The Ref Stop

PK/DOGSO or not?

C

CapnBloodbeard

RefChat Addict
This was a local National Premier League match (so, 2nd tier below the national professional comp). Lots of talking points if anybody wants to watch the entire highlights clip, but I'd like to know what people think of this incident:


I know it's a little hard to tell from the video...

My view is even if the keeper touched the ball first, the way he hurled himself at the ball/players legs is sufficient for a careless tackle, so I'm in favour of the decision.
 
The Ref Stop
I'm presuming you are talking about the penalty at circa 2min 18?

I think it's harsh, I think keeper has dived and get the ball. No penalty from me. (Plus the ref could only have been about on the half way line - not holding this against him, it was a swift break - but his view can't have been great.) But happy to bow to collective wisdom and advice - that's why I'm here: too learn.

Also interested in others thoughts re: the free kick and yellow card at around 1min 15 - blue striker went over a little easily, not sure I'd have given that (although I am conscious that I am a little old school - aka a knackered old git - and do, perhaps, allow a little too much "physicality", an area of my game to work on.)
 
My opinion is that the keeper go there first and played the ball (just) but difficult to tell as the blue defender is almost directly in the line of vision between the camera and the incident.
 
I can't tell if the GK actually plays it, or simply plays the striker.

Let's go with the GK playing that ball and stopping/slowing it significantly though, since the other option is a clear penalty and under current Laws, DOGSO-F.

So, in the scenario that the GK plays that ball, strictly speaking, the attacker then goes over the GK and falls. FIFA and UEFA have put out a number of teaching clips in their various DVDs that show things similar to this where the GK gets the ball, then the player falls over the GK. They're almost exclusively "no foul, no card".

The exception is when the GK gets ball then swings around through the attacker. In short, if the attacker makes contact, then it's his problem, but if the GK makes that contact (think ball to hand vs hand to ball), then it's the GK's problem.

I can't find (at work) a quick example of a GK challenge like that, but I did find this that I hope illustrates what I'm trying to say above:

 
AlexF said:
I can't tell if the GK actually plays it, or simply plays the striker.

Let's go with the GK playing that ball and stopping/slowing it significantly though, since the other option is a clear penalty and under current Laws, DOGSO-F.

So, in the scenario that the GK plays that ball, strictly speaking, the attacker then goes over the GK and falls. FIFA and UEFA have put out a number of teaching clips in their various DVDs that show things similar to this where the GK gets the ball, then the player falls over the GK. They're almost exclusively "no foul, no card".

The exception is when the GK gets ball then swings around through the attacker. In short, if the attacker makes contact, then it's his problem, but if the GK makes that contact (think ball to hand vs hand to ball), then it's the GK's problem.

I can't find (at work) a quick example of a GK challenge like that, but I did find this that I hope illustrates what I'm trying to say above:

Click to expand...

In this video the defender makes an excellent challenge and clearly wins the ball. Completely different to the OP where for my money he simply cleans the attacker out.
 
As an ex keeper, your coached to go out head / arms first, you can't quite see the connection.

Second guessing, the ball is there to be played, so I'd find it difficult to imagine that the keeper has decided to completely ignore the ball and go over the top of it and take the striker.
 
svenny76 said:
As an ex keeper, your coached to go out head / arms first, you can't quite see the connection.

Second guessing, the ball is there to be played, so I'd find it difficult to imagine that the keeper has decided to completely ignore the ball and go over the top of it and take the striker.
Click to expand...

Of course the ball is there to be played and of course the keep hasn't decided to ignore the ball but does that mean its not a foul?
 
If there's a foul there to be given then it's given isn't it, I haven't said I wouldn't give a foul, how can you make a 100% decision on the footage you've seen??

Hence the reason I didn't commit to a foul or not a foul
 
Well obviously I wasn't there and we don't have the best view so im not saying I am 100%, but IMO the keeper took him out.
 
Based purely on the video, I think that's the correct decision. The ball continues towards the goal line after the player is wiped out.
 
This clip was posted on a local refereeing facebook page, and most said it was the wrong decision. I don't care about that, but it was mostly comments like 'the attacker lost possession' (so what?), or 'the ball was there to be won' (yes, it is every single time there's a foul. Still needs to win it clearly), or - conerningly - looks like the keeper got the ball first. My response to that would be the nature of the law change around 'careless/recklessly tackles an opponent'.....nope, completely oblivious to what that law is about. Too many referees seem to think the challenge doesn't matter if you get the ball first.

Agree or disagree on the incident, that's fine - but not understanding the principle of the law was really concerning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top