A&H

Which team does a fan support ?

Quarryref

Well-Known Member
I was doing one of my periodic re-reads of the LOTG on the IFAB site last night. Always good to remind yourself of the Laws that can get forgotten, because they relate to things that never, or hardly ever, happen.

IFAB have helpfully started adding FAQs. Many are useful, but this one baffled me to start with. Are we really asked to work out which team a fan supports ?! I eventually worked out what they were trying to say, although as written the second sentence is factually incorrect.

I share for your amusement / bemusement !


1634824727602.png
 
The Referee Store
Why do you think it's incorrect? If the fan stops a goalbound shot and kicks the ball away from his team's goal and into the goal at the other end . . . almost impossible, but law also covers a corner kick not becoming an own goal in similar circumstances.
 
Why do you think it's incorrect? If the fan stops a goalbound shot and kicks the ball away from his team's goal and into the goal at the other end . . . almost impossible, but law also covers a corner kick not becoming an own goal in similar circumstances.
I think it also covers a fan coming on and scoring a goal in their oppositions goal which also cant be allowed.
I think the OP was mostly getting at how you work out who is a fan of whom if no distinguishing colours and also could just be a village's idiot needs returning with nil allegiance
 
Why do you think it's incorrect? If the fan stops a goalbound shot and kicks the ball away from his team's goal and into the goal at the other end . . . almost impossible, but law also covers a corner kick not becoming an own goal in similar circumstances.
It's factually incorrect because if a fan tries, and fails, to stop his own team scoring in the opponent's goal, the goal would still be awarded.

It's unlikely, but I'd argue less unlikely than somehow managing to kick the ball the full length of the pitch, which is I believe the point that the answer as written is trying to make (as you rightly say).

He could have a bet on the time of the first goal, or the first scorer, or the match result, a vendetta against an unpopular striker, just be p****d up and being a balloon-head. etc.
 
He could have a bet on the time of the first goal, or the first scorer, or the match result, a vendetta against an unpopular striker, just be p****d up and being a balloon-head. etc.
But enough about whoever's running VAR :D
 
It's factually incorrect because if a fan tries, and fails, to stop his own team scoring in the opponent's goal, the goal would still be awarded.

It's unlikely, but I'd argue less unlikely than somehow managing to kick the ball the full length of the pitch, which is I believe the point that the answer as written is trying to make (as you rightly say).

He could have a bet on the time of the first goal, or the first scorer, or the match result, a vendetta against an unpopular striker, just be p****d up and being a balloon-head. etc.
It wouldn’t be awarded unless it crossed the line.

its the same wording as foreign objects, had this similar debate weeks ago with a dog stopping the ball crossing the line.
Ifab confirming a goal cant be awarded if it doesn’t cross the line.

not like ifab to argue their own points and wording though
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Here is the scenario that the answer to FAQ has made very confusing.

Ball is going in to the centre of a goal with no other possibility. A fan enters the field and kicks it towards the button corner. The ball goes in off the post.

Now you have to decide if this was an excited fan of the scoring team with no coordination who tried to help the ball along, or an opponent fan with a similar lack of skill.

What if it was a neutral fan looking for a thrill?

IFAB generally words things for specific scenarios without thinking of it's consequences for many edge cases.
 
It wouldn’t be awarded unless it crossed the line.

its the same wording as foreign objects, had this similar debate weeks ago with a dog stopping the ball crossing the line.
Ifab confirming a goal cant be awarded if it doesn’t cross the line.

not like ifab to argue their own points and wording though
He did say tried but fails, meaning the ball crossed the line.

Interestingly, futsal laws of the game (which always follow football closely), has a change this year that allows a goal to be awarded if the ball does not enter the goal after crossing the goal line.
 
It's factually incorrect because if a fan tries, and fails, to stop his own team scoring in the opponent's goal, the goal would still be awarded.
This is not entirely correct. The goal may or may not stand depending on interference. If there was interference, the referee can consider play stopped - the referee should stop play if there is interference.

I agree with you the referee having to decide whose fan is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top