Eh, I think that ball is live cause he steps on it? Is it mandatory for the ball to move?

It has to move a distance equal to the circumference of the ball, IIRC.

I *think* the whole ball rotation thing applies to indirect kicks. If it is an indirect kick the ball must do one full rotation before being touched by another player for it to be live(2 players have to touch the ball for a goal to count from an indirect kick). Direct free kick is just live after being touched.

You think wrong.

The only difference between a direct and indirect free kick is that you can't score a goal directly from an indirect free kick.

I think they should try shooting direct from indirect FK's and play for a deflection or the keeper getting a touch. Reflex will be to try to save it

I think my wording may have been confusing. I mean live as in eligible to be scored. Pretty sure in both scenarios if the ball is touched the defending team can go after it.

This is def the way to go, just rare to see indirect free kicks since back passes and 6 second rule never ever get called and those would be the main causes for an indirect FK.

Saw a goal scored this way in a youth game where I was 99% sure the kid shooting the ball had no idea he was taking an indirect free kick and got bailed out by the keeper getting the slightest of touches on the ball.

What?

So you're saying that in the video above, because the player on the right has his foot on the ball, the defender can go and kick it, but if the number 10 had kicked it directly into the goal it'd be a goalkick?

If the freekick was indirect, of course.

Looking around a bit only info I can find says when ball is kicked and moves for it to be in play. No wording about rotation (this is prob an outdated rule), so like many of soccer's rules open to interpretation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re Video: A while back there was a rule where the ball had to make a full rotation before being shot by another player on an indirect free kick for a goal to count. So based on that rule yes if the shooter shot and scored with no one else touching the ball it would be a goal kick (assuming it was an indirect kick). Rules since been changed from what it looks like to say "kicked and moves"

The only times you'd have an indirect free kick in this spot is obstruction or dangerous play since most other indirect free kicks involve keeper stuff in the box.

time to get the thread back on track imo

Wenger offering 40,000,001 or whatever it was for bitey?

GL. Price has improved a bit since Wednesday. Think baids calculated around 0.6 expected pts according to market, it's now around 0.75. They're basically a lock now so restrain yourself.

Edit: nice touch with the arse badge.

Sigh, it's like pulling teeth. This is right, but what about the other part of the question? Is the defender entitled to go for the ball because the player on the right has his foot on top of it?

No. The free kick is taken when the ball is kicked and moved. "Moved" means that the ball has traveled an observable distance though it might be an inch or two. Until that point, the ball is not in play and the normal rule requiring defenders to give 10 yards applies. Referee should stop play, place the ball again and allow the attackers to take the kick. IMO, he should caution the defender if he is being a dick but not if he's genuinely confused.

Can also confirm that the ball moving a circumference is an old rule which was deleted.

Welbeck played an hour today. Might be ready for next week.

:thumbup:

So it makes no difference whether the free kick is direct or indirect, which is what Ducksauce seemed to think.

think we have manure next weekend too. Welbz coming on and scoring the winner would be nice

It's kinda a weird spot, probably comes down to referee's judgement. If the ref deems putting your foot on top of the ball as kicked and moved then yes, if not then no. There is a lot of gray there because at what point does positioning the ball with your feet end and it become eligible to be live?

You'll sometimes see a corner routine where a player places the ball then taps it with his foot as he runs away to let another player take it, the second player then just starts dribbling in.

The indirect/direct different thing was referring to the old rule, not whether touching it would make it in play or not. My use of the word live was bad as it really just referring to if a goal could be scored or not after the action.

United - arse is ~3 weeks from now. So he'll almost certainly have suffered the standard arse 3 week setback by then.

It's not weird at all. If the ref deems the ball has been kicked and moved, then the ball is live and the defender can challenge for the ball, if it was an indirect free kick a goal can be scored with the next touch. If he doesn't, then the defender can't go for the ball and, if indirect, a goal can't be scored.

?