Goal keeper drop kick
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
IFK for me too. Can't get get good audio. I would be ok with the caution if the ref yelled out to him to walk away but he still tacked the keeper and stood his ground. The body language of the keeper and the fact that he 'comfortably' kicked it at the attacker suggests this may have been the case and he was convinced he would draw a FK.
Edit: I didn't like the delivery of the second yellow. It was obvious that the player got under his skin and the yellow was more emotional instead of rational.
Edit: I didn't like the delivery of the second yellow. It was obvious that the player got under his skin and the yellow was more emotional instead of rational.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
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 ....
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 ....
bester
RefChat Addict
On the plus side it's sure to be a seminar clip. Sure that'll clear things up
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I don’t want an offence either from the clip but how do you manage this, if you’ve got a few hundred punters, and a tight match, you need to act, what are the options?
- IDFK YC - too strong for me. Not correct in law as no SPA. Bound to annoy the attacker and loss of match control (as in the clip).
- IDFK - probably fine here. Plus a chance to warn and cut the grass to the attacker.
- Play on - leaves it hanging, gonna be trouble later, no one knows where the line is.
- Invent a dropped ball - tie your shoelaces, warn the GK it’s not an offence, warn both players to stop playing silly b***ers.
I think IDFK is the only option here. But given the nonsense I’d have both the GK and attacker for a quick chat.
- IDFK YC - too strong for me. Not correct in law as no SPA. Bound to annoy the attacker and loss of match control (as in the clip).
- IDFK - probably fine here. Plus a chance to warn and cut the grass to the attacker.
- Play on - leaves it hanging, gonna be trouble later, no one knows where the line is.
- Invent a dropped ball - tie your shoelaces, warn the GK it’s not an offence, warn both players to stop playing silly b***ers.
I think IDFK is the only option here. But given the nonsense I’d have both the GK and attacker for a quick chat.
I do not know what level the referee is in this clip but i assume he's higher up the ladder than most of us.
I'd be interested to know the reason (he decided) was for the 1st yellow.
I can only think he is of the opinion that standing in front of the keeper when he's about to release the ball into play is USB.
If that's true there must be a reason why he thinks he's correct in law.
BTW i think he's right to give the first yellow.
I'd be interested to know the reason (he decided) was for the 1st yellow.
I can only think he is of the opinion that standing in front of the keeper when he's about to release the ball into play is USB.
If that's true there must be a reason why he thinks he's correct in law.
BTW i think he's right to give the first yellow.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Huh. I thought I was the one who was hard on attackers, but I don’t see an offense here. Sure, he moved towards the GK initially--the GK who is trying to use as much time as possible, and is likely to put the ball on the ground to use more if no one is near him. But the GK knows exactly where he is and can easily move around him. Instead Pk the GK points at him, and then deliver kicks the ball into him. I got nothing.
(we could also go down the rabbit hole of whether it should be an offense by the GK for deliberately kicking the ball into an opponent, but I wouldn’t go down that one.)
the announcer is going on about the attacker needing to be outside the PA, which certainly isn’t in the Laws, though it might not be a terrible idea.
(we could also go down the rabbit hole of whether it should be an offense by the GK for deliberately kicking the ball into an opponent, but I wouldn’t go down that one.)
the announcer is going on about the attacker needing to be outside the PA, which certainly isn’t in the Laws, though it might not be a terrible idea.
Last edited:
Its a Southern League game so the referee is Level 3.
Why do you think he is correct for the first caution? What law are you basing that on? That isn't me criticising you by the way, just curious what your thought process is.
I think the attacker has deliberately tracked the keeper and then blocks the keeper's attempt to kick the ball out of his hands.
The attacker deliberately turns his back on the keeper as he knows the ball is about to be kicked (probably to make sure he doesn't get the ball in his face as well).
I think keepers are entitled to kick the ball out of their hands unhindered.
For me this is USB -possibly C1 reckless or more likely unspecified behaviour.
The ref i assume came to the same conclusion.
How is it in any way reckless? If he had dangled a leg in then I would agree with you as that can be very dangerous, but he does nothing of the sort here. This was an incorrect decision, if the referee was being observed I'm pretty sure he will be marked down for it.
Keeper could possibly be injured if his kicking leg went into the attacker (at full force - not what happened in the video).
Unless that ref tells us his reasoning we will never know.
Is a keeper allowed to kick the ball out unhindered? Do you even accept the attackers positioning was hindering the keeper here?
"Showing a lack of respect for the game" exists and means he literally cannot be wrong in law for cautioning!
So right or wrong in terms of observations really comes down to what's expected and what the game benefits most from. And while I don't think this is the worst example of this we'll ever see, I think the game benefits from it being stopped.
I don't need to read the rest of the thread, because you've summed it up purrrrfectly
To add (because my opinion is always forthcoming!), ref has had a mare really. Incorrect decision, incorrect caution and expression of anger/irritation when issuing the dissent S7
I'd be disappointed if my handling of any caution that led to another immediate subsequent caution. The ref will be lucky if he was not being observed
FWIW, the GK is trying to get the attacker into trouble and he's succeeded with his plan by hitting the jackpot (on repeat chance!)
Last edited:
That's too easy a cop out, and won't work with observers, certainly not at that level. If you got an incorrect caution in the report and appealed it on the basis that the observer was incorrect in law the review panel would laugh it out of town.
That depends on whether he had done it before, if he had then absolutely.
RefJef
RefChat Addict
Which was exactly my suggestion earlier in thread.
if attacking players have to be outside the penalty area when the ball is in the keepers hands it completely negates this problem. Even if the attacker tracks the keeper across the front of the penalty area, all the keeper needs to do is take a couple of paces back and then has a huge range of angles that he can kick the ball to avoid hitting the player (with either ball or boot)
Counter argument though, why should the keeper have to be disadvantaged by having to kick it from further back because an attacker is getting in his way?
R
