Kicking ball at retreating player

[Viking]

In a step 4 game yesterday there was a dfk to reds in the centre circle. Striped player trotted from behind the red player to be 5 yards in front when red deliberately leathered the ball so hard at the back of the striped player that he fell over. The ref gave a retake. No words.

Deliberately throwing the ball in someone's face is a red but I seem to remember that kicking a ball in a reckless/potentially excessive manner at a player in this circumstance is a y/r. Can't see that in LOTG though. If card was produced, is the restart a dfk?

 

[Peter Grove]

I think the section you're looking for is this one, from Law 13:

If a player, while correctly taking a free kick, deliberately kicks the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue.

Although it doesn't say so explicitly, this strongly implies that if the kick is careless, reckless or using excessive force, the player should be penalised accordingly.

 

[Viking]

Thanks Peter. I had Law 13 in mind and it was the action following the deliberate kick that I was considering. I'm pleased you've confirmed there's nothing explicit that covers this. Therefore, my thoughts would be that the ball was in play from the dfk, the ball was deliberately kicked at a player from 5 yards, and I need to consider whether this was careless, reckless or excessive - and whether the retreating player had offended. My decision would be reckless, bordering excessive so a stiff word and a yellow with a dfk to the retreating player. Is that a logical course of action?

 

[one]

So much to say.

First, the law explicitly requires a caution if a player fails to respect the required distance at a restart.

Second. the law also explicitly says at a QFK a player within the distance can intercept the ball. What is not explicit (but implied and expected) is that they should be in the process of 'retreating' and continue that motion. Any movement (like side step) outside of that 'retreat' action nullifies the right to intercept.

The law is not explicit on this but all players have the right to space they occupy in the FOP and the right to retreat at a restart as long as they don't break any laws in the process. In other words, in the context of the OP, the right to retreat does not trump the requirement to respect the distance at a restart.

"Striped player trotted from behind the red player to be 5 yards in front" Generally players do this deliberately, to close off the path to a target, limit the angles or prevent a QFK. That is a cautionable offence. A player who is 5 yards away from the ball, only needs to move another 5 yards to be the required distance not 15 yards, that requirement comes first.

So technically, in the OP, if it is how I picture it, it is a caution to both players and a restart. Restarting without a caution the striped player is incorrect in law however common it is (all the way up to EPL). What the referee has done is to try and keep both teams happy by not cautioning. It could work for his match control depending on his ability but it very well backfire on his match control.

 

[GraemeS]

Yeah, I think the referee could have done almost anything here, depending on his judgement of how forceful the kick was and how deliberate the defenders delaying was. The one thing that there is no argument in law for is a retake without a card!

 

[Viking]

So much to say.

First, the law explicitly requires a caution if a player fails to respect the required distance at a restart.

Second. the law also explicitly says at a QFK a player within the distance can intercept the ball. What is not explicit (but implied and expected) is that they should be in the process of 'retreating' and continue that motion. Any movement (like side step) outside of that 'retreat' action nullifies the right to intercept.

The law is not explicit on this but all players have the right to space they occupy in the FOP and the right to retreat at a restart as long as they don't break any laws in the process. In other words, in the context of the OP, the right to retreat does not trump the requirement to respect the distance at a restart.

"Striped player trotted from behind the red player to be 5 yards in front" Generally players do this deliberately, to close off the path to a target, limit the angles or prevent a QFK. That is a cautionable offence. A player who is 5 yards away from the ball, only needs to move another 5 yards to be the required distance not 15 yards, that requirement comes first.

So technically, in the OP, if it is how I picture it, it is a caution to both players and a restart. Restarting without a caution the striped player is incorrect in law however common it is (all the way up to EPL). What the referee has done is to try and keep both teams happy by not cautioning. It could work for his match control depending on his ability but it very well backfire on his match control.

Thanks for your comments and clarifications. To flesh out the incident more, the retreating player trotted in a straight line immediately when the whistle went. He was probably 3 yards away from the taker as he passed him. The taker had been floating the ball to the left all game but on this occasion I found myself looking at his movements because he quickly turned to his right and smashed it into the back of the retreating player. The ball would probably gone out of the ground had it missed. The retreating player appeared to just be trotting back to face a free kick as a lot of players do every game. The ref was jogging backwards and appeared to see the incident. I would have probably called it a caution against the taker and given the DFK the other way. But thinking on it more, it was worthy of a red due to the excessive nature of the hit. The retreating player can't have been expecting the ball to hit him with such ferocity.

Re GraemeS, I was interested in the options and as it was just retaken, I think the 'expectation' button was pressed. No one complained at the time. One of the stripes even got in a 'You @ucker' straight at the AR from 2 yards away, for not being given the throw. Nothing happened there either so expectations were probably met again.