Goal keeper drop kick
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
It's not delaying the restart so it's different in Law. That's too subtle for most players, benches and spectators and expectation has certainly shifted where the motivation of the offender is clearly slowing the game down. What's dangerous hasn't changed, but I think I'd be looking for another excuse (Persistent if repeated, SPA at a stretch or USB Other if really blatant) a bit sooner than last season. That being said, I think default would still normally to be manage if possible
So what is the offence?
IDFK for attempting to stop block the drop kick, but if it’s a booking it’s unsporting behaviour and the only thing that is close is delaying the start of play, but that’s not right.
Don't think it's justifiable in law to caution for a first offence here.
For second or third etc. a caution can be issued for persistent offences.
For second or third etc. a caution can be issued for persistent offences.
A few seasons ago I was at a Southern Premier League game where the forward, who was stood about 10 yards outside the box jumped up and the GK's low kick hit him on the back. The ref gave him a YC which I thought was strange as it was more down to the GK's bad kick than any impeding.
10 yards away sounds very harsh to me even if the player did jump up.
1-2 yards away I get it, but even then I wouldn’t give a yellow unless they did it again.
Last weekend I was about to blow up for such an offence, but the keeper hit a blinder and they were on the attack. Couldn’t call it back for that and played the advantage.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The offense in law 12 is USB. The list under that is a non-exclusive list of example of unsporting behavior. I don’t think it is outside the Laws for a referee to consider it unsporting in some contexts beyond SPA, but I don’t think the Laws expect it to be a caution unless there is something more than merely getting in the way. I’d like to see IFAB give more clarity in this space. On the one hand, I think GKs should just be left alone. But I watch professional games, and opponents always get in the way of the GK any time there is the remotest possibility of a counter attack, and it is never called. Of course, if it is called, the opponent wins, as instead of the GK getting to throw/punt the ball quickly, it becomes an IFK, which gives the team more time to get back. That’s part of why I would like to see it considered USB, as the IFK sanction really isn’t a sanction at all. But if IFAB is happy with people running in front of GKs who try to distribute the ball, I’d like to have them add something to the guidance about when an attacker crosses the line into an offense beyond sticking a foot in to challenge the actual kick. (Back when USSF published Advice to Referees, they formally taught that interfering with the GK was a form of USB, and had other additional examples. That formal teaching is no longer out there as far as I know.)
Ok so my understanding is that jumping in front of the goal keeper is considered interfering with the goalkeeper while the ball in his/her control.
It’s a yellow card offence as I understand it and IDFK.
Remember you are not allowed to attempt to tackle a keeper when the ball is in his possession. during the process of the drop kick.
Does anyone have clear instructions on this?
It’s a yellow card offence as I understand it and IDFK.
Remember you are not allowed to attempt to tackle a keeper when the ball is in his possession. during the process of the drop kick.
Does anyone have clear instructions on this?
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Yes, but does that cover jumping in front of him to block the ball after it is released?
My understanding and from what I’ve seen it does cover such a situation.
The benchmarks I have is the following,
If the action of kicking itself is interrupted then they are prevented from releasing it cleanly. This could be by standing or running beside the keeper on a way that interferes with their action or by being in front to the extent that it would interfere with the follow through of their kick.
The second part is a bit more marginal and harder to judge.
If the action of kicking itself is interrupted then they are prevented from releasing it cleanly. This could be by standing or running beside the keeper on a way that interferes with their action or by being in front to the extent that it would interfere with the follow through of their kick.
The second part is a bit more marginal and harder to judge.
Think the key thing is it is only a caution if you deem it to be unsporting behaviour, it certainly isn't mandatory. At a push it could be SPA if the keeper is trying to release it quickly and is being blocked, although that would be a push at lower levels. If Ederson or Allison are kicking it there is a good chance it will go where it is intended, much less chance at grass roots.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Good points here.
I think that being proactive and spotting naughty behaviour early is important. I find ball in play verbal warning works.
But …there are good reminders here. If you have a tight match and a team already showing signs of trying all the tricks, then whistling an IDFK early for this could really help sell a future card - either for USB or persistant infringement.
I think that being proactive and spotting naughty behaviour early is important. I find ball in play verbal warning works.
But …there are good reminders here. If you have a tight match and a team already showing signs of trying all the tricks, then whistling an IDFK early for this could really help sell a future card - either for USB or persistant infringement.
Exactly what i do.
Last season in an OA game i warned the striker first time.
Yellow carded second time and second yellowed third time.
Lunacy.
No helping some players is there?
