A&H

Quick indirect free kick in the box.

RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
Double edged sword really as preventing a quick one might also create a consequence of "lost match control. "
Say a team chasing a deficit or a win, and you deny them a lawful quick kick and all hell breaks loose. Would you mark the referee down for denying the quick kick?
So, theoretically, in a very unlikely sequence of events the same incident happens two games running, 1 week you'd mark down for allowing a quick kick. And the following week mark down for not allowing it? Based on the consequences of the said event.
Now what if its the same referee. 1 week referee gets crucified for allowing the kick. Next week an observer crucifies him for not allowing it. He is rightly going to feel aggrieved.
Now I know thats very top level and there is so much more to it than that but you can see the angle I am coming from. Surely, you assess whether they were correct in law. And then assess how they handle any repercussions from their decision?
You wouldnt not mark a referee down for not sending a player off for a red card offence as it might have affected match control, if the inaction of not applying the red did not cause any match control issues.
 
The Referee Store
JamesL said:
Double edged sword really as preventing a quick one might also create a consequence of "lost match control. "
Say a team chasing a deficit or a win, and you deny them a lawful quick kick and all hell breaks loose. Would you mark the referee down for denying the quick kick?
So, theoretically, in a very unlikely sequence of events the same incident happens two games running, 1 week you'd mark down for allowing a quick kick. And the following week mark down for not allowing it? Based on the consequences of the said event.
Now what if its the same referee. 1 week referee gets crucified for allowing the kick. Next week an observer crucifies him for not allowing it. He is rightly going to feel aggrieved.
Now I know thats very top level and there is so much more to it than that but you can see the angle I am coming from. Surely, you assess whether they were correct in law. And then assess how they handle any repercussions from their decision?
You wouldnt not mark a referee down for not sending a player off for a red card offence as it might have affected match control, if the inaction of not applying the red did not cause any match control issues.
Click to expand...

Need to clarify here, I wouldn't be marking down for allowing the quick free kick, the mark would be reduced for losing control of the game. Yes, I would suggest why I thought he or she had lost control, which may or may not have been the quick free kick, but the fundamental issue would be that the competencies for match control were not achieved.

I completely accept that not allowing the quick free kick could lead to complaints, but that is less risky as the majority of players will expect something like that to be on the whistle.
 
It'll be perfectly evident if the loss of match control is due to allowing the quick free kick, the player reaction will tell you that. What may not be evident is the erosion in trust of the referee by not allowing a legally taken quick free kick (because player mentality 'it's all about them') that leads to a later loss of match control.
So you end with a confirmation bias and the status quo of not allowing quick free kicks because 'they can cause match control issues' prevails.

Quite a typical observer mentality "I don't agree with that, but it's not wrong in law so I'll get them somewhere else".
 
It would be fairly easy to cite a reason from law to prevent this quick free kick, wrong position being most obvious. Negating an advantage to the attacking team in this situation is surely the lessor of two evils when compared with likely carnage. Hate to say it, but this is one for the 'football expects' clap trap
 
Big Cat said:
It would be fairly easy to cite a reason from law to prevent this quick free kick, wrong position being most obvious. Negating an advantage to the attacking team in this situation is surely the lessor of two evils when compared with likely carnage. Hate to say it, but this is one for the 'football expects' clap trap
Click to expand...
Besides, i can't see the keeper relinquishing the ball and these scenarios usually have 20 players beseiging the spot anyway
 
I can’t remember a time when a quick free kick was on just outside the box let alone 6yrds from goal.

I had one back pass picked up last season I just coudnt imagine a quick free kick being on in that situation.
 
Men in Black said:
I can’t remember a time when a quick free kick was on just outside the box let alone 6yrds from goal.

I had one back pass picked up last season I just coudnt imagine a quick free kick being on in that situation.
Click to expand...
Shearer bagged one for England as i recall. He only had the top ten inches of the goal to aim for partly because the rule mandates that all defenders must be within the posts
 
Just remember younger peeps, some coaches and players don't fully understand all the complexities of the LOTG so before playing Collina or Clattenberg although you may be correct in law it may not be thought of that way!! Keep safe!!

coach-choke-ref.jpg
 
Big Cat said:
Shearer bagged one for England as i recall. He only had the top ten inches of the goal to aim for partly because the rule mandates that all defenders must be within the posts
Click to expand...

Yep wasn’t that a Euro 96 game?
He also smashed one in for Newcastle like that, but to think that the kick could be taken quickly with only the kicker and ref in on it - no wall built - box full of players etc I just can’t imagine it.

The fellas have said there was an example recently of it in the prem or championship I’d like to see it just out of interest I can only imagine how that scenario would look, also god knows how many yellows you would be dishing out to the aggrieved team through dissent.
 
Murri O said:
Hahaha. It's all good. I know what happened and I'm very happy with how it all went down.

(Enjoying the discussion between the posters here.)
Click to expand...

Big respect for sticking to your guns & going about it the way u did, I guess we can only picture how it looked or where players were at the time etc without being there it’s hard to give an accurate opinion of your scenario.

I for one will watch with interest and anticipation next time I get a keeper pick up a back pass that’s for sure.
 
For me there are 2 thoughts.
Firstly, what do the players expect. I. This case the defending team are expecting it on the whistle and by asking you, the attacking team are also expecting it on the whistle.
Secondly, what are the repurcussions of your action. What if the ball had been smashed I to the back of someones head causing an injury? This could have caused serious injury to a player or potentially led to a confrontation or mass confrontation. From my limited experience, pause, take stock of the situation and communicate to both sides. You could have shouted "On you go" or similar.
 
As an assessor I'd agree with a quick free kick if its taken quickly. I'd also agree with disallowing it if it's not taken quickly. Do either and you wont lose marks for QFK. Go against either and you would lose some marks. Losing/keeping control of the game for me is a separate category. Any referee is expected to be able to make unpopular decisions and still keep control of the game. Similarly referees are expected to be able keep control after making mistakes. Mistakes are inevitable. So make a mistake in a QFK and lose control of the game because of it, you would lose marks twice. Make the correct call in a QFK (e.g disallows the QFK) and lose control of the game, you would lose some marks. Obviously the ideal situation is to make the correct call and keep control of the game even though one team is very unhappy with the decision.
 
A direct freekick in the area is on the whistle(penalty) I think most players would expect an IDFK on the whistle as well. Not correct in law but what football expects. I had a goalie pick up straight from a throw in gave the freekick and it was on the whistle. No attempt to play it quick.
 
Comedyjock said:
the attacking team are also expecting it on the whistle.
What if the ball had been smashed I to the back of someones head causing an injury?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree. In this instance, the attacking team expected to be able to take a quick free kick, which they can.

Isn't it less likely to be smashed at the head of a few players that are desperately trying to organise themselves (where the striker fires it towards the uncovered part of the goal)..rather than 10-11 of them lined up along the goaline ?
 

Loads of free kicks taken quickly here where the ball wasn't on the exact blade of grass, where the referee was involved, when players were getting organised and the last one a you beaut indirect free kick in the box resulting in a goal after the referee hands the attacker the ball. (Horrible music but it's not my video.)

Actually here's an article and a clip of that last goal. A quick indirect free kick in the box. Champion. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/arsenal-irked-quick-free-kick

 
Murri O said:

Loads of free kicks taken quickly here where the ball wasn't on the exact blade of grass, where the referee was involved, when players were getting organised and the last one a you beaut indirect free kick in the box resulting in a goal after the referee hands the attacker the ball. (Horrible music but it's not my video.)

Actually here's an article and a clip of that last goal. A quick indirect free kick in the box. Champion. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/arsenal-irked-quick-free-kick

Click to expand...
Great stuff. I’ll stick my neck out:

I have problems with 7, 4, 3 and 1.

7, Henry, ref is standing over the ball, appears to be involved.

4, Wrong position

3, ref over the ball, potential mass con, ref should already be blowing to manage the players. Attacker down perhaps needing treatment

1, taken from wrong place

The best are the ones where the ref is nowhere near the ball (Carney) or makes a quick retreat to show he/she is not involved.
 
And 2 also wrong place. 3 and 2 are really poor.

3 has the attacker down.
2 the ref is about to spray the correct spot. This is implied ceremonial surely.

Wasn’t the Luiz a bit different. It was ceremonial but the Liv players missed the whistle IIRC?

Anyway, at lower divs you will start a war with 3 or 2. And #1 against Arsenal, to allow the IDFK in the box to be taken from a couple of yards away from the offence is not smart IMHO.
 
santa sangria said:
Great stuff. I’ll stick my neck out:

I have problems with 7, 4, 3 and 1.

7, Henry, ref is standing over the ball, appears to be involved.

4, Wrong position

3, ref over the ball, potential mass con, ref should already be blowing to manage the players. Attacker down perhaps needing treatment

1, taken from wrong place

The best are the ones where the ref is nowhere near the ball (Carney) or makes a quick retreat to show he/she is not involved.
Click to expand...

Yeah they're great. A lot of the discussion here seems to be about the minutiae as if the game is played on paper with a set square and a theodolite when in reality the game is quite chaotic.

Yes #1 (the Falcao one) wasn't exactly in the right place and yes the referee was involved but for me personally, great goal from a quick thinking player.

7 is fine. The ref has told him to move away.

4 is fine. Yes the ball is a metre from where it should be. And? Would you make them retake that anywhere else on the field.

3 is hands down brilliant.

Hahaha Obviously I'm biased. Take all that with a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top