A&H

Goal keeper drop kick

This topic has had many threads here. Biggest one being in a UCL final between Real Madrid and Liverpool when one of the goals came of a similar incident.
Kes said:
Remember though, that the offence is in preventing the GK from releasing the ball. It's not just for "getting in the way" or even "putting the GK off". That might sound contradictory as such but there can be a fine line between them ...
Click to expand...
Understanding what "preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball" means is very important.

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. The reason we don't stop the game is as @socal lurker mentioned, not to give the culprit the satisfaction. If the second option release is intercepted, I will definitely bring the ball back for an IFK for preventing keeper from releasing a few seconds earlier.
Generally this won't be a caution but if it was, it won't be for preventing keeper to release, it would be for some other USB reason.

Lastly, how close an opponent can be for it to be considered preventing release rather than just an intercept is a grey area. So is if the act has to be a deliberate act.
 
The Referee Store
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that's a really strange can of worms to open, and leaves you very open to seemingly inconsistent sanctions. If for example you judge one keeper to be a better kicker than the other, taking the kicker skill into account opens up the possibility of the exact same action resulting in different sanctions within a game. There are situations where that's inevitable, but I don't see the point in creating that scenario by choice.

For me, if there's a serious counter-attack possibility and the GK is attempting to kick the ball to them and is blocked by an illegal action, that's enough for a SPA card for me. I don't see any reason to give the blocking player any benefit of the doubt really - it's a dick move, it's generally unsporting and has serious potential to become dangerous if done poorly. Take the excuse to give the booking and discourage it if you legitimately can.
 
one said:
This topic has had many threads here. Biggest one being in a UCL final between Real Madrid and Liverpool when one of the goals came of a similar incident.

Understanding what "preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball" means is very important.

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. The reason we don't stop the game is as @socal lurker mentioned, not to give the culprit the satisfaction. If the second option release is intercepted, I will definitely bring the ball back for an IFK for preventing keeper from releasing a few seconds earlier.
Generally this won't be a caution but if it was, it won't be for preventing keeper to release, it would be for some other USB reason.

Lastly, how close an opponent can be for it to be considered preventing release rather than just an intercept is a grey area. So is if the act has to be a deliberate act.
Click to expand...
Not so sure I agree with that.

Happy to be challenged on this but my belief is that the spirit of Law 12 where this "offence" occurs relates to an opponent deliberately and physically preventing the GK from releasing the ball, not for preventing the GK from being able to play as they wish. Proximity is key I suppose but the normal scenario for this offence being penalised during a game is as @RustyRef mentioned above - a player sticking their leg out or or standing a yard or two off the GK and generally being a "dick". In the scenario you describe above, I wouldn't be penalising a player for attempting to intercept what may or may not be the start of a promising attack. The opponent still has the right to whatever space they occupy on the field at that particular moment in time.
Even at a FK, if the player wants to go quickly and an opponent (who hasn't yet retreated 10 yards) intercepts or blocks, it's play on.

For me, as long as the opponent isn't right in the GKs face, say within 3 yards, I'm letting it go.
 
Kes said:
Not so sure I agree with that.

Happy to be challenged on this but my belief is that the spirit of Law 12 where this "offence" occurs relates to an opponent deliberately and physically preventing the GK from releasing the ball, not for preventing the GK from being able to play as they wish. Proximity is key I suppose but the normal scenario for this offence being penalised during a game is as @RustyRef mentioned above - a player sticking their leg out or or standing a yard or two off the GK and generally being a "dick". In the scenario you describe above, I wouldn't be penalising a player for attempting to intercept what may or may not be the start of a promising attack. The opponent still has the right to whatever space they occupy on the field at that particular moment in time.
Even at a FK, if the player wants to go quickly and an opponent (who hasn't yet retreated 10 yards) intercepts or blocks, it's play on.

For me, as long as the opponent isn't right in the GKs face, say within 3 yards, I'm letting it go.
Click to expand...
To know what the spirit of the law is we need to find out when the law was created and why. But before I go there, let me ask a couple of questions. Say in my scenario, before the keeper makes his second attempt of release, the opponent again runs in front and blocks that options, a third attempt by keeper moving sideways and another opponent comes in and blocks the option and so on. The option of releasing the ball to no one towards his own goal is always open to the keeper. Do you consider this becoming an offence and if so when?

There is plenty of advice about referees yelling out to opponents to move away but why? If this is not an offence, what right do we have to tell them not to do it? And if the opponent doesn't listen to our instruction, can we stop the game and why?
 
one said:
To know what the spirit of the law is we need to find out when the law was created and why. But before I go there, let me ask a couple of questions. Say in my scenario, before the keeper makes his second attempt of release, the opponent again runs in front and blocks that options, a third attempt by keeper moving sideways and another opponent comes in and blocks the option and so on. The option of releasing the ball to no one towards his own goal is always open to the keeper. Do you consider this becoming an offence and if so when?

There is plenty of advice about referees yelling out to opponents to move away but why? If this is not an offence, what right do we have to tell them not to do it? And if the opponent doesn't listen to our instruction, can we stop the game and why?
Click to expand...
Too many questions!! :rolleyes: :D

In a nutshell, I think my explanation above (as to how I see it) is concise enough.

In your scenario(s) above, as I visualise it the GK isn't being prevented from releasing the ball at all. They're being prevented from distributing it as they so desire which isn't the same thing. Restricting a GK's options to play the ball to a team mate just ain't the same as preventing them releasing it. :cool:
 
Kes said:
Too many questions!! :rolleyes: :D

In a nutshell, I think my explanation above (as to how I see it) is concise enough.

In your scenario(s) above, as I visualise it the GK isn't being prevented from releasing the ball at all. They're being prevented from distributing it as they so desire which isn't the same thing. Restricting a GK's options to play the ball to a team mate just ain't the same as preventing them releasing it. :cool:
Click to expand...
Short of an attacker grabbing the outside of the GKs hands and holding them in place around the ball, nothing can stop a GK from physically releasing a ball. Is that really the bar we're holding attackers to?
 
GraemeS said:
Short of an attacker grabbing the outside of the GKs hands and holding them in place around the ball, nothing can stop a GK from physically releasing a ball. Is that really the bar we're holding attackers to?
Click to expand...
To give @Kes some support here. We are trying to find a fair balance between allowing the GK to release the ball into play unhindered, with the attacker's legitimate right to his position on the field. There is an important difference between allowing a GK to release the ball into play and allowing a GK to release the ball into play exactly where, when and how he ideally wants. To take it to an extreme, if the attacker stands completely still and the GK refuses to move to one side in order to release the ball, then who is in the wrong?

These days, an attacker 'loitering' on the edge of the penalty area may well be ensuring the GK punts the ball (rather than placing it on the ground to kick) rather than trying to actively prevent the release.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
A caution offence that is underused in my opinion, is 'lack of respect for the game' (AKA f***ing about)
If the player is penalised, the GK is worse off, because an IDFK is not as good as ball in hand
So as it stands, without a caution for SPA or whatever, it's worth the outfield players taking a chance
 
Russell Jones said:
To give @Kes some support here. We are trying to find a fair balance between allowing the GK to release the ball into play unhindered, with the attacker's legitimate right to his position on the field. There is an important difference between allowing a GK to release the ball into play and allowing a GK to release the ball into play exactly where, when and how he ideally wants. To take it to an extreme, if the attacker stands completely still and the GK refuses to move to one side in order to release the ball, then who is in the wrong?

These days, an attacker 'loitering' on the edge of the penalty area may well be ensuring the GK punts the ball (rather than placing it on the ground to kick) rather than trying to actively prevent the release.
Click to expand...
Fine, but that's a looooooooooooong way off what Kes was suggesting.

If "well he could still have released it back into his own goal" is all that's required to avoid being penalised, this entire thread is pointless as there is no possibility of a real-world offence because no striker in the world would choose to stop an own goal. The threshold cannot be "can he release that ball?", because that's a farcically low bar.

To be honest, I think the simple and most obvious answer is in the extent to which the attacker actively moves to block. I have no real issue with a player standing their ground and happening to be in the way, but I don't think the game in general benefits if we allow attackers to actively move and make the quick kick harder or more dangerous for the keeper.
 
one said:
Let's take a real case. Offence or no offence?

B-4min 40sec


This is a good read
Click to expand...
OK, so when we get hung drawn and quartered in a game, do we just tell the executioner that it's Ok cos proreferees.com said blah blah blah?
Not having a pop at you of course, just the absurdity of it all. One observer would likely crucify us for one thing and another for doing the other thing
Typical football

FWIW, that's a goal BTW and a massive subsequent headache
 
GraemeS said:
Fine, but that's a looooooooooooong way off what Kes was suggesting.

If "well he could still have released it back into his own goal" is all that's required to avoid being penalised, this entire thread is pointless as there is no possibility of a real-world offence because no striker in the world would choose to stop an own goal. The threshold cannot be "can he release that ball?", because that's a farcically low bar.

To be honest, I think the simple and most obvious answer is in the extent to which the attacker actively moves to block. I have no real issue with a player standing their ground and happening to be in the way, but I don't think the game in general benefits if we allow attackers to actively move and make the quick kick harder or more dangerous for the keeper.
Click to expand...
I agree with the way you'd enforce this. I just don't see where you take such issue with anything that Kes specifically said. To take another (hopefully helpful!) example, if there's a defender available on both sides of the keeper and an attacker stands (not moves) in such a way as to try and encourage distribution in one of the two directions rather than the other ... that seem reasonable to you?
 
Russell Jones said:
F

For me, that's an offence. But the offence only starts around 4.50 which illustrates both sides of the argument pretty well.
Click to expand...
I honestly wouldn't know what an observer at my level would make of it. I'm betting they would not have a consistent viewpoint
Roll the dice stuff
Like all of this ambiguity, rewrite and stick it in the book and don't rely on 'secret privileged teachings' (IMO)
 
Going off on a bit of a tangent, I’ve often thought the solution to this question is to mandate that when the goalkeeper has the ball in his hands attackers must leave the penalty area, like for a goal kick. Would get rid of all these problems at the stroke of a pen.
 
Russell Jones said:
F

For me, that's an offence. But the offence only starts around 4.50 which illustrates both sides of the argument pretty well.
Click to expand...
I think I am on the same page. The block I don’t think is an offence. And the initial trot up to the GK to make him pick up is not an offence.

But the part in the middle, 4’46, the attacker tracks the GK to prevent him releasing the ball. I can sell that to myself and call the IDFK.

But unfortunately it’s impossible to sell any decision here to all players. The law does us no favours here!
 
RefJef said:
Going off on a bit of a tangent, I’ve often thought the solution to this question is to mandate that when the goalkeeper has the ball in his hands attackers must leave the penalty area, like for a goal kick. Would get rid of all these problems at the stroke of a pen.
Click to expand...
Would it? Keepers already run to the edge of the area, so by definition anyone trying to block the release would already be outside of the area.
 
santa sangria said:
I think I am on the same page. The block I don’t think is an offence. And the initial trot up to the GK to make him pick up is not an offence.

But the part in the middle, 4’46, the attacker tracks the GK to prevent him releasing the ball. I can sell that to myself and call the IDFK.

But unfortunately it’s impossible to sell any decision here to all players. The law does us no favours here!
Click to expand...
I think the part between 4.46 and 4.50 is the most interesting. Because many referees (including yourself it seems) start to have issues with the attacker's actions here. However, in my current opinion (it has changed over time!), the attacker is entitled to that position on the field and the GK shows no real interest in releasing the ball into play, even though he has an obvious, unblocked chance to send it short to the left back. For me, it's when the GK commits to a kick upfield (around 4.50) that the attacker needs to stop and not interfere with the release
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top