When to allow a quick free kick

[Peter Grove]

Hence why you just dont see them anymore.

Except that just isn't true. You do still see them - and at all levels. As I recall, there was at least one within the last two seasons in a game involving Spurs. It attracted quite a bit of attention precisely because it was in a scoring position right at the edge of the area.

I can't understand the argument that some are making, that it is somehow unfair to the team that has just broken the Laws of the Game, to not allow them time to set up for the resulting free kick. I can see no justification for that, either in the letter or the spirit of the law. As far as I'm concerned, the offending team has no rights at a free kick - except the right not to be misled by the referee.

Which is why, although I'm generally in favour of quick free kicks even close to the opponent's goal, I was uncomfortable with the way the referee in the Real Madrid game handled that situation. He had already arrived 'on the scene' and appeared to be managing the free kick. As some have pointed out, he may even have been partly blocking the goalkeeper's view of the ball. Having physically intervened in the way that he did, I felt he should have made it ceremonial.

 

[Peter Grove]

Just as a postscript to this, I can still remember when the very idea of forming a defensive wall was seen as unsporting and there was even talk of either not allowing them or at least putting restrictions on them.

 

[Peter Grove]

OK, found the confirmation for this.
The following is from the minutes of the IFAB Meeting held at Bodysgallen Hall, Llandudno on Saturday 13th June, 1987:

 

[Hafþór Bjartur Sveinsson]

• no disciplinary sanction is to be taken
  
  
• the free kick is taken quickly after play is stopped (i.e. few seconds...)
  
  
• the ball is stationary at the place of the offence
  
  
• the free kick requires no management by the referee
  This is what fifa said in practical information for officials

 

[Mintyref]

I still don't understand how some of my colleagues can worry the they may 'lose match control' just because they allow a quick free kick even if a goal is scored. It can only ever be the fault of the defence for not being 'aware'!
If they're worried about losing control they must already have a poor 'grip'.
'Man or woman up', whichever is the case, let's get games flowing..........

 

[pankaye]

I still don't understand how some of my colleagues can worry the they may 'lose match control' just because they allow a quick free kick even if a goal is scored. It can only ever be the fault of the defence for not being 'aware'!
If they're worried about losing control they must already have a poor 'grip'.
'Man or woman up', whichever is the case, let's get games flowing..........

the only time I have seen people (including myself) at risk if losing match control because of quick free kicks (or rather free kicks taken without the whistle) was when the referee has already intervened similar to the example from Spain above or in my case when the defender had questioned why I had given a foul and I had started to give a reason. the attackers had seen an opportunity and restarted play quickly and I had (perhaps unwisely) allowed it.

 

[Mintyref]

the only time I have seen people (including myself) at risk if losing match control because of quick free kicks (or rather free kicks taken without the whistle) was when the referee has already intervened similar to the example from Spain above or in my case when the defender had questioned why I had given a foul and I had started to give a reason. the attackers had seen an opportunity and restarted play quickly and I had (perhaps unwisely) allowed it.

I'd agree that is an instance where it's not a quickie.
Quick free kicks, the clue is in the title.......!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

. 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.

Err, well, yes. Considering that the attacker would have also had a free shot at a virtually empty goal if he wasn't fouled.

I mean, it should be pretty self-evident that this is actually the perfect example of why there's a QFK permitted

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've made no comment on if I've seen it more or less. The other side of the coin is that referees also permit players to stand in front of the kick. And refereeing is more about what's seen to keep people happy than what's right.

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

That's the goalkeeper's own fault. The goalkeeper knows that a QFK is a possibility.

Why does the attacking team have their attack restricted because the GK is being a fool? How is that fair?
The GK knows what can happen, through poor goalkeeping doesn't account for that, and a chance at goal should be denied? and that sits right?

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Err, well, yes. Considering that the attacker would have also had a free shot at a virtually empty goal if he wasn't fouled.

I mean, it should be pretty self-evident that this is actually the perfect example of why there's a QFK permitted


I've made no comment on if I've seen it more or less. The other side of the coin is that referees also permit players to stand in front of the kick. And refereeing is more about what's seen to keep people happy than what's right.


That's the goalkeeper's own fault. The goalkeeper knows that a QFK is a possibility.

Why does the attacking team have their attack restricted because the GK is being a fool? How is that fair?
The GK knows what can happen, through poor goalkeeping doesn't account for that, and a chance at goal should be denied? and that sits right?

I had really hoped this thread was dead by now. OK you keep doing it your way but like i have said time and time again i will follow the advice i have been given.