Junior/Youth stupid assistant - his behaviour helps his son to be sent off

[Kent Ref]

This was on the whistle though...

@Kent Ref - this is a bit like at a substitution: the substitution is complete once the substitute has entered the FOP. In reality, you wait for that substitute to get to roughly where they need to be before you restart the game. For a FK on the whistle, make sure players are aware you are going to blow the whistle. The keeper may continue to faff about, but you will have at least warned them that the game is restarting.

This does come down to game management, which goes beyond the formal LotG. Technically you were 100% correct, but practically you want no surprises refereeing.

Live and learn - the joy of experience and asking the wider community for advice. You'll now know for next time!

If i had not blown the whistle i feel i would have also been in the wrong for not letting everybody know the kick was being taken. Are you saying if i had done this there would have been less protest?

 

[Kent Ref]

As I have been told: Sensible refereeing is to never allow a quick free-kick unless it's going sideways or backwards. Especially not a shot on goal.

I see why you say this but are we not supposed to let the attacking team go when they are ready? If i had waited for the keeper etc then the attacking team would have lost that advantage.

 

[Kent Ref]

Don't agree. In a counter attack, for example, if the purpose of the foul is to delay the attack for more defenders to arrive, I am certainly going to allow a QFK if taken correctly no matter which direction it's taken. Otherwise I would be helping the offending team.

The question is if it is a cautionable offence and holding up play disadvantages the attacking team, will you be willing to sacrifice the caution?

This offence was a trip but i thought it careless not a way to hold up play etc.

 

[one]

This offence was a trip but i thought it careless not a way to hold up play etc.

But it wasn't taken quick so it should be ceremonial.

If i had not blown the whistle i feel i would have also been in the wrong for not letting everybody know the kick was being taken. Are you saying if i had done this there would have been less protest?

I posted this in another thread. Follow the 8 steps on "managing a defensive wall".

 

[GraemeS]

As I have been told: Sensible refereeing is to never allow a quick free-kick unless it's going sideways or backwards. Especially not a shot on goal.

Respectfully, that's not sensible refereeing, that's cowardly refereeing.

As others have said, your job here is to help the fouled team regain as much of the advantage they would otherwise have had as possible. As long as you aren't introducing confusion (and it does sound like our OP here may have inadvertently done that), you should be letting the attacking team do whatever they think will benefit them most. A fear that that might be "score a goal" is not a good excuse to deny that opportunity. If anything, it's a reason why you should allow the QFK.

 

[Kes]

Not really a right or a wrong answer regarding the quick-taking of free kicks - it's just a call you make at the time.

For me, anywhere near the box where the "quick" free kick is a shot on goal, I'm standing over the ball and doing the ceremonial.

I get the whole "it's about the team who've been disadvantaged by being fouled" angle but, in reality, they're not going to get the advantage of their "free kick expert" being able to line up his shot, plot his trajectory, where he's going to place/bend/lift the ball into the goal and all without his run-up being impeded by either a moving ball or a defender right on top off him as he brings his leg back to shoot whilst the ball is in open play. Sure, he's got to circumvent the wall, but in the grand scheme of things, with a direct shot at goal, there's little difference in the "advantage" stakes.

A quickly taken shot at goal after the whistle has gone is simply taking advantage of a goalkeeper being caught unawares or even actually exploiting the fact that everybody is now expecting a ceremonial one. I know there's no law against it, but I'm making life easier for everybody (including me) by doing what the game expects.

 

[GraemeS]

If i had not blown the whistle i feel i would have also been in the wrong for not letting everybody know the kick was being taken. Are you saying if i had done this there would have been less protest?

I never use my whistle for a QFK - but as other have said here, if you're close enough that you felt a whistle was required for clarity, you've probably missed the window for a QFK and should have said no and carried out the ceremonial.

 

[one]

Not really a right or a wrong answer regarding the quick-taking of free kicks - it's just a call you make at the time.

For me, anywhere near the box where the "quick" free kick is a shot on goal, I'm standing over the ball and doing the ceremonial.

I get the whole "it's about the team who've been disadvantaged by being fouled" angle but, in reality, they're not going to get the advantage of their "free kick expert" being able to line up his shot, plot his trajectory, where he's going to place/bend/lift the ball into the goal and all without his run-up being impeded by either a moving ball or a defender right on top off him as he brings his leg back to shoot whilst the ball is in open play. Sure, he's got to circumvent the wall, but in the grand scheme of things, with a direct shot at goal, there's little difference in the "advantage" stakes.

A quickly taken shot at goal after the whistle has gone is simply taking advantage of a goalkeeper being caught unawares or even actually exploiting the fact that everybody is now expecting a ceremonial one. I know there's no law against it, but I'm making life easier for everybody (including me) by doing what the game expects.

A 5 on 2 (+GK) counter attack. One of the two defenders fouls in the D and gets possession of the ball. You blow the whistle. The fouled player gets up quickly grabs the ball and about to take a QFK correctly to a team mate who is on his own. Which is more chance of a goal, allow the QFK or go for ceremonial? Alternate question, which re-balances the game after a foul the fairest way?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

in the above example, a quick free kick is certainly ideal.
I would say though this example is once or twice a season, nevermind once or twice in a game though

The stereotypical free kick round the box is committed with defenders in close proximity, and, usually, without the offended guys being, close enough, or, sharp/clever enough to take advantage....

Nobody is suggesting we always take the easy way out by slowing things down but, i think that would preferable on the majority of occasions. Its us as referees who are entrusted to be in control of proceedings.....

If you feel keeping control of the game is summed up by being chased off the park simply because something happened which you can back up in the book, great, crack on.
Hopefully the majority will be proactive and sensible enough to weigh things up carefully and manage situations with a view to keeping problems to a minimum. Plenty of challenging situations will present themselves to us, without us creating our own !

 

[Kes]

A 5 on 2 (+GK) counter attack. One of the two defenders fouls in the D and gets possession of the ball. You blow the whistle. The fouled player gets up quickly grabs the ball and about to take a QFK correctly to a team mate who is on his own. Which is more chance of a goal, allow the QFK or go for ceremonial? Alternate question, which re-balances the game after a foul the fairest way?

A QFK mate - obviously. (Provided his team mate isn't offside ).

Your point is moot though. My post (and the OPs) referred to a QFK just outside the penalty area where the likely execution is a direct shot at goal. Not really the situation you've described.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

A QFK mate - obviously. (Provided his team mate isn't offside ).

Your point is moot though. My post (and the OPs) referred to a QFK just outside the penalty area where the likely execution is a direct shot at goal. Not really the situation you've described.

Imagine the passback to gk....most of us will have had the striker grab the ball and pass, or attempt to pass it to a pal who will roll it into the net........
Allow it? Afterall, if the ball is in the right place and stationery, why not?!!!! because we know we will get chased round the park with Benny Hill music playing.....
Any diff to the quick free kick out of the box?

no for me......both need (some kind of) control from the referee.

 

[one]

A QFK mate - obviously. (Provided his team mate isn't offside ).

Your point is moot though. My post (and the OPs) referred to a QFK just outside the penalty area where the likely execution is a direct shot at goal. Not really the situation you've described.

Yeah fair point, but you don't know if he taking a shot on goal until he is about to take it or has taken it. And you blow the whistle, to stop it but he has taken it and its in the back of the net. It will be messy . I would recommend going with QFK either way.

I do agree though that its a YHTBT but in general I am not stopping a QFK if taken correctly.

 

[one]

Imagine the passback to gk....most of us will have had the striker grab the ball and pass, or attempt to pass it to a pal who will roll it into the net........
Allow it? Afterall, if the ball is in the right place and stationery, why not?!!!! because we know we will get chased round the park with Benny Hill music playing.....
Any diff to the quick free kick out of the box?

no for me......both need (some kind of) control from the referee.

This is one of those that smart defenders make it impossible for a QFK and referee has no choice but to make it ceremonial. If the defenders are daft and the attackers are sharp then letting the QFK go will cause no issues. The defenders realise they have no one else to blame but themselves.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

This is one of those that smart defenders make it impossible for a QFK and referee has no choice but to make it ceremonial. If the defenders are daft and the attackers are sharp then letting the QFK go will cause no issues. The defenders realise they have no one else to blame but themselves.

Totally agree, either gk does not release the ball, or defenders jump in front of it, I get that.
Are you really saying though that should that not happen, you be fine with the quick fk??
We clearly move in different circles !! Am totally aware by the law this is fine, but, in reality? Can only speak from personal experience but not a hope in hell.

 

[one]

Totally agree, either gk does not release the ball, or defenders jump in front of it, I get that.
Are you really saying though that should that not happen, you be fine with the quick fk??
We clearly move in different circles !! Am totally aware by the law this is fine, but, in reality? Can only speak from personal experience but not a hope in hell.

Yes I am. Has never happened to me but if it did i will allow a QFK.

Backpass, keeper picks it up near D. I blow the whistle. Keeper drops it and moves to his goal. Nearby opponent quickly places it in the correct spot. Defenders are ball watching. I can see what's coming but I see no reason to stop it but plenty reasons to allow it.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Yes I am. Has never happened to me but if it did i will allow a QFK.

Backpass, keeper picks it up near D. I blow the whistle. Keeper drops it and moves to his goal. Nearby opponent quickly places it in the correct spot. Defenders are ball watching. I can see what's coming but I see no reason to stop it but plenty reasons to allow it.

You are actually aware of what will happen next.....with regards to the dissent/foul language/confrontation/having to go to coaches etc.....and you still go ahead?
I cant see anything in that which is proactive refereeing, good management or sensible.....but, I can certainly see its permitted by the laws....
When we read of stories of unfortunate referees being hounded off the park and so on, its because of incidents like this.
The players down under must be far more understanding and tolerant of public park officials than the ones I deal with !!

Correct to do as you say...totally.
Sensible? not in the slightest

I guess everyone has their own way of cooking an egg, but at end of day, it still be an egg

 

[one]

All those problems happen when the referee gives the impression it will be ceremonial but still allows a QFK. I can point out to many examples. When the defenders and referee go over the ball, etc. In my scenario, as pointed out in a previous post, the defenders are very unlikely to blame anyone else but themselves once they realise a goal is scored.

I do get game control, proactive refereeing etc, but he flip side is the ability and courage to make the tough call which is right for the teams. Getting the balance right is key.

So in my scenario if the keeper holds on to the ball and the attacker is trying to tousle it out of his hands, quick multiple blows on the whistle and "It's on the whistle guys, cut it out"

 

[Kes]

Yeah fair point, but you don't know if he taking a shot on goal until he is about to take it or has taken it. And you blow the whistle, to stop it but he has taken it and its in the back of the net. It will be messy . I would recommend going with QFK either way.

I do agree though that its a YHTBT but in general I am not stopping a QFK if taken correctly.

Not for me.

I like my refereeing simple.

Ceremonial prevents all the obvious potential dramas (both technical and literal) for everybody.

Did the foul require a card?
If taken quickly and intercepted by a defender - was it a natural interception/proximity or were they failing to respect the required distance/delaying the restart?
Was the ball still moving?
"We've still got an injured player down ref!!"
The player who decides to take it quickly (and basically ****s it up) without his team's blessing ... etc.

Don't get me wrong, I've allowed DFK's to be taken quickly myself on numerous occasions but as a general rule - not within shooting distance of an open goal.

 

[zarathustra]

I'm all for a good quick free kick, but it has to be taken quickly. If the attacking team has waited for me to come over and then asked if they can take it quickly then in my opinion that is no longer a quick free kick. Although admittedly quick free kicks are very rare in my games, i.e. players will just stop and wait for me to take control.

However, I think allowing a quick indirect free kick from inside the penalty area might be a step too far.

 

[JH]

Don't agree. In a counter attack, for example, if the purpose of the foul is to delay the attack for more defenders to arrive, I am certainly going to allow a QFK if taken correctly no matter which direction it's taken. Otherwise I would be helping the offending team.

The question is if it is a cautionable offence and holding up play disadvantages the attacking team, will you be willing to sacrifice the caution?

Respectfully, that's not sensible refereeing, that's cowardly refereeing.

As others have said, your job here is to help the fouled team regain as much of the advantage they would otherwise have had as possible. As long as you aren't introducing confusion (and it does sound like our OP here may have inadvertently done that), you should be letting the attacking team do whatever they think will benefit them most. A fear that that might be "score a goal" is not a good excuse to deny that opportunity. If anything, it's a reason why you should allow the QFK.

Just what I have been told from my 2B peers, they must be doing something right.