Crewe goal

[ladbroke8745]

Player runs off naturally but when returning, he stops and stays off the field waiting for keeper to drop ball and pounce.
Yes. The keeper should be aware of surroundings but surely there is an offence there by deliberately staying off the field and deceiving the keeper.
Spirit of the game?

 

[RustyRef]

As you said, he went off the pitch naturally and I can't see anything in law that says he must return immediately. Whether spirit of the law or what the game expects, I suspect the vast majority of people in football would expect this to be a goal and just put it down to rank bad goalkeeping. Just look at the reaction of the Northampton defenders, there are no complaints to the referee.

My guess would be the majority of people would be calling the referee a jobsworth if he disallowed the goal, even more so as he's have to caution the scorer. Video here

https://twitter.com/x/status/2091195478385815757

 

[JD1]

I despise it but it cannot be ruled out.

There is not enough in the laws to argue that he has to come back onto the field of play within x amount of seconds

Unsporting yes, but he hasn't left deliberatly so theres nothing that can be done.

As a ref here you just take your choice of which hill you want to die on really

 

[Big Cat]

The pamphlet is not intended to cover every scenario
A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does
not commit an offence.
I would indicate that this player is expected to return to the FOP without delay. If they delay their return unduly, they have left the FOP without the referee's permission, should be cautioned and the goal ruled out. That's without getting into the 'spirit of the game'
Ironically, this player did not need to remain off the FOP to achieve his objective. He could easily have taken a step forward

 

[JD1]

The pamphlet is not intended to cover every scenario
A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does
not commit an offence.
I would indicate that this player is expected to return to the FOP without delay. If they delay their return unduly, they have left the FOP without the referee's permission, should be cautioned and the goal ruled out. That's without getting into the 'spirit of the game'
Ironically, this player did not need to remain off the FOP to achieve his objective. He could easily have taken a step forward

Its a great argument and one I would stick with if in the moment my 'heart' had chosen to disallow the goal, which I think I would have in real time.

I agree if a player chooses to not return to the FOP then he has effectively 'deliberatly left'

But fundamentally its flawed and wrong.

 

[one]

Keeping in mind USB is open ended.

Deceiving opponents can be considered smart playing and a skill or it can be considered USB (think Paradinha penalties before it came into law, or taking corner kicks but pretending to leave it for a team mate). In this case he has deliberately stayed off the field of play in order to deceive the keeper. For me it is USB. It would be a hard sell though.

 

[bester]

This is how to do it, slowly returning but not actively stopping

I think there was one when someone hid inside the goal but they were on the pitch slightly

As @Big Cat says just put a toe on the pitch and he porbably still wouldn't see you.

 

[JD1]

The worst part is when he goes to step on the field and hesitates to maintain his position off of it before running on.

Its proper s**tehousery

 

[RustyRef]

The pamphlet is not intended to cover every scenario
A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does
not commit an offence.
I would indicate that this player is expected to return to the FOP without delay. If they delay their return unduly, they have left the FOP without the referee's permission, should be cautioned and the goal ruled out. That's without getting into the 'spirit of the game'
Ironically, this player did not need to remain off the FOP to achieve his objective. He could easily have taken a step forward

All fair points, I just don't think any referee at this level is going to create problems for themselves by disallowing a goal when there are zero complaints from the defending team, all their ire was aimed at the keeper. Even more so when it was for something that isn't specifically mentioned in law.

I'm very sure Pro Ref will fully back the referee on this one, not that they'll have to I suspect as Northampton seemingly have no issues with it.

 

[Ori]

I despise it but it cannot be ruled out.

There is not enough in the laws to argue that he has to come back onto the field of play within x amount of seconds

Unsporting yes, but he hasn't left deliberatly so theres nothing that can be done.

As a ref here you just take your choice of which hill you want to die on really

I think you could argue that when he hesitates to get back in he is now officially off the field of play and hence I would argue you fan caution for entering field play without permission.

Regardless equally can caution for unsporting behaviour l, unspecified.

 

[socal lurker]

IMO, there is a point at which delay or hiding gets to the level of USB. I don’t think this is remotely close to either of those lines. A professional GK should be embarrassed by being unaware of where opponents are. GK no more affected by where he was outside the playing area than if he had been 6” closer with his toe on the line.

 

[Ori]

IMO, there is a point at which delay or hiding gets to the level of USB. I don’t think this is remotely close to either of those lines. A professional GK should be embarrassed by being unaware of where opponents are. GK no more affected by where he was outside the playing area than if he had been 6” closer with his toe on the line.

I disagree here. It’s clearly u sporting behaviour. Like shouting when someone is about to kick the ball.
Either way, it’s certainly not in the spirit of the game.
As for the keeper, yes he should be more aware, but in the same light, he doesn’t expect a player to come in from outside the field and take the ball off him.

 

[socal lurker]

I disagree here. It’s clearly u sporting behaviour. Like shouting when someone is about to kick the ball.

I don’t think it is remotely like shouting.

And I don’t think it rises to the level of USB within the laws of the game. He doesn’t hide behind the post or mix with photographers. He doesn’t lurk off the field for a long time. He is a few inches off the field and delays for a couple of seconds. IMO it’s a huge stretch to get to USB here. Deception is part of the game. 6” closer and there wouldn’t even be the possibility of USB here. I don’t think any professional ref is going to stretch to find an excuse to take back this goal.

 

[Kent Ref]

Keeping in mind USB is open ended.

Deceiving opponents can be considered smart playing and a skill or it can be considered USB (think Paradinha penalties before it came into law, or taking corner kicks but pretending to leave it for a team mate). In this case he has deliberately stayed off the field of play in order to deceive the keeper. For me it is USB. It would be a hard sell though.

I AGREE..

Once a player goes off the FOP, unless they are injured, it's thier job to get back on ASAP. This player has performed USB and gained an unfair ADVANTAGE by deliberately delaying.

Yes, dealing with it would be the HARD option but morally correct.

Why do you have to worry about player reactions when using the LOTG?

 

[RefereeX]

Even as a Northampton supporter nothing immediately screamed at me that this should be disallowed. Once I saw others questioning the legal element of it I spoke with my former coach who operates at the top level and he also said everyone is looking at the goalkeeper here, not the referee. Why would you change that when law isn't clear one way or the other.
I do think it's unsporting, but it would take a brave ref to stick his head above the parapet there.

 

[Big Cat]

All fair points, I just don't think any referee at this level is going to create problems for themselves by disallowing a goal when there are zero complaints from the defending team, all their ire was aimed at the keeper. Even more so when it was for something that isn't specifically mentioned in law.

I'm very sure Pro Ref will fully back the referee on this one, not that they'll have to I suspect as Northampton seemingly have no issues with it.

What would happen in golf is that this incident would become enshrined in the rules because it sets the precedent
Anything not directly covered by the rules goes into a much more comprehensive book, called 'Decisions on the Rules of Golf'. It's like case law
Alas, in football, it might get lost in IFAB social media Q&A or different confederations or national FA's will take their own individual view of things and we'll end up with inconsistent refereeing of future occurrences, pretty much guaranteed. Partly why the governance and application of football Law is no longer fit for purpose in the modern era

The veganity of the rules fuels the flawed mentality of needing to sell decisions. We need clear rules and we need to apply them and then deal with the behavioural consequences without being 'scared', more akin with pretty much every other sport

 

[one]

One of the biggest referee (and other roles too) traits I think every referee has to have bags fulls of is courage. Everyone has some but it takes those with big bag fulls to make a big call like this when you know is the right call but no one is looking for it. Dare I say, it is almost the opposite of safe refereeing. But unfortunately the way the promotion system works in many countries making controversial decisions works against your chances and going with the flow helps it.

In this case it would would have made it a lot easier to blow the whistle as soon as the player challenges the keeper so there is no goal to disallow.

Of course all my opinion.

 

[RefereeX]

One of the biggest referee (and other roles too) traits I think every referee has to have bags fulls of is courage. Everyone has some but it takes those with big bag fulls to make a big call like this when you know is the right call but no one is looking for it. Dare I say, it is almost the opposite of safe refereeing. But unfortunately the way the promotion system works in many countries making controversial decisions works against your chances and going with the flow helps it.

In this case it would would have made it a lot easier to blow the whistle as soon as the player challenges the keeper so there is no goal to disallow.

Of course all my opinion.

I don't disagree, and do agree with the line in bold, but then where do you draw the line? If you're disallowing it or stopping play, presumably you have to caution the player for unsporting behaviour, so then would you do it as soon as you seen him hide by the goalpost? Because I feel that wouldn't be received well at all.

 

[Archer]

There are FIVE Northampton players in the box at the time and none of them spotted him? Wakey wakey.

 

[Big Cat]

One of the biggest referee (and other roles too) traits I think every referee has to have bags fulls of is courage. Everyone has some but it takes those with big bag fulls to make a big call like this when you know is the right call but no one is looking for it. Dare I say, it is almost the opposite of safe refereeing. But unfortunately the way the promotion system works in many countries making controversial decisions works against your chances and going with the flow helps it.

In this case it would would have made it a lot easier to blow the whistle as soon as the player challenges the keeper so there is no goal to disallow.

Of course all my opinion.

I don't think you need to be all that brave to disallow this goal FWIW

I do think the practice of refereeing out of fear and the need to 'sell' everything is self-perpetuating the problems associated with the culture of the game. He's remained off the pitch without due cause and should be cautioned as such. That's closer to a binary consideration than USB
Simple really IMO