Thanks to you and NoNukes for the answers. I guess I still have a few questions about where players stand in the line.
carreine writes:
Where are offensive players allowed to be in the line?
Anywhere at least ten yards from the ball (see above).
I understand the reason behind defensive players having to be ten yards from the ball, but why the offensive players since the closer they are to the ball the further they are from the goalie? Can I assume this only applies to offensive players who are in front of the ball, that as many offensive players as like can stand close behind the ball?
It would make sense for the rules to say that defensive players can't be within ten yards of the ball, whether in back or in front, because otherwise they could stand directly in back of the ball and make it impossible to kick. Since you never see this I assume the rules cover it.
Since every player has a right to his place on the pitch, in a set play, especially a free kick like this one where the defense really needs to create a line of its own players, how do opposing players settle who gets a place they both want?
Why did the Russian push the Uruguayans given that it made the line three players narrower, even though it gave his goalie a better view?
You've answered your own question. The keeper couldn't see where the ball was coming from. The defender tried to clear his line of sight before the shot (clear foul, in my opinion, but irrelevant in this case since it was a goal).
Had they not been pushed, what were the Uruguayans planning to do? Step aside to create a clearer shot? If so, then why did the Russian help them step to the side by pushing them since that's what the Uruguayans wanted anyway? Plus the Russian vacated his own spot in the line, which would have been occupied had he done nothing (not that it mattered since the ball passed through the line where the Uruguayans had been).
You seem to feel that if the free kick attempt had not ended up as a goal that the referee would have been justified calling a foul on the Russian player. Since the foul would have been in the box wouldn't that have been a penalty kick? If so, why would the Russian risk it? Was he actually risking nothing since the ref knew the Uruguayans wanted to move to the side anyway, and so wouldn't call a foul?
And would it be correct to say that whether Russians get called for a foul for pushing Uruguayans that it would depend upon the refs interpretation of Uruguayan intent?
quote:
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
(...)
holds an opponent
—"The Laws of the Game"
I don't see what lack of clarity there is there. Are referees taking the view that holding someone's shirt is not the same as holding an opponent?
Some of the holding I saw in the box that wasn't called was extreme, sometimes very much like a bear hug. Do refs tend to ignore fouls when there's no harm (in the run of play) or injury?
One of the reasons Americans find boring baseball so intriguing is because the interplay of the rules causes so many interesting situations. It's beginning to seem to me that the same is true of soccer, though there's a more interpretational aspect to it. I watch our home team Revolution in MLS soccer, but the nature of the play is different. Tactics are more primitive, the game isn't so physical, and there seems to be more play acting after fairly minor contact.
Not that some of the play acting at the World Cup wasn't pretty bad, too. Wide receivers in American Football wear very little padding (because it slows them down and makes them less agile), and they usually pop up from violent contact time and again. Soccer players go down (first launching themselves into the air to make the fall more spectacular is common) and roll around in supposed great pain on the slightest pretext. I've been hit hard occasionally during athletics, and rolling around in pain isn't the response. The period after the shock of impact usually involves gong to ground but also a cessation of most motion while one assesses how much pain is coming (it doesn't happen immediately) and whether there is any injury. The refs have seen it all before countless times and seem to mostly ignore it or at least wait a considerable time with the player not rising before calling a stoppage in play, except for head injuries. In fact, head injuries seem almost the only ones where soccer players react genuinely. Two players go up to head a ball, their heads knock, there's a delay before the players realize they've been struck in the head, and they go down and stay there stationary. That's what genuine injury looks like, not rolling around writhing in pain. I once had the equivalent of spikes rake across my calf (I ran into the end of a fence) - rolling around on the ground writing in pain was not the reaction.
Sorry, I went on too long about that. I just don't like to see aspects of the fakery of pro wrestling on the soccer field.
--Percy