Another quiz q

[socal lurker]

The only thing I can see going against it is America's (USSF) own advice suggesting that advantage can only be applied for Law 12 infringements. But that's very old advice and I'm not sure it has anything to do with the IFAB's own views.

That has not been USSF advice for several years.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that advantage cannot be applied. The sole issue some of us have raised is what direct means and whether a touch by the same player who took the kicks makes it no longer direct.

 

[socal lurker]

I pulled up the USSF materials from 2012 when USSF acknowledged that advantage could apply more broadly than Law 12. In the scenario posed in the OP, USSF said to apply advantage and award the goal implicitly rejecting my interpretation that direct remains a problem):

Scenario 4

Blue #23 performs a goal kick. The ball leaves the penalty area but is blown back toward the Blue goal and Blue #23 attempts to kick the ball away. The ball goes into the net anyway.

Advice 4

Advantage should be applied (the violation is not a foul and is described in Law 16 – a 2nd touch offense). The advantage signal should not be given as counting the goal makes the decision clear.

 

[RobOda]

As I said... "That's very old advice." >_>

 

[one]

The reason I took this question out of my quiz is that, while it being a good discussion/debate question, it is not a good quiz question. A good quiz question has a definitive answer and is not up for debate. An own goal may not be scored directly from a goal kick. Laws of the game do not define 'directly' and the answer to the OP question is dependent on one's opinion of the definition of 'directly'.

For me, it comes down to using other part of the laws of the game to infer the meaning. Indirect Free kick definition clearly say it has to touch another player. Moreover a dropped ball had exactly the same issue when it used the word 'directly'. The ambiguity was removed by changing the wording so that it now has to touch at leas two players for a goal to be scored. So my inference is that 'directly' mean not touching another player and hence making C the right answer.

I brought this ambiguity to DE's attention last year. His response was they have tweaked the English language related 'issues' too much already and don't want to do any further changes to wording.

 

[santa sangria]

Good stuff @one

They should address this flaw as the new GK tweak where the ball does not have to leave the area to be in play will make this scenario more likely (if still once in a blue moon of Tuesdays!)

 

[Peter Grove]

I believe the old IFAB Q&As used to have several of the wind scenarios including this one but I no longer have the computer that I had saved them on.

The Q&A's in 1990, 2000 and 2004 said an IFK should be given. The question did not appear in 2005 or 2006.

This is from the 2004 edition:

A goalkeeper takes a goal kick and the ball passes out of the penalty area into play but is blown back by a strong wind without any other player having touched it. The goalkeeper tries to stop the ball entering the goal by touching it with his hands, but is unsuccessful. What decision does the referee give?

He awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team.

 

[bester]

One makes a good argument I’ve changed my answer to C. I think it’s important to note that you are awarding an IDFK as it’s more advantageous than a corner kick.

Tweaking it slightly.

Same scenario but the goalkeeper saves it and an opponent knocks in the rebound...

 

[Kes]

I'd be interested on IFAB ruling on this one. I'd be surprised is mr@one hasn't already asked

I'm am using a variation (easier) of this in may May quiz but this version is more interesting:

Well if he did, I sincerely hope he checked his spelling/grammar before e mailing Mr Elleray & Co.

Shocking.