penalty against the keeper incident

[Kent Ref]

I mentor a newly qualified referee and this incident happened and he asked my advice.

Attacker puts the ball past the keeper (in the PA) and attempts run onto the ball he has hit. The keeper comes flying out and goes to ground before the ball is hit.

Attacker evades the keeper by jumping over him and the keeper makes no contact with the ball or the attacker either.

The attacker has hit the ball so hard its gone out of play before he can get to it. Referee says the attacker was never going to get it.

Referee awards a penalty as "if the attacker hadn't jumped the keeper would have cleared him out".

Are we awarding a penalty here?

The conversation went further but i'll reveal that later.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

I mentor a newly qualified referee and this incident happened and he asked my advice.

Attacker puts the ball past the keeper (in the PA) and attempts run onto the ball he has hit. The keeper comes flying out and goes to ground before the ball is hit.

Attacker evades the keeper by jumping over him and the keeper makes no contact with the ball or the attacker either.

The attacker has hit the ball so hard its gone out of play before he can get to it. Referee says the attacker was never going to get it.

Referee awards a penalty as "if the attacker hadn't jumped the keeper would have cleared him out".

Are we awarding a penalty here?

The conversation went further but i'll reveal that later.

If the attacker isn’t getting that ball then 100% not a penalty unless the keeper is judged to have endangered the opponents safety or used excessive force. Which unless he led with his feet seems unlikely.

 

[Kes]

If the attacker isn’t getting that ball then 100% not a penalty unless the keeper is judged to have endangered the opponents safety or used excessive force. Which unless he led with his feet seems unlikely.

Not as I read it.

If the challenge from the GK in the penalty area is careless (doesn't have to be contact for it to be a DFK offence) and the ball is still in play, then it's a penalty.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Not as I read it.

If the challenge from the GK in the penalty area is careless (doesn't have to be contact for it to be a DFK offence) and the ball is still in play, then it's a penalty.

Tbf I’m not clear on whether the ball is out. The balls you’d need to give a penalty for careless in this scenario, woof!

 

[DJIC]

I'm not awarding a penalty. Giving a penalty is not an easy sell, if as you describe the goalkeepers actions did not impede the attacker from getting the ball & therefore scoring.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

With the benefit of time to do so after the event, you and the referee can review the incident using Law 12 - did the goalkeeper commit any of the listed DFK offences?
If so, penalty.

 

[Kent Ref]

With the benefit of time to do so after the event, you and the referee can review the incident using Law 12 - did the goalkeeper commit any of the listed DFK offences?
If so, penalty.

Thank you all for your replies.

I looked at that and the only possible offence was "tackles or challenges" but i couldn't work out what this really meant.

A referee awards a penalty because the keeper "challenges for the ball" but makes no contact with the player? If this a DFK then there would be 10 penalties per game!

BTW the keeper dived with his hands first, not his legs.

The conversation went on and the referee said the keeper's actions impeded the attackers movement but the referee said the attacker was never going to get the ball he overhit.

I then suggested a IDFK would have been a better sanction.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Thank you all for your replies.

I looked at that and the only possible offence was "tackles or challenges" but i couldn't work out what this really meant.

A referee awards a penalty because the keeper "challenges for the ball" but makes no contact with the player? If this a DFK then there would be 10 penalties per game!

BTW the keeper dived with his hands first, not his legs.

The conversation went on and the referee said the keeper's actions impeded the attackers movement but the referee said the attacker was never going to get the ball he overhit.

I then suggested a IDFK would have been a better sanction.

The challenge or tackle one is a judgement call for the referee. It is obviously possible to challenge or tackle fairly (with or without touching the ball) but becomes an offence if the referee deems it careless, reckless or with excessive force, using the definitions in Law 12.
Remember that contact is not an essential in determining whether an offence occurs, as evidenced by the word "attempts" appearing in that section under three headings.
If the referee decides that there is an offence of impeding an opponent without contact, the indirect free kick award would be correct.
As the ball was in play at the time of the incident, whether the attacker had played it too far forward is immaterial.
Hope that helps.

 

[markref]

You need to consider the first bit as well as the bullet points. Ie tackles or challenges “carelessly, recklessly or using excessive force”
if the challenge was careless then it’s a penalty, but if there’s no contact then this is a harder sell. From how you’ve described it, goal kick for me, but it could be an IDFK for impeding.

 

[Kent Ref]

Not as I read it.

If the challenge from the GK in the penalty area is careless (doesn't have to be contact for it to be a DFK offence) and the ball is still in play, then it's a penalty.

How would you "sell" that decision? What is a careless keeper dive that makes no contact with ball or player?

I'd love to see a demo!

 

[Kes]

Obviously it's one of those "you have to be there scenarios" but we seem to be going around the houses.

Based on what is described in the OP, the ball being hit too far ahead of him by the attacker is more of a consideration for DOGSO than whether or not a penalty is awarded.

When the description says:

"if the attacker hadn't jumped the keeper would have cleared him out".

then if the ball is still in play at that moment, then it's a clear cut penalty as per the LOTG, irrespective of how hard it might be to "sell".

 

[Kent Ref]

I looked up the definition of careless in regard to this:

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.

So if the keeper made a genuine attempt to get the ball but the attacker kicks it past him, with no contact at all how do we decide if a keeper has been careless?

Football players down the local park work on the basis of no contact equals no foul, especially in regard to goalkeepers.

What about that famous quote of "what the game expects" that's always being brandished on here?

 

[JamesL]

What about that famous quote of "what the game expects" that's always being brandished on here?

What about it?
Give what the game expects, especially in the penalty area.

We're over analysing this a bit I think.

As I read it, it's no pen, for me.

If you are mentoring a new referee getting down and dirty about what careless is and isn't is probably too much. We need to be helping them learn to make smart decisions, yes in law, but also that aid match control.

I'm guessing this decision did not go down well with the team on the receiving end of the penalty, and I think I'd be asking the young referee to maybe think about why that was

 

[santa sangria]

What about it?
Give what the game expects, especially in the penalty area.

We're over analysing this a bit I think.

As I read it, it's no pen, for me.

If you are mentoring a new referee getting down and dirty about what careless is and isn't is probably too much. We need to be helping them learn to make smart decisions, yes in law, but also that aid match control.

I'm guessing this decision did not go down well with the team on the receiving end of the penalty, and I think I'd be asking the young referee to maybe think about why that was

Thinking same.

 

[Kes]

What about it?
Give what the game expects, especially in the penalty area.

We're over analysing this a bit I think.

As I read it, it's no pen, for me.

If you are mentoring a new referee getting down and dirty about what careless is and isn't is probably too much. We need to be helping them learn to make smart decisions, yes in law, but also that aid match control.

I'm guessing this decision did not go down well with the team on the receiving end of the penalty, and I think I'd be asking the young referee to maybe think about why that was

I get the whole "do what the game expects" theme and generally I agree with it and more often than not I referee according to it, but since when did player ignorance of the LOTG become the overall deciding factor for a referee's decision?

I just can't see how given the OP's description of the event it can be anything other than a penalty in law(?) Where are you getting your "no pen" assertion from?

If the foul had been a kick by a defender on an attacker in the PA but the ball had gone out of play before the offence took place, the (attacking) players would still all be screaming for a penalty and expect one - you gonna give it?

 

[Kent Ref]

I get the whole "do what the game expects" theme and generally I agree with it and more often than not I referee according to it, but since when did player ignorance of the LOTG become the overall deciding factor for a referee's decision?

I just can't see how given the OP's description of the event it can be anything other than a penalty in law(?) Where are you getting your "no pen" assertion from?

If the foul had been a kick by a defender on an attacker in the PA but the ball had gone out of play before the offence took place, the (attacking) players would still all be screaming for a penalty and expect one - you gonna give it?

Unless you read the post wrongly, there's no contact between the attacker and goalkeeper.

How can a careless foul be given with no contact at all?

For me impeding and a IDFK was the worst sanction i would have given, from the description given to me.

Awarding a penalty caused him problems as he then had dissent from players and offinabus by the CAR (who received a red card).

 

[JamesL]

I get the whole "do what the game expects" theme and generally I agree with it and more often than not I referee according to it, but since when did player ignorance of the LOTG become the overall deciding factor for a referee's decision?

Where did I say it was the overall deciding factor. In fact i was also careful to emphasise the "in law" part.

I just can't see how given the OP's description of the event it can be anything other than a penalty in law(?) Where are you getting your "no pen" assertion from?

What offence has been committed? The beauty of opinion. Just sounds like he has challenged for a ball in a normal way (e.g. not careless) and has made no contact with ball or player. Doesn't sound like a foul to me .

If the foul had been a kick by a defender on an attacker in the PA but the ball had gone out of play before the offence took place, the (attacking) players would still all be screaming for a penalty and expect one - you gonna give it?

Apples and oranges. 1 is opinion of referee. 1 is factual ball out of play.

My advice to a new referee is, and to a certain extent an approach that has always helped me (take out some decisions I've had to make this season) is no surprises.

Law is law, I think I post enough on here to make that clear. However, where we have law 5 discretion and attackers not asking and ww3 breaking out by giving it, why as mentors would we suggest our new referees jump in the trenches?

 

[RustyRef]

What does "the game" expect? I don't think anyone really expects a penalty where there is no contact just on the basis that there might have been contact had the attacker not evaded contact. Of course that isn't a hard and fast rule, if the keeper comes charging out like a mad man and the attacker would have been chopped in half if he hadn't got out of the way then it is an easy sell. A lot less so if the keeper just dives at the attacker's feet and he jumps over him.

I can remember years ago Rob Styles gave a penalty, I think against Liverpool, where an attacker had jumped over the challenge. The decision was ridiculed, he was forced to apologise, and dropped for the next set of games. Rightly or wrongly, no one in the game expects a penalty without contact.

 

[Kes]

Unless you read the post wrongly, there's no contact between the attacker and goalkeeper.

How can a careless foul be given with no contact at all?

For me impeding and a IDFK was the worst sanction i would have given, from the description given to me.

Awarding a penalty caused him problems as he then had dissent from players and offinabus by the CAR (who received a red card).

And like I said, there doesn't have to be contact.
If the GK challenge was careless enough for the attacker to have to leap/jump clear to avoid be "cleared out" (your words) then it's a careless challenge and is a penalty.

 

[Kes]

What offence has been committed? The beauty of opinion. Just sounds like he has challenged for a ball in a normal way (e.g. not careless) and has made no contact with ball or player. Doesn't sound like a foul to me .

I normally agree with you J on most things. However the OPs description leads me to believe the challenge was careless at best.

So on this occasion you're wrong. End of. I've decided.
Close the thread.