate, it's indirect. They kind of workout their own justice system.Well, tell him if he asks!
I had one ask last season if it was indirect because I penalised a handball. I don't think handball has ever been indirect in my lifetime, but the keeper was pretty old. Or maybe it's one of those myths.
On telling the keeper, it has been the subject of debate many times. It's a balance between not coaching them or giving them an unfair advantage by telling them how not to concede a goal, and making life easier for yourself in having to manage a confrontational situation. I think the higher you go up the level and age, the less you should 'tell them'.
A similar logic when the ball goes towards the keeper when lt was last kicked by a team mate. Do you tell the keeper he can (or can not) handle it? In young or very low divisions, or if I am asked, I would tell them. Otherwise I am just there to apply the laws and interpretations but not to teach it.
Last edited:
I can see no reason not to tell everyone, the keeper included, that it is indirect. Yes, they should see that your arm is up but they might miss it, or might not know what it means.
Basic game management really. If the ball gets smashed straight in the goal and the attacking team all start celebrating it is much easier to say "I told you it was indirect" than it would be if you had just raised your arm. No different to telling players not to foul, careful, etc, they know they shouldn't do it but we still tell them not to.
Basic game management really. If the ball gets smashed straight in the goal and the attacking team all start celebrating it is much easier to say "I told you it was indirect" than it would be if you had just raised your arm. No different to telling players not to foul, careful, etc, they know they shouldn't do it but we still tell them not to.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Announcing it is indirect is different from singling out the GK to tell the GK it is indirect. Maybe players here in the US are just more sophisticated than in the UK
, but in my experience by 16U, they all know what the arm in the air means. Err. If the GK touches it, then it is a goal whether it was a DFK or IFK. so if the defenders thought it was direct they won't be reacting at all other than to be sad they gave up a goal.
Back to the first point. There is a difference between simply announcing indirect (which, IMO, is unnecessary but inoffensive), and singling out the GK, which think is not appropriate.
What I meant is if the attackers go berserk because you disallowed the shot that went straight in without touching anyone. "Well I told you it was indirect didn't I?"
Completely agree that you don't just tell the keeper, but even if you did if you shout "keeper, it's indirect" you are indirectly (pardon the pun) telling everyone anyway.
They could simplify this and make everything direct, everything, no confusing decisions then!
It raises a question for me, that I'm hoping @Peter Grove will be able to answer... why do we have indirect free kicks anyway?
Otherwise there'd be very few questions dealing with very unlikely scenarios to put on test papers to justify promotion!
one
RefChat Addict
For me it's very different. It's more like the example I made about 'backpass'. If a player deliberately kicks the ball back to the keeper and the keeper is about to handle it, will you be shouting to the keeper "don't handle it" because its like telling a player not to foul?
There are many reasons they are different but I think the above example sums it up.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Actually, there's nothing I'm aware of, in the history of the laws that gives a concrete explanation for this. I can tell you that when free kicks were first introduced they were all indirect. The first offence for which an indirect free kick could be given, was handling (in 1872) followed by IFK's for offside, holding, pushing, tripping and hacking in 1874.
Direct free kicks were not introduced until 1903 and only for the following: holding, pushing, tripping, kicking, charging from behind, jumping at a player or intentionally handling the ball. All other free kicks remained indirect.
As I say, no explanation was offered at the time, either for the introduction of the (indirect) free kick or for the change to direct free kicks for 'penal' offences.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the introduction of both the indirect free kick and then later, the direct free kick was in response to increased law-breaking by players that the authorities felt they had to address.
Last edited: