Blocking Keepers Kick Out Hands

[TheFoodieReferee]

Interesting one from Sunday for me that I've just been discussing with some mates!

I gave an IDFK as the home striker to me, looked to block the keepers kick out of his hands, my friends, who were watching the game said that he just stood his ground and the keeper kicked it at him. To me, I'd already shouted step away at him but he didn't move, keeper kicks the ball and it hits him and goes out of play half way down the pitch with no advantage, I blew for an IDFK at that point.

Would you say that's correct as they've put doubts in my head on it now for future reference?

 

[Redref34]

Here’s the bit in the law you are looking for under IDFK:

prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it

If you feel they prevented deliberately, then IDFK is correct.

I suppose the discussion is, does the pure fact that they do not move away when asked constitute a deliberate prevention of the hall being released by the goal keeper.. in my eyes probably yes.

 

[socal lurker]

Except that the R has no actual authority to tell a player where to be in live play. If the player doesn’t move, it’s up to the GK to go around—if the GK decides to kick it at the opponent, that’s on the GK. If he moves into the GK, it’s messier. While I would like the offense to be broader so people leave the GK alone, it is for preventing the GK from releasing the ball or attempting to kick the ball while the GK is releasing. (USSF used to teach that interfering with the GK was a form of USB. I actually liked that. I‘d rather have more clarity around messing with the GK. I think the game is better when the GK can readily release the ball to start an attack. But as it stands, there is no disincentive for attackers to deliberately get in the way of the GK to slow down a possible counter. It’s very rare that an R can credibly say it was interfering with a promising attack.)

 

[Russell Jones]

Except that the R has no actual authority to tell a player where to be in live play. If the player doesn’t move, it’s up to the GK to go around—if the GK decides to kick it at the opponent, that’s on the GK. If he moves into the GK, it’s messier. While I would like the offense to be broader so people leave the GK alone, it is for preventing the GK from releasing the ball or attempting to kick the ball while the GK is releasing. (USSF used to teach that interfering with the GK was a form of USB. I actually liked that. I‘d rather have more clarity around messing with the GK. I think the game is better when the GK can readily release the ball to start an attack. But as it stands, there is no disincentive for attackers to deliberately get in the way of the GK to slow down a possible counter. It’s very rare that an R can credibly say it was interfering with a promising attack.)

Tend to agree with all of this. It is absolutely not an offence for an attacker to wander along the edge of the PA, 'tracking' the GK. It's a legitimate way to ensure the GK can't put the ball at his / her feet. If the GK wishes to safely kick the ball in this instance then they simply need to retreat a few metres deeper into their area to allow clear release. The current offence is 'preventing the GK from releasing the ball from the hands' not 'preventing the GK from releasing the ball from the hands exactly where and how they want to'!

 

[santa sangria]

While I agree with the above posters… if you have just warmed the player, then you have to follow through and give the IDFK otherwise the cost to your match control is too great. In the end it’s an easy IDFK to give.

 

[Kes]

If the GK wishes to safely kick the ball in this instance then they simply need to retreat a few metres deeper into their area to allow clear release.

That would only work if the "tracker" doesn't then follow the GK into it though.
Although I suppose seeing that happen would make the IDFK easier to award and sell ...

 

[Russell Jones]

That would only work if the "tracker" doesn't then follow the GK into it though.
Although I suppose seeing that happen would make the IDFK easier to award and sell ...

Yup, although for some reason I just don't envisage the attacker crossing that 'barrier'! Especially as, if they did, the GK could then run past them and kick it anyway (or be obstructed, making the IDFK easier as you say). And @santa sangria , I agree we need to follow through with our warnings ... just maybe choose differently regarding when / whether we warn the attacker in the first place

 

[gman1978]

Tend to agree with all of this. It is absolutely not an offence for an attacker to wander along the edge of the PA, 'tracking' the GK. It's a legitimate way to ensure the GK can't put the ball at his / her feet. If the GK wishes to safely kick the ball in this instance then they simply need to retreat a few metres deeper into their area to allow clear release. The current offence is 'preventing the GK from releasing the ball from the hands' not 'preventing the GK from releasing the ball from the hands exactly where and how they want to'!

I tend to take the stance that if you're tracking / shadowing the goal keeper along the area then that is an attempt to stop the GK releasing the ball into play. If the forward is stock still as in the OP then the GK has no excuse for kicking it straight at them.