Question Number: 22933

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/11/2010

RE: Adult

Nick Broderick of Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada asks...

A player taking a throw-in near his own penalty area throws the ball (properly) towards his goalkeeper. The goalkeeper handles the ball just outside his penalty area by a few inches. The referee awards a free kick and signals that it is a direct free kick, to punish the more 'serious' offense of deliberate handling instead of punishing the indirect free kick offense 'touching the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a teammate' (Law 12). However, in trying to take the free kick quickly, the opposing team has set the ball half a yard from the spot of the foul, but now the ball is biting the edge of the penalty area -- a direct free kick restart would now be a breach of law if it is taken from this spot.

As the referee, would you consider changing the restart from a direct free kick to an indirect free kick? The goalkeeper has committed both kinds of offense, and the interpretation of the 'more serious offense' has been universally accepted as the one whose restart most benefits the opposing team (Law 5). So long as the ball is within tolerable distance of the spot of the foul, the indirect free kick is both consistent with the law and allows the offended team to take their kick quickly. Is this justified?

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Nick, the first foul is the deliberate handling - at that point the keeper is just another player, because this occurs outside the penalty area, so we don't have to worry about the IDFK offense of a keeper handling a throw-in from a teammate.

The free kick takes place at the spot where the foul occurred. If that spot is outside the penalty area, then it doesn't matter that part of the ball may overhang the edge of the penalty area when it is placed for the kick. It's still a direct free kick.

The argument for an IDFK here is of no benefit and not justified.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

Calling for an indirect free kick rather than enforcing the penalty for the foul is always a bad idea. Players recognize this as a sign of a weak and unfair referee.

But, the referee can and should make the team take the direct free kick from the correct location. What is a 'tolerable distance' - - whether the placement of the restart is trifling - - will be affected by how close the restart is to the opposing goal. While a yard or so is irrelevant for a restart in the defensive third, the closer to the opposing goal, the stricter the referee should be.

The attacking team here has moved the restart closer than the location of the foul, and has placed the ball less than 18 yards from the opposing goal. Moreover, because of the marking of the penalty area, everyone knows that the restart is in the wrong place. IMO, it is difficult to find that the wrong location is trifling. In making sure the attacking team takes the kick from outside the penalty area, the referee isn't taking away the right to a quick free kick; the referee is enforcing the law by ensuring the kick is taken from the correct location.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Broderick
The more serious offence is the deliberate handling of the ball by the goalkeeper which is punishable by a direct free kick. The IDFK is not now a consideration. The free kick is taken from where the offence occurred, in this case a few inches from the penalty area. That is where the ball should be placed for the FK. I don't believe anyone will argue about inches from the spot if that happens. However it should not be 'significant' with a justifiable complaint that it was taken from the wrong place. Also many free kick specialist prefer to 'move the ball' further away from the goal on a direct shot over the defensive wall. This also should not be allowed to happen
As regards taking the FK quickly the team offended can do so provided the ball is in the correct place. However if they are prevented from doing so by an opponent then that player is cautioned for delaying the restart of play. Unfortunately with free kicks close to the PA the defence will have made efforts to prevent the QFK. In those cases the attack more than likely has to go with the 'ceremonial free kick' and await the referee's whistle when he has arranged for the players to be moved back 10 yards. That is a match control issue and the referee has to gain complete control of these situations.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Sorry Nick but the keeper has only committed ONE offense and that is deliberately handling the ball as he was outside his penalty area.

Nowhere in the Law will you find a justification for an IDFK. Once the keeper handled the ball, play stopped. An IDFK is awarded the opponents if the keeper handles the ball directly thrown to him by a teammate when said keeper is INSIDE his penalty area. Your quote from Law 12 ignores what precedes it a sentence or so: "An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his
own penalty area,"



The DFK should be taken at the spot of the infraction but moving the ball so that it touches the penalty area boundary line does not change the restart. The referee should intervene and make certain the kick is taken from the proper spot. Once the referee does this he now has to make certain everyone knows to wait for the referee's whistle before the DFK may proceed.