Quick indirect free kick inside the box

[Johnson]

One interesting knock on impact from this is that, in law, having a simple retake of a free kick just because the opposing team are not back 10 yards is (I think), not supported in law. You either need to caution for delaying the restart (and then retake the FK) or judge that the lack of 10 yards was 'justified' and therefore crack on.

*unless it’s a ceremonial free kick.

But yeah, Law 13.3 makes this pretty clear; “If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play.”

 

[betterlatethannever]

Say this happens, the attacker gets the ball down quickly, goes to play it to his mate who has a simple tap in but the keeper quickly blocks the ball, is that DOGSO or just delaying the restart yellow?

 

[ARF]

Say this happens, the attacker gets the ball down quickly, goes to play it to his mate who has a simple tap in but the keeper quickly blocks the ball, is that DOGSO or just delaying the restart yellow?

Would depend entirely on how you as the referee saw the situation - if the attacker has chosen to take a quick free kick with the goalkeeper closer than 10 yards, and you think the keeper has just successfully intercepted the quick free kick, then there's no offence. If you see it as the goalkeeper intentionally failing to respect the distance and then blocking the free kick, then it would be an indirect free kick at the point of the offence, and a red for DOGSO if you deemed the offence to have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Either way, goodbye match control for the rest of the game

 

[Egg man]

Would depend entirely on how you as the referee saw the situation - if the attacker has chosen to take a quick free kick with the goalkeeper closer than 10 yards, and you think the keeper has just successfully intercepted the quick free kick, then there's no offence. If you see it as the goalkeeper intentionally failing to respect the distance and then blocking the free kick, then it would be an indirect free kick at the point of the offence, and a red for DOGSO if you deemed the offence to have denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity. Either way, goodbye match control for the rest of the game

This is exactly why we take control of the freekick straight away.

 

[one]

If you see it as the goalkeeper intentionally failing to respect the distance and then blocking the free kick, then it would be an indirect free kick at the point of the offence

Hmmm,

 

[one]

Say this happens, the attacker gets the ball down quickly, goes to play it to his mate who has a simple tap in but the keeper quickly blocks the ball, is that DOGSO or just delaying the restart yellow?

This is a very good question. A little quirky situation I dont think we ever discussed.

It is an offence if you deem it to be so (as explained by ARF). If you dont play advanatage you'd have to caution the keeper. However the way I interpret the laws, the offence is not punishable by a free kick as the restart is a retake of the FK for the earlier offence. That means it cant be a DOGSO which requires the offence to be punishable by a free kick.

 

[ARF]

Hmmm,

View attachment 8431

Is it not in the non-offending team's advantage to punish the subsequent offence and the DOGSO?

 

[one]

Is it not in the non-offending team's advantage to punish the subsequent offence and the DOGSO?

It not a choice for us. The restart is clear in law. The restart is a retake of the FK which was for an earlier offence.

The bit about advantage in law is clearly meant for allowing play to continue after opponent touching the ball.

 

[ARF]

It not a choice for us. The restart is clear in law. The restart is a retake of the FK which was for an earlier offence.

The bit about advantage in law is clearly meant for allowing play to continue after opponent touching the ball.

Of course it's a choice for us. The non-offending team would benefit from allowing play to continue instead of retaking the free kick, due to the DOGSO offence committed by the goalkeeper. That's literally what the law is saying you can do.

 

[one]

Ok. The offence is not respecting distance caused by the touch by the opponent. You either play advantage for it or you don't.

• If you do play advantage then can't punish the offence as per law (punishing the offence means you have not played advantage for this specific offence).
• If you don't play advantage then the restart is for the earlier offence as per law.

Another scenario. DFK from the very edge of the box in the D. you set the wall 2 yards outside the goal area. Kicker takes the kick directly at the wall but a defender jumps the gun and the ball hits him on the penalty spot. You caution the defender (not DODSO in your opinion). What and where is the restart? What if it was IFK?

 

[ARF]

Ok. The offence is not respecting distance caused by the touch by the opponent. You either play advantage for it or you don't.

• If you do play advantage then can't punish the offence as per law (punishing the offence means you have not played advantage for this specific offence).
• If you don't play advantage then the restart is for the earlier offence as per law.

Hmm... I'm leaning towards agreeing that you can't give a further IDFK here.

Technically, the FRD offence is committed at the moment the free kick is taken and the opponent is intentionally less than 10 yards from it. The goalkeeper then deliberately preventing the free kick from reaching its intended target would be a caution for delaying the restart (as per the law quoted previously) which would logically mean that the ball isn't deemed to be in play at that point, and therefore no DOGSO.

 

[one]

Hmm... I'm leaning towards agreeing that you can't give a further IDFK here.

Technically, the FRD offence is committed at the moment the free kick is taken and the opponent is intentionally less than 10 yards from it. The goalkeeper then deliberately preventing the free kick from reaching its intended target would be a caution for delaying the restart (as per the law quoted previously) which would logically mean that the ball isn't deemed to be in play at that point, and therefore no DOGSO.

I can go with that reason though my logic is a different angle.

I must add, I think the spirit of the DOGSO law would have wanted this to be DOGSO, and I go as far as saying football possibly expects DOGSO here as well. But as the laws are written now giving DOGSO would be wrong in law.

 

[RefereeX]

Funnily enough, I had a 'pass back' on Saturday... first one I've had for years. The goalkeeper did indeed hold on to the ball to prevent it being taken quickly (but he is on loan from an EFL club so you'd expect him to have that nous)