Goal celebration

[UKColt]

I don't think you can have it both ways . Personally, I would simply have a strong word, reminding the player that IF it had been given as a goal then he WOULD have been cautioned. I think with both this situation and the 'DOGH' from an IFK thread, it's worth remembering that things generally work out best when we apply the minimum intervention required in a particular situation. In both cases, opposition players won't be screaming for a card and your match control will be best served by keeping your cards in your pocket. There are PLENTY of other occasions in a match where giving out cards will quite rightly be the only option available to us ... let's not add to them

I think you're selectively quoting my response to two different specific incidents

Though I do take the point about not resorting to cards unless necessary, though it would be interesting if any of the observers on here would comment about whether in the 'disallowed goal/removal of shirt' scenario how they would view a referee who didn't give a caution for that.

 

[Paul March]

Players shirts are covered under law 4 apart from goal celebrations. You don't even need to stop the game to request a player to correct their equipment. They just need to leave the field of play , correct the issue and then wait to be signalled back on by yours truly

 

[RustyRef]

Hmm, can a player be punished for celebrating a goal when a goal hasn't been scored? Personally I think it would be rubbing unnecessary salt in the wound and I'd probably just have a big grin on my face and let him know he's lost a goal from his tally but saved himself ten quid.

 

[Peter Grove]

@Paul March @UKColt Have seen footage from a professional match where a player receives a second caution as he's leaving the pitch to be substituted for removing his shirt.

Yes and when that incident happened and was discussed on various refereeing forums the general consensus IIRC was that the referee had got it wrong.

For me, making it mandatory to caution for celebrating a goal by removing the shirt is an unnecessary example of micro-management - I think it could be left up to the referee to decide if the celebration is excessive or provocative.

So since I don't like this part of the law in the first place (although I believe in applying it because it is the law) I'd be happy to have a reason as in this case, not to apply it.

Incidentally, I have seen it suggested (mostly in the US) that this provision was only brought in to prevent other women players from copying Brandi Chastain's removal of her shirt after scoring the winning penalty in the Women's World Cup Final but they couldn't obviously make it gender-specific. If true, it might also explain the even more puzzling (to my mind) prohibition on simply lifting the shirt to cover the head which has never struck me as being particularly provocative.

 

[OIREF!]

I think it was introduced as a yellow card in the higher levels due to some players displaying political and/or controversial messages on undershirts

I agree that this law originates from the higher level of the game. Another influence is sponsorship - if a player scores then the sponsors want to see their name emblazoned across the shirt during the celebrations which can't happen if the shirt is removed.

 

[Yampy]

If true, it might also explain the even more puzzling (to my mind) prohibition on simply lifting the shirt to cover the head which has never struck me as being particularly provocative

You're viewing it as a Westerner.
Football is a global game and played in virtually every country around the globe by men, women and children. The laws have to be accommodating to all and there's plenty of people across the world who have beliefs which would be insulted by Chastain's actions. Essentially, the law is a fudge to neutralise these sensitivities.
FIFA (through IFAB and the laws) has to protect and develop the game across the world and there would be many influential figures, with heaps of money to invest, who would not be able to do so if immoral actions (in their eyes) continue within the game unpunished.
In other words, what doesn't make sense in the UK, can make absolutely perfect sense in Saudi Arabia or, India or, China, or Malaysia or, Nigeria and so on.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

@Paul March @UKColt Have seen footage from a professional match where a player receives a second caution as he's leaving the pitch to be substituted for removing his shirt.

Edit: Here's one -

Could be a competition rule that's being enforced here.

Yes I think so. Didn't someone post an example of this on here. It was player's 2nd yellow card so team was prevented from replacing him!

there's no particular law being broken here. Shirt removal in any other situation is not a caution.

This is somewhat similar to the DOGSO by handball from IFK thread we had recently.

It can't be a goal celebration if no goal,.

I disagree - the shirt is still off to celebrate a goal. The goal being allowed isn't a prerequisite - it's still in celebration.

 

[RustyRef]

At risk of sounding a bit like Chris Kamara, It can't be a goal if it isn't a goal. A goal that is ruled out ceases to be a goal, rather it is a disallowed goal. In fact it was never a goal, as the goal is only awarded after the referee acknowledges it. There is no law that says removing the shirt for a disallowed goal, or a goal that a player thought he had scored but actually hadn't, must be a caution.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

For all the interested 'referees' skip to 55 seconds....... shocking!!!

 

[Peter Grove]

Watching that clip just reminded me that Briana Scurry was one of the worst keepers for coming off the line at penalty kicks that I've ever seen, male or female - and that I cannot recall her ever being punished for it.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

At risk of sounding a bit like Chris Kamara, It can't be a goal if it isn't a goal. A goal that is ruled out ceases to be a goal, rather it is a disallowed goal. In fact it was never a goal, as the goal is only awarded after the referee acknowledges it. There is no law that says removing the shirt for a disallowed goal, or a goal that a player thought he had scored but actually hadn't, must be a caution.

yeh, what he said!!!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The intent of the action is to celebrate a goal. Disallowing the goal doesn't change the intent or nature of the action.
Having said that, I'm also reminded of the adage about laws bending. If something CAN be interpreted different ways then it gives you freedom.
While I think the caution is certainly applicable, I think a referee could still argue the other way and justifiably avoid a caution - after all, you're already disallowing the goal from the poor player!
Depends on the game though. Given a yellow for this the other way? Might be stuck.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

The intent of the action is to celebrate a goal. Disallowing the goal doesn't change the intent or nature of the action.
Having said that, I'm also reminded of the adage about laws bending. If something CAN be interpreted different ways then it gives you freedom.
While I think the caution is certainly applicable, I think a referee could still argue the other way and justifiably avoid a caution - after all, you're already disallowing the goal from the poor player!
Depends on the game though. Given a yellow for this the other way? Might be stuck.

Talk about Lawyer speak!! The law mentions 'after a GOAL', well, a GOAL wasn't scored, its not on the scoreboard, me thinks you'd look a tad over officious if you went down that line!!!. Get the bugger later, persistent something!!! Sorted!!!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I could just as easily argue that you're 'lawyering' it.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue it further - simply because, the more I think about it, the more I believe that while the intent of the law is still that a caution is to apply here, because the law could be read both ways that could justify not cautioning anyway - and odds are you're probably best leaving it be. So my argument comes back to 'technically this, but in practice you could argue that' - so the debate has become pointless for me as I'm half arguing in favour!