I'll hold. I just searched the word ceremonial in the lotg and nil return.
Quick indirect free kick in the box.
- Thread starter Murri O
- Start date
Murri O
Well-Known Member
I'll hold. I just searched the word ceremonial in the lotg and nil return.
See bottom of previous page. (Page 2)
Thats not the lotg. That is guidance from your association, which is fair enough, but cant be cited as official guidance from ifab. Only that which appears in the official lotg published annually can.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
I didn't think I cited it. I said I got my LOTG book out and went to the 'guidance' section of the handbook.
These handbooks are handed out every year at our preseason refresher course.
Cite = refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement.
Reads like you didm
Again, whilst its nice your association are giving out these "laws of the game" books, it can't be used as a substitute for the official, and only document worth using in an official capacity, laws of the game published annually by ifab.
It might be that your book carbon copies the lotg but the guidance given is only from your association, really they ought to issue that as a separate publication. Its these sorts of things that create confusion between national associations
Murri O
Well-Known Member
Fair enough but I'd say 'cite' is more closely aligned to 'quote' in a strict sense. But in any case the point stands that in the 'official' IFAB LOTG there's nothing saying that quick free kicks can't be taken anywhere.
Correct. In fact it states explicitly they can. As this is not defined to idfk or dfk we should assume both. Also no reference to locations so we can assume anywhere.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I'd rather be fair and deal with the consequences myself.
Join the RF they said.... get lectured they said!
game management wise - if the wall is set up (in a feisty game) , I bet the attacking team will take the opportunity to smash it straight at someone...and all hell will break loose. "I was only having a shot, ref".
one
RefChat Addict
Don't confuse a quick free kick with a surprising free kick. A quick free kick must be just that, taken quickly after the free kick is awarded. It wont give me enough time to get there, them to ask if they can take it quickly, defender to run in to try and block it. If any of that happens then its not quick and I am going on the whistle.
So after awarding a FK near PA or IFK in the PA, you can immediately read the attackers body language if they are taking it quickly. If you are 'waiting' to see what they are doing then they are not taking 'quickly'. Therefore the first thing to do is to say "on the whistle lads".
If they had a chance to take it 3 seconds after awarding the FK and you allow them to take it 10 seconds after, it is a mismanagement of the situations by allowing a surprising taking of the free kick. Letting you know beforehand doesn't change the surprising nature of it.
I would have to see it but the description of the OP indicates while the referee may not have said "on the whistle", the body language of the referee and the attacking players indicated "on the whistle" and that could have lead to an unfair outcome.
So after awarding a FK near PA or IFK in the PA, you can immediately read the attackers body language if they are taking it quickly. If you are 'waiting' to see what they are doing then they are not taking 'quickly'. Therefore the first thing to do is to say "on the whistle lads".
If they had a chance to take it 3 seconds after awarding the FK and you allow them to take it 10 seconds after, it is a mismanagement of the situations by allowing a surprising taking of the free kick. Letting you know beforehand doesn't change the surprising nature of it.
I would have to see it but the description of the OP indicates while the referee may not have said "on the whistle", the body language of the referee and the attacking players indicated "on the whistle" and that could have lead to an unfair outcome.
If I give an IDFK in the area I will be on the spot before anyone other than the keeper who picked it up, and therefore will have already indicated it is on the whistle. Some may argue that isn't support in law, but I don't really care, and would use the counter argument that a keeper should be penalised once he has held the ball was 6.1 seconds but hardly ever is. If they somehow get therefore me and take it then fair play.
If I was coaching or mentoring a referee I wouldn't criticise them, but I would be suggesting they could have handled it differently, especially if it contributed to them losing match control. There's knowing the laws and there is knowing how to manage the game, and the two aren't necessarily the same.
If I was coaching or mentoring a referee I wouldn't criticise them, but I would be suggesting they could have handled it differently, especially if it contributed to them losing match control. There's knowing the laws and there is knowing how to manage the game, and the two aren't necessarily the same.
If I was a player or manager that wanted it taken quickly, i'd be furious. Surely, that's taking the advantage away from the attacking side ?
Rusty, I agree to a certain extent. But if a player gets the ball before you/I get there. Places it on the exact spot he is meant to and then takes the kick without so much of a word to anyone where would be justified in pulling that back?
I dont think we would and I would personally expect you to mark me down AOL if I did, without another justification other than self preservation.
How can you assess a referee's match control if it is never tested?
If he somehow does that then that's why I said fair play, not a lot I can do about it. But it would need to be on exactly the correct spot and definitely stationary.
I'm a big believer in actions and consequences when it comes to refereeing and observing, and picked that up from a couple of senior observers. What they would say is that if I did something they didn't agree with they'd be looking at whether my action (or inaction) had any consequences. If it didn't then it would just be non-mark affecting closed book advice, whereas if it did it would be mark affecting formal development advice. The classic example is dissent - if a quiet word approach works with someone that they thought had overstepped the line they would support me, whereas if that approach caused it to escalate and spread to others they would criticise.
Not that different here, if a referee in total control of the game loses control it is my job as an observer to identify any actions that caused this. That might be allowing the quick free kick, or how he managed the aftermath of it.
There was an incident in the premier league quite a few seasons ago - I can't remember the teams. Keeper penalised for handling backpass around the penalty spot. As soon as the ref blew keeper rather naively dropped the ball near to his feet. Attacker instantly placed the ball and passed it square to team mate who tapped it into empty net. Goal awarded.
Yes, I remember this too. I tried to find a video online but couldnt. If I remember correctly the keeper took the flak and not the ref. I thought it might have been a championship game.