Goal keeper drop kick

[ARF]

Playing devil's advocate - the attacker doesn't prevent the goalkeeper releasing the ball, he blocks the ball after the keeper has already kicked it. Which isn't an offence by the letter of the law.

 

[RustyRef]

I asked a question that was ignored so i'll ask again:

Is a keeper allowed to fly-kick the ball without attackers hindering them?

@Runner-Ref has answered this, but the law is clear that an attacker can't prevent the keeper from releasing the ball. But that really didn't happen here, the attacker stood still and the keeper kicked it at him, arguably deliberately.

 

[one]

Playing devil's advocate - the attacker doesn't prevent the goalkeeper releasing the ball, he blocks the ball after the keeper has already kicked it. Which isn't an offence by the letter of the law.

Let's say the keeper is about to release or roll the ball to a teammate 20 yards away. An opponent deliberately runs very close and directly in the path. The keeper then move 2 yards to the side and takes different release options a seconds later. Many argue here that because the keeper release the ball, the opponent did not prevent the keeper releasing so there is no offence. Not the case. The offence took place a seconds earlier than the release.

 

[one]

The essence of the overall debate summed up in one clip!

We can all agree that the second yellow is justified for the ongoing dissent.

(Hopefully) we can all agree that the first caution is unjustified ... no SPA given the length of time involved and no danger to the keeper.

In reality the attacker is completely stationary for the last few seconds and the GK decides to kick the ball straight at him, when multiple other options were available to him. For me, no offence at all by the attacker. Nothing he did, even the slight 'tracking' across the top of the area, actually prevented the release of the ball. And why was the attacker even in the vicinity in the first place? Because the GK was (legitimately) trying to eat up time by not picking up the ball. In that context, entirely reasonable for the attacker to expect the GK to 'waste' more time by putting the ball on the ground if he was able to do so. So loitering in the vicinity is exactly what you would want your attacker to do in that context ....

@Runner-Ref has answered this, but the law is clear that an attacker can't prevent the keeper from releasing the ball. But that really didn't happen here, the attacker stood still and the keeper kicked it at him, arguably deliberately.

@Russell Jones I see your point. Let's extend this a little and see the opposing view. The keeper clearly moved sideways to get a clear path to release it but also the attacker clearly moved in front him. The attacker only stopped and turned his back because it was obvious the keeper is going to kick it. Let's say instead of kicking it, the keeper moves sideways again to get a clear path but again attacker moves with him. And again and again. At what point (if any) does this become an offence? What if a couple of other attackers join in and make it a wider "wall"?

Is the advise here to yell out to attackers to move away? If so why? If attackers are allowed to do this then what right do we have to tell attackers to not to do it?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

@Russell Jones I see your point. Let's extend this a little and see the opposing view. The keeper clearly moved sideways to get a clear path to release it but also the attacker clearly moved in front him. The attacker only stopped and turned his back because it was obvious the keeper is going to kick it. Let's say instead of kicking it, the keeper moves sideways again to get a clear path but again attacker moves with him. And again and again. At what point (if any) does this become an offence? What if a couple of other attackers join in and make it a wider "wall"?

Is the advise here to yell out to attackers to move away? If so why? If attackers are allowed to do this then what right do we have to tell attackers to not to do it?

Something along the lines of "Give him space to kick it, 9" usually works

 

[one]

Something along the lines of "Give him space to kick it, 9" usually works

The point is, why would you say this if he is not doing anything wrong/unfair by moving there? You never say to a keeper, "give him space to kick it" when an attacker is in possession in front of goal . Unless they are doing something wrong or about to, there is no need for us to get involved.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

The point is, why would you say this if he is not doing anything wrong/unfair by moving there? You never say to a keeper, "give him space to kick it" when an attacker is in possession in front of goal . Unless they are doing something wrong or about to, there is no need for us to get involved.

For a similar reason to calling "Let go of him" to players in the penalty area ahead of a corner being taken . . . proactive refereeing

 

[one]

For a similar reason to calling "Let go of him" to players in the penalty area ahead of a corner being taken . . . proactive refereeing

It can't be the same reason.

Holding if continues after the kick is an offence, clearly stated in law. So referee proactiveness is beneficial.
The claim for the clip is that there is NO offence with what the attacker does or continues to do. If true, referee intervention is wrong. What are we being proactive about?

I feel the point is clear, if we feel we need to get involved and be proactive about, either there is something wrong or about to go wrong.

 

[JamesL]

For me this is a spirit of the game issue and is what the spirit of the game is for.

The laws do not sufficiently cover this issue in enough detail, or at all even, so we are left with significant differences in opinion of what is and is not allowed.

The laws don't really clarify at what point the keeper is considered to have released the ball and what allowance should be made to reasonably allow him to do this.

I think football expects the keeper to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be able to kick/throw/release the ball unimpeded and any interference in him doing that, for me and in my opinion, sits on the side of preventing the keeper from releasing the ball or where an attempt to jump with the leg in front (eg) is easily sold as attempting to kick.whilst in process of releasing.

One thing for sure is this is not a caution. It is neither reckless or SPA. The only way I get a caution here is persistent offending.

 

[Russell Jones]

@Russell Jones I see your point. Let's extend this a little and see the opposing view. The keeper clearly moved sideways to get a clear path to release it but also the attacker clearly moved in front him. The attacker only stopped and turned his back because it was obvious the keeper is going to kick it. Let's say instead of kicking it, the keeper moves sideways again to get a clear path but again attacker moves with him. And again and again. At what point (if any) does this become an offence? What if a couple of other attackers join in and make it a wider "wall"?

Is the advise here to yell out to attackers to move away? If so why? If attackers are allowed to do this then what right do we have to tell attackers to not to do it?

I agree, there's a very fine line / balance between allowing the attacker their position on the field and allowing the keeper a fair opportunity to release the ball. And I'm certainly not 'hard core' in defending the rights of the attacker. I just feel that currently the general approach is overly tilted towards the rights of the GKs and we see a great many referees proactively telling attackers to move away from the edge of the penalty area .. when in reality they have every right to be there. I think @ChasObserverRefDeveloper has nailed the correct tone of the required communication. "Give him space to kick it, 9" strikes a fair balance and doesn't imply that the attacker is doing anything wrong by simply standng there.

To answer your specific question, if an attacker is repeatedly moving to stand in the various paths of where the GK is hoping to release the ball (or multiple attackers are involved) then initial communication as above can then set up an eventual IFK if they choose not to listen to the advice

 

[one]

Though I don't entirely agree with the replies I am happy with them This is a good topic to debate and highlights how subjective some decisions are and very difficult to get consistency in them across different referees or regions.

One thing for sure is this is not a mandatory caution. It is neither reckless or SPA. The only way I get a caution here is persistent offending.

A little bit of adjustment to this statement. Given USB is open ended, the referee can caution for just about anything the feel is 'unsporting'.

 

[JamesL]

A little bit of adjustment to this statement. Given USB is open ended, the referee can caution for just about anything the feel is 'unsporting'.

I think I prefer a caution is not the expected outcome here but then sadly most of football has now come to expect a caution!

Own worst enemies sometimes.

 

[QuaverRef]

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.

you could attempt to sell it as USB, but I think you’d be hard pushed to persuade an observer of that

Edit: I didn’t realise how many pages of discussion there was before I said this