A&H

Cardiff v Bournemouth - Disallowed Goal

The Referee Store
Can you explain why you consider that to be sensible refereeing? I cant see what the attacker did wrong, he was standing still and made no effort to prevent the GK kicking the ball.
 
It is an offence for a player to prevent a goal keeper from releasing the ball from his hands

Player should just get out of the way. As for the second part of my last post; Keeper is lucky that the referee agrees as I can see situations where this could be interpreted differently.

In the interests of full disclosure, do you support one of the teams? ;)
 
SM - Thanks for reply. I guess its down to opinion; but i don't believe the attacker was trying to prevent the GK releasing the ball. He didn't make any movement to the GK.
And in the interests of full disclosure i do not support any of these teams
 
The easiest way to disallow this, for me, would be to say that the ball never left the box, hence the ball was not in play. The player seem to stand on the line, so the entire ball can't have left the area. In that case, new goal kick for me.
 
Morten said:
The easiest way to disallow this, for me, would be to say that the ball never left the box, hence the ball was not in play. The player seem to stand on the line, so the entire ball can't have left the area. In that case, new goal kick for me.
Click to expand...

@Morten ball doesn't have to leave the area, it's in open play? It does look like he's deliberately stood there in the way, rather than it hitting him inadvertently.
 
SM said:
Sensible refereeing. Lucky goal keeper.
Click to expand...

Appalling refereeing. No reason whatsoever to disallow the goal.
The striker is standing there, keeper was standing there, took a few steps than kicked it. You can't argue that the striker blocked the keeper - he didn't do a thing.
Morten said:
The easiest way to disallow this, for me, would be to say that the ball never left the box, hence the ball was not in play. The player seem to stand on the line, so the entire ball can't have left the area. In that case, new goal kick for me.
Click to expand...

This wasn't a goal kick. A goal kick is placed on the ground in the Goal Area. This was an in-play keeper punt. Please let us know if there's any part of that you're not clear on :)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Appalling refereeing. No reason whatsoever to disallow the goal.
The striker is standing there, keeper was standing there, took a few steps than kicked it. You can't argue that the striker blocked the keeper - he didn't do a thing.


This wasn't a goal kick. A goal kick is placed on the ground in the Goal Area. This was an in-play keeper punt. Please let us know if there's any part of that you're not clear on :)
Click to expand...

Yikes, don't know what I was thinking ;-) Was on the tube on my way into work, typed it up on my phone. Of course it was in open play. And of course, the goal should have been allowed then.
 
I can't see why the goal was disallowed, the player had his back to the keeper, so how can he be trying to prevent the ball being kicked. To book the striker too is very poor IMO.
 
That bit was a little baffling.

@CapnBloodbeard - depends on how you read the law. There was no reason for the player to be there. Get out the way.

As I said above, I can see both sides and the keeper is lucky the referee viewed it as he did. Don't really have a strong opinion either way though.
 
Last edited:
Could the goal have been disallowed due to Wilson's movement after the keeper has thrown the ball in the air but before he's kicked it? If you watch the video, he's standing perfectly still but just as the keeper releases the ball, Wilson moves his left leg in what looks like an attempt to put the keeper off. Would this be sufficient to warrant a free kick? Not a fan of either side but hoping someone could help settle a debate amongst friends!
 
SM said:
It is an offence for a player to prevent a goal keeper from releasing the ball from his hands

Player should just get out of the way. As for the second part of my last post; Keeper is lucky that the referee agrees as I can see situations where this could be interpreted differently.

In the interests of full disclosure, do you support one of the teams? ;)
Click to expand...

It's an offence to prevent the keeper releasing the ball. But the attacker has to DO something. The keeper can't kick it into the attacker then cry foul - that's not the attacker preventing him releasing the ball, that's the keeper stuffing up.

And the player shouldn't just get out of the way - no part of the laws ever obligates a player to run out of somebody's way.

As for him having no right to be there - I wholeheartedly disagree. By being there he's forcing the keeper to kick it out rather than roll the ball to himself and dribble it around to run down the clock.

You can't be accused of 'preventing' something if you're just standing there. Much like if you're standing still and somebody runs into you for no reason, you can't be accused of impeding his progress.

@Samiad - the leg movement is so tiny, there's nothing there - it doesn't prevent the kick, and baulking would be potential USB, not an IFK (though this tiny movement of the leg couldn't be considered baulking. Looked like it was just indecision as he started to walk out)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
It's an offence to prevent the keeper releasing the ball. But the attacker has to DO something. The keeper can't kick it into the attacker then cry foul - that's not the attacker preventing him releasing the ball, that's the keeper stuffing up.

And the player shouldn't just get out of the way - no part of the laws ever obligates a player to run out of somebody's way.

As for him having no right to be there - I wholeheartedly disagree. By being there he's forcing the keeper to kick it out rather than roll the ball to himself and dribble it around to run down the clock.

You can't be accused of 'preventing' something if you're just standing there. Much like if you're standing still and somebody runs into you for no reason, you can't be accused of impeding his progress.
)
Click to expand...

The law is unclear and doesn't provide any guidance either way on this issue. What you are applying is your interpretation. The referee on the game applied his. Would I do the same? I don't think so from what we have seen, but I can see why he has done what he has done (aside from the caution).

The rest of your arguments about just standing there is quite weak and the LOTG do make issue of players "just standing there" as in someone standing on a freekick to prevent it being taken. Just standing there. Very different situation I accept, but highlights the logical flaw in your argument. :)

Finally, to be a smart ass; The laws of physics also make very clear that there is no such thing as doing nothing. ;)
 
Personally I'd be inclined to do exactly what the ref does here. He's only there to try and do exactly what he does - which is block the kick. This is about sportsmanship/gamesmanship and needs to be managed wherever possible, but where it happens so fast I would be straight on the whistle and cautioning.

One of the joys of refereeing I guess - we can all interpret these things differently.
 
Samiad said:
Could the goal have been disallowed due to Wilson's movement after the keeper has thrown the ball in the air but before he's kicked it? If you watch the video, he's standing perfectly still but just as the keeper releases the ball, Wilson moves his left leg in what looks like an attempt to put the keeper off. Would this be sufficient to warrant a free kick? Not a fan of either side but hoping someone could help settle a debate amongst friends!
Click to expand...

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: Releasing the ball from hand and the actual kicking of the ball are considered part of the same act. This is why you can't nock the ball away before it touches the foot. Thierry Henry was a famous example of this.

Saw the vid on Sky Sports. Eddie Howe questioned it because his player was standing still. My response to that is, why is the player standing there if not to block the kick? If he had been attempting to move away, even walking away with his back to goal I would have been sympathetic, and perhaps the goal would have stood. Quite simply the player has been cute and tried to circumvent law, and failed. However the 'European flourish' of the card was unnecessary. A calm delivery whilst explaining the decision to the striker would have worked much better.
 
Players stand there because if they don't the goalkeeper will just drop the ball, dribble with it and then kick it off the ground.
 
As I said on a Facebook page, the player turns his back at the last moment so his intent is made clear. As a goalie before refereeing I would be screaming at the ref the moment I've kicked it and probably followed through as high, hard and far as possible to make the attacker think again about standing so close. If he's laying on the floor after getting my size 10 up his behind he won't be collecting the rebound! Plus if there is a coming together then the ref would have to book the attacker for dangerous play as he impeded the goalie! #keepersunion!
 
I'm with Bloodbeard on this one. Attacker is perfectly entitled to 'stand his ground' and ensure the keeper thinks twice about putting ball on the ground instead of kicking from hand. The goalkeeper then has the choice of kicking from anywhere in a very large penalty area .. if he selects the tiny part where he runs the risk of the ball hitting a stationary attacker then more fool him! Interestingly, I'm the first to blow (and maybe caution) for any attacker that actively prevents a quick release by the GK ... just don't think this was one of those occasions ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top