What is the rule...
- Thread starter etc1217
- Start date
twoclubpapa
SILVER ELITE
IDFK = Indirect Free Kick, alternative acronym often used is IFK.
I assume you're asking about a player on the ground playing the ball. There's no problem with a player on the ground playing the ball unless, in the opinion of the referee (ITOOTR), that player is guilty of playing in a dangerous manner (PIADM). The LOTG state "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
A player on the ground shielding the ball and thereby preventing the ball from being played by other nearby players is guilty of the offense. A player on the ground playing the ball with no one else in the vicinity is not.
I assume you're asking about a player on the ground playing the ball. There's no problem with a player on the ground playing the ball unless, in the opinion of the referee (ITOOTR), that player is guilty of playing in a dangerous manner (PIADM). The LOTG state "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
A player on the ground shielding the ball and thereby preventing the ball from being played by other nearby players is guilty of the offense. A player on the ground playing the ball with no one else in the vicinity is not.
etc1217
SILVER ELITE
Thank you for the clarifying.
This situation happened at my DD's game yesterday, the ref let the play go on. The opposing player was on the ground along with my DD since they both fell while my DD was trying to defend close to the 6 yd line and the opposing player was shielding the ball with her legs while my daughter's legs were laying across the opposing player's body. There were two other defenders in close vicinity trying to get to the ball but stopped in fear of hitting one of the girls on the ground because there was no way of clearing the ball without hitting one of the girls on the ground. Then opposing player then released the ball while on the ground and kicked it away to her team mate who then scored...
Should there have been a call??
This situation happened at my DD's game yesterday, the ref let the play go on. The opposing player was on the ground along with my DD since they both fell while my DD was trying to defend close to the 6 yd line and the opposing player was shielding the ball with her legs while my daughter's legs were laying across the opposing player's body. There were two other defenders in close vicinity trying to get to the ball but stopped in fear of hitting one of the girls on the ground because there was no way of clearing the ball without hitting one of the girls on the ground. Then opposing player then released the ball while on the ground and kicked it away to her team mate who then scored...
Should there have been a call??
jrcaesar
SILVER ELITE
Hard to know. Based on what you describe, I most likely would blown the whistle in a U10 rec game. Hard to answer for other ages and levels of play without having refereed the whole game up to that point (game temperature between the two teams, skill set, what was the nature of the contact that just occurred and should it have been a PK, etc.). The actions of the other defenders would be a guide here. Also depends on how many seconds/split-seconds all of this occurred in.
jrcaesar
SILVER ELITE
Just thought of this: Referee could have been allowing attacking team to play advantage (silent advantage in the penalty area) at that moment to see whether a PK was going to occur. DD might have committed a foul and the referee was waiting. (Although that can easily backfire. But if it's boom-boom-goal then it's better than a PK.) Again, hard to know.
jrcaesar
SILVER ELITE
Curious what some of the regular club circuit refs say. From what I picture in my head from your two posts, yeah, I'd call it an IFK going out. The defenders backing off to not play the ball is the key IMO.
Edited to add: I'm AYSO Advanced, currently doing U14s & some U16s.
etc1217
SILVER ELITE
Also, my DD questioned the ref's decision since she is also the captain of the team. The ref basically said,"My call stands as is and besides, who went to ref school!" Then my DD and the rest of the back line raised their hands and said we all did... (I thought was pretty funny). The ref proceeds just to walk away...
twoclubpapa
SILVER ELITE
It's hard to offer an opinion without seeing the incident or a good video. Even then, if we had the video there would probably be a lot of discussion about the event. Some of the opinions that might be offered:
1. Attacker lost her footing and subsequently tripped or unfairly charged your DD such that both ended up on the ground - should have been DFK for your team
2. DD fouled the attacker causing her to go down - PK but advantage immediately accrued so Goal
3. No foul in initial contact but DD fouled the attacker by using her legs to hold down the player - PK but advantage immediately accrued so Goal
4. No foul in the initial contact, dangerous play by attacker - IDFK for your team
5. No foul in the initial contact, no dangerous play - Goal (Your situation)
The referee was there, saw it all, and offered his opinion, i.e. no call. His game, his call, his reputation!
baldref
GOLD
hard to say without seeing the play. if indeed it were "dangerous" play on one or the other, than a call should be made. but, two higher level 16 year olds on the ground scrumming, and the other defenders aren't pressing the issue..... probably best to wait and see if they can work it out. but once again, hard to say without seeing it.
Just a Parent
SILVER ELITE
I agree, but based on the information provided thus far, including the level of game, I cannot imagine any referee blowing the whistle in this circumstance. I certainly wouldn't.
baldref
GOLD
Totally agree that based on the description I would not have stopped play
I'm just reluctant to say definitively without seeing it
It was stated: "There were two other defenders in close vicinity trying to get to the ball but stopped in fear of hitting one of the girls on the ground because there was no way of clearing the ball without hitting one of the girls on the ground."
The LOTG states "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
Going on what is stated it's a IFK for defense.
The LOTG states "Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury."
Going on what is stated it's a IFK for defense.
Just a Parent
SILVER ELITE
Based on what was stated, was it stated whether the two other defenders stopped for fear of hitting an opponent or a team mate since both an opponent and team mate were on the ground?
etc1217
SILVER ELITE
The opponent took my DD down with her when she lost her footing and both ended up falling. The fear was hitting the opponent since she was shielding the ball with her body, she was cradling the ball. My DD legs were draped over the opponents abdomen area. The two defenders were positioned, one was at the head of the opponent while the other was near her feet. Since the opponent was shielding the ball with her body there was no way they could get the ball without hitting her body
baldref
GOLD
which is why I said I'd want to see it to make a definitive judgement. But, two players, one attacker one defender, both down around the ball, why would one be more guilty than the other? Unless, it was clearly obvious the attacker on the ground was intentionally shielding the ball with her body. Which maybe you're saying, but as an unbiased observer, would you say the same?
Once again, all conjecture without seeing it.
I think you got the answer to your original question.
Surfref
PREMIER
I would wait and see what happened. Most players would have stepped in and attempted to play the ball even if the attacker appeared to be cradling (not sure what that means) the ball. Was the ball up near her chest/face or down near her legs? If it appears dangerous than I would make the call, but this is a wait and see type of play. It is really hard to say for certain what I would have called without actually seeing the play.
If your DD legs were over the attackers abdomen, wasn't your DD "Holding" the attacker down on the ground. So it should have been a Holding foul for the attacker and a PK. I actually saw this called during a tournament this past summer. As the trail AR, I was unsure what the CR called until I asked at halftime and he said he called a Holding foul because the defender did not get up off the attacker fast enough. We talked about his call and I am certain he will not make that call again.
twoclubpapa and SCS Fan explained it well. If you shift your focus from the rules, it was a learning moment for your players. Refs would almost never nullify a goal in that situation. That's a reality players and coaches have to accept. Questioning the ref's call would only lead to caution. Captaincy doesn't provide a measure of immunity. There're a few tactical things their coach could teach after the game.
etc1217
SILVER ELITE
As a captain, she is the one to approach a ref instead of all the players questioning the call. She wasn't asking for immunity, she wanted an explanation of the call to better understand why she called it that way. Whatever the ref call was, a player has a right to ask to understand why she/he called it that way. Ref's decisions aren't always 100% right and there could be difference opinions, so asking for clarification isn't wrong.
Just a Parent
SILVER ELITE
No, the captain has no special privileges, and no, players have no such rights as you describe.
But having said that, any player can ask for an explanation or clarification, not just the captain.