After being clobbered by Canada (in Toronto) a few weeks ago, an event which after the failure to get into the last World Cup sunk American soccer fans even further into gloom, the U.S. team won comfortably on American soil in the return match. And the scoring started early, in the second minute, which made for a mostly pleasant drama (sorry, Canadian readers).
However, I was intrigued by an incident near the end of the first half, when a Canadian defender scooped up the ball with his foot, kicked it up to his head, and then gave a little tap with his head to send it to his nearby goalie. “Indirect free kick!” according to the ref. The players were confused, and so was I. It’s not very often that a ref’s decision relies on a rule I’ve never heard of before, but this was one such occasion. And obviously the players hadn’t heard of it, either. They kept gesturing to their heads, indicating that he had headed the ball, so it was legal.
Let me explain the basic rule, which was instituted about thirty years ago (and which I have always disliked). That rule says that if players pass the ball back to their goalie by kicking, the goalie is not allowed to handle it. He can handle it, however, if it has been headed to him (or chested) instead of being kicked. And so, the Canadian defender thought that by heading it to his goalie, he was in the clear. But the rule further stipulates that you can’t do this – that is, contrive to get the ball up to your head so that you can head it back – that the ball must be headed in the ordinary course of play.
Sheesh. I sympathize with the Canadians on this one. What a stupid rule. For years we’ve seen goalies scoop up balls that their defenders miskicked and which ended up going backwards instead of forwards. Those are legal, yet the header last night was illegal?! In other words, skill is being penalized, while clumsiness is rewarded. Like I said, a stupid rule.
This was quickly followed by a second incident invoking a rule I had never heard of. The resulting indirect free kick was taken not from the spot where the incident occurred, which was about a yard or two just to the right of the goal, but on the goal-box line (that is, six yards out from the goal line). This makes a certain amount of sense since the actual spot would have been too close to the goal for the defenders to defend from (if they are supposed to be ten yards away), and after all an indirect free kick in the penalty box shouldn’t be too much of a gift to the attacking team. Anyway, I’ve never heard of this business of relocating the ball to that line instead of just leaving it where the incident happened, possibly because indirect free kicks in the opposing team’s penalty area seldom occur.
The important thing is that the U.S. won, so maybe its troubles are behind it.
Congratulation, US!!
Posted by: ligachampion | 11/23/2019 at 02:05 PM