A&H

Goalkeeper and kicker offend at the same time Indirect free kick and caution for kicker

callmemyref

callmemyref

Well-Known Member
Goalkeeper and kicker
offend at the same time -
Indirect free kick and
caution for kicker


Why to caution to the kicker? I thought we only caution when it is illegal feinting etc?
 
The Referee Store
The outcome for this had been changed several times in recent years. The current one was brought in in 20/21 and here is the reason given by ifab:
• If the kicker and goalkeeper offend at exactly the same time (a rare event), the goalkeeper’s offence is usually caused by the kicker’s ‘illegal’ feinting, so the kicker is penalised.
 
callmemyref said:
Kicking the ball backwards and wrong kicker
Click to expand...
Both kicking backwards and wrong kicker are offences that are met with a caution and IFK (though for wrong kicker it is the new kicker who is cautioned, not the original). And in all these cases, if goalkeeper also offends, we ignore it. Clear and simple, what's the problem?
 
Dan56 said:
Both kicking backwards and wrong kicker are offences that are met with a caution and IFK (though for wrong kicker it is the new kicker who is cautioned, not the original). And in all these cases, if goalkeeper also offends, we ignore it. Clear and simple, what's the problem?
Click to expand...
You didn't get me mate, when it is not an illegal kicking, and wrong kicker, why to caution the kicker? And I think you should study the Laws of the game more rather the telling what's clear and simple, back kicking is not YC'd +...
 
This isn't really a forum where people try and get one over on each other, it's to help us all.

Law 14 says:
  • If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

    the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate offends:
    • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
    • if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick
  • except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:
    • a penalty kick is kicked backwards
    • a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick
    • feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker
There's a handy table on the IFAB Laws page too, which covers the determined outcomes. The debate is always around levels of tolerance/expectation in terms of when to apply these.
 
Martiju said:
This isn't really a forum where people try and get one over on each other, it's to help us all.

Law 14 says:
  • If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

    the player taking the penalty kick or a team-mate offends:
    • if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken
    • if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and restarts with an indirect free kick
  • except for the following when play will be stopped and restarted with an indirect free kick, regardless of whether or not a goal is scored:
    • a penalty kick is kicked backwards
    • a team-mate of the identified kicker takes the kick; the referee cautions the player who took the kick
    • feinting to kick the ball once the kicker has completed the run-up (feinting in the run-up is permitted); the referee cautions the kicker
There's a handy table on the IFAB Laws page too, which covers the determined outcomes. The debate is always around levels of tolerance/expectation in terms of when to apply these.
Click to expand...
Hi, I agree we shouldn’t get one over each other, but I’m here seeking to help , and not people telling me what’s simple, maybe it’s simple for him but not for me.

I know the PK law very well, but I don’t have the clear understanding.

As it says if kicker and goal keeper offends at the same time - then it’s YC for the kicker and IFK. But is it YC at all times? Because when you kick the ball backwards it says that it’s not an YC offence. What if the GK and the kicker offends at the same time when the player kicked the ball backwards?
 
Whilst his attitude isn’t great, I can see where OP comes from. Kicking the ball backwards is a kicker offence, but it doesn’t result in a YC. However the Laws state if a keeper and kicker offend at same time, a caution is given to kicker. Surely kicking the ball backwards isn’t a caution just because keeper offends at same time.
 
I do understand too.

I think the difference is that it is not a completed kick if the kicker kicks it backwards (or feints at the end of the run up, or is the wrong kicker). Therefore it doesn't matter if the keeper has transgressed by, for instance, coming off his line.

The Laws don't cover every eventuality (and couldn't) so we have to look at the intended purpose of each one and work out what is best to do in reality. In the vast majority of these cases, I think this bit is about highlighting that the attacking team has created a void kick and they are therefore penalised.
 
Joshref said:
Whilst his attitude isn’t great, I can see where OP comes from. Kicking the ball backwards is a kicker offence, but it doesn’t result in a YC. However the Laws state if a keeper and kicker offend at same time, a caution is given to kicker. Surely kicking the ball backwards isn’t a caution just because keeper offends at same time.
Click to expand...
Technically it would be a caution for the kicker, but in the 2,000+ games in which I officiated it never happened🙄
 
As I mention in an earlier post, this law has changed a fair few times in the last few years, mostly because of VAR being able to pick up very small encroachments. It is still far from perfect. If memory serves me right, at one stage any offence by the kicker was a caution, retake or not.

The OP may have found an inconsistency. I am fairly sure it was discussed here at the time of law change. But on the whole, there are far bigger inconsistencies in law to fix than this.

The OP is never going to be a problem in practice. No one is ever going to look at the keeper encroachment as an offence when the ball is kicked backwards. Just give the IFK without a caution and get on with it. The only time goalkeeper encroachment may come to it when kicker offends is when the kicker says I paused because the keeper came out. And you can say in this case the law says I should caution you and give them an IFK.
 
one said:
The OP is never going to be a problem in practice. No one is ever going to look at the keeper encroachment as an offence when the ball is kicked backwards. Just give the IFK without a caution and get on with it. The only time goalkeeper encroachment may come to it when kicker offends is when the kicker says I paused because the keeper came out. And you can say in this case the law says I should caution you and give them an IFK.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t you argue they don’t do it at the same time then?
 
Joshref said:
Couldn’t you argue they don’t do it at the same time then?
Click to expand...
In reality and technically speaking the only time two offences can happen at the same time is when the same act causes the two offences. If they are two different acts then surly there is some difference in time.

Good examples of offences at the same time are second touch by a player after a restart (IFK) but that touch is a handball (DFK ). Or carless tackle (no card) but SPA (yellow card).

So yes you could argue the offences as two acts were not at the same time. But you could also argue the same act, taking the kick (putting ball in play) has made them both offence and before that neither were offences. So they could be offences at the same time.

Having said all that there is no need to overthink this. We know the laws are not written the best way. As said, just give the IFK and get on with it. No card for kicking backwards, yellow card for illegal feint. And I am sure that's what IFAB expects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top