I would have got this wrong …

[RefJef]

Morning all, and happy new year.

Saw this online the other day, and thought the ref had made a blunder. As the keeper did not pick up the ball, I figured no offence had occurred, but reading through the comments and some of my own research tells me I was wrong. (Probably why my 2026 kicks off tomorrow with bottom v 2nd bottom in the lowest division of the local (not even county!) league!)

From the good book:

Law 12.2

An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:

• initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed (including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper is penalised if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick

I didn’t know this - the keeper doesn’t need to touch the ball with their hands to crystallise the offence. Every day’s a school day!

 

[es1]

A note on this as the ref is local, this was in a friendly hence the lack of card

 

[Archer]

The trick is the offence.

 

[ARF]

A note on this as the ref is local, this was in a friendly hence the lack of card

Local referee, you say?

I didn’t know this - the keeper doesn’t need to touch the ball with their hands to crystallise the offence. Every day’s a school day!

Don't forget that the indirect free kick would be taken from where the player is when they do the trick, rather than where the keeper is, even if the keeper handles it.

 

[one]

A note on this as the ref is local, this was in a friendly hence the lack of card

Just wondering if that justifies no card, wouldn't it also justify no free kick?

In my view, you can adjust your tolerance for subjective decisions in friendlies but you can't ignor mandatory cards. Decision on the free kick is subjective, but once you give it, a card has to follow.

 

[socal lurker]

Just wondering if that justifies no card, wouldn't it also justify no free kick?

In my view, you can adjust your tolerance for subjective decisions in friendlies but you can't ignor mandatory cards. Decision on the free kick is subjective, but once you give it, a card has to follow.

Agree. There is no basis for the IFK other than that the caution is given.

 

[bester]

Vast majority of refs won't know this law and many of those that do think the goalkeeper has to handle it before it's an offence.

Some of the comments on "the referee forum" were mind boggling.

 

[Archer]

Some of the comments on "the referee forum" were mind boggling.

That way madness lies. Had a peek at their Facebook group once. Not for me, Clive.

 

[es1]

Just wondering if that justifies no card, wouldn't it also justify no free kick?

In my view, you can adjust your tolerance for subjective decisions in friendlies but you can't ignor mandatory cards. Decision on the free kick is subjective, but once you give it, a card has to follow.

100% agree in a formal game. In this situation I'd definitely not be cautioning, unsure if I'd penalise or educate (without ifk)

 

[one]

There is no basis for the IFK other than that the caution is given.

If I'm understanding you right, technically the caution is no longer the justification for the IFK. It used to be a few years ago. But after the addition of the clause in law 12.2 (as quoted in OP), the act justifies an IFK on its own right. However the same act is also a mandatory caution.

 

[RefereeX]

I actually saw part of one of the first discussions about this clip with the referee involved in a whats app group. He actually initially thought he had got it wrong too and blew the whistle too early anticipating the keeper touching it. Not sure why he didn't, if that's the case, restart with a dropped ball, but I'd imagine it played a part in not cautioning.

 

[DavidObs]

Whilst the text within the Laws of the Game were significantly reduced when IFAB came onto the scene, imho someone needs to go through them with a fine tooth comb to make them much easier/simpler for all to understand (I am talking generally rather than this particular circumstance of attempting to circumvent a Law by way of a trick, though it could be included).

 

[socal lurker]

If I'm understanding you right, technically the caution is no longer the justification for the IFK. It used to be a few years ago. But after the addition of the clause in law 12.2 (as quoted in OP), the act justifies an IFK on its own right. However the same act is also a mandatory caution.

Drat. I totally missed that.

So the lack of caution would be technically wrong, but the IFK would still be correct. I can kinda live with that in the right context. (In fact, with it being an IFK offense of its own, I’d even support removing the caution entirely—really unnecessary given the severity of the punishment by IFK, as the trickery almost always takes place in an uncontested context.)

 

[Archer]

Didn't see it. PLAY ON!

 

[socal lurker]

Whilst the text within the Laws of the Game were significantly reduced when IFAB came onto the scene, imho someone needs to go through them with a fine tooth comb to make them much easier/simpler for all to understand (I am talking generally rather than this particular circumstance of attempting to circumvent a Law by way of a trick, though it could be included).

Not sure what you mean by “IFAB came onto the scene.” I mean, the 1800s were quite a while back. But yes, IFAB really needs a good copy editor who also understands the game. Too often they accidentally create ambiguity or have significant unintended consequences.

 

[RustyRef]

Vast majority of refs won't know this law and many of those that do think the goalkeeper has to handle it before it's an offence.

They shouldn't be refereeing then. As a referee you could be called upon to deal with strange and unusual decisions in games so there's no excuse for not knowing the laws off by heart.

 

[RefJef]

Vast majority of refs won't know this law and many of those that do think the goalkeeper has to handle it before it's an offence.

Some of the comments on "the referee forum" were mind boggling.

They shouldn't be refereeing then. As a referee you could be called upon to deal with strange and unusual decisions in games so there's no excuse for not knowing the laws off by heart.

Well, that would be me not refereering then.

As I said in my title, I would have got this wrong, as my initial thoughts were that the keeper had to handle the ball to “crystallise” the foul (analogous, perhaps, to a player in an offside position becoming active to trigger an offside offence)

So, having seen the clip, and thought about it, I am now “fit to referee” but last week I wasn’t? In my opinion, your thinking is a bit harsh.

This afternoon, I, along with all the other 22 blokes on the pitch, will, I’m sure make mistakes, but I suspect (hope) that the game will better for my presence as an official, neutral referee on a league that struggles to get full coverage.

 

[RustyRef]

Well, that would be me not refereering then.

As I said in my title, I would have got this wrong, as my initial thoughts were that the keeper had to handle the ball to “crystallise” the foul (analogous, perhaps, to a player in an offside position becoming active to trigger an offside offence)

So, having seen the clip, and thought about it, I am now “fit to referee” but last week I wasn’t? In my opinion, your thinking is a bit harsh.

This afternoon, I, along with all the other 22 blokes on the pitch, will, I’m sure make mistakes, but I suspect (hope) that the game will better for my presence as an official, neutral referee on a league that struggles to get full coverage.

Yeah, but the difference is you are making an effort to learn and make sure you do keep up to date. There are a lot of referees that qualify and then do absolutely nothing to ensure they stay current, all they are interested in doing is refereeing as many games and making as much money as they can.

 

[one]

They shouldn't be refereeing then. As a referee you could be called upon to deal with strange and unusual decisions in games so there's no excuse for not knowing the laws off by heart.

A little harsh. I agree that learning the LOTG is very important and knowing its intricacies should also be in the back of our mind all the time as well. But expecting every referee to get 100% in every LOTG exam and have the ability to apply them in games (which is what the post is effectively asking) or they shouldnt be refereeing is probably not what you mean. We see SG1 referees making errors in law from time to time.

Edit: just seen you last post which clarifies you meant what I thought you meant

 

[Kes]

If I'm understanding you right, technically the caution is no longer the justification for the IFK. It used to be a few years ago. But after the addition of the clause in law 12.2 (as quoted in OP), the act justifies an IFK on its own right. However the same act is also a mandatory caution.

I'm not sure about the actual act itself justifying an IFK.
I tend to look at it more simply as per the LOTG ie. the act itself demands that the game be stopped and a caution issued.
The IFK is simply the correct restart.