Should All Free Kicks Be Direct ?

[steveoafc]

Whilst watching the liverpool game tonight and seeing another indirect free kick get charged down barely a couple of yards from the taker, is it time to give the attacking side the advantage and allow a direct shot at goal if they so choose?

 

Surely the side gaining the free kick should get an advantage?

As it stands, as soon as you shift the ball a few yards the defending team are on top of you.

Should there be an option to shoot for all free kicks?

[opinions4u]

Yes.

 

It would also save the refereee from having to stick his arm in the air for several seconds after every offside decision.

Edited August 20, 2010 by opinions4u

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

Whilst we're at it, I'd book any player that isn't back 10 yards in ten seconds after the free kick has been given.

[opinions4u]

Whilst we're at it, I'd book any player that isn't back 10 yards in ten seconds after the free kick has been given.

Or those who run across the ball to prevent a quick free kick.

[oafc0000]

Never understood why they all are not direct... Stupid rule...

[OldhamSheridan]

Whilst we're at it, I'd book any player that isn't back 10 yards in ten seconds after the free kick has been given.

 

Do what they do in Brazil(?), where the ref has a spray can of paint and sprays the line down ten yards away. It then becomes blatantly obvious when someone is encroaching.

 

NB. Some are deemed indirect as the foul is deemed less serious. This is so far down the list of changes required it isn't even in the first volume.