repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.3
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (August 2004, week 1)Back to main SOCREF-L pageJoin or leave SOCREF-LReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:43:10 -0700
Reply-To:   Terry Broderick <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:   Discussion of Topics for Soccer Referees <[log in to unmask]>
From:   Terry Broderick <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:   Re: IFK Offense (NISOA)
In-Reply-To:   <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed

If I assume that the "illegal" part of the charge is that the ball is not within playing distance, this fits the description of an IFK awarded for a fair charge away from the ball, as was part of the LOTG prior to the rewrite. I suspect this got into the list of NCAA Indirect Free Kick violations as a carry over from the older version of the LOTG. That interpretation is in effect, since, as we know from an Orwellian instruction about the rewrite, anything not retained in the rewrite is still in effect, unless the rewrite removed it. Still in either venue FIFA LOTG v NCAA, a fair charge away from the ball is seldom if ever called.

If you want to see a place in the NCAA Rules, where a DFK violation under FIFA LOTG morphs into a IFK under NCAA, look at Rule 15.2 A.R. 200, when taking a throw-in, the ball is thrown in a violent or unsporting manner at the body of an opponent. Restart - IFK

Under LOTG this would be Striking, DKF.

At 09:47 AM 8/4/2004 -0400, Wayne Pav wrote: >NISOA Rule 13 Section 3.L states: Charging illegally when ball is not w/in >playing distance, unless being obstructed. ≠ is an IFK offense. Is this >not a push, which would require a DFK restart? A.R. 175 goes on to explain >what is meant by an illegal charge, but I still donít understand the >difference in application. I think it was Shakespeare who claimed ďa push >by any other name is still a push ≠ unless done shoulder to shoulder, w/ in >playing distance of the ball, upright, w/ at least 1 foot on the ground, w/ >ball in play.Ē >Wayne Pav

Terry Broderick [log in to unmask]

"A man must love a thing very much if he not only practices it without any hope of fame and money, but practices it without any hope of doing it well". G. K. Chesterton

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SOCREF-L page

LISTSERV.URI.EDU CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager