The Ref Stop

Indirect Free Kick Handled on Goal Line

Status
Not open for further replies.
arbitre

arbitre

Active Member
Indirect free kick to attacking team 20 yards from goal. Attacker not realising it is indirect takes the kick quickly and shoots. Goalkeeper is off his line and is beaten, however behind him just a few inches in front of the goal is a defender, who handles the ball (which was going in the goal) over the bar.
Decisions?
 
The Ref Stop
Interesting one, but surely it's still a red card for DOGSO and penalty. This is still an attacking opportunity, no matter how certain you are that the ball would have gone in. For example, it could have struck the bar and rebounded to another attacker.
 
Penalty.

Not sure I agree with RC, though. If he was on the line, i.e. the ball would have crossed the line if he didn't handle it, then it's not DoGSo. Through his actions he has now created an OGSO (penalty)

Great question, though!
 
If the ball was clearly going in the goal without his intervention then Penalty and Yellow Card would be my shout
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
The problem is can you be sure that if he hadn't handled it would it have deflected off him and into the goal, which would have obviously made it a valid goal?

Probably one of those that you need to be there and see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
Seeing as it was an INDIRECT free kick..and not a direct free kick....... i would have brought the play back for a retake......no action toward the defender ..... I as the referee would have blown straight away as the player shot on goal..... indicating it should be indirect.
 
mikedn said:
Seeing as it was an INDIRECT free kick..and not a direct free kick....... i would have brought the play back for a retake......no action toward the defender ..... I as the referee would have blown straight away as the player shot on goal..... indicating it should be indirect.
Click to expand...

That is so wrong it is defies belief.

A player is perfectly entitled to shoot at goal from an indirect free kick, it is a legitimate tactic to hope that it gets a deflection of an opponent to create a valid goal. If it goes directly in you award a goal kick. If it deflects in off anyone, defender or attacker, you give the goal. You can't have it retaken because you think the player was intentially shooting at goal.
 
RustyRef said:
That is so wrong it is defies belief.

A player is perfectly entitled to shoot at goal from an indirect free kick, it is a legitimate tactic to hope that it gets a deflection of an opponent to create a valid goal. If it goes directly in you award a goal kick. If it deflects in off anyone, defender or attacker, you give the goal. You can't have it retaken because you think the player was intentially shooting at goal.
Click to expand...
DISAGREE... i have never had a player " have a shot" hoping for a deflection.... have always passed to a team-mate, within a few yards
 
Brian Hamilton said:
You would have done what???
Click to expand...
Brought it back for retake as it was indirect...... as soon as he has his shot, the ref should blow i don't think any player would just shoot hoping for a deflection... why would i punish the defender when the original shot was illegal
 
mikedn said:
Brought it back for retake as it was indirect...... as soon as he has his shot, the ref should blow i don't think any player would just shoot hoping for a deflection... why would i punish the defender when the original shot was illegal
Click to expand...

I'm pretty drink (many lols - SM) right now so I might be seeing things...

The offence is the handball!!!!!

Penalty yellow card as it can't be dogso from an I detect free kick
 
On reflection, I retract what I said previously and will go for penalty and yellow card. This is DGSO; there's definitely an opportunity, because the ball could have deflected off the defender, but it's not obvious.
 
es1 said:
I'm pretty drink right now so I might be seeing things...

The offence is the handball!!!!!

Penalty yellow card as it can't be dogso from an I detect free kick
Click to expand...
The original post states : " Attacker not realising it is indirect takes the kick quickly and shoots" so that is illegal as it should be INDIRECT as the OP stated.... so what would be your course of action on that scenairo alone ? Forget this rubbish about having a shot hoping for a rebound, why does someone always have to put a "curve" on a given situation..... wouldn't you blow the whistle as it should be indirect? course you would? Normally yes you would normally RC the defender for handball,and award a penalty, it was going in so DOGSO ...... but !! the illegal first kick renders that situation immaterial...as the ref should have blown for the erroneous direct kick .... If the OP stated "hoping for a rebound" then i would take a different course of action.
 
mikedn said:
The original post states : " Attacker not realising it is indirect takes the kick quickly and shoots" so that is illegal as it should be INDIRECT as the OP stated.... so what would be your course of action on that scenairo alone ? Forget this rubbish about having a shot hoping for a rebound, why does someone always have to put a "curve" on a given situation..... wouldn't you blow the whistle as it should be indirect? course you would? Normally yes you would normally RC the defender for handball,and award a penalty, it was going in so DOGSO ...... but !! the illegal first kick renders that situation immaterial...as the ref should have blown for the erroneous direct kick .... If the OP stated "hoping for a rebound" then i would take a different course of action.
Click to expand...
Why is it an erroneous direct free kick? The only difference between direct and indirect free kick is that if the ball enters the goal (from an IDFK), for the goal to be awarded, the ball must have touched someone other than the kicker. It doesn't mean that they can't take a shot on goal. In fact any defender in seeing the IDFK signal should just step out of the way and let the ball go in the goal.
 
It's perfectly legal to shoot from an IDFK, though, regardless of outcome. The rebound was just a suggested reason for invoking DOGSO.
 
mikedn said:
The original post states : " Attacker not realising it is indirect takes the kick quickly and shoots" so that is illegal as it should be INDIRECT as the OP stated.... so what would be your course of action on that scenairo alone ? Forget this rubbish about having a shot hoping for a rebound, why does someone always have to put a "curve" on a given situation..... wouldn't you blow the whistle as it should be indirect? course you would? Normally yes you would normally RC the defender for handball,and award a penalty, it was going in so DOGSO ...... but !! the illegal first kick renders that situation immaterial...as the ref should have blown for the erroneous direct kick .... If the OP stated "hoping for a rebound" then i would take a different course of action.
Click to expand...

Mike, you are totally wrong here. If he wasn't aware it was indirect then that is his problem, he might get lucky and it gets a deflection and goes in so he gets a goal anyway, or it might go in directly in which case you give a goal kick.

Once the ball is kicked it is in play, you can only then deal with what happen after that, be it a goal following a deflection, goal kick if it goes straight in, or free kick / penalty if there are any subsequent offences. The only difference between a DFK and IDFK is the latter has to touch another person before it crosses the goal line for a goal to be given. It doesn't have to be tapped so that someone else can then shoot, they can shoot directly at goal and hope for the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top