Question Number: 23785

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/16/2010

RE: Select Under 17

Danny Vaughan of North Vancouver, Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 197110

Well, Here I am again.... I don't know how many times I've thought I knew it all about soccer but once again I'm seeking the correct response to an incident that happened on the soccer field.

A break away from the other team, our goalie rushes out of his penalty area to try to intercept the lone striker and challenge the ball.

He misses and get's a piece of the striker, and obvious foul and more than likely a red card offense as we have seen many times before.

In this case, the referee decides to book the goalie, handing him a yellow card instead...... Now, as our goalie is running back to his goal, the attacking team places the ball and shoot directly into the net.

Question.... Besides the fact that you could say the attacking team probably deserved the goal.... shouldn't the correct procedure be that as the goalie was booked, the attacking team should now have to wait for the whistle to restart the game ?

Thanks in advance because I think I know but really I could use the experts for this one.

Regards

Danny Vaughan

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

When the referee decides to caution a player, the kicking team loses the right to a quick free kick. They must wait for a signal from the referee, for which FIFA requires a whistle.

While the referee is not required to wait for the defense to set up a wall, in this case only apparent reason that the keeper had not returned to his position guarding the goal is that the referee had isolated and booked the keeper. The defense has no rights on a free kick, except not to be misled by something the referee said or did. If the referee followed the normal practice of isolation, discussion, booking, and showing a yellow card, the keeper had been required to give his attention to the referee, and had every reason to expect that the referee would not permit the restart of play until the keeper returned to a normal playing position.

I suspect that the referee came up with a novel (though improper) solution: allow the quick goal and thus justify not sending off the keeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity. The referee should have sent off the keeper, allowed the team to insert (if substitution opportunities remained) or exchange a field player for a new keeper, restarting with free kick after a whistle when the new keeper was in position.

I also suspect that most players would prefer the referee's solution.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

In the Interpretation and Guidelines section of the Laws of the Game we find on page 76:
'Use of the whistle
'The whistle is needed to:
//snip//
restart play after it has been stopped due to:
– the issue of a yellow or red card for misconduct
– injury
– substitution'

The team should not have been allowed to take a quick free kick.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
In the case you desribe the referee must give a signal for play to restart after cautioning a player. That signal can be given as soon as the card is shown but it is also considered good mechanics to allow the cautioned player to resume his position particulary when he is brought out of position to do so. So it would be only appropriate to allow the GK after a caution to return to goal before signalling the restart.
Without the caution play can be restarted without the signal as in the case of a QFK

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

The LOTG require the ball to be taken out of the net and the attacking team retake the kick only after the referee signals to proceed and the referee is required to use the whistle as the signal because a caution was issued. No caution, the goal stands.