Quick Free Kicks Etc.

Hyzepher

It always amuses me how the closer you get to the penalty area the more rules seem to be associated with the game. Free kicks awarded throughout the pitch - apart from in and around the penalty area - are taken when the free-taker is ready - no whistle - no waiting etc. Why should free kicks near the goal be any different.

Also a penalty kick is awarded when a free is committed by the defense inside the penalty area - he doesn't have to be a special foul or anything like that - any offense that warrents a free kick anywhere else on the pitch should result in a penalty if committed inside the penalty area - all to often refs seem to think that a penalty can only be awarded for special or serious offenses - if its good enough for other areas of the pitch then its a penalty.

Hyzepher

eirebhoy

I competely agree with everything you have said, although I don't think there is a rule stating the referee has to blow the whistle for a free kick but maybe they should bring that into the game to stop all the fuss. About the penalties, the players do get away with a lot more in the box and it is all down to the referee afraid to make match changing desicions, full stop.

I think referee's get too much stick though, we are all able to see the incidents on slow motion replay and we find out the decision in seconds, the referee's should have the same benefits for the match changing decisions.

uberwolf

Originally posted by Hyzepher


Also a penalty kick is awarded when a free is committed by the defense inside the penalty area -

Hyzepher

not always true, backpass, raised foot, and obstruction should all lead to indirect free kicks in the box

jonno

Here here, I agree with all you've said there. Both points are well made

eirebhoy

Originally posted by uberwolf
not always true, backpass, raised foot, and obstruction should all lead to indirect free kicks in the box

I know a deliberate backpass results in an indirect freekick but I never knew that about obstructions, although maybe you are right.

Another thing that the referee's take no notice of is keepers holding the ball in their hands for more than 6 seconds. If a keeper does this an indirect freekick should be given but I have only seen this given once. I actually don't think half the keepers know how long they are allowed hold the ball because I've seen keepers hold it for over 10 seconds without a freekick given.

jonno

Ya I remember that rule being introduced and thought it was a good idea but I have never seen or heard of it being enforced.

Imposter

What annoys me is when players (usually defenders) obstruct another player and let the ball out. If they are playing the ball then fine (and it'll be a corner or whatever), but when they've no intention of touching the ball then they can't be seen to be playing it and it should be obstruction.
If the backpass rule was brought in to prevent timewasting I can't understand how this problem hasn't been looked at.

btw I agree with initial post about frees and penalties.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Imposter
What annoys me is when players (usually defenders) obstruct another player and let the ball out. If they are playing the ball then fine (and it'll be a corner or whatever), but when they've no intention of touching the ball then they can't be seen to be playing it and it should be obstruction.
If the backpass rule was brought in to prevent timewasting I can't understand how this problem hasn't been looked at.

Some players are good at letting the ball go out of play but one foolish one that springs to mind is Glen Johnson trying to let the ball go out of play. The ball virtually stopped and he wouldn't kick the ball, the player was trying to get by him and Johnson ends up getting the free kick for some reason though.

Dustaz

Originally posted by uberwolf
not always true, backpass, raised foot, and obstruction should all lead to indirect free kicks in the box

The problem is how do you define 'obstruction'. Theres a difference between both players facing the same way, running for the ball using a bit of the shoulder and a defender body blocking a player whos thru on goal.

robbie1876

The problem is how do you define 'obstruction'.

Personally I think there should be 2 kinds of obstruction offecnces.

Type 1 is where the obstructing player is watching the ball, and shielding it, i.e. like Imposter described earlier. This offence should lead to indirect free kick, either inside or outside the box.

Type 2 is where the obstructing player is watching the player, and deliberately positions himself in the way of the ball without any intention of playing the ball. Should lead to direct free kick / penalty.

uberwolf

what about defenders sheparding the ball out into touch? that is blatant obsruction but considered good defending. Why is that?

Imposter

Originally posted by Dustaz
The problem is how do you define 'obstruction'

True.
For me shielding the ball without playing it (touching it) should be banned and called as obstruction. Ok that will give keepers a bit less protection but the defenders could always hoof it. After all you are deliberately stopping a player from playing the ball when you have no intention of playing it yourself.

Villain

Originally posted by Imposter
True.
For me shielding the ball without playing it (touching it) should be banned and called as obstruction. Ok that will give keepers a bit less protection but the defenders could always hoof it. After all you are deliberately stopping a player from playing the ball when you have no intention of playing it yourself.

If the ball is within your playing reach then you are not obstructing you are using your strength to shield the ball

uberwolf

can you not only shield a ball if its under ur control? or maybe that should be phrased should you not only be allowed...

by inference that would stop players sheparding the ball into touch because they 'd be concedig the ball

Imposter

Originally posted by irish1
If the ball is within your playing reach then you are not obstructing you are using your strength to shield the ball

But if it's within your playing reach and you have no intention of playing it then it's surely obstruction, or not?

Villain

Originally posted by Imposter
But if it's within your playing reach and you have no intention of playing it then it's surely obstruction, or not?

No its shielding using your strength to your advantage, attackers quite often manage to get the ball off the defender so it's a risk they take to try and shield the ball out.

cournioni

Crap, only after seeing this thread now... This is my post from the Arsenal v Villa thread:

An interesting question came to mind today... Say if one of the Villa players heard Henry asking for a quick free kick and they ran out from the wall to block it, would the referee move the ball forward or what would he do?

I have no problem with Henry's goal, it was perfectly within the laws of the game. But I think the rules regarding this should be changed.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
Crap, only after seeing this thread now... This is my post from the Arsenal v Villa thread:

An interesting question came to mind today... Say if one of the Villa players heard Henry asking for a quick free kick and they ran out from the wall to block it, would the referee move the ball forward or what would he do?

I have no problem with Henry's goal, it was perfectly within the laws of the game. But I think the rules regarding this should be changed.

I was thinking about that myself. When Angel was asked by the ref if he would like a quick free kick two of the Arsenal players stood over the ball and Angel said he would prefer them to move 10 yards back and make a wall. I'd say the referee was relieved to here him say that, imagine if he said he wanted a quick free kick. I don't think one player on that pitch (including Henry) knew the rules of free kicks and it is only since the referee's have decided to speak after a game that people know the rules.

Why is it that these things don't happen outside England, they definitely need to change the rules.

AthAnRi

Posted by Eirebhoy

Why is it that these things don't happen outside England, they definitely need to change the rules.

I don't think they need to change the rules they need to clearly define them and then enforce them. The free taker does not need to wait for the ref to blow his whistle. He can wait for the wall to be 10 yards back or he can tak it quickly. If he opts to take it quickly and it hits a player that is not back the correct distance then that player should be booked.

Posted by
PORNAPSTER

Say if one of the Villa players heard Henry asking for a quick free kick and they ran out from the wall to block it, would the referee move the ball forward or what would he do?

Then that player should be booked.

growler

I seem to recall Alan Shearer kicking the ball against a player who stood right in front of him , to prevent a free kick, and Shearer was booked for it even though it should have resulted in the free being moved forwards 10 yards . Anyone else recall that from a few season back ?

The other one that really gets me is the length of time allowed for a keeper to take a kick out , it's (I think) 15 seconds , after which the keeper can be booked for time wasting and a free kick awarded. I've only ever seen a ref enforce this once , and I think that was in one of Man U's games last year.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by AthAnRi
The free taker does not need to wait for the ref to blow his whistle. He can wait for the wall to be 10 yards back or he can tak it quickly. If he opts to take it quickly and it hits a player that is not back the correct distance then that player should be booked.

I don't understand were your coming from. You said the player has a choice of taking the free kick quickly or waiting for the wall to go back 10 yards. If he takes the free kick quickly the players will more then likely not have a chance to move back 10 yards, why should they then get booked if they are hit with the ball?

Hyzepher

This actually happened in a Celtic match last year - the opponent GK tried to take a quick free kick and hit the ball against Sutton - who wasn't back 10 yards and was booked.

Hyzepher

eirebhoy

Originally posted by Hyzepher
This actually happened in a Celtic match last year - the opponent GK tried to take a quick free kick and hit the ball against Sutton - who wasn't back 10 yards and was booked.

Hyzepher

...and AthAnRi said he doesn't think they should change the rules for this, that is just ridiculous.

Imposter

Someone correct me if i'm wrong but afaik the ref usually gives the team the choice of a quick free or getting the wall back far enough. Now if someone deliberately stands over the ball preventing the quick free they can be booked. If they are retreating at an acceptable pace then I don't think they can be booked if the ball is kicked against them. However as with most things referees interpretations will vary on the rule.

cournioni

Originally posted by AthAnRi
Then that player should be booked.

Even though it was Arsenals choice to take a quick free kick? I'd try to stop the quick free kick if I heard an Arsenal (or any other) player asking for it.