Celtic vs Salzburg

[Sheffields Finest]

Yeah, because televised officials have never gotten anything wrong before.

May as well shut down the 'as seen on TV' section, if you reckon that we should only just be posting in agreement with the referee!!

Not really, We both post what we see, I'm sure we can agree to disagree, I'm not one for sugar coating anything if someone has erred... happens to everyone!!

 

[one]

Did he 'prevent' the release or did he intercept it?

So the law 12.2.4 can only apply if the ball does not leave keepers hand /foot if we follow this logic. Yet we all have agreed in many cases, even after keeper releasing, it has been an offence. Poorly written laws are nothing new.

For me it's getting the balance right between preventing (or attempting to) release and intercepting. And it all depends on the distance between the point of release and the opponent. The OP is a little too close for me. So was the one in the UCL final Real Madrid Vs Liverpool.

As @santa sangria pointed out, it IS daft keeping and it's tempting to not punish the offence because of it (punish the keeper for being daft).

This recent video is an example of an offence even after the ball being released.

 

[RustyRef]

For me it has been released and the keeper shouldn't get a second chance because he stuffed the first one up. Also look at the "expected decision", no complaints from the keeper or defenders here.

 

[Mintyref]

Keeper **** up.....no need to play it out like he did.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Goal

Rusty hits nail on head, you chalk that off, you are the only person in 60,006 expecting you to do so in that stadium that evening.
The ball has been released.
The gk out his own free will and under no pressure from the attacker simply got his bearings all wrong.
the striker has committed no offence so lets not try to invent one just to be clever.

 

[bester]

If he’d done similar on a flykick how many would be allowing the goal? No difference in terms of preventing release.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If he’d done similar on a flykick how many would be allowing the goal? No difference in terms of preventing release.

Polar opposites for me. Whilst in the process of fly kicking, the keeper is still deemed to be in control of the ball as it drops from hands to potential kick by foot
With the throw, when he has thrown it, well, he has thrown it and all bets are off
one is a all in one movement, the kick is 2 part movement but in those 2 parts the gk is still deemed in control of the ball and cant be challenged.

 

[bester]

He’s only considered in control until he’s kicked it. If someone kicks the ball after the keeper has kicked the ball on a flykick you can’t say the release has been prevented. You can say the player was moving to challenge before it was released but the same applies to goalkeeper throwing it.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

He’s only considered in control until he’s kicked it.

I assumed wrongly you meant if the striker obtained the ball in the process of the fly kick

 

[Ciley Myrus]

He’s only considered in control until he’s kicked it. If someone kicks the ball after the keeper has kicked the ball on a flykick you can’t say the release has been prevented. You can say the player was moving to challenge before it was released but the same applies to goalkeeper throwing it.

My own interpretation would be he has impeded a fly kick, whereas in the clip, he has intercepted a throw.

 

[one]

My own interpretation would be he has impeded a fly kick, whereas in the clip, he has intercepted a throw.

I don't see how you can interpret it differently. The the law is exactly the same for "releasing the ball from hands OR kicks".

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I don't see how you can interpret it differently. The the law is exactly the same for "releasing the ball from hands OR kicks".

that's my interpretation. Yours might be different. We would need to see this fly kick to make our call. Am calling on the OP that the ball is released.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

that's my interpretation. Yours might be different. We would need to see this fly kick to make our call. Am calling on the OP that the ball is released.

Then can you please show which page in the law states you can block a keeper's throw but not the kick?
As @one said - it's the same law. If you're interpreting it differently for both then you're making things up.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Then can you please show which page in the law states you can block a keeper's throw but not the kick?
As @one said - it's the same law. If you're interpreting it differently for both then you're making things up.

Am deeming the same as the match officials on the night and the same as various posters on here, he did not block it, it was thrown at him.
For him to block it, he would need to committ an act
He did not, the opponent gave him the ball.

 

[one]

Am deeming the same as the match officials on the night and the same as various posters on here, he did not block it, it was thrown at him.
For him to block it, he would need to committ an act
He did not, the opponent gave him the ball.

The question is not why you would not penalise for the OP. The question is why you would not penalise that but you would penalise if it was a kick by keeper?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

The question is not why you would not penalise for the OP. The question is why you would not penalise that but you would penalise if it was a kick by keeper?

You would need to be there at the time as whatever image is in your head might be diff to what I am imagining
Without seeing it, for me, in the kicking process, it sounds like impeding the kick
In the op, I dont see any blocking or impeding, I see interception

 

[one]

You would need to be there at the time as whatever image is in your head might be diff to what I am imagining
Without seeing it, for me, in the kicking process, it sounds like impeding the kick
In the op, I dont see any blocking or impeding, I see interception

I appreciate that you say you have to be there.

@bester said similar to OP but a kick. Clearly, two times now, in principle you are treating a release from hand differently to a kick while the law is not.

Not trying to single you out. I think it's a common error in interpretation. And I think the reason for it is if it's a kick it can be more related to PIDAM. The keeper release law is completely different PIDAM. The keeper has 6 seconds to release the ball and the law is put there so that he can do so freely and without delay.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

You would need to be there at the time as whatever image is in your head might be diff to what I am imagining
Without seeing it, for me, in the kicking process, it sounds like impeding the kick
In the op, I dont see any blocking or impeding, I see interception

Okay, I'm with you now. Probably one of those times when we're arguing but actually on the same page
Personally I think he lunged as he saw the impending release. But, that's a different view of the same incident. If you believed that to be the case it sounds like you'd advocate for a foul - just like if I didn't, I'd say no foul.

But it's interesting - if he didn't lunge, we accept it even though he really had no reason to run in front of the keeper. We ALL know what he was doing there, but football keeps sacrificing the laws and the flow of the game for tolerating bad behaviour.

Take rugby league. An old tactic in a tackle is to 'harbour bridge' (as we call it down under). That means, if you're the tackler and you're lying on top of the ball carrier, then you'll get up on your hands and knees above the ball carrier before getting to your feet. In most cases, a perfectly natural way to get up - which is what the excuse is - but it's a tactic to slow down the play the ball.

Soccer would keep allowing that excuse and permit the situation to get worse, and worse, and nothing happens.
Rugby league said 'no more slowing down the play the ball' - now, players have to roll off the player. The defender has the responsibiity to avoid the situation. Doesn't matter if that affects his capacity to defend, doesn't matter if he didn't really mean to 'harbour bridge' - the onus is on the defender.
Carried back here, it's a shame we would permit a goal because the keeper threw it as a player who shouldn't really have been there crossed his path - it's a shame the sport doesn't place the responsibility on the opponent to avoid the keeper, rather than continuously accepting the low-level delaying tactics we see at almost every keeper release.