When I talk about ‘fouls against team-mates’, most people will probably think of violently striking a team-mate, or punching them in the face or starting a brawl on the pitch. And don’t get me wrong, that is classified as violent conduct:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

But this is not what I’m talking about. There is a more general provision that is part of Law 12, more precisely Law 12.4, which states that:

If the ball is in play and a player commits a physical offence inside the field of play against:

• an opponent – an indirect or direct free kick or penalty kick

• a team-mate, substitute, substituted or sent-off player, team official or a match official – a direct free kick or penalty kick

Thus any physical offense in Law 12 can be penalised with a free kick should it be committed against a team-mate: this opens the door not only to acts of violent conduct (i.e. excessive force or brutality), but also to those that are committed carelessly or recklessly, as per the list of direct free kick offences:

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges

• jumps at

• kicks or attempts to kick

• pushes

• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

• tackles or challenges

• trips or attempts to trip

Now, don’t get fooled by the wording here.

This specific quote (which comes before the previous one, as this is from Law 12.1) mentions ‘against an opponent’ to underline the nature of the free kick as a direct free kick when these offences are committed against an opponent; this is in contrast to the list immediately after this one, outlining the offences resulting in an indirect free kick when they’re committed against an opponent. But this does not change the fact that all these actions are still punishable when they’re committed against a team-mate, with the caveat that, as we saw, the resulting free kick will always be direct. The distinction between direct and indirect only exists when the target is an opponent, which is why that specification is made.

So why is it that we are not seeing more of this? An example I can easily picture is a careless exit from the goalkeeper on a corner, which usually results in a penalty kick when he accidentally trips over an opponent; yet why don’t we see the same outcome when the goalkeeper accidentally trips over his own defender? As per the list above, a careless trip is still a foul and Law 12.4 extends this to tripping a team-mate as well.

Some may say the referee is following the spirit of the Laws by not awarding a penalty, but how is this different from a player who is offside by 0.01 inches, or a handball in the most remote corner of the penalty area with no pressure from the opponents? In both cases it sounds kind of silly to blow the whistle—and yet this is exactly what happens, since the Laws are clear and you’d be robbing the opponents of a restart of play by disapplying them.

What do you think? Should referees start enforcing Law 12.4 more strictly, or are you content with the current state of things?