A&H

Goal or No Goal?

I am happy to accept the Bristol City example as a challenge on the goalkeeper while he releases it, so it's the correct decision. There have been instances where the goalkeeper is at fault, however. Posts on this topic in the past have suggested that if a goalkeeper was prevented from releasing it just by virtue of a close opponent, an IFK should be awarded. Moreover, another post claimed that dangerous play was the reason for this sanction by another name. These are not my interpretations; I am responding to ideas posited by other referees on a situation that can be thorny.
 
The Referee Store
What we were told at our instructor reaccreditation last year was (essentially) as follows:

When an opponent challenges the GK while the GK is in possession of the ball (with hands), then if contact is made, it's whatever DFK offence that would have been normally (ie, if player kicks at ball, and contacts GK, then it's a kicking offence, etc). If no contact is made with the GK (ie, kicks the ball OUT of the GK's hands without contact GK) then it's deemed to be "playing in a dangerous manner".

In this instance, there's contact, and it could be argued that this is an illegal charge (for all intents and purposes), so this should be a DFK restart.
 
I agree with one and cr. Keeper may not be challenged when he is in possession. He is still in possession if he is bouncing the ball or in process of dropping the ball in a punt
 
I agree with you, and thanks for the clarifications. I suppose all I was saying was that I suspect keepers get a bit more leeway than other players in terms of what constitutes a challenge. I will be interested to see what a referee awards when a keeper bumps into a slowly retreating attacker while rushing to release the ball. What will be easier: to allow a controversial goal or to say the keeper was challenged?
 
Posts on this topic in the past have suggested that if a goalkeeper was prevented from releasing it just by virtue of a close opponent, an IFK should be awarded.
Without going back and checking (and there have been a number of discussions on this) that's not how I remember it. As I recall it, the argument was not that merely being close was enough to constitute preventing the release, the debate was more over individual incidents where some people thought the player had deliberately moved into a position to block the keeper's release of the ball and others thought the player was just standing there doing nothing wrong, and the keeper had kicked the ball into the opponent.
I suppose all I was saying was that I suspect keepers get a bit more leeway than other players in terms of what constitutes a challenge.
I think that's because they do - by law, any challenge on a keeper (assuming they have possession of the ball with the hands) is an offence. For other players (and a keeper with the ball at his feet) the challenge has to be at a minimum, careless. So there is a difference there.
 
Back
Top