The Ref Stop

GoalKick

Status
Not open for further replies.
lincs22 said:
This can be the only decision. The moment the goal keeper plays the ball a second time - it is no longer in play, just as a ball going out for a throw-in.

There is no advantage, as play CANNOT continue.

Anybody arguing advantage can be applied and a goal can be given, must also allow advantage when the ball has left the FOP, or play can continue after the whistle has been blown.:dummy:

This is not an offence under Law 11 or 12, but it under Law 13.
Click to expand...
Not wishing to be confrontational. But this is a genuine learning curve for us all.
Law 5. 3
Powers and Duties
The Referee
Advantage
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.
Law 9
Ball out of Play
The ball is out of play when :
Play has been stopped by the referee
 
The Ref Stop
Grasshopper said:
Not wishing to be confrontational. But this is a genuine learning curve for us all.
Law 5. 3
Powers and Duties
The Referee
Advantage
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.
Law 9
Ball out of Play
The ball is out of play when :
Play has been stopped by the referee
Click to expand...
My point being if the referee has not stopped play the ball remains "Live" and so advantage may be given.
Please advise
 
I've noticed infringements are still referred to in relation to dropped balls and second touch offences.
1) Can you play advantage in general after a second touch infringement following a set piece restart?

Related but more specific point based on the classic 'never going to happen' scenario

2) Goalkeeper takes a goal kick and after the ball leaves the penalty area is gets blown back towards his goal, the goalkeeper tries to save it with his hands but fails and the ball goes in the net

On point 2) my interpretation would be you can't allow a goal - if advantage is allowed - as this may be considered as being scored directly from the restart.

Response
"
Thank you for your e mail
A printer's error left infringements in the text!
In principle, advantage can be played for 2nd touch offences
In the example you give the decision would be a corner kick as the ball needs to be touched by a 2nd player
Best wishes
David Elleray
IFAB Technical Director"
 
bester said:
I've noticed infringements are still referred to in relation to dropped balls and second touch offences.
1) Can you play advantage in general after a second touch infringement following a set piece restart?

Related but more specific point based on the classic 'never going to happen' scenario

2) Goalkeeper takes a goal kick and after the ball leaves the penalty area is gets blown back towards his goal, the goalkeeper tries to save it with his hands but fails and the ball goes in the net

On point 2) my interpretation would be you can't allow a goal - if advantage is allowed - as this may be considered as being scored directly from the restart.

Response
"
Thank you for your e mail
A printer's error left infringements in the text!
In principle, advantage can be played for 2nd touch offences
In the example you give the decision would be a corner kick as the ball needs to be touched by a 2nd player
Best wishes
David Elleray
IFAB Technical Director"
Click to expand...
Thank you very much David Elleray for finally clearing the confusion for all of us. The answer makes perfect sense to a point of Law that has proven to be surprisingly complex.
 
I also really like Mr Elleray's answer, which makes complete sense. If a foul is committed during a game, and we play advantage then (after the two or three seconds grace has expired) there is no calling it back, we treat play as if the foul never happened (in terms of gameplay at least, obviously it still can be treated as misconduct at the next stoppage.). So, it feels totally right, if we play advantage for the double touch to act in gameplay terms as if it never happened, which means that the player kicked a goal kick into play, and it effectively blew directly into his own net - a corner. Or, as it has been pointed out, we have the right to decide not to play advantage and give the IFK.

This approach also solves the problem of the player scuffing a kick-off and then double touching it with a lob over his own keeper. We either give the double touch (IFK) or else play advantage, which means the touch never happened and he therefore kicked the KO directly into his own net...again, a corner.

And let us remember that while we can certainly apply advantage to offside offences, we cannot ever play advantage if the ball has gone out of play (over a touchline for example) or not come into play (a goal kick that never left PA say). This is all totally logical and clear.

And finally, though I am not saying it necessarily happened in this thread, we must be very careful about over use of "spirit of the game" or "match control". Especially if we invoke these as a means of avoiding clearly prescribed actions in the Laws which we are too scared to properly administer.
 
Or just scroll back to when tutor and observer said as much

But hey, how many posts know better? Level 7 refs and so on..

There is a reason why some folk are new, learning and enthusiastic referees and there is a reason why some folk are observers....
 
bester said:
I've noticed infringements are still referred to in relation to dropped balls and second touch offences.
1) Can you play advantage in general after a second touch infringement following a set piece restart?

Related but more specific point based on the classic 'never going to happen' scenario

2) Goalkeeper takes a goal kick and after the ball leaves the penalty area is gets blown back towards his goal, the goalkeeper tries to save it with his hands but fails and the ball goes in the net

On point 2) my interpretation would be you can't allow a goal - if advantage is allowed - as this may be considered as being scored directly from the restart.

Response
"
Thank you for your e mail
A printer's error left infringements in the text!
In principle, advantage can be played for 2nd touch offences
In the example you give the decision would be a corner kick as the ball needs to be touched by a 2nd player
Best wishes
David Elleray
IFAB Technical Director"
Click to expand...
This answer doesnt make sense. He says yes you can play advantage, in principle.
But DE says that its a corner. Not an idfk offence. I almost think the question is misunderstood and that he is answering as if the keeper hasnt touched the ball which the question could certainly be read that way ( no offence meant :))

Nice to know that advantage can be apllied for technical offences. Gives us a definitive answer on a recurring debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Ciley Myrus said:
But hey, how many posts know better? Level 7 refs and so on...
Click to expand...
That is actually quite disrespectful.

Ifab have clearly stated advantage can be applied. Something which the observers categorically said couldnt be done. Period. So those lebevel 7s that know nothing about the laws have actually applied them almost correctly..

To.coin your own phrase this a referee forum where people are allowed to discuss and debate their interpretations. Just because one poster says one thing does not mean end of thread.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Or just scroll back to when tutor and observer said as much

But hey, how many posts know better? Level 7 refs and so on..

There is a reason why some folk are new, learning and enthusiastic referees and there is a reason why some folk are observers....
Click to expand...
And what's the reason some people are condescending ****ers?
 
Stay on topic, please. Or we will close the thread.

We are here to discuss, not name calling.
 
Exactly where do people think that the LOTG permit a goal?? A player cannot score directly against themselves.
'Directly' has always been a reference to a 2nd person. Let's understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter here!!!
 
bester said:
I've noticed infringements are still referred to in relation to dropped balls and second touch offences.
1) Can you play advantage in general after a second touch infringement following a set piece restart?

Related but more specific point based on the classic 'never going to happen' scenario

2) Goalkeeper takes a goal kick and after the ball leaves the penalty area is gets blown back towards his goal, the goalkeeper tries to save it with his hands but fails and the ball goes in the net

On point 2) my interpretation would be you can't allow a goal - if advantage is allowed - as this may be considered as being scored directly from the restart.

Response
"
Thank you for your e mail
A printer's error left infringements in the text!
In principle, advantage can be played for 2nd touch offences
In the example you give the decision would be a corner kick as the ball needs to be touched by a 2nd player
Best wishes
David Elleray
IFAB Technical Director"
Click to expand...
Why a corner kick if the first offence was a IFK offence and it was in the penalty area? As @JamesL said i think DE has misinterpreted the question.

A different scenario: A free kick is taken by a defender (not the goal keeper) from outside the PA. The free kick is a pass to the goal keeper. The ball hits a bump on the ground and bounces over the keeper's foot. The goal keeper dives back, gets his hands to the ball but fails to stop it going in his net.

This scenario is clearly a goal according to the LOTG and DE's 'touch by second player' explanation. But you can use the same 'match control', 'atmosphere' or 'common sense' arguments to disallow the goal and award a IFK.

Disallowing what is legitimate goal according to LOTG using those arguments leads to a replay of the game if the scoring team does not win the game.
 
There was some recent clarification/correction made to remove confusion on the word 'directly' when the ball enters goal from a dropped ball. The glossary now has a definition for Indirect Free Kick which means the ball has to touch 'another' player before allowing a goal. However the work 'directly' is used numerous times throughout the the LOTG without clarifying if it mean without touching another player. This leads to confusions is in the OP.

In a Throw In for example, the thrower sees an opponent is going to get to the ball first so he kicks the ball to his own goal keeper before it touches anyone else. You can play advantage if you see an opponent chasing it. But what if the ball goes into his own goal without touching anyone else? The laws say "A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in". Does directly mean without touching anyone after the restart? Or does it mean without touching anyone 'else' after the restart?
 
JamesL said:
This answer doesnt make sense. He says yes you can play advantage, in principle.
But DE says that its a corner. Not an idfk offence. I almost think the question is misunderstood and that he is answering as if the keeper hasnt touched the ball which the question could certainly be read that way ( no offence meant :))

Nice to know that advantage can be apllied for technical offences. Gives us a definitive answer on a recurring debate.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong here and quite possibly am. But I think DE is awarding a corner in this scenario as opposed to a idfk to take the " middle ground ". Recognising the ball has left the field of play not having touched a 2nd player, and the keeper has not changed the outcome as the ball was heading into the net anyway. I think this is a fair and well thought out decision.
 
Grasshopper said:
I could be wrong here and quite possibly am. But I think DE is awarding a corner in this scenario as opposed to a idfk to take the " middle ground ". Recognising the ball has left the field of play not having touched a 2nd player, and the keeper has not changed the outcome as the ball was heading into the net anyway. I think this is a fair and well thought out decision.
Click to expand...
I suppose we'll never know. Wink wink @bester.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top