GoalKick

[Peter Grove]

an advantage is when a team is offended against

No advantage because, as has been discussed many times before, there is no penal offence against the opponent,

Except that is no longer the law - it used to be, up until 2016 (and probably when the previous discussions took place) but the law changed in the 2016-17 edition. It no longer says, "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage" and which would support the view expressed by Ciley and Brian above. It now says, "allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage" which changes the meaning.

The wording of the law now means that whenever an offence (of any nature) occurs, the advantage can be played if the team that did not commit the offence, would benefit. It no longer requires that the offence be one that is committed against a team, merely that an offence occurred.

You cant play advantage here because as soon as defender takes second touch the LOTG have been infringed.

If that were true, you could never play advantage. According to the LotG Glossary, an offence is "An action which breaks/violates the Laws of the Game."

So every time a player commits an offence, the laws have been infringed, yet the law clearly says that you can play advantage when an offence occurs.

 

[Grasshopper]

That quote doesn't mention anything about the offence having to occur against the non-offending team..

Did an offence occur? Yes
Did the non-offending team benefit? Yes

 

[Grasshopper]

After playing Devil's advocate I think I like James L's response above all others. I think common sense and the "Spirit of the game" come into play here. Not forgetting that the attacking team are essentially getting something for nothing by virtue of the IDFK, after the keeper's comical offence. If the goal were awarded I believe any referee would have great difficulty in selling any decision thereafter.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Except that is no longer the law - it used to be, up until 2016 (and probably when the previous discussions took place) but the law changed in the 2016-17 edition. It no longer says, "allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage" and which would support the view expressed by Ciley and Brian above. It now says, "allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage" which changes the meaning.

The wording of the law now means that whenever an offence (of any nature) occurs, the advantage can be played if the team that did not commit the offence, would benefit. It no longer requires that the offence be one that is committed against a team, merely that an offence occurred.

If that were true, you could never play advantage. According to the LotG Glossary, an offence is "An action which breaks/violates the Laws of the Game."

So every time a player commits an offence, the laws have been infringed, yet the law clearly says that you can play advantage when an offence occurs.

Ok all taken on board, but I think we are missing the key element. An infringement, say, a handball, tackle, push, pull, is all on the say so of the referee. A free kick being touched twice by the kicker or a throw in scored by attacker, is technical, and not something the referee is able to have an opinion on. if the ball does not come out of the 18 at a goal kick, then its not in play, simple, the referee does not get to have an opinion on it. On your basis, a goal kick which is not going to make it out of the 18 so the defender kicks it again to prevent a attacker from scoring instead, would be permitted. It clearly cannot be as the ball is not yet in play. Technical. A standard handball is in the opinion of the referee and thus advantage if required, can be played
If OP incident happens on my park, or a game am watching, I am awarding or looking for, an IDFK to be awarded and nothing typed on this forum is going to change that.

 

[Peter Grove]

On your basis, a goal kick which is not going to make it out of the 18 so the defender kicks it again to prevent a attacker from scoring instead, would be permitted.

No, it does not mean that. In your goal kick scenario as you rightly state, the ball is not in play and advantage, according to the Laws of the Game, is where the referee "allows play to continue ..... etc" so in a situation where the ball is not in play, advantage is not an option. Play cannot be allowed to continue when play is not ongoing. And it's not on my basis, it's on the basis of the Laws of the Game.

 

[Russell Jones]

So, based on everything above, in the OP we would (based on the latest rewrite of the LOTG) be entirely permitted to play advantage and award the goal. However, the 'Spirit of the Game' ethos that is now front and centre allows us to use our judgement and decide not to allow the advantage in this situation. Makes sense to me!

However, the wider discussion is far more important (because you'd hope the OP situation would be extremely rare!) and wide ranging. The ability to play advantage in all situations, whether the offense is technical or non technical, seems only right and sensible where part of our role is to facilitate a match that is as free flowing and enjoyable as possible for all concerned ....

 

[RefJef]

To my mind, the question hinges on whether or not the ball "goes dead" following the second touch. I don't know the answer to this. If the ball does go dead, the idfk, if not, award goal.

An alternative scenario is sometimes helpful. Consider this:

Kick off, Red player taking kick scuffs his kick to a teammate. White attacker races to ball, but red kicker gets another touch before white nicks the ball from him, shoots, lobbing the keeper. Goal or idfk?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If the OP results in advantage and goal then we might as well allow defending throw in to be goals and defending goal kicks which do go blow back in (after leaving the box) and without a touch to be goals also. ....

 

[JamesL]

If the OP results in advantage and goal then we might as well allow defending throw in to be goals and defending goal kicks which do go blow back in (after leaving the box) and without a touch to be goals also. ....

The examples you're providing in your counter debates are entirely different scenarios as a player has played the ball again in the OP.
The laws clearly state a goal cant be scored directly from a throw in or gk. However if the keeper plays the ball again tha part of the law cant be applied as there is no longer a goal being scored directly from the throw in/GK.
For example a defensive throw towards the keeper, keeper tries to save with his hand and makes contact but a goal is scored, what do you do?
You've two options here
1) allow the goal
2) award a idfk
Personally I would award a goal here. This is as a result of poor play by the defending team and advantage to the attacking team can be and in my oponions should be applied as per lotg despite your previous posts saying it cannot be.

Truth be told if the keeper had the where with all to know if it goes in it wouldnt be a goal he'd leave it anyway. He touches it which is why there is a disucssion/debate to be had with regarfs the OP.

We really need to look at this scenario in respect of game management and apply common sense/spirit of the game which is why I agree with you on the outcome should be idfk but the laws do allow you to play "advantage" and yes there will be some referees who say goal..and do you know what? They aren't wrong.
I think the following statement from law 5 is very poignant to this discussion...it says

"Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws
of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’ and will be based on the opinion of the
referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework
of the Laws of the Game.
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including
whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The
decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected."

@Peter Grove has aptly explained why advantage can be applied as per lotg. So any referee who decides goal is entirely entitled to do so as it is their opinion and they are acting within the framework of the laws. And their decision should be respected. Similarly those that wish to stop play and award an idfk again are perfectly allowed to, again, as they are acting within the given framework.
So long as you do 1 of two things (idfk or goal) there is no right or wrong answer as the referee is supported in either outcome in law 5.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

am well aware if keeper gets a touch to said throw that's its a goal....

 

[JamesL]

am well aware if keeper gets a touch to said throw that's its a goal....

So why such difficulty in allowing a goal in the OP scenario? And what does scoring a goal direct from a throw or gk have to do with this discussion then?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Because the kicker of the OP goal kick cant play the ball twice?

million miles away from a defending throw which does touch someone else on the way into the net.

in your game, you feel free to give the goal in the OP scenario.
In my game, I will be giving an IDFK.

 

[JamesL]

in your game, you feel free to give the goal in the OP scenario.
In my game, I will be giving an IDFK.

For starters I have already stated an idfk. My point is that both outcomes are correct and can be supported in law

Because the kicker of the OP goal kick cant play the ball twice?

Its a very similar principle though. Keeper cant play ball with his hands when thrown to him by team mate. In both cases the outcomes are the same if the ball directly enters the goal i.e. corner.
Why can you play advantage for keeper using hands illegally but not for the kicker playing the ball twice illegally?

million miles away from a defending throw which does touch someone else on the way into the net.

The throw in example was first raised by yourself and I am interested in why you think they should be treated differently..

 

[Ciley Myrus]

So, conclusion, everyone is right, either a IDFK or a goal

boring now.....

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

A player can't score directly against themselves from a restart. It's not a goal. It's either an IFK or a corner. Corner is disadvantage, so IFK, nothing more.

 

[santa sangria]

To my mind, the question hinges on whether or not the ball "goes dead" following the second touch. I don't know the answer to this. If the ball does go dead, the idfk, if not, award goal.

An alternative scenario is sometimes helpful. Consider this:

Kick off, Red player taking kick scuffs his kick to a teammate. White attacker races to ball, but red kicker gets another touch before white nicks the ball from him, shoots, lobbing the keeper. Goal or idfk?

From a kick off the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves.
If there is no question that the ball is in play in your scenario. Advantage easy to give in this case (even for those who don't want to give advantage in the case of the OP). Goal. (IMHO)

 

[Grasshopper]

As it would seem the answer to this lays with the opinion of the referee, it comes down to individual application of the LOTG. If your style is to nurture then IDFK. Or a punisher it would be a goal. Both styles are valid in any game so therefore legal.
Happy refereeing chaps and chappettes!

 

[RefJef]

From a kick off the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves.
If there is no question that the ball is in play in your scenario. Advantage easy to give in this case (even for those who don't want to give advantage in the case of the OP). Goal. (IMHO)

So if you are giving advantage here, you must also logically give advantage in the OP and award a goal.

 

[MatthewC]

Those arguing against a goal because of 'match control' or the atmosphere or the match - I personally think that if the OP scenario happened in anything other than a professional game of football, that the expected decision from the players and crowd would be goal. The GK's teammates would be shouting at him for attempting a hoof into strong winds, the other team would be celebrating/laughing. Giving anything other than a goal in a grassroots/semi professional game would, in my opinion, damage match control and raise your profile unnecessarily. Not saying that that's a valid reason for making a decision - but I don't think 'retaining match control' is a valid argument for awarding a free kick.

 

[lincs22]

If, after the ball is in play, the goalkeeper deliberately handles the ball before it
has touched another player:
• a direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if the infringement
occurred outside the goalkeeper’s penalty area, to be taken from the place
where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick)
• an indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if the infringement
occurred inside the goalkeeper’s penalty area, to be taken from the place
where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick)

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.

This is not an offence under Law 11 or 12, but it under Law 13.