Crewe goal

[one]

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.

Not at that time. Without the benefit of hindsight you don't know what he is going to do. There is still a chance that he may not challenge. The problem is the challenging for the ball. The best time to blow is as soon as it is clear he is challenging / going for the ball. Obviously none of us gets to practice this to have the awareness of the situation and it all happens very fast. It is much easier said than done.

And yes absolulty, it is USB in my mind, this is in the same lines as feining to take PK for me.

 

[bester]

Are those saying lack of player reaction is a determining factor going to disallow a goal if the defending team complains ferociously?

 

[one]

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.

Agree. But fear of what? (I have my own answer) Whatever the answer is, it is bravery that makes one overcome it.

 

[socal lurker]

Not at that time. Without the benefit of hindsight you don't know what he is going to do. There is still a chance that he may not challenge. The problem is the challenging for the ball. The best time to blow is as soon as it is clear he is challenging / going for the ball. Obviously none of us gets to practice this to have the awareness of the situation and it all happens very fast. It is much easier said than done.

And yes absolulty, it is USB in my mind, this is in the same lines as feining to take PK for me.

But feinting at the ball on a PK is expressly an offense in the LOTG. I don’t think that comparison helps.

(I also don’t think it’s remotely comparable. The feint at the ball is unfair at a PK (and not any other time) because of the restrictions on the GK movement until the ball is kicked. At any other time, feinting is part of the game. A player a half step behind the GL is no harder for the GK to see than one with a foot on the line. This play would have turned out exactly the same if the attackers toe was on the line, in which he would have been on the field and there would be nothing to discuss. )

 

[one]

But feinting at the ball on a PK is expressly an offense in the LOTG. I don’t think that comparison helps.

The point of the comparison, the practice/trend started a few years before it found its way into the lotg. Was it unsporting before it went into the lotg?
This one would not happen often enough to find its way into the lotg.

If you don't like the PK example then the corner kick example where 'clearly moves' was added to the laws because of it. Or more recently goalkeeper 'unfairly' distracting a kicker at a PK added to the laws (though I dont quite agree with this one).

Realy not sure what words to put it in but I expect cleverness in football to come from skills, strategy or tactics, not being sneaky.

 

[Russell Jones]

Realy not sure what words to put it in but I expect cleverness in football to come from skills, strategy or tactics, not being sneaky.

'Hiding' on the pitch but behind the GK would be equally "sneaky and unsporting". But we wouldn't even be having this discussion if that's what the attacker had done. The reason we are discussing it, is because he was off the FOP. But the reality is,he left the FOP in a legitimate manner and there's no defined time limit for a player to come back on once they've left in this manner.

Whilst I can see both moral sides of this argument, the reality is that disallowing this goal could easily be seen as incorrect in law ... whereas allowing it is clearly within the laws of the game.

 

[bester]

There was a penalty feinting in Brazil. I thought they had banned it before FIFA but apparently not.

 

[ARF]

Cautioning for re-entering the FoP without permission would be incorrect in law here. The only possible action you could take here would be to deem it unsporting behaviour. I don't think it rises to the level of USB, but can appreciate that some other referees might think it does. However, if such a strict interpretation of what constitutes USB was consistently applied to everything else that happens during a match, then we'd have about two dozen cautions a game.

 

[one]

'Hiding' on the pitch but behind the GK would be equally "sneaky and unsporting". But we wouldn't even be having this discussion if that's what the attacker had done. The reason we are discussing it, is because he was off the FOP. But the reality is,he left the FOP in a legitimate manner and there's no defined time limit for a player to come back on once they've left in this manner.

Whilst I can see both moral sides of this argument, the reality is that disallowing this goal could easily be seen as incorrect in law ... whereas allowing it is clearly within the laws of the game.

I agree that if he stayed on the field there is nothing we 'should' do even though I still think it is unsporting.

And I am glad you used 'could be seen as' incorrect in law. Because it clearly isn't as any referee will be well within the law to caution for USB if they deem it to be (even if he had stayed on the field). The reason a referee uses for USB does not have to be in the laws (I know you know that). The same argument could have been used ten years ago if someone disallowed a PK goal from a Paradinha kick, it can be seen incorrect in law but allowing it is correct in law.

I have no problem with the timing of coming back to the field. The problem is the intent and the how.

 

[socal lurker]

I agree that if he stayed on the field there is nothing we 'should' do even though I still think it is unsporting.

And I am glad you used 'could be seen as' incorrect in law. Because it clearly isn't as any referee will be well within the law to caution for USB if they deem it to be (even if he had stayed on the field). The reason a referee uses for USB does not have to be in the laws (I know you know that). The same argument could have been used ten years ago if someone disallowed a PK goal from a Paradinha kick, it can be seen incorrect in law but allowing it is correct in law.

I have no problem with the timing of coming back to the field. The problem is the intent and the how.

And it would be different how if his toes were on the line?

 

[RustyRef]

I suspect this is one of those situations where opinions will differ based on the level of football people have refereed at. A much larger percentage of referees outside of the professional, and arguable even semi-pro, game will say it should be disallowed than those who do or have operated at that level. And there is some evidence for this based on those who are saying there's nothing wrong with it here, plus we know the view of a current EFL coach, as well as the officials on the day. I also messaged my old coach, an ex-EFL referee, and his response was that any referee disallowing that would need their head inspecting and would possibly be lucky to survive the fallout from it.

 

[one]

And it would be different how if his toes were on the line?

For me no difference, but from what I perceive what the general expectation to be, it would be different.