Preventing Goalkeeper from releasing the ball

[samogonochka]

About 40 sec left in first half. Goalkeeper just got possession of the ball and trying to release it for quick counter. He is around edge of penalty area. Opposing player No11 is just outside the penalty area and is clearly trying to prevent GK from releasing the ball. I havent stopped the play for IDFK to allow for counter. GK released the ball and started counter attack, however, it came to nothing, I whistled for end of second half and then booked No11 for being in the way of keeper. Stupid No11 picked a second yellow card in 50th minute and was dismissed. Back to first yellow.. was i correct by allowing keeper to play on, and book No11 later, after half is finished, or i shouldve IDFK, as in the laws, and only then yellow?
Thanks for any input here

Interestingly, i had similar situation next game, i stopped game as GK wasnt looking for quick counter. I booked offending player. Both of offending players were trying to argue that they were outside the penalty area and can do whatever they want, and that i was inventing the laws...

 

[AlexF]

A YC isn't needed on preventing release. If the same player does it 2-3 times... then consider persistent offences. But as a one-off? No need for the caution.

 

[Ganajin]

A YC isn't needed on preventing release. If the same player does it 2-3 times... then consider persistent offences. But as a one-off? No need for the caution.

This is absolutely correct, a caution is not mandatory. If it causes the keeper a problem, just give the IFK.

 

[alexgr]

A YC isn't needed on preventing release. If the same player does it 2-3 times... then consider persistent offences. But as a one-off? No need for the caution.

Yes but in this instance it sounds like there’s a case that preventing the release is stopping a promising attack ergo caution?

 

[Nij]

Yes but in this instance it sounds like there’s a case that preventing the release is stopping a promising attack ergo caution?

If that's the case, any instance of a foul that prevents a player from moving the ball up the field should be cautioned for USB-SPA.
It doesn't seem sensible at all to caution here. Play advantage if possible, give the free kick if not, and tell the attacker to stay out of it regardless.

 

[one]

If in my came, with the OP descitpion, its not preventing the release that I would yellow card for. It was for this (highlighted):



The OP description is clearly a promising attack.

 

[AlexF]

Yes but in this instance it sounds like there’s a case that preventing the release is stopping a promising attack ergo caution?

Yeah, but OP seems to think that this is a caution for preventing release... see the bit on the prior game.

In addition to that, once the attack is allowed to continue/take place... it wasn't stopped or interfered with, so therefore, one shouldn't go back to caution for SPA.

 

[RustyRef]

There are really two possible reasons for a caution when the keeper is releasing the ball. One is if it denies a quick break, the other would be if the attacker's actions are a danger to the keeper. If they dangle their foot out and the keeper kicks into it I always caution as that is incredibly dangerous. Keepers put maximum force into drop kicks, and that action ending with top of the foot connecting with studs is going to hurt and quite possibly break bones.

Doesn't sound like either of those apply in the OP though and the caution, as it was described, sounds harsh.

 

[samogonochka]

Thanks guys.. following the posts and checking the laws again, i think that yellow card would be too harsh in the second instance. First one, however, attacker was trying to prevent quick counter, so SPA could be applied there. Would it be ok to issue a card after half time whistle?

 

[RustyRef]

Thanks guys.. following the posts and checking the laws again, i think that yellow card would be too harsh in the second instance. First one, however, attacker was trying to prevent quick counter, so SPA could be applied there. Would it be ok to issue a card after half time whistle?

He might have been trying to prevent a quick counter attack, but did he? You can't really caution someone for SPA if they tried but failed to prevent the PA.

If you really want to go down that route my advice would be wait and see where the ball is heading. If it looks like the keeper got the kick away as normal there is no SPA. If it was clear that the attacker had affected the clearance and the ball wasn't reaching an attacker then pull it back and caution. Don't wait until you have blown for half time as that would just confuse everyone.

 

[one]

Agree and disagree with Rusty there. The reason 'interfere' with promising attack is in the law is so that even if it is not prevented, it can still be punished. Its the act that is being punished (unsporting behavior). Analogy i can use is circumventing the laws even if it is unsuccessful is still a caution. From the OP it is clear to me that the attacker's intent was to stop the promising attack. He couldn't. All you have to determine now is that did he interfere with it. If he did in any way then the law requires you to caution for it. If you want to manage it a different way under the circumstances then YHTBT to see if one can interpret that as no interference.

As Rusty said, best practice is to stop play or wait for ball to go out play. Issue caution then blow time. But if for some reason you have blown full/half time already you can still show cards under law 5.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
If referees were to caution for every time a player "attempted" to prevent release yet came to nothing there would be many cautions issued in games.
In the OP the release was not prevented and there was no IDFK offence. By all means had the player stopped the ball then a card. Better solution would have been a word to tell the player that had he prevented release it was going to be a card.

 

[one]

tell the player that had he prevented release it was going to be a card.

This is generally not a card unless it's recklessly dangerous, SFP or SPA.

Many a times I have had them preventing and it has just been a simple IFK, or a FDK if contact made and it fell under one of the DFK offences. But no card.

 

[GraemeS]

This is generally not a card unless it's recklessly dangerous, SFP or SPA.

Many a times I have had them preventing and it has just been a simple IFK, or a FDK if contact made and it fell under one of the DFK offences. But no card.

Or persistent?

 

[alexgr]

Hi
If referees were to caution for every time a player "attempted" to prevent release yet came to nothing there would be many cautions issued in games.

Really? I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it happen

 

[Kes]

"Promising attack?" You could argue that practically every attack is a "promising" one - but from inside your own area? Not normally...

 

[socal lurker]

Really? I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen it happen

Really? Did you watch the WWC? Very common for players to deliberately run in front of the keeper to prevent a throw. My sense is it's a growing problem. Since it isn't sanctioned, it is a good strategy.

The problem is that calling the foul benefits the miscreant by stopping the play and taking the ball out of the GK's hands. Unless it is misconduct, there is no disincentive for players to do it. I'd like to see it out of the game.

Hi
If referees were to caution for every time a player "attempted" to prevent release yet came to nothing there would be many cautions issued in games.

I don't think players are quite that stupid. If they knew they were going to get cautioned for it, they wouldn't be doing it. As it is now, they know that only good things are going to happen if they do it, so why wouldn't they?

(The now-defunct USSF Advice to Referees included interfering with the GK releasing the ball a an example of USB. I'd like to see IFAB add it. There is nothing legitimate a player can do to challenge a GK who is holding the ball, so we should get them away from the GK and let the game flow.)