Player removes shirt before scoring...

[RefereeX]

The board is quiet, so thought I'd open a law debate. (Or it might not be a debate, it may be unanimous)

An attacker on a counter attack rounds the keeper who has come a long way out of goal. He kicks the ball towards goal and begins to wheel off celebrating, removing his shirt before the ball crosses the line.

What's your decision? And would it be any different if he removed his shirt prior to taking the shot compared to after taking the shot but before the ball crossed the line?

 

[george.g]

I'd still be cautioning. The shirt presumably stays off during his celebration for the goal, and therefore he has removed his shirt, in my opinion, in order to celebrate.

He can argue any two ways around it, but the game expects a caution here imo.

 

[JamesL]

I'd still be cautioning. The shirt presumably stays off during his celebration for the goal, and therefore he has removed his shirt, in my opinion, in order to celebrate.

He can argue any two ways around it, but the game expects a caution here imo.

What about law 10?

I assume that is where this is headed...

 

[Gabriel]

What about law 10?

I assume that is where this is headed...

I would argue an offence is committed, but I can't find any reason to disallow the goal as Law 12 states an IFK is awarded where a player:

• ...
• commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

In this scenario, however, play is not stopped for that purpose. I would be cautioning but I don't think I would disallow the goal.

 

[one]

So many options. Which way do I go?

Law 4, Law 10, Law 12, and and Law 18 all in play here and a range of decision can be justified by these laws.

I'd go with Law 0 (what comes before Law 1) what would the game expect. Allow play to continue, allow the goal and caution for USB goal celebration. KISS

 

[JamesL]

3 relevant laws here as far as I can see.

Law 4.6
Law 10.1
Law 12.3

Law 4.6 says play need not be stopped for any offence.

This is at odds with law 10.1 which says:

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.

Law 12.3 says:

A player must be cautioned, even if the goal is disallowed, for..
...
removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt

You can only be cautioned if you have committed an offence. In this case the offence is celebrating a goal, this happens before the goal is scored. I'd argue, technically, the goal should be disallowed.

But I'm also of the mindset that the intent of the law, based upon law 4 is not to disallowed the goal and allow the goal and caution the offender.

Ps I have emailed IFAB (they have probably been worried about me I haven't been in touch for a while) but let's keep this going and when we get to the natural conclusion of the thread I will post their reply.

 

[RefereeX]

3 relevant laws here as far as I can see.

Law 4.6
Law 10.1
Law 12.3

Law 4.6 says play need not be stopped for any offence.

This is at odds with law 10.1 which says:


Law 12.3 says:


You can only be cautioned if you have committed an offence. In this case the offence is celebrating a goal, this happens before the goal is scored. I'd argue, technically, the goal should be disallowed.

But I'm also of the mindset that the intent of the law, based upon law 4 is not to disallowed the goal and allow the goal and caution the offender.

Ps I have emailed IFAB (they have probably been worried about me I haven't been in touch for a while) but let's keep this going and when we get to the natural conclusion of the thread I will post their reply.

Haha!

I'd imagine IFAB's response to this will sit on the fence, affirming that removing the shirt is an offence.

For what it's worth, I think technically this should be goal disallowed, but the game very much expects the goal to be allowed, and thus I would probably allow the goal and caution the player afterwards. The only thing that concerns me on this, however, is that if a player / team official from the team that concede actually have knowledge of law and query why the goal is allowed if the offence was comitted first, I'm not sure what I'd say to them.

 

[JamesL]

The only thing that concerns me on this, however, is that if a player / team official from the team that concede actually have knowledge of law and query why the goal is allowed if the offence was comitted first, I'm not sure what I'd say to them.

You say :

"You do realise the law you are quoting (law 10) interpreted explicitly, as written, means that as soon as any member of your team commit any offence in the game (foul/offside etc ) you can score no goals in the rest of the match"

At which point you rest your case.

 

[one]

Haha!

I'd imagine IFAB's response to this will sit on the fence, affirming that removing the shirt is an offence.

For what it's worth, I think technically this should be goal disallowed, but the game very much expects the goal to be allowed, and thus I would probably allow the goal and caution the player afterwards. The only thing that concerns me on this, however, is that if a player / team official from the team that concede actually have knowledge of law and query why the goal is allowed if the offence was comitted first, I'm not sure what I'd say to them.

If we want to be literal in law,

"Players can celebrate when a goal is scored, but the celebration must not be excessive"

"When a goal is scored" implies the offence is only commited after the goal is scored.

This is one of those that you can quote different parts of the law to argue for or against any decision. It's a true use case for the preamble about the use of spirit of the law (in opposed to something that is clear in law but some go against it, sighting the spirit of the law)

 

[David F]

"When a goal is scored" implies the offence is only committed after the goal is scored.

I think that's the key - if the ball stops on the line in the mud, there's no offense. So I'd be going with goal + YC.

 

[JamesL]

I think that's the key - if the ball stops on the line in the mud, there's no offense. So I'd be going with goal + YC.

Devils advocate. I've already said my mindset is the same, allow goal and YC.

I know this provision was put in because of VAR generally, but even if the goal is disallowed, which means there was no goal to celebrate, the player is still cautioned. So, the offence still occurs, despite there having been no goal scored.

 

[Gabriel]

I think that's the key - if the ball stops on the line in the mud, there's no offense. So I'd be going with goal + YC.

I understand where you are coming from, but I would say there is still an offence regardless as Law 4 states a shirt is compulsory equipment, presumably on. I'd still probably allow the goal, but I'd say there is an offence if the ball goes in or not.

 

[FirsFox40]

Goal, caution scorer, await bollocking from observer.

 

[Big Cat]

3 relevant laws here as far as I can see.

Law 4.6
Law 10.1
Law 12.3

Law 4.6 says play need not be stopped for any offence.

This is at odds with law 10.1 which says:


Law 12.3 says:


You can only be cautioned if you have committed an offence. In this case the offence is celebrating a goal, this happens before the goal is scored. I'd argue, technically, the goal should be disallowed.

But I'm also of the mindset that the intent of the law, based upon law 4 is not to disallowed the goal and allow the goal and caution the offender.

Ps I have emailed IFAB (they have probably been worried about me I haven't been in touch for a while) but let's keep this going and when we get to the natural conclusion of the thread I will post their reply.

James, IFAB no less than you (and a few others here), so why email them? They'll just fabricate a response that has no bearing and/or sets no precedence
And every observer would likely have their own view of such unlikely events, possibly (hopefully not, assuming they're sensible!) ruining your season based on their own whim

 

[David F]

Devils advocate. I've already said my mindset is the same, allow goal and YC.

I know this provision was put in because of VAR generally, but even if the goal is disallowed, which means there was no goal to celebrate, the player is still cautioned. So, the offence still occurs, despite there having been no goal scored.

I think a goal disallowed is different to a goal not scored? There's a window of opportunity between the ball crossing the line and an offence being identified that the player has to get themselves cautioned.

 

[JamesL]

I think a goal disallowed is different to a goal not scored? There's a window of opportunity between the ball crossing the line and an offence being identified that the player has to get themselves cautioned.

So why is the ball crossing the line the determining factor?
As far as the player is concerned they are celebrating what they believe is going to be a goal so if it doesn't go in we totally ignore the celebration including the shirt removal?

The FA codes list Goal Celebration as an C1 Unsporting Behaviour offence (not saying that is right - goal celebration isn't in the list of caution offences but appears as it's own section post unsporting behaviour) but let's say it is as part of showing lack of respect for game... Does the fact the ball crosses the line or not change how unsporting the behaviour is?

(Again all total devils advocacy)

 

[socal lurker]

USB is not exclusively defined by the buckets in the Laws.

If, ITOOTR, the act of removing the shirt before scoring the goal was unsporting, the goal would be disallowed and the caution would be given with an IFK coming out.

If, ITOOTR, it only becomes unsporting once the goal is scored and it fits cleanly in an IFAB bucket, then it is a goal and a caution.

Context matters. For me, if the player takes off his shirt and waves it at an opponent before kicking it into the goal, it is is the first flavor above. If he starts pulling it off as the ball is crossing the line, it is clearly the second option.

 

[David F]

So why is the ball crossing the line the determining factor?
As far as the player is concerned they are celebrating what they believe is going to be a goal so if it doesn't go in we totally ignore the celebration including the shirt removal?

The FA codes list Goal Celebration as an C1 Unsporting Behaviour offence (not saying that is right - goal celebration isn't in the list of caution offences but appears as it's own section post unsporting behaviour) but let's say it is as part of showing lack of respect for game... Does the fact the ball crosses the line or not change how unsporting the behaviour is?

(Again all total devils advocacy)

Probably not - but I think this just means the referee *may* caution, rather than *must* caution. As with anything, the ref can always caution at any time if they think USB has occurred. So up to the ref on the day (they don’t *have* to caution until the goal is scored), and I think we’re on the same page that Law 18 in this scenario is probably goal + YC!

(Going to ignore the ridiculous argument from part of my brain saying that if he removes his shirt before the goal is scored then he can’t remove it afterwards and therefore no YC - life’s too short)

 

[Kent Ref]

No goal, Yellow and IDFK.

You cannot celebrate something that has not happened - yet!

 

[RustyRef]

No goal, Yellow and IDFK.

You cannot celebrate something that has not happened - yet!

But on the flip side you can't then be penalised for celebrating a goal before it has happened. Celebrating a goal by removing your shirt is an offence, it cannot be an offence if the goal hasn't happened yet. Chicken and egg.

This came up before a few year as ago as a pro player actually did it in a game. I'm pretty sure the consensus was allow the goal and caution for the celebration. You technically could caution for USB and disallow the goal, but the caution certainly couldn't be for a goal celebration as you'd be penalising something that hadn't yet happened. All you could really do is use the catch all "shows a lack of respect for the game".