A&H

Cardiff v Bournemouth - Disallowed Goal

I thought he was standing on the line, so PK. Could be wrong on that - it's the point of contact after all.

It's not an entirely daft discussion point - there was quite a lot of force in it. Imagine if it happened at parks level, O35. It wouldn't surprise me if the player would take offence at having the ball kicked into him, and it turns into an issue (even if a goal didn't eventuate) - or the player could have taken a dive.

I'm playing devil's advocate....kind of :p

It's the sort of thing that may be more likely to be an issue at parks level. Local low grade AA match, local derby, bit aggro. Striker and keeper had had words before, keeper steps up and clearly belts the ball straight into the striker's back....I know I'm changing the incident a bit.

Food for thought :)
 
The Referee Store
Ahh was he?? I assumed he was stood outside but could be wrong... I'm just throwing things out there to generate discussion tbh, much like you did :p
 
one said:
Did anyone notice the caution may have been for deliberately kicking the ball into the net after the whistle had gone? Although I disagree with disallowing the goal, I agree with the caution once it was disallowed. If you look at the manner the player kicking it in, its fairly clear he knew the whistle had gone and then comes the pretence.
.
Click to expand...

Good shout - hadn't thought of that one.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
It's not an entirely daft discussion point - there was quite a lot of force in it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's daft at all. As I said up-thread, if the keeper had taken a couple of steps and thrown the ball at the player's back with similar force what would you do?

We all know that if a player takes a throw-in and throws the ball at an opponent carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force then that is an offence so why would it be different for the keeper?

I think that the keeper here as been, at the very least, careless and could be quite justifiably penalised - possibly even for VC (although that would be a bit of a stretch and I would have to be 100% sure that the keeper meant to hit the player and that the player had not moved at all.)

Goal awarded, GK sent off for VC...what could possibly go wrong?:eek:
 
Never, ever, EVER an infraction. Goal, goal, goal.
SM you are stating that CptBlood is using his opinion and not fact to allow the goal.
The onus of proof in the LOTG is on anyone wanting to disallow the goal.
Any lack of this means the match continues and goal is awarded.
 
By the same token there is proof; the player has not allowed the gk to release the ball by his presence. :rolleyes: Going around in circles here.

like I have said a good few times since the op, I can live with either outcome, can see either point of view. :) I think I also said at least twice that I don't think I would disallow...

I stand by one thing though; From a pure law basis, this situation is not explicitly dealt with. All arguments given (including what I have provided) are extrapolations of other laws and not exact. They are by very definition interpretations and opinions.
 
It's a classic can of worms situation, similar in morality to giving a pen for a shove in the area. Seems reasonably legal but the player is putting himself and the keeper in danger by being there so for me correct caution for playing in a dangerous manner. I'm sure others will disagree but as I said it's a can of worms.
 
I don't really see how standing still whilst someone runs up and kicks the ball at you can be PIADM. If this were the case then all defensive walls at free kicks should be penalised for the same thing...
 
What I find kinda scary about this particular thread is that it highlights why calls for greater consistency from officials will currently be a complete waste of breath. For me, this is a simple and straightforward mess up by a keeper who could have solved the situation by simply taking a couple of steps to his left or right .. the fact that so many other refs (who are obviously passionate and motivated, hence their presence on this forum) view it fundamentally differently, suggests that refs and those in charge of the LOTG need to do a much better job of keeping our 'house in order' ...
 
Declan said:
It's a classic can of worms situation, similar in morality to giving a pen for a shove in the area. Seems reasonably legal but the player is putting himself and the keeper in danger by being there so for me correct caution for playing in a dangerous manner. I'm sure others will disagree but as I said it's a can of worms.
Click to expand...
I'm not following at all - who's guilty of PIADM? Where is that coming into play?

For those who think this is a foul - I assume then that if a Red player is standing on the field minding his own business and a Blue player runs into him that the Red player will always have the FK against him? I mean, isn't that what people are saying? That there's a page in the laws (I must have missed it) that says players need to run out of each other's way, and the attacker always needs to run away from the keeper when he's holding the ball?

Or is there a page that says there's an exclusion zone around the PA?

If we're talking about consistency, THAT is what a foul here means. The notion that you can stand still, not move a muscle (and by not having run into somebody's way) and be guilty of a foul (aside from DHB where there is some requirement to take action to avoid the ball) is just absurd to me; it's completely removed from every letter and intent of the law, everywhere.
 
Russell Jones said:
What I find kinda scary about this particular thread is that it highlights why calls for greater consistency from officials will currently be a complete waste of breath. For me, this is a simple and straightforward mess up by a keeper who could have solved the situation by simply taking a couple of steps to his left or right .. the fact that so many other refs (who are obviously passionate and motivated, hence their presence on this forum) view it fundamentally differently, suggests that refs and those in charge of the LOTG need to do a much better job of keeping our 'house in order' ...
Click to expand...
This is the nail hit plumb on the head. It's so good, we should probably stop any further discussion and take a moment of quite reflection on just how insightful this post is. :)

If we had a "post of the week" award, it would be yours sir.
 
Russell Jones said:
those in charge of the LOTG need to do a much better job of keeping our 'house in order' ...
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.

This incident has been hotly disputed on football forums everywhere and yet not a peep (as far as I am aware) from PGMO, the FA, FIFA or anyone remotely responsible for the application and interpretation of the laws to clarify whether the ref was correct or not.
 
Don't even get me started on those in charge of the LOTG. Law 11 couldn't be a clearer example on just how utterly incompetent they are at actually looking after the LOTG!!!!
 
A digression from the main point of this thread. The clip starts with the keeper in control of the ball. He releases the ball on 10 seconds. :hmmm: :confused:
 
Would you really caution for kicking the ball into the net? Think if everytime the whistle goes for offside for example, how many times do players finish the job anyway? Would you book for that even though the whistle has gone? I for one wouldnt, far too many caution report forms to fill in otherwise, its not as if hes booted the ball into the stands or upfield is it, the net stops it and the ball bounces back, the amount of time it takes Lee Mason to walk over and issue the card it hardly delays the restart does it? Its not really dissent or violent conduct either. Just 2 very wrong decisions in my eyes (with or without the red tinted glasses on), too much of a high profile game for mistakes such as that amoung others im afraid, really pleased Ant Taylor is on our game today!
 
Steve - why does blowing the whistle mean the striker gets to kick the ball anyway?

It's dissent by action and delaying the restart. The idea that 'it went into the net so it's ok' is a myth, and it needs to stop.

Of course, you want to give players the benefit of the doubt, and if you could argue that they had committed before the whistle was blown, then no card. but it's quite clear that he had ample time to stop, chose not to and just kicked it into the net in protest. That's a card, every day of the week.

Following your line of though - booting the ball into the standards isn't delaying either, as a ballboy will just throw the ball tot he keeper :)
 
I get what your saying of it could be construed as dissent but it happens a lot so for MC purposes im not going to caution, BUT its not delaying restart at all as it takes Lee Mason around 60 seconds to get down the pitch, issue the card and get underway, the 5 second thud of the ball to the net and back isnt a delay. I wouldnt find it dissent though, like I said if he booted it up the pitch or into the stands then Id caution but into the net, no, not for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top