When to allow a quick free kick

[A Freethinker]

Nice and loud 'do you want it now or on the whistle?' This especially when close to the penalty area. Nobody can then argue and usually works well.
I did at start of season allow a 'quick one' after giving a caution to the defender. Goal naturally scored as is the way on such occasions. Could only apologise once I'd had my oh sh1t moment - shortly after having restarted play of course. One of those moments where I'm glad assessors / observers come nowhere near me.

If you gave a caution to a player it was hardly a quick one? Rather a normal one? A quick one I allow provided I don't have to talk to the player and can see it being taken, include it in my pre match and advice teams unless I hold my whistle in the air and clearly state on the whistle they can go anytime provided I ain't talking and can see so have a look at me and I will allow. Works for me and teams like that I don't get overly fussy and can play it quickly.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Uh oh, this one again?
First off, for those referees who say 'nah, never ever ever any QFK around the penalty area, it's just too hard for my match control hey'. Go and throw your badge in the bin and take up knitting if doing the job right is too hard for you. While there's room in some events to make the decision that's 'easier', if you don't have the courage to make the decision that's correct but more difficult then you shouldn't be out there.

Why do we have free kicks? It's (largely) to restore an advantage lost by a foul. If you're going to deny the QFK for no reason other than it's too hard for YOU the referee then that's just an abuse of power and a lack of understanding of the laws and spirit of the game. You're taking away the advantage of the kick and instead using the foul to give the advantage to the defence. Which is just daft.

The defence didn't have 9-10 players behind the ball in a fully organised and structured defence before the foul - why go out of your way to ensure they have that now to the detriment of the attack? A FK is about the attacker, not the defender.

So, when to allow it?

First off, in the scenario presented in the OP where he had to blow the whistle to take it back, I think it's justified to say that the referee has now intervened so it's ceremonial. They tried to take the QFK, did it wrong, they've lost that.

A QFK is a right unless the referee needs to intervene for some reason (injury, card, sub, other issue).
If you, as the referee, have started engaging in conversation with players, then I think that constitutes you intervening. Having said that, it always brings me great joy when the goalkeeper runs 20 yards to argue with the referee and the attacking team says 'sweet, I'll take it now then!'. Perfectly fine - keeper's own fault, and if you're just making quick comments to shut it down it's okay. Start having a conversation? You're now intervening because YOU are now holding the player out of position.

If you award a FK and you happen to be very close to it, ask them what they want then move away if they want it quick.

There's some disagreement about what happens if the referee starts to manage the wall. IMO you can still remind players '10 yards!' without it being intervening, but once you're coaching them back 'keep going, keep going, another step', I'd suggest that's the point of no return for losing the QFK - and if the attack are standing around while you're doing that, then they didn't want it quick (look at it this way - they only wanted the kick AFTER you started to intervene. Nuh-uh, you don't get it both ways. On the whistle!)

Aside from that, you can use your judgement. If the attacking team are milling around and not looking to be doing anything, then you can operate on the assumption of it being ceremonial (and same if the ball needs to be fetched from the other end of the field or the creek). Aside from that? QFK is a right. That right doesn't disappear because it's in the attacking third - heck, that's when it's the most important to protect that right.

 

[JamesL]

Uh oh, this one again?
First off, for those referees who say 'nah, never ever ever any QFK around the penalty area, it's just too hard for my match control hey'. Go and throw your badge in the bin and take up knitting if doing the job right is too hard for you. While there's room in some events to make the decision that's 'easier', if you don't have the courage to make the decision that's correct but more difficult then you shouldn't be out there.

Why do we have free kicks? It's (largely) to restore an advantage lost by a foul. If you're going to deny the QFK for no reason other than it's too hard for YOU the referee then that's just an abuse of power and a lack of understanding of the laws and spirit of the game. You're taking away the advantage of the kick and instead using the foul to give the advantage to the defence. Which is just daft.

The defence didn't have 9-10 players behind the ball in a fully organised and structured defence before the foul - why go out of your way to ensure they have that now to the detriment of the attack? A FK is about the attacker, not the defender.

So, when to allow it?

First off, in the scenario presented in the OP where he had to blow the whistle to take it back, I think it's justified to say that the referee has now intervened so it's ceremonial. They tried to take the QFK, did it wrong, they've lost that.

A QFK is a right unless the referee needs to intervene for some reason (injury, card, sub, other issue).
If you, as the referee, have started engaging in conversation with players, then I think that constitutes you intervening. Having said that, it always brings me great joy when the goalkeeper runs 20 yards to argue with the referee and the attacking team says 'sweet, I'll take it now then!'. Perfectly fine - keeper's own fault, and if you're just making quick comments to shut it down it's okay. Start having a conversation? You're now intervening because YOU are now holding the player out of position.

If you award a FK and you happen to be very close to it, ask them what they want then move away if they want it quick.

There's some disagreement about what happens if the referee starts to manage the wall. IMO you can still remind players '10 yards!' without it being intervening, but once you're coaching them back 'keep going, keep going, another step', I'd suggest that's the point of no return for losing the QFK - and if the attack are standing around while you're doing that, then they didn't want it quick (look at it this way - they only wanted the kick AFTER you started to intervene. Nuh-uh, you don't get it both ways. On the whistle!)

Aside from that, you can use your judgement. If the attacking team are milling around and not looking to be doing anything, then you can operate on the assumption of it being ceremonial (and same if the ball needs to be fetched from the other end of the field or the creek). Aside from that? QFK is a right. That right doesn't disappear because it's in the attacking third - heck, that's when it's the most important to protect that right.

Agree wholeheartedly. I have 1 minor bone of contention. If the keeper has ran 20 yards out the goal then I think there is 99.9% chance I am going to caution him for dissent so would end all hope of a quick free kick

 

[Pierluigi]

If they go quick (and I mean immediately) then let them. If there's any delay at all, particularly if I've had time to get there, then I'm going ceremonial.

I agree with you there, if it is immediately there's no problem. However any delay and it's ceremonial

 

[pankaye]

I would go with allow it. if he protest after the goal as well then caution him. I think the attacker may prefer a goal to the defender getting cautioned.

Agree wholeheartedly. I have 1 minor bone of contention. If the keeper has ran 20 yards out the goal then I think there is 99.9% chance I am going to caution him for dissent so would end all hope of a quick free kick

 

[pankaye]

If the ball was 35 yards out like he said and it wasn't starting an extremely promising attack when the opposition weren't ready, dont be seen to be busy and let play go on

by stopping the quick free kick you are just giving the defenders more time to organise themselves hence punishing the attackers.

I have never heard of attackers complaining to the referee for allowing a free kick even if the lose the ball.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I would go with allow it. if he protest after the goal as well then caution him. I think the attacker may prefer a goal to the defender getting cautioned.

I'm with you. What's a bigger lesson against what he did - a relatively meaningless yellow card or a goal? ;-)

 

[Mintyref]

Uh oh, this one again?
First off, for those referees who say 'nah, never ever ever any QFK around the penalty area, it's just too hard for my match control hey'. Go and throw your badge in the bin and take up knitting if doing the job right is too hard for you. While there's room in some events to make the decision that's 'easier', if you don't have the courage to make the decision that's correct but more difficult then you shouldn't be out there.

Why do we have free kicks? It's (largely) to restore an advantage lost by a foul. If you're going to deny the QFK for no reason other than it's too hard for YOU the referee then that's just an abuse of power and a lack of understanding of the laws and spirit of the game. You're taking away the advantage of the kick and instead using the foul to give the advantage to the defence. Which is just daft.

The defence didn't have 9-10 players behind the ball in a fully organised and structured defence before the foul - why go out of your way to ensure they have that now to the detriment of the attack? A FK is about the attacker, not the defender.

So, when to allow it?

First off, in the scenario presented in the OP where he had to blow the whistle to take it back, I think it's justified to say that the referee has now intervened so it's ceremonial. They tried to take the QFK, did it wrong, they've lost that.

A QFK is a right unless the referee needs to intervene for some reason (injury, card, sub, other issue).
If you, as the referee, have started engaging in conversation with players, then I think that constitutes you intervening. Having said that, it always brings me great joy when the goalkeeper runs 20 yards to argue with the referee and the attacking team says 'sweet, I'll take it now then!'. Perfectly fine - keeper's own fault, and if you're just making quick comments to shut it down it's okay. Start having a conversation? You're now intervening because YOU are now holding the player out of position.

If you award a FK and you happen to be very close to it, ask them what they want then move away if they want it quick.

There's some disagreement about what happens if the referee starts to manage the wall. IMO you can still remind players '10 yards!' without it being intervening, but once you're coaching them back 'keep going, keep going, another step', I'd suggest that's the point of no return for losing the QFK - and if the attack are standing around while you're doing that, then they didn't want it quick (look at it this way - they only wanted the kick AFTER you started to intervene. Nuh-uh, you don't get it both ways. On the whistle!)

Aside from that, you can use your judgement. If the attacking team are milling around and not looking to be doing anything, then you can operate on the assumption of it being ceremonial (and same if the ball needs to be fetched from the other end of the field or the creek). Aside from that? QFK is a right. That right doesn't disappear because it's in the attacking third - heck, that's when it's the most important to protect that right.

Complete sense and very well written sir!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Barring Henry v cant recall V Chelsea? Spurs? In , the whole of the epl can anyone recall a proper quick free kick goal? One out of, 25 years?
Match control.....

 

[deusex]

Barring Henry v cant recall V Chelsea? Spurs? In , the whole of the epl can anyone recall a proper quick free kick goal? One out of, 25 years?
Match control.....

Disadvantaging the team that has been wronged.....

 

[Ciley Myrus]

So in, what, apx 1000 games there is, 1 clear example of a quick free kick resulting directly in a goal. So either the guys at the very top have the right idea. Or of course they are wrong and folk on here are right.

 

[Russell Jones]

Barring Henry v cant recall V Chelsea? Spurs? In , the whole of the epl can anyone recall a proper quick free kick goal? One out of, 25 years?
Match control.....

Trying to draw parallels between refereeing in the EPL and the matches that we are involved in day in day out is a nonsense. Cautioning procedure, positioning (especially when working with CARs), dealing with repeated substitutions etc etc all fundamentally different at grassroots level ... so no reason why free kick procedure can't differ as well.

 

[deusex]

So in, what, apx 1000 games there is, 1 clear example of a quick free kick resulting directly in a goal. So either the guys at the very top have the right idea. Or of course they are wrong and folk on here are right.

No reason to worry about match control then if noone ever scores from them!

 

[pankaye]

So in, what, apx 1000 games there is, 1 clear example of a quick free kick resulting directly in a goal. So either the guys at the very top have the right idea. Or of course they are wrong and folk on here are right.

The things is, I havnt seen many guys at the top stopping quick free kicks.

also speaking of the guys at the top how much offensive and abusive language at the top without the referee taking action

 

[CO. DOWN REF]

If you gave a caution to a player it was hardly a quick one? Rather a normal one? A quick one I allow provided I don't have to talk to the player and can see it being taken, include it in my pre match and advice teams unless I hold my whistle in the air and clearly state on the whistle they can go anytime provided I ain't talking and can see so have a look at me and I will allow. Works for me and teams like that I don't get overly fussy and can play it quickly.

Moment of stupidity / loss of concentration. Showed the yellow, guy asks 'can I take this quickly?' and for no apparent reason I say go ahead. Not really sure how we managed to get restarted without a riot - if just one player or manager had said something I could've disallowed it legitimately and had it retaken.

 

[Peter Grove]

Barring Henry v cant recall V Chelsea? Spurs? In , the whole of the epl can anyone recall a proper quick free kick goal? One out of, 25 years?
Match control.....

I think either your memory is failing you or mine is failing me. I can remember plenty. For instance, there was one just last season in a game involving Spurs (again, if memory serves). Although whether a goal is scored from a quick free kick makes no difference to whether they should be allowed or not.

Anyway, the article linked to below, mentions two that took place within days of each other in 2001 and also gave an official FA position on the matter. One of the more salient parts of the article goes as follows:

The intention is to give the initiative to the attacking side by allowing them to take a free-kick without needing to wait for the referee's whistle - unless they request the wall be moved back.

FA spokesman Adrian Bevington explained: "The initiative must always be with the attacking side, the team that have been offended against.

"They are perfectly entitled to take a quick free-kick and the referees are actively encouraged to keep the game moving in that respect.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/no-change-to-free-kick-rule-say-fa-6354611.html

As regards match control, see @CapnBloodbeard's post.

 

[J79]

Looks like Real Madrid people are reading this forum, they scored a goal from a quick direct free kick tonight.

Looks perfectly legal, but the referee might raise doubts among the defenders as he comes to stand in front of the ball, as if he were indicating from where the kick should be taken and as if he's preparing to start counting the distance for the wall (could also block the view of the goalkeeper).

Here's the video:

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Its like de ja vu, this topic has been discussed many times and my view has not changed. If its around the box and potentially a goal scoring opportunity then you aint taking it quick. That video above, not happening, not when i am refereeing. Say what you want. @CapnBloodbeard as for throw your badge in the bin and take up knitting well i suppose i better start choosing some wool. You also mentioned spirit of the game, does allowing a player a free shot at a virtually empty goal from 20 yards constitute spirit of the game to you.

The reason you saw this happening a fair bit a few years ago and you dont really see it now is because the instruction the guys at the top have been given is dont allow it.

I have been given this advice by coaches, mentors, level 3's, level 2's and select group officials, do not allow a quick free kick around the box to avoid situations like the video above.

 

[pankaye]

Its like de ja vu, this topic has been discussed many times and my view has not changed. If its around the box and potentially a goal scoring opportunity then you aint taking it quick. That video above, not happening, not when i am refereeing. Say what you want. @CapnBloodbeard as for throw your badge in the bin and take up knitting well i suppose i better start choosing some wool. You also mentioned spirit of the game, does allowing a player a free shot at a virtually empty goal from 20 yards constitute spirit of the game to you.

The reason you saw this happening a fair bit a few years ago and you dont really see it now is because the instruction the guys at the top have been given is dont allow it.

I have been given this advice by coaches, mentors, level 3's, level 2's and select group officials, do not allow a quick free kick around the box to avoid situations like the video above.

In this instance i think its poor refereeing as the the referee was o the spot and it looked like he was going to manage it.

But hypothetical situation: if the white player had quickly got up and shot it into the goal before the referee got to the spot don't you think that would be excellent refereeing in the referee allows it?

 

[Cheshire Ref]

In this instance i think its poor refereeing as the the referee was o the spot and it looked like he was going to manage it.

But hypothetical situation: if the white player had quickly got up and shot it into the goal before the referee got to the spot don't you think that would be excellent refereeing in the referee allows it?

In a word, no. Nobody is expecting it, the goalkeeper is not ready. That for me doesn't sit right.