Cardiff v Bournemouth - Disallowed Goal

[rainertheref]

Incredibly poor refereeing. There is nothing in the LOTG which prevents a player from standing his ground, other than to keep the required distance at restarts. The goalkeeper has been saved from the consequences of his own stupidity.

 

[RefSheff]

I really think this is a goal.

The keeper can take a pace to the left or right and have a free release. If the striker follows him then that's an easy call to disallow the goal, but all he's doing is standing still. I understand the desire to disallow the goal, but I can't see that as a correct interpretation of law in this instance.

It'll be a fun match to manage afterwards mind!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The rest of your arguments about just standing there is quite weak and the LOTG do make issue of players "just standing there" as in someone standing on a freekick to prevent it being taken. Just standing there. Very different situation I accept, but highlights the logical flaw in your argument.

.

The FK is the ONLY situation that obligates a player to move - because distance must be respected. That's a special case (same as a FK, or requirements at a defensive FK/GK). In general play is what I was referring to.

How exactly can you say I've blocked a kick if I stood there, the opponent paused, took a few steps, then kicked it straight into my back?

Doesn't the keeper have a responsibility to not stuff it up? Isn't this just rewarding a keeper mistake?

And if this is a FK, then aren't you basically saying that if the keeper kicks it into the attacker, it's an automatic IFK to the keeper? Where's the sense (or LOTG justification) in that???

Or are people saying there's some sort of automatic exclusion zone around the PA? As soon as the keeper handles the ball, the attacker needs to spring to a minimum 25 yards from the goal, or the keeper is allowed to chase him around the PA and kick the ball into him to make him earn a caution?

Come on ,he hasn't moved a muscle to block the kick. You can't possibly argue that a player standing still is blocking anything. It doesn't matter if he had a good reason to be there or not - I strongly disagree that he doesn't, because by being there he prevents the keeper from keeping the ball at his feet. And of course he turned his back and started moving out - just in case he got hit, and at that point he knew the keeper was going to release the ball.

 

[SM]

Of course a FK is not the only situation which necessitates a player move out of the way, any restart which has a minimum distance a player must retreat is the same; throw, corner, penalty, kick off but we digress. Not relevant to the op, but just saying.

It is fine that you disagree. As I have said since my very first post, I can view this both ways and have no massively strong opinion either way. But what I would stress again is that what you are suggesting is your interpretation and your opinion, as the lotg do not explicitly cover this situation.

You don't like the action of the referee on the day, I can see the sense in it. I think that pretty sums it up in a nut shell.

 

[McTavish]

From the clip I can see no reason not to give a goal. The attacker has not prevented the keeper from releasing the ball, the keeper has moved towards the attacker and kicked the ball into him.

I can even see a case for penalising the keeper for VC. If the keeper had walked over to the attacker and thrown the ball at him with that sort of force then I think most people would dismiss for VC - why is a kick different?

 

[Alex71]

Not that it matters to much - but - has anyone got a clip of what happens before the clip on the OP ..?

I'm wondering who was there first - whether the GK moved towards the player or whether the player moved to stand in front of the GK ..?

Think we all agree the GK was very lucky

 

[The Bstard]

Youtube link.

I think the keeper was lucky - it should have stood. I can see the reasoning behind the YC, but the keeper has the whole penalty area to kick from.

 

[RefSheff]

But what I would stress again is that what you are suggesting is your interpretation and your opinion, as the lotg do not explicitly cover this situation.

I think the LotG contain some very key guidance that is relevant to this situation:

[/QUOTE]All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.[/QUOTE]

In the absence of "explicit" guidance we need to look for other indications, and the above statement, as part of the guidance about impeding an opponent (a very similar offence to preventing release), is clear that players have a right to their position on the FoP.

Disallowing this goal is kind of what I expect from last week's ref. It's the easy way out to avoid having to manage what will be a difficult match afterwards, but Law, and all the guidance and instruction I've ever received, is clear that this is not preventing release. Award the goal and let all hell break loose.

 

[Alex71]

Thanks @The Bstard

This video shows the player make three (albeit subtle) movements with the intention to put off (some would say impede) the GK ...

• backwards
• forwards
• knee up

I still think the goal should have stood but can (now) understand a little more why it was chalked off

 

[HoofItYouDonkey]

I think that the wrong decision was reached both in disallowing the goal and the yellow card.
However, in the interests of match control, I can understand why it was disallowed, though I wonder if that the reason was because the referee thought that this contravened the LOTG or whether it was because it happened so quickly and it was quite possible that the officials were not even concentrating on the event!!

 

[Frank]

I think that the wrong decision was reached both in disallowing the goal and the yellow card.
However, in the interests of match control, I can understand why it was disallowed, though I wonder if that the reason was because the referee thought that this contravened the LOTG or whether it was because it happened so quickly and it was quite possible that the officials were not even concentrating on the event!!

My thoughts exactly. Sometimes a referee will mentally switch off in these situations, and then saw the ball hit the Bournemouth player, so he then presumed he had impeded the goalkeeper.

 

[AlexF]

One thing I read about the game was that the Bournemouth players had tried to impede the GK's release a couple of times in the game earlier and if that's the case, I suspect that this was simply the "you positioned yourself, looked back to make sure you were in the right place to be in the GK's way... again" decision by the referee... so too bad. YC, IFK.

 

[SM]

I think the LotG contain some very key guidance that is relevant to this situation:

All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

In the absence of "explicit" guidance we need to look for other indications, and the above statement, as part of the guidance about impeding an opponent (a very similar offence to preventing release), is clear that players have a right to their position on the FoP.

Disallowing this goal is kind of what I expect from last week's ref. It's the easy way out to avoid having to manage what will be a difficult match afterwards, but Law, and all the guidance and instruction I've ever received, is clear that this is not preventing release. Award the goal and let all hell break loose.

As stated in my OP and various other times - meh.

As a very wise old referee once told me, deal in facts, what does the LOTG actually say?

Otherwise it is opinions.

 

[jack.prescott]

I'm with the cautions on this one, by "just standing there" the player is clearly making an attempt to block the kick.

 

[Steve C]

Im a Bournemouth fan yes, but, i would never give this as a foul, even at the opposite end, the GK kicks the ball into him, whats wrong with stepping to one side for the GK? If Wilson moves with him then ok hes attempting to block it, Wilson has every right to be there, the GK kicks it at Wilson, in a game this big for one team, you cant referee a game like that, it was ball to man not man to ball, much like handball. I was outraged seeing this decision, then the card distribution being like he's just committed an offence an inch off a red? I hope Phill Mitchell doesnt referee a high up game of importance for some time. He made a catalogue of errors looking at reports.

 

[DaveMac]

Personally I think the keeper is a bit of a lemon for managing to hit the player with a kick. I mean literally anywhere other than that. One point is who knows exactly what the ref is looking at. He's probably expecting the attacker to make a move so is concerned about getting up field, so perhaps when the kick is taken the ref might have assumed there is more of a movement from the attacker than there actually was.

Finally, if this happens on a game I'm refereeing then I'm giving a freekick all day long, but probably not flashing the yellow!

 

[one]

Did anyone notice the caution may have been for deliberately kicking the ball into the net after the whistle had gone? Although I disagree with disallowing the goal, I agree with the caution once it was disallowed. If you look at the manner the player kicking it in, its fairly clear he knew the whistle had gone and then comes the pretence.
.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Finally, if this happens on a game I'm refereeing then I'm giving a freekick all day long,

Why?

I'm with the cautions on this one, by "just standing there" the player is clearly making an attempt to block the kick.

How do you figure that? It's already been explained that there are a few reasons for legitimately standing there - as well as that the law does not obligate the player to move OUT of the way, just that he can't MOVE INTO the way.

Youtube link.

I think the keeper was lucky - it should have stood. I can see the reasoning behind the YC, but the keeper has the whole penalty area to kick from.

Thanks for the full video. 3 thoughts:

1)Doesn't change my view on the FK. He's entitled to stand anywhere in/around the area. Sure, he might have moved about 2 inches across, well before the keeper had begun his release anyway. This is 100% on the keeper

2)Considering the IFK was given, I'm in favour of the card for the blatantly late kick

3)After watching this version, I have no doubt that the keeper deliberately kicked the ball into him. PK for striking, anybody?

 

[Russell Jones]

Thanks for the full video. 3 thoughts:

1)Doesn't change my view on the FK. He's entitled to stand anywhere in/around the area. Sure, he might have moved about 2 inches across, well before the keeper had begun his release anyway. This is 100% on the keeper

2)Considering the IFK was given, I'm in favour of the card for the blatantly late kick

3)After watching this version, I have no doubt that the keeper deliberately kicked the ball into him. PK for striking, anybody?

Re your point 3 .. worth giving that just once in your career purely for the amusement factor and discussion that would follow

 

[CallumRushton13]

Why?



How do you figure that? It's already been explained that there are a few reasons for legitimately standing there - as well as that the law does not obligate the player to move OUT of the way, just that he can't MOVE INTO the way.



Thanks for the full video. 3 thoughts:

3)After watching this version, I have no doubt that the keeper deliberately kicked the ball into him. PK for striking, anybody?

But would it be a FK as the players stood outside the box, or a PK as the keeper is inside