If a direct free kick offence is committed by a defending team player against an attacking team player inside the defending team's penalty area, then a penalty kick is awarded to the attacking team to be taken from the penalty mark. Opponents must be 10 yards (9.15m) away from the ball when a direct free kick is taken. If a team decides to take a quick direct free kick before the opposition players have had a reasonable amount of time to retreat the 10 yards (9.15m), and the ball subsequently hits a retreating opponent who is near the ball, then it is not expected that the direct free kick should be taken again. By taking a quick direct free kick, the team have attempted to gain an advantage over their opponents. This is fair in Law, but if the advantage does not accrue, they should not be given a second chance - this would be unfair and against the 'spirit of the game'. Referees are strongly advised (when they can) to personally conduct any attacking free kicks near or in the defending team's penalty area. Ask the players who are taking the free kick if they want a whistle signal from you (the Referee) before the free kick takes place. Players are entitled to take a quick free kick if they want too. But asking the players beforehand will prevent any misunderstandings that could and will develop if a quick free kick is taken and a goal is scored. If an attacking team does decide to take a quick free kick before you have asked the players if they want to wait for a signal from you, and a goal is scored - then so long as no infringement has occurred during the taking of the free kick, the goal must be allowed. Aim to be consistent in your handling of free kicks near the penalty area - this will save you lots of trouble.

A free kick (direct or indirect) awarded to the defending team inside its own goal area, may be taken from any point within the goal area.

The Referee should signal a direct free kick by firstly blowing his whistle to stop play, and then Pointing one upstretched arm upwards towards the direction that the direct free kick is to be taken. And the other arm pointing downwards to the place where the kick is to be taken. It can also help if you can, to shout "Direct Keeper" towards the goalkeeper as a matter of courtesy. Players normally do not have a clue if a free kick should be Direct or Indirect, and as part of man-management, it is recommended that you tell them when you can.	Direct Free Kick	Indirect Free Kick
To indicate a free kick, the Assistant Referee will raise and wave his flag backwards and forwards, then point his flag in the direction that the free kick should be taken (as shown in the 2 images to the right). There is no need to make a big show of waving the flag for too long. If the Referee has not seen the offence, it can also sometimes help, if the Assistant Referee indicates why he signalled for a direct free kick. Discrete small signals by the Assistant Referee towards the Referee such as 'shirt pulling', 'elbowing' and 'pushing' motions will help the Referee understand the nature of the offence. This is all part of the unseen communication between the Referee and his Assistant Referees.	Indicate a free kick	Point in Direction

Difference between a Direct Free Kick, an Indirect Free Kick and a Dropped Ball:

Take me back to the top of this page

Before we go on to look at the Direct Free Kick offences. It can sometimes be difficult for new trainee Referees to differentiate between a ‘Direct Free Kick’, an ‘Indirect Free Kick’ or a 'Dropped Ball’ restart.

A Direct Free Kick, an Indirect Free Kick or a Dropped Ball can only be awarded if the Referee needs to stop play whilst the ball is in play, and on the field of play.

Direct Free Kick: There are ONLY 10 Direct Free kick offences. The ball must be on the field of play, and the offence must be committed whilst play is in progress. The offence must be committed against the opposing team. A Direct Free Kick cannot be awarded for offences committed between players of the same team, or for offences committed whilst the ball is NOT in play, or for offences committed off the field of play, or for offences committed against the Referee or team officials or spectators etc.

A Direct Free Kick restart cannot be awarded for offences committed whilst the ball is OUT of play.

Dropped Ball: A dropped ball is used to restart play, when the Referee under the following circumstances has stopped play:

• due to external interference (such as a dog entering the field of play)

• if a serious injury is suspected

• after a temporary stoppage that becomes necessary while the ball is in play - for any reason not mentioned elsewhere in the Laws of the Game (such as a player losing his shorts!!)

• for any other reason which is not covered by Direct and Indirect Free-kicks.

A dropped ball restart cannot be awarded for offences committed whilst the ball is OUT of play.

Indirect Free Kick: There are hundreds of reasons to restart play with an Indirect Free Kick. 

Basically, if the stoppage in play is for a foul or an offence that does not merit the award of a Direct Free-Kick, then an Indirect Free Kick is the usual restart. 

Please note, that on all the Direct Free Kick, Dropped Ball and Indirect Free Kick restarts, the ball must have been in play when the Referee stops play.

A Free Kick (Direct or Indirect) or a dropped ball restart cannot be awarded for offences committed whilst the ball is OUT of play. There are a few excerptions to this. For example, an indirect free kick is awarded:
When when a goal is not scored following encroachment by a team-mate (or if the kicker offends) before a penalty is taken. 
Just after half time starts, the Referee stops play when he notices that one team has 12 players.

In these exceptional cases, the offence occurs before the ball is in play.

If an offence occurs before the ball has come back into play during the taking of a goal kick or a throw–in, play is restarted with either the original goal kick or the original throw-in.

Six 'careless, reckless or using excessive force' Direct Free Kick Offences:

Take me back to the top of this page

It is important to emphasise that the 6 Direct Free Kick offences shown below is considered by you the
Referee
to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force.
(See question 2 below)
You make this decision - so do not be influenced by anyone else.

Go to top of this page

1. kicks or attempts to kick an opponent.

2. trips or attempts to trip an opponent.

3. jumps at an opponent.

4. charges an opponent.

5. strikes or attempts to strike an opponent:

6. pushes an opponent:

Take me back to the top of this page

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences (numbered 1 to 6) on an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, and whilst the ball is still in play:

1. kicks or attempts to kick an opponent. Only the slightest example qualifies, including when a player attempts to kick an opponent - he does not have to make actual contact. A failed kick is just as guilty as a kick which connects. Kicks can include ankle taps, heel kicks. The kicking action is intended to unbalance an opponent, cause the opponent to falter or prevent the opponent from losing the race for possession of the ball. Kicking or attempting to kick an opponent is normally a sending off offence (serious foul play or violent conduct).  I would suggest that, at the very least, guilty players should be Cautioned. It can sometimes be difficult to decide whether a kicking player is just trying to gain an advantage by 'tripping' an opponent, rather than kicking the opponent in a fit of anger with the intention of causing the opponent an injury. The Referee must differentiate between a kick and a trip.
Any player who purposefully kicks or attempts to kick an opponent in anger, MUST BE SENT OFF THE FIELD OF PLAY. A player who trips an opponent is normally Cautioned.

Go to top of this page

2. trips or attempts to trip an opponent. A player will use this ruse in an attempt to make his opponent lose balance, lose possession of the ball, falter or fall to the ground. The foot is normally used to trip an opponent, but it is not unknown for a player lying on the ground to stretch out an arm or leg to trip an opponent. An attempted trip is just as guilty as a successful trip. For example: If a defending team player attempts to trip an attacking player in the defending team's penalty area, but the attacking player skips over the tackle - the attempted trip is still a Direct Free Kick offence, and because it occurred in the defending team's penalty area the result is a penalty kick to the attacking team.
Tripping can also be caused by use of the thigh, body or the back (stoop).

 Note: Tripping does not necessarily have to be instigated by the use of a foot. Tripping or attempting to trip an opponent includes situations were a player uses his body to unbalance or upend an opponent. Referees must carefully distinguish between the act of accidentally tripping, from that of being deliberately tripped by an opponent. Deliberate tripping or attempting to trip is an offence, if it is clearly directed at an opponent and causes the opponent to falter or fall. Players may trip over themselves, or accidentally fall over an opponent as a result of natural play - and in these instances - no infringement of the Law has been committed.

3. jumps at an opponent. You can usually tell when a player has jumped at an opponent rather that attempted to jump for the ball - look at the opponent's eyes or the direction of his face beforehand. When a player is genuinely jumping for the ball, he will normally be looking straight at the ball. Watch for players jumping into opponents during a challenge for a high ball - watch the direction of the jump - is it towards the ball?, or is it towards an opponent?. If it is towards the opponent, then award a direct free kick to the opponent's team. Even the slightest jump towards an opponent is enough to unfairly unbalance that opponent whilst he is attempting to head the ball.
Jumping at an opponent usually happens when the ball is kicked high in the air, and one player attempts to head the ball away, but is challenged by an opponent who because he cannot make fair contact with the ball, jumps at the opponent instead  -  in an attempt to unbalance the opponent and fool the Referee into thinking that this is a fair challenge. Jumping at an opponent can also occur in many other situations such as an attacking player jumping at a goalkeeper whilst the goalkeeper is attempting to catch a high ball. Referees are advised to be wary of jumping offences particularly after the following restarts: Free Kicks: Goal Kicks: Corner Kicks: and Throw-ins.

4. charges an opponent.    
                             

Awarding an Indirect Free Kick  for a  'Fair Charge' when the ball was not in playing distance is no longer in the Laws of Associated Football - and was taken out of the Laws in the 1998/99 season.

There is no such thing as penalising a fair shoulder-charge when the ball is NOT within playing distance.

Charging is either a foul or it is not a foul.

If two players are running towards the ball, and one (or both players) shoulder-charges the other, the Referee needs to decide if a foul has actually been committed or not - and by whom.

If a simultaneous innocuous shoulder charge is made by both players which the Referee deems NOT to be a foul - the game should be allowed to continue.   Football is a physical contact game which allows players to jostle each other whilst trying to gain fair possession of the ball.

A dangerous charge occurs when it is directed at a different part of an opponents body such as the middle of the back, or in the ribs; such a charge even if applied with minimal force is likely to knock the player off balance, or cause some physical injury. A player has to be penalised when charging in a manner which is careless, reckless or using excessive force.

A player who violently charges an opponent must be sent-off for Violent Conduct - look out for this, particularly during a melee when large numbers of players converge following an incident. A charge to anywhere other than the area of the shoulder or upper arm can be dangerous.

The Referee needs to decipher the nuances of what is a foul and what is not a foul during shoulder-to-shoulder contact. Deciding this can be difficult between players of largely differing statures. For example - a large heavy player charging a very small player may look to be an obvious foul when compared to a small player blatantly charging a large heavy player. Jostling for the ball often includes shoulder-to-shoulder contact between opposing players. This is a normal part of the game. It is the severity of the shoulder-to-shoulder contact that deems whether it is a foul or not. The two extremes are a gentle rub of the shoulders between players contesting for the ball, and a blatant violent shoulder charge. The varying levels between these two extremes can be difficult to judge particularly in the mid-range of the spectrum.

A small player is quite capable of fouling a large player by the use of his shoulder. Conversely, it requires less strength for a large player to have the same effect on the smaller player. It is therefore not the size of the respective players that matters, it is the result of the shoulder-charge, and whether or not the Referee judges it’s effect to be a foul or not.

Punishments for charging:                                     Go to top of this page

A Direct Free Kick (or penalty) should be awarded to opponents if a charge is deemed by the Referee to be a foul, irrespective of whether the players' are within playing distance or attempting to play the ball or not.

A player should be sent-off if a charge is deemed to be violent conduct or serious foul play (example - using excessive force).

" Just shout '50/50' get on with it !! "

Players stepping in front of an opponent = impedance (indirect free kick) and not a charging (direct free kick) offence.

  Take me back to the top of this page

5. strikes or attempts to strike an opponent: A strike is a blow delivered with the hand or arm. The slightest example qualifies. For example, it only needs a finger in the right place at the right time to cause serious damage to an opponent's eye. Striking is usually the result of a player losing his temper, and done in a fit of anger, or it can be calmly done in the 'cold light of day'. A failed strike is just a serious as a strike that connects. A strike also includes spitting or when a player throws the ball (or any other object such as a water bottle) at an opponent (or any other person).

The reason why a player may react violently in this way are numerous, I have listed just a few examples below for you to consider. There are many many more..........

For spitting and striking offences and their restarts-  see here.

Go to top of this page

For spitting and striking offences and their restarts-  see here.

For example: If the ball is still in play, and a goalkeeper who is in his own penalty area deliberately throws the ball at an opponent who is standing outside of the penalty area, then the offence takes place where the contact occurs (or would have occurred if the action had been successful.)   In this example, a direct free kick outside the penalty area must be awarded to the opponent's team. 

For spitting and striking offences and their restarts-  see here.

(See the Restart page for more details.)

6. pushes an opponent: A push is normally executed by use of the hand, but it is also possible to push using the thigh, stomach, shoulder, backside etc.... Only the slightest example qualifies. It is very easy to unbalance an opponent with a slight push. Players are very good at disguising such motions. You will need to be particularly vigilant when opponents are challenging for a high ball, where slight pushes to unbalance opponents are very common occurrences. Try to get a side view of players when any high ball is being challenged for.

Four additional Direct Free Kick Offences:       Take me back to the top of this page

The following four Direct Free Kick offences do not have to be committed with a careless, reckless or excessive force action. It is the action itself and not the severity of the following four offences that is the Direct Free Kick offence.

Take me back to the top of this page

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following four offences (Numbered 7 to 10):

7. tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball.

8. holds an opponent.

9. spits at an opponent.  (For spitting and striking offences and their restarts -  see here.)

10. handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

7. tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball. This offence is fairly easy to spot as a Referee, so long as you keep concentrating on the game action. Any contact with a player during a tackle - no matter how slight a contact - before the ball is touched by a tackler, is deemed a Direct Free Kick. 

This does not include the normal shoulder to shoulder or body contact (see above) made between players,

.....but refers generally to when (for example) the red player above attempts to make a challenge for the ball with his leg on the green opponent, but before the red player touches the ball with his leg (or foot) - the red player's leg touches the opponent. This is a Direct Free Kick foul. The severity of the tackle is not a factor in deciding whether the tackle is an offence or not.

Another example of this is when one player tackles another player from behind, but before the player tackling from behind makes contact with the ball, his leg hits the back of the opponents leg. It is irrelevant whether the tackling player eventually makes contact with the ball or not.

8. holds an opponent. Holding normally means clutching an opponent's arm or shirt. Shirt pulling has become popular, and Referees World-wide have been asked to 'clamp-down' on players found guilty of this offence. It is often very difficult to see shirt pulling and holding, you will sometimes have to rely on vigilant Assistant Referees, or good positioning to observe, minimise and penalise this offence. The definition of holding is when a player holds or grasps an opponent, with the aim of unfairly stopping the opponent from moving where he wishes to go.
The use of the hand during holding is not important, opponents can be held with: (a) the body leaning against them, (b) an arm detaining their progress, (c) a wrist on the shoulder thus preventing a player jumping, (d) by placing a foot on top of an opponents foot, thus preventing opponents from jumping upwards.
Holding is a direct free kick offence and must not be confused with the impeding (obstruction) indirect free kick offence when a player purposefully puts out an arm to impede the progress of an opponent. An impeding offence (obstruction) is when the offender puts out his arm without first making contact with the opponent, with the aim of blocking the opponent's path. The opponent's momentum may eventually propel him into the outstretched arm - an indirect free kick for impeding (obstruction) should be awarded for this offence. The offence of holding is a more serious offence that warrants a direct free kick, and is when the offender purposefully holds back an opponent by making instant holding contact with his arm or shoulder against that opponent.

A player who just holds an opponent's shirt should be given a strong warning by the Referee. A player who holds and then tugs or pulls an opponent's shirt, causing that opponent to falter or fall to the ground - should be cautioned by the Referee.

9. spits at an opponent. Attempting to spit and/or spitting at an opponent is deemed a penal offence and a direct free kick is to be awarded at the place where the spitting lands, or would have landed.

For spitting and striking offences and their restarts -  see here.

Anyone guilty of this filthy offence MUST be sent-off.

10. handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area). This offence is my pet hate. Players will insist on shouting "Hand Ball" every time the ball goes anywhere near the upper body.

HAND BALL MUST BE 100% DELIBERATE BEFORE IT IS PENALISED

'Ball to hand', is the well known term used by Referees to describe an accidental hand ball. It is immaterial if after the ball accidentally hits a player's arm or hand, it subsequently falls to that player's advantage.

Not all deliberate hand balls are deliberate. Pardon, have I made a typing error NO: If a ball is blasted towards a players middle bits !!!, and that player deliberately moves his hand towards the ball to deflect what could possibly be a very painful experience, then I would not penalise him for doing this - what would you do in a similar situation ? A similar occurrence sometimes happens when players in a 'Defensive Wall' protect their heads from being knocked off. If the action is done in self defence, then I will ignore it, and shout to any moaning players to "Get on with it"! As a 'rule of thumb' I also do not penalised players when the ball has been blasted towards them from close range by an opponent, and the ball makes contact with the hand. It is virtually impossible for a player to purposefully handle a ball with the aim to cheat his opponent, if the ball is blasted at him from 5 yards at a speed of 100 miles an hour. 
Again shout - "Get on with it"!

Another piece of useless information - the hand ball offence is the only direct free kick offence not given against an opponent - wow !!

Handling includes: (a) carries, (b) propels, (c) strikes, the ball.

Question: What exactly is HAND ball, which area of the arm is deemed HAND ball ??

Answer: See the ball areas on diagram below. A player who deliberately uses this part of his anatomy to control the ball, is guilty of HAND BALL. The top of the shoulder area is not deemed HAND ball.

If you happen to see this player in one of your matches,
then this is one HELL of a match !!!

See my Hand Ball page for a full description of exactly what hand ball is.

Summary: There are a total of 10 Direct Free Kick Offences:     Take me back to the top of this page

The first 6 (of the 10 Direct Free Kick offences listed below) are offences considered by  the
Referee have been committed carelessly, recklessly or by using excessive force.

1. kicks or attempts to kick an opponent. (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

2. trips or attempts to trip an opponent. (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

3. jumps at an opponent. (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

4. charges an opponent. (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

5. strikes or attempts to strike an opponent: (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

6. pushes an opponent: (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force.)

7. tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball.

8. holds an opponent.

9. spits at an opponent.  (For spitting and striking offences and their restarts-  see here.)

10. handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

Questions:             Take me back to the top of this page

Additional Questions and Answers provided by FIFA covering all of the Laws of the game, can be found on this web site here. The original FIFA Questions and Answers pdf file can be downloaded from the FIFA web site here.

Question 1: How can the Referee decide what level of punishment to issue when a player commits a foul that is careless, reckless or using excessive force.

Answer 1:
If a player commits a careless foul, the Referee should warn the player about his misconduct.
If a player commits a reckless tackle, the Referee should caution the player.
If a player commits a tackle using excessive force, the player should be sent off.

Question 2: Just exactly what do the words careless, reckless, and using excessive force mean?

Answer 2: Firstly, we must not forget that football is a tough combative sport with lots of body contact between players. Gaining possession of the ball should nevertheless be done in a sporting manner - most challenges for the ball can (and are) committed fairly (if sometimes in a vigorous fashion) and should not always be penalised by the Referee. Serious foul play and violent conduct (including spitting) are strictly forbidden, and must be stringently dealt with by the Referee.

Careless is when a player attempting to challenge for the ball which is in close proximity to an opponent, puts a great deal of honest effort into the challenge, but wildly mistimes it, and in doing so fouls the opponent.

This includes when a player challenging for the ball has not exercised proper care or has misjudged or mistimed a tackle when making his play, or when a player has miscalculated the strength required to challenge fairly or has overstretched his leg when making the challenge. This type of foul is common, and should be penalised with an award of a direct free kick (or penalty if occurring in the guilty player's own penalty area) - and a ‘quiet verbal warning’ by the Referee. A careless tackle does not necessarily warrant a caution, depending on the severity or the number of persistent offences committee previously by the perpetrator. A quiet word usually suffices in normal circumstances.

The word careless can also mean, absent-minded, hasty, heedless, inconsiderate, negligent, regardless, thoughtless, unconcerned, and sloppy.

The Referee must also learn to differentiate between an act carried out against a youth, and a similar act carried out against a senior (more older) player - what is an excessive push on a minor youth player, might not even be noticed in a professional match involving senior players, where body contact is more prevalent, stronger and readily accepted as part of the game.

Reckless is when a player makes a challenge in a manner where there is a clear risk of endangering an opponent, but pays no regard to the possible consequences and the safety and/or welfare of his opponent.

This includes when a player has made a challenge for the ball, and it is done in such a way that it clearly intimidates (or distracts) an opponent, regardless of any potential danger to that opponent. The challenger himself does not have to make contact with the opponent (many opponents who are being tackled are adept at 'riding' challenges by jumping up to prevent contact being made) the intimidation alone is enough to warrant the tackling player being penalised. For example, a reckless sliding tackle may be executed with the sole aim to intimidate an opponent, or distract him from shooting towards goal. The punishment for a reckless challenge is a direct free kick to the opposing team (or penalty if occurring inside the perpetrator's own penalty area) and a caution for unsporting behaviour if the reckless challenge was outside the sporting bounds expected in normal play. A strong verbal warning by the Referee is also recommended.

The word reckless can also mean, daredevil, devil-may-care, foolhardy, harebrained, hasty, headlong, heedless, imprudent, inattentive, irresponsible, madcap, mindless, negligent, overventuresome, rash, regardless, thoughtless and wild.

I like the word 'harebrained', this sums up (for me) what a reckless challenge is all about! (Webmaster).

Excessive force is when a player makes a challenge which may be malicious or brutal and may be designed to hurt or maim an opponent.

These are the worst types of tackles to deal with, and is when a player has placed an opponent in considerable danger of being injured by the use of unnecessary force when making a challenge for the ball.

If the challenge involves excessive force far outside the bounds expected in normal play, this is ‘serious foul play’, and the Referee must send the player off, and award the direct free kick to the opposing team (or penalty if occurring in the perpetrator's own penalty area).

Winning the ball first, is not an excuse for a challenge of this nature to be deemed legal. Players who plead their innocence because they have "won the ball" just before breaking an opponent’s leg in a tackle using excessive force, should be strongly, immediately and properly dealt with by despatching from the field of play with a Red card.

Take me back to the top of this page

Question 3: I was Refereeing a match the other day. What happens when a goalkeeper is running to kick the ball out of his hands, and he crosses the edge of his penalty area (ever so slightly) before he kicks the ball out of his hands. Should he be sent off for a deliberate handball or cautioned or just penalised by the award of a free kick to his opponents ?

Answer 3: This is a tricky situation to deal with. Normally, as a Referee, you should be positioned on your diagonal somewhere near the halfway line when the goalkeeper eventually kicks the ball out of his hands. It is therefore impossible for the Referee to judge such incidents with complete accuracy  -  and in such cases the Referee would need a long periscope to judge whether or not the goalkeeper had slightly stepped over his penalty area line or not, or if the ball is still being held in his hands outside of the penalty area.

In higher level games, the Assistant Referees would make those decisions. If you are near the halfway line, be 100% sure before you penalise a goalkeeper for handball outside of his the area. The punishment for a goalkeeper handling the ball outside of his area whilst he is attempting to punt the ball up-field from his hands, is a direct free kick to the opposing team (you do not send the goalkeeper off in this instance (unless you are issuing a second caution to the goalkeeper).

When watching a game, take a very close look at how goalkeepers' actually complete this manoeuvre. Very often, the goalkeeper actually kicks the ball when both he and the ball have travelled outside of the penalty area, BUT if you watch very carefully, most goalkeepers' actually release the ball from their hands whilst they are still just inside their penalty area. It is only their momentum that takes them (and the ball) outside of the penalty area and in nearly all such cases they have not committed an offence.

For example, they release the ball up into the air whilst they are just inside of their penalty area, the goalkeeper (and the ball) then travel outside of the penalty area before the goalkeeper kicks it up-field. The goalkeeper has committed no offence, and is allowed to kick the ball outside of his penalty area, because once outside of the penalty area - the goalkeeper becomes another outfield player.

It is the moment that he releases the ball that you should be looking for, and not when he kicks it. It is difficult to judge this from a distance and it would need to be seen from a sideways view to be in the best position to discern if it was an offence or not. If you are unsure, let play carry on.

The easiest way to understand this,....is that a goalkeeper can stand outside of his penalty area reach inside of his penalty area and handle the ball. No offence has been committed. It is only when his hands and the ball are outside of the penalty area that it becomes an offence. So it does not matter where his feet are - so long as he does not handle the ball outside of his penalty area.

Question 4: If the goalkeeper moves outside of his penalty area to control a ball last touched by the opposing team, is it permissible for the goalkeeper to dribble the ball back into his penalty area and then pick it up?

Answer 4: The goalkeeper has not committed any infringements and should be allowed to continue with the game. The goalkeeper is entitled to pick up any ball within his own penalty area, so long as it was not deliberately kicked or thrown directly to him by a colleague taking a throw-in (Note also..the goalkeeper is not allowed to handle the ball a second time after it has been released from his possession, and before it has touched another player.) When the goalkeeper leaves his penalty area, he is deemed to be just like another (outfield) player, and as such, he is allowed to play the ball with his feet. Concerning the incident mentioned in the question....... an infringement only occurs if the ball was played back to the goalkeeper deliberately by a team mate....... and the goalkeeper (who is standing outside of his penalty area) dribbles the ball back into the area and then picks it up with his hands. If this happens, an indirect free kick should be awarded to the attacking team because the goalkeeper handled the ball after it had been deliberately kicked back to him by a team mate.

Take me back to the top of this page

Question 5: An attacking player and a defending player were chasing a ball near the defender's goal.  They were running alongside each other - somewhat shoulder-to-shoulder, with the attacking player gaining from being half a step behind. The attacking player was able to stretch a leg alongside and around the defending player who had possession of the ball, and this tackle resulted in the ball ricocheting into the defenders goal, and the opponent falling onto the ground. Should the goal be allowed?

Answer 5: Technically, a tackle of this nature is only a foul, if the player making the tackle, makes contact with any part of the opponent, before connecting with the ball (see Law 12). It is also a foul if the tackle is made from behind. If during this tackle from the side, the attacking player made contact with the ball without first touching the defending player, then the goal should count (as no infringement had occurred). In tackles of this nature, the momentum of the fair challenge on the ball, sometimes unbalances the opponent, and it can look as though the opponent was fouled before the ball was touched. If the attacking player made contact with the defenders leg (before making contact with the ball)  - then this is a foul, and a direct free kick should be awarded to the defending team.

There may be occasions in instances like this, when the Referee is not sure what decision to make. See my Decision making page to help you decide 'one way or the other'.
Law 5 states,  "The decisions of the Referee regarding facts connected with play are final." So it does not really matter whether the Referee gets it right, or whether he gets it wrong - so long as the decisions are made honestly. Referees should not worry about 'honest decisions'. All Referees will make mistakes. The secret is to learn from them - anyone who thinks that they are perfect, is bound to get disappointed. Those of us who recognise that we are human, will learn to accept our mistakes and move forward.

Question 6: A goalkeeper comes to the very edge of his penalty area and saves the ball with his chest. When the ball spills away from him, he strikes out an arm and grabs at the ball with his hand and then realises that his momentum has taken him outside of his penalty area. Should he be sent off by the Referee? The rules clearly state that if a keeper handles outside the area he should not be on the field of play.

Answer 6: There is nothing in the Laws to specifically 'pillory' a goalkeeper for this offence. The Law does say that if a player deliberately handles the ball and denies the opposing team an obvious goal scoring opportunity – then yes, he should be sent off. As soon as the goalkeeper comes out of his penalty area he becomes just another outfield player, and is subject to the Laws the same as they are. The crux of making a decision of this type, depends on whether the Referee thinks that there was a goal scoring opportunity or not. The Referee makes that decision and nobody else. It is a tough call to make, and Referees’ should not shirk that responsibility. If the Referee deems that the action by the goalkeeper prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity, then the goalkeeper should be sent of.  If it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, then the opposing team should be awarded a direct free kick at the place where the goalkeeper touched the ball with his hand outside of the penalty area. The Referee can also consider cautioning the goalkeeper for deliberately handling the ball.

(Many thanks to Warren Hutt - from Australia for this interesting question). WebMaster

Question 8: How can a Referee decide whether to give (a) just a direct free kick, or (b) a direct free kick and a caution when the player pulls an opponent's shirt.

Answer: 8: When holding actually becomes pulling, it becomes a cautionable offence. If two players are in close contact and one player grabs the other players shirt, it is just a free kick, but if one of the players is breaking away with the ball and is pulled back, this is unsporting behaviour for which the perpetrator  MUST be cautioned. (From Philip Don - during seminar with the Select Referees in England 2001)

Take me back to the top of this page

Question 9: (From Weston-Super-Mare England Referee colleague 7 Sep 2000).

I had awarded a direct free kick to the away team on the edge of the penalty area. I thought I did everything right, getting the wall back 10 yards (9.15m) and then running backwards to a spot level-ish to the penalty mark - so as to watch encroachment and the goal line in the unlikely event of an accurate shot!! As the player ran up to take the kick (about a step away from the ball) one of the players in or around the wall shouted,

"Miss it you ugly c**t!"

The ball sailed harmlessly over the bar and I ran over to diffuse the situation. The thing is, as I said to them, if I knew who said it they’d have been off, but because I didn’t, I couldn’t take any action. Was I right in this decision? My only thought was could I have given an IFK around where the voice came from, for unsporting behaviour - even without issuing any cards?

Answer 9: The fact that you could not identify the individual in the wall who said "Miss it you ugly c**t!" as the free kick was being taken, means that you cannot take disciplinary action against that individual (whoever he may have been). You were correct in castigating the defending team. Not being able to identify the perpetrator is just bad luck on the Referee's part. Referees will learn from such incidents, and next time will keep a closer eye on proceedings. It is not very often that an incident of this nature will occur - but it does happen from time to time.

During a free kick, the ball does not come into play until it had been touched and moves forward (Law 13). In this instance, the comment was made as the kicker touched the ball. If the Referee is quick enough, then he could blow his whistle before the kicker touches the ball. But in real life, this would be very difficult to achieve, and may serve to ‘put the kicker off’ when retaking the free kick – thus giving the advantage to the infringing team.

The possible restarts in this situation are as follows:

(a) Award an indirect free kick for unsporting behaviour to the attacking team at the spot where the wall (and the offending comment) was made.
(b) Goal kick to the defending team.
(c) Retake the free kick.

Let’s take each possibility at a time.

(a) Award an indirect free kick for unsporting behaviour to the attacking team at the spot where the wall (and the offending comment) was made.

As the comment was made before the free kick took place, and whilst the ball was out of play, you cannot award another free kick in a different position. In short, you cannot award free kicks for incidents happening when the ball is out of play (i.e. before the original kick took place).

(b) Goal kick to the defending team.
Because you did not blow your whistle to stop play before the kicker completed the free kick, then a goal kick is a possible option. But it gives the offending team the advantage – this is definitely against the ‘spirit of the game.’

(c) Retake the free kick.

Taking all things into consideration, a retake may be a better option. The fact that the guilty defender committed an unsporting act  before the free kick took place, with the sole aim of distracting the player taking the free kick, should lead to the attacking team being allowed to retake the free kick properly.

Law 5 (Referees Power and Duties) states that the Referee can stop, suspend, or terminate the match, at his discretion, for any infringements of the Laws. This is a part of the Laws that you can use to allow the free kick to be retaken.

Taking all things into account, and the complexity of the incident, I would probably have taken the same action as you and awarded a goal kick restart – but to ensure fair play, and using the Laws correctly, the free kick should have been retaken (because the incident happened before the kick took place). But to be honest, players would not have a clue about what should be the correct decision – so whatever you do would be correct. If you gave a dropped ball, they would be none the wiser !!!! And neither would most Referees. This was a very difficult decision for you to make in an instant, and you did OK. Some times, you have to rely on instinct – and mostly it works – as it did in your case.

Many thanks colleague, for this very interesting and complex question, I just hope that it never happens to me!!! (from webmaster Julian Carosi)

Question 10: During a high ball, a defending player jumps up and over an attacking player’s back to head the ball. The defending player’s eyes are watching the ball and it looks like he is making a genuine attempt to head the ball away. Is this a fair challenge, or should the Referee award a free kick? This challenge is very hard to call.

Answer 10: The Referee needs to judge the action of both the players involved in the challenge. Attacking players have become very adept at what is known as ‘backing on’. This happens during a tussle for a high ball, where the attacking player subtly uses his back (or backside!) to push a nearby defending player off balance, with the hope of being able to head the ball before the defending player gets to it. Conversely, defending players in this position have also become adept at using their chest to slightly push the attacking player off balance. This act is very difficult for the Referee to spot. Couple this, with the play-acting now seen as a part of the game, and you begin to see how difficult making this decision really is. One method the Referee can use in deciding which way to give the such a decision, is to use the same principle as that used when awarding a direct free kick – e.g. it is a foul when a player makes contact with an opponent before he makes contact with the ball. This philosophy will help the Referee to make his decision. For example – the ball is kicked high into the air, a defending player and an attacking player both jump up to try and head the ball. The defending player makes contact with the ball with his head, but as he jumped up, the defending player’s arm/chest touched the attacking player, and in doing so, fouled the attacking player, and made the attacking player slightly lose his balance. Conversely, the attacking player (before he heads the ball) can also use his body to unbalance the defending player (this can also be seen as a foul against the defending player).

Regretfully, the above advice can only be used on certain occasions, because the Referee must not forget that football is a contact sport, and a certain amount of bodily contact is allowed. If a player makes any sort of challenge using 'careless, reckless or using excessive force' then this is always a direct free kick (or a penalty kick if occurring in the perpetrator’s own penalty area). In judging these ‘high ball’ type challenges, the nearer the Referee is to the incident, the easier it is to make a correct and creditable decision. It also helps to get a sideways view of these challenges. So the best piece of advice for Referees is to get as fit as possible. This way, the decisions become easier to make.

Question 11: When does the use of arms and hands in tackles become an offence?

Answer 11: Even though Law 12 specifically states that it is an offence when a player pushes or holds an opponent - it is difficult to explain when the use of arms in tackles and when shielding the ball from other players becomes a breach of the Law.
It is important to appreciate that the physical demands of football (soccer) require using arms for balance, running and twisting, legs for running, feet for kicking, the torso for manoeuvrability. Using the arms when springing also helps create good lift and also contributes to improved balance. It is also important to understand that young players very often interlock with each other using their arms and legs, and in most cases, this action would be penalised in adult football. But because young players do this automatically in an attempt to learn how to maintain their balance, the Referee very often ignores it.

There is nothing to stop a player in possession of the ball from using his body (or arms to a certain extent) in preventing an opponent from gaining possession of the ball. It is illegal however, to use the arms as a barrier to prevent the progress of an opponent.

Use of the arms does become an offence when a player deliberately uses their hands or arms to grab hold of an opponent's shirt or body. It is also an offence if they are used to restrain an opponent or to force an opponent off-balance. It is also an offence if a player suddenly starts using his arms or elbows to unfairly win the race to gain possession of the ball. Neither of these players "owns the spot" where the ball is until one of them gets there first, having fairly won the position.

The Referee must decide when the use of arms (or hands) becomes an offence. And one way of doing this, is to look closely at tackles. If the arm or hand makes a definite pushing or holding movement against an opponent then this could be penalised as a direct free kick offence of holding or pushing. It very often happens in situations when players are jostling for the ball, that both of the players are as guilty as each other. Referees recognise that offences are being committed, but allow play to continue. If Referees stopped play every time that physical contact occurred, then the game would not flow as it is meant to.

As a simple guide –

(a) if both players are as guilty as each other, then in most cases, the Referee could allow play to continue. If the Referee needs to stop play, then play could be restarted with a dropped ball.

(b) if a player makes a definite movement of his arm (or hand) to unbalance or fend off an opponent, this could be classed as a direct free kick offence (pushing or holding).

(c) if the hand or arm action is innocuous and committed whilst jostling for the ball, then this could be construed as being "part of the game" and ignored by the Referee.

Question 12: An attacking player inside the penalty area, dribbles the ball towards goal. There is no other defender nearby, except the goalkeeper who runs out and dives towards the attacker’s feet. The goalkeeper manages to punch the ball away. As a result of the goalkeeper’s dive, his body takes down the attacking player, who manages to get up quickly - but the ball is already rolling towards the goal line, and the attacking player has no chance of getting the ball back to score a goal. What would be the correct restart: Penalty or Corner if last touched by the goalkeeper?

Answer 12: Although there are special Laws that only apply to goalkeepers, they are also obliged to conform to all of the other Laws as well.

Law 12 states that "a direct free kick is awarded if a player tackles an opponent to gain possession of the ball, making contact with the opponent before touching the ball."

So in the case of the goalkeeper punching the ball – so long as the goalkeeper punches the ball without first making contact with the attacking player, no foul has been committed, and play should be allowed to continue (and a corner kick awarded if the ball was last touched by the goalkeeper, and crosses over the goal line. If in the course of his dive to punch the ball away, the goalkeeper makes contact with the player before he punches the ball – then a penalty kick should be awarded. This is a very simple concept, and makes decision making very easy for Referees.

Question 13: A goalkeeper inside his own penalty area, loses the ball to an attacking player. The goalkeeper slides towards the attacking player with one foot (without force) behind the attacking player, and extends his foot between attacking player’s legs - and kicks the ball away. Whilst making this tackle, the goalkeeper causes the attacking player to fall down, when the ball is rolling away from him. The Referee gave a penalty, whilst the defending team players argued that it was a clean tackle on the ball. Was the Referee correct?

Answer 13: A tackle from behind is only a foul if it is done carelessly, recklessly or with excess force. In season 1998/1999, a new clause was stipulated as Law 12 Decision 4, and stated:
"A tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

In 2005, this was changed to include all tackles that were dangerous.

"A tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."

It is still possible to make a legal tackle from behind, so long as it does not endanger the safety of the opponent. For example – if a defending player is standing directly behind an attacking player, and the defending player prods his foot between the legs of the attacking play and pokes the ball away – no foul has been committed, because the tackle did not endanger the safety of the opponent. In other words, during a game, there may be several tackles from behind – all done with different levels of severity. They are not all necessarily fouls. The individual Referee makes the decision on the severity of each tackle. Some are fouls, some are not.

Question 14: My uncertainly lies in the situation where a player has successfully won the ball in a tackle, but done so in an overly physical manner. Two-footed tackles and tackles with studs showing could be a couple of examples, although I don't think that these terms are specifically used in the laws. I assume that I can penalise a player for this sort of tackle, even if they have 'won the ball'. My gut feeling is that this would be punishable by a direct free-kick (and perhaps a caution or sending off), but what penal offence have they actually transgressed? I know that six of the offences refer to 'careless, reckless or by using excessive force', but if the player hasn't kicked, tripped, jumped at, charged, struck or pushed the opponent, would a direct free kick be the correct decision?

Answer 14: There was as time not so long ago, where good ‘hard’ tackle (or slide tackle) was accepted as part of the physical game (Nobby Stiles and Norman Hunter instantly come to mind!) These were hard players who never shirked a tough confrontation with attacking players. Thankfully, the game has come on along way since those days, and players’ safety now features as a strong part of the modern day Laws. This allows for greater skill and for less serious injuries.

There are still some players around, who think that no matter how hard they go in for a tackle, it is fair, so long as contact is made with the a ball first.

Not so!

The introduction into the Laws, of the three terms ‘careless’, ‘reckless’, or ‘using excessive force’, has made the Referees’ life much easier, in terms of deciding the severity of a tackle and its appropriate punishment. These are very simple words that can describe any tackle, from a ‘wet squib’ to a ‘self-propelling missile’ assault.

Understanding the following simple advice, will make a Referee’s life oh so much easier.

1. A ‘careless’ tackle. The Referee should have a word with the player, and ask him to be more careful – or warn him of his behaviour.

2. A ‘reckless’ tackle’. This is a more serious tackle that will result in a caution.

3. ‘Using excessive force’. This is the most serious tackle that jeopardises the safety of an opponent.  A red card must be issued here!

The restart for all of these tackles, is a direct free kick (or a penalty kick).

Although a ‘two-footed’ tackle, and a tackle with ‘studs showing’ in near proximity to an opponent, are not specifically mentioned as separate categories in the Law 12 Direct Free kick offences, they easily fall into the ‘jumps at an opponent’ or kicks an opponent’ category.

For example: A defending player, runs full pelt towards an opponent who has the ball in front of him at his feet. The defender launches himself, and makes contact with the ball with an outstretched leg. The momentum of the defending player is such, that the opponent is thrown into the air by the impact. The defender’s body, then crashes into the opponent in a violent fashion.

This is just one type of violent tackle that is not specifically categorised in Law 12. It would be impossible to list down all the different types of tackles. It is clearly tackle that uses excessive force, and the perpetrator must be shown the red card and sent off. The restart is a direct free kick (or a penalty kick).

Tackling by sliding. With the advent of the Law 12 change in season 1998/1999 where 'a tackle from behind which endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play' (a Direct Free Kick offence) - the use of the slide tackle has lessened dramatically. A slide tackle carried out with one or both legs outstretched can be allowed - but is illegal if committed from behind.

So don’t worry if a serious tackle does not immediately fall into one of those listed in Law 12 – you should automatically know, that a serious tackle is a direct free kick offence, and not an indirect free kick offence.
It is difficult to decide the type of tackle when you start Refereeing, so I hope that this helps you a little bit.

(Many thanks to Phil Read for this interesting question)...... WebMaster.

Question 14b: Some two-foot tackles are completely legit - ball only contact, sliding motion carries only so far as needed to play the ball, etc. On the other hand, I have sent a player off after a two-foot tackle that didn't make contact. On that occasion the missed contact was a result of extreme effort to elude contact by the player who was being tackled player - he let the ball go and jump/tumbled over the tackler. The force of the slide took the tackler past the path of the ball carrier up to his shoulders. I judged the slide to be excessive in force and primarily intended to contact the opponent since he couldn't - or wouldn't - adjust to play the abandoned ball. Since the laws specify the same treatment for attempts at striking, kicking, or spitting as for success at these endeavours, I decided that a caution could not be justified for attempting a tackle that would result in sending off if completed. In short, I concluded that attempted serious foul play should be penalized as serious foul play.
My decision was regarded as harsh by many present, including the coach of the player that was the object of the tackle. The general expectation being that a lack of contact or injury should only warrant a caution. Is this correct?

Answer 14b: Law 12 applies to attempted fouls, just as much as it applies to fouls that involve actual physical contact. If a player committing a foul uses excessive force (as in the example above) then the referee MUST send the perpetrator off.
Of course, it's never as black and white as described in the above sentence; there is a fine line between issuing a caution or a sending off.
But it is usually very obvious when the offence merits the stronger punishment. 
When a player is in danger of being on the end of an excessive force tackle, the dexterity of the victim to avoid the tackle, should not be a factor in deciding the punishment.
For example: A similar tackle using excessive force is made on the following two players from the same team, at different times during a game. 
Player (A) is young and nimble, and swift of foot, anticipates the tackle and jumps up to avoid getting injured.
Player (B) is older, less nimble and does not anticipate the potential danger, and receives a broken leg through no fault of his own.
Therefore, it is not the outcome of the excessive force tackle that defines the punishment; it is the excessive strength of the tackle itself that decides the punishment.
When referees begin factoring the level of injury sustained in tackles, the resulting punishment moves away from the dictate of the Law.
Conversely, an innocuous tackle carelessly made, but resulting in a broken leg, should not be punished by a sending off. 
Once again, it is not the outcome of the careless tackle that defines the punishment, it is the tackle itself. In this case, the punishment for a careless tackle, is a strong warning from the referee. It is certainly not punished by the award of a red card, even though a player's leg was broken.
Recognising the use of excessive force is easy. The difficult part seems to be persuading referees to confidently apply the Laws equally - whether contact is made or not.

uestion 15: Could I clarify a point about holding, particularly the common practice whereby an attacker hands-off a defender ‘rugby league-style’ by holding him off with a locked arm to the shoulder or the chest. To my mind this is holding… if you define holding to be ‘holding-off’ as well as ‘holding onto’. In fact, David Ager in "The Soccer Referee’s Manual" says in relation to the holding offence, "… Another example is where a forward puts his arm out, apparently to steady himself, but holds his opponent off to gain an unfair advantage by stopping him from tackling fairly for the ball." And David Ager is a referee instructor.

Answer 15: Ahhh….. that good old book ‘The Soccer Referee’s Manual’ by David Ager. My first Refereeing bible, and one that sits beside me as I write. It’s a pity that an up-to-date version could not be written every year. (My copy is dated 1994 so is probably a tad bit older than your version, but still contains the text you mention. Mine also has many additional annotated notes and highlighted sections from me in its pages.

Holding an opponent off and using an arm to steady oneself against an opponent has always received a fair bit of leniency from Referees over the years. In fact, when I was a player myself for over 30 years, I was renowned for using this tactic to good effect myself. And I can still hear the opponents’ cries of – " He can’t do that Ref!" But I must have done it a thousand times and was never penalised once for it. I never intentionally went out to hold off a player, it was just an automatic reaction in the way I played. Lots of players did it then, and lots more do it these days. As a Referee, I usually let it go, on the understanding that it ‘is a mans’ game’ (no offence ladies, it's a figure of speech!) and that physical actions such as these are ‘part and parcel’ of the game. I think that philosophy still remains. The only time that I would penalise this as a Referee, is when the ‘so’called’ holding develops into a push, or the fingers of the perpetrator actually grab and hold the opponent.

OK, so as far as the Laws are concerned, holding could be penalised on every occasion. But if we completely eliminated this procedure by strict application of the Laws, I believe that we would not do anyone any favours as far as the enjoyment of the game is concerned. I strongly believe that as Referees, we should look more to increasing the enjoyment for players and spectators, and not look too closely at ways in which we can decrease those safer types of ‘bending of the Laws’ methods that have been accepted by stealth over the years. This is one area of the Law that most Referees take their mark from what is going on around them, rather than applying strict Law. (Web Master)
After all, as the great Ken Aston said,
"Referees are not supposed to be Law Books on Legs."
(Many thanks to Peter Rockett for the interesting question.)

Question 16:  Should a 'studs-up' challenge for the ball always be penalised?

Answer 16: It is fairly obvious when a player makes what is commonly known as an "over the top" tackle. This is where the perpetrator has little or no intention of playing the ball, but stamps down over the top of the ball. Players' intentionally raising their feet, studs showing, above the level of the ball when tackling, can also cause untold (career ending) damage to an opponent's lower leg. These are easy calls to make, and should be swiftly dealt with.

It is nearly impossible for players to always keep their studs facing completely downwards when making a tackle. The usual measuring stick, is to use the excellent Law 12 yardstick - of "was the tackle careless, reckless, or made with excess force?" If it was - then the perpetrator should be punished. There can be legal occasions when a player stretches his foot out (with studs showing) to trap the ball.

It's not so much the manoeuvre itself that counts, but more so, the proximity of an opponent.

In other words,:

(a) it is perfectly reasonable for a player to make a 'studs up' challenge for the ball, if the nearest opponent is 5 yards away.

(b) but it is unacceptable for the same challenge to be made if the ball is at the feet of an opponent.

The Referee has to decide when the danger level between (a) and (b) has been broached. And this is purely decided on the real (or potential) effect to the safety of the opponent.

(Also - See question 14 above)

Question 17:  A defending player and an attacking player make a challenge for the ball. The ball ricochets 10 metres away towards another player. The defending player intentionally kicks the attacking player on the ankle in frustration. The ball was nowhere near either of these players when the kick on the ankle was made. The ball is in play at all times. What action should the Referee take?

Answer 17: The Referee should stop play, issue a red card and send-off the defending player for violent conduct. The game should be restarted with a direct free kick to the attacking team, to be taken from the spot where the defending player kicked the attacking player. If the incident occurred inside of the defender's penalty area, then a penalty kick should be awarded to the attacking team.
(Thanks to Ron Palmer for the question). 

Question 18: There is a Direct Free Kick foul committed just past midfield, into the defending team's half. The ball was placed on the ground, but one of the opposing defenders was standing about 3 feet from the ball with no intention of moving. The attacker opted to play a quick restart. The ball was chipped to the side of the defending player who was 3 feet from the ball (in terms of time, the kick took place about 2 seconds after the ball was placed, and about 5 seconds after the foul took place). The defender stuck his leg out and deflected the ball back towards the opposing (attacking team's) end of the field, where an offside team-mate takes possession of the ball. The Referee blew the whistle. Should the Referee give the offside, Indirect Free Kick, way back in the attackers half? Or should he allow a retake of the Direct Free Kick foul and possibly caution the defender?

Answer 18: The question states that the defender had 'no intention' of retreating, This is clearly failing to respect the required distance at a free kick (Law 12).

Failing to retreat the correct distance during a free kick is specifically named caution offence in accordance with Law 12.  
A yellow card should therefore be issued. 

(Thanks to my old friend Grizzlierbear for the question). WebMaster

Question 19: Can a player make a legal tackle as hard as he likes, so long as he gets the ball first?

Answer ?: The Law book reference, allowing Referees to penalise a player if he tackled an opponent but made contact with the opponent before touching the ball, was surreptitiously taken out of Law 12 for season 2008/2009. This was not a discussion point at the respective annual IFAB, and its subtle removal initially caused some concern. 

It seems that this was taken out of the Law book, because the statement inferred that a player could tackle an opponent using as much force as he wanted to, so long as he touched the ball first. This is why players still argue that they are innocent when they commit hard tackles that win (touch) the ball first. Players seem to think that this is allowed, even when they deliberately follow through with the potential of causing harm to the opponent. 

[Quote] from Ken Riddon former Director of Refereeing at The FA and former Vice Chairman of the UEFA Referee Committee in The FA 'Refereeing Magazine Vol. 9 April 09) 
Physical changes need careful scrutiny by Referees, with concern being shown for the safety and welfare of the opponents. Referees often need to ask themselves (and find immediate on-file answers) what is actually behind a player's behaviour or attitude?
Is it a genuine challenge only for the ball?
Is it a tackle made in the knowledge that it may well risk causing injury (manner of challenge)?
Is it a relatively minor challenge (perhaps involving shirt-holding, tripping, etc) or one of deliberate handling of the ball but with an unfair tactical purpose (circumstances of the challenge)?
To answer such questions properly and reach appropriate and correct solutions, match officials need to consider not only the mechanics of such tackles or actions, but also think about the manner in which they are made, their location and their designed purpose. [Quote End]

The inference now, is that any tackle that is careless, reckless or uses excessive force should be penalised by a direct free kick. There is no clause (or never has been) that allows a player (who touches the ball first) when tackling another player (carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force), to be outside of the Law. The player's intent when making a tackle is something that Referees need to gauge.

In short, if a kick, trip, jump, charge, push or tackle is careless, reckless or uses excessive force, it is a direct free kick. It makes no odds whether the ball is touched first or not. The driving force behind this is (as always) the safety of the players. If we allowed players to bypass this principle, there would be many more broken legs to contend with!

This is the end of the Law 12 Direct Free Kick Page.

Take me back to the top of this page