A&H

Barnsley vs Wycombe

The Referee Store
Methinks the R thought any contact with the GK was trifling at best and the GK flung himself to the ground to waste time. R could have added insult to injury by cautioning him for simulation! Even as a former keeper, I can’t find sympathy for the keeper here.
 
Wycombe are notorious for their time wasting. I've seen them try to run the clock down having gone 1 up in the first 10 mins! It looks like that approach may have caught them out a bit

It looks as though the keeper went down like a sack of spuds on the slightest contact, but the ref is having none of it.
 
Not a foul but would like to see where the referee was when the contact happened

Did he really think the goalkeeper was going to quickly punt it long. At least drop it at the penalty area, less far to run 😉
 
Keeper made a meal out of it but:

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

Does nudging him equate to a challenge?
 
Wrong in law to allow the goal in my opinion given 'A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)'. Is it a direct or indirect free kick though, I think I'd be going indirect for a challenge like that.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Wrong in law to allow the goal in my opinion given 'A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)'. Is it a direct or indirect free kick though, I think I'd be going indirect for a challenge like that.
Click to expand...
That would suggest we should be penalising EVERY slight contact made with a GK who has possession of the ball. We absolutely don't do that as a matter of course ... so unless you believe that the contact made in this instance caused the GK to spill the ball then this is not a situation to bail him out for his theatrics / stupidity
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Wrong in law to allow the goal in my opinion given 'A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)'. Is it a direct or indirect free kick though, I think I'd be going indirect for a challenge like that.
Click to expand...
If you think it's a foul with contact then DFK. it would only be IDK if no contact on which case... no foul in this situation.
 
This is one where I’d like to see it stand but I’m just not sure how to justify it in law. If the referee gives a foul on the keeper here I think that’s generally accepted - if you watch the attacker even he didn’t think he’d scored at first.
 
Changing the scenario a little ….

What would you do if:

  • Striker bumps the keeper (as per video)
  • Keeper falls to ground and drops the ball (as per video)
  • Keeper regathers ball
Is this not double handling from the keeper, and therefore warrants an IDFK?
 
Viridis1886 said:
If you think it's a foul with contact then DFK. it would only be IDK if no contact on which case... no foul in this situation.
Click to expand...
The issue is the statement about not challenging a keeper in control of the ball with their hands comes under indirect free kicks which makes it appear a separate type of offence. I think in this situation it's possible to challenge in a manner that is not careless etc but still needs to be penalised. I can understand why a DFK might be more what we would expect given there's contact.
 
Does it reach the threshold for “careless”.

IMHO no.

GK drops the ball deliberately. If anything the GK actions could also justify a YC for USB but the goal is probably enough.
 
It's a very interesting one TBF
I'm gonna retract my earlier statement on this and replace it below...
Having watched it again, we need to see why the R is seen to speak to the GK at the outset
I'm quite sure this will make it into FA training fodder. I'm quite sure the guidance would be to award an IDFK to the GK and move on
Supress the urge to punish the ****housery and it's a non-event, otherwise, it could end your observation season
 
Last edited:
santa sangria said:
Does it reach the threshold for “careless”.

IMHO no.

GK drops the ball deliberately. If anything the GK actions could also justify a YC for USB but the goal is probably enough.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to be careless if it is considered challenging the GK in possession for the ball. I really think the R can reasonably decide this either way,

If the R considers it a challenge, then it’s an IFK. The argument in favor would be he didn’t slow down fast enough and bumped the GK.

if the R considers it not a challenge but a trifling bump, then it’s nothing. The argument for that is the contact is so minimal and the GK flings himself to the ground (which could easily be a caution for simulation) and in doing so causes himself to lose the ball.

i don’t think it is a question of law, but a question of judgment by the R. And it’s the kind of judgment that can be influenced by what else has happened in the game. We don’t know what happened before.
 
RefJef said:
Changing the scenario a little ….

What would you do if:

  • Striker bumps the keeper (as per video)
  • Keeper falls to ground and drops the ball (as per video)
  • Keeper regathers ball
Is this not double handling from the keeper, and therefore warrants an IDFK?
Click to expand...
Excellent scenario question!
 
socal lurker said:
It doesn’t have to be careless if it is considered challenging the GK in possession for the ball. I really think the R can reasonably decide this either way,

If the R considers it a challenge, then it’s an IFK. The argument in favor would be he didn’t slow down fast enough and bumped the GK.

if the R considers it not a challenge but a trifling bump, then it’s nothing. The argument for that is the contact is so minimal and the GK flings himself to the ground (which could easily be a caution for simulation) and in doing so causes himself to lose the ball.

i don’t think it is a question of law, but a question of judgment by the R. And it’s the kind of judgment that can be influenced by what else has happened in the game. We don’t know what happened before.
Click to expand...
Surely it’s either a trifling challenge or then careless (offence) etc…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top