Preventing the goalkeeper releasing ball from his hands (again)
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
In the games I do, IFK and caution.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Mine too. Especially as the player would have ignored at least one shout from me to move away from the keeper. In this case the caution would either be for dissent by action (blatantly ignoring my instruction) or general unsporting behaviour as there's no SPA here.
"Public protest, or disagreement with a match officials decision"
This absolutely cannot be dissent in my opinion because simply what decision have you made in this clip? A warning, or encouragement to not offend is not a decision.
This becomes even worse below step 4 in England because then the player wrongly (in law anyway) sits out 10 minutes. So you might get away with dissent in your usual games where there aren't any sin bins and no observer.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
correct.
' hands off dont foul' proceeds to nudge opponent
caution for dissent?
that clip can be lots of things, in no way shape or form can it be dissent
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
James, I agree it is pushing the boundaries of dissent. However, a 'decision' is simply "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration" and in the OP, I believe I would have decided that the attacking player's actions were unacceptable, hence the strong and clear instruction to stop. Often times in a game, referee's decisions actually involve them doing or saying nothing at all (giving a no foul decision for example).
That said, I agree that, at those levels where sin bins are in operation, a caution for simple Unsporting Behaviour is a better / fairer call than time off the pitch for this offence. The most important choice in the OP is firstly, has an offence been committed (IMO yes) and secondly, should it be a YC (again, IMO, yes)
Absolutely but Anubis' analagy very aptly sums up my stance here... If you tell a defender not to push their opponent, and then then they push their opponent is that then dissent?
Or let's turn this on its head, keeper release please? Come on keeper let's go. 30 seconds later keeper still hasn't released. Idfk (in law no sanction.) are you then going to caution for dissent here too? We could pull out lots more of these similar scenarios where we give instruction to a player who is on the edge of an offence and they proceed to commit the offence we were trying to deter. (jostling at corners, penalty encroachment, taking FK before whistle, general in play communication)
I normally agree with a lot of your posts but you're stretching this one a bit too far for me.
Yes you may have decided that the players actions were unacceptable, you may have even communicated that to him/her. But he didn't then do it it disagree with or protest your decision, he has just ignored your instruction, which is a very different concept. Of course ignorance can be dissent in some cases, but I dont think we can really stretch that to these situations when another law 12 offence is committed.
This is the important distinction - I think there is scope for dissent in an incident like this, but you have to be certain it's done specifically to wind you up. If he's doing it for "footballing" reasons, to either delay the game or to try and nick the ball from the keeper in a dangerous manner, you use the respective caution code for that.
As came up in another thread recently, it would be a lot simpler if the laws started classifying this as a "restart" and mandated a suitable distance for the attacker to be away. That would open up cautions for delaying a restart/failing to respect the distance, making this a straightforward decision. As it is, the referee has to decide that it feels unfair (smartly using a chat with the AR to give himself some thinking time!) and then come up with some BS reason for disallowing the goal.
I can't see any justification in law as it stands for disallowing this. But it absolutely shouldn't be allowed, this isn't the kind of goal we want scored.
LOTG say's the goal is good. But is it 'fair' haha?
One thing that's off the table 100% ---> Is dissent
Absolute nightmare to Referee. @Russell Jones is right in that pre-emptive communication is the only way the Ref is coming out of this in one piece
One thing that's off the table 100% ---> Is dissent
Absolute nightmare to Referee. @Russell Jones is right in that pre-emptive communication is the only way the Ref is coming out of this in one piece
This is absolutely not a good goal.
We should all be looking to disallow this under simply "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of
releasing it"
This isn't a keeper error where its bounced off his back and he has been fortuitous in his position. He has actively engaged, and interfered, and prevented the release from control so I do hope that were all going to stop play, award an indirect free kick?
I thought we were just discussing sanction, which for me, as a first offence is none as the law does not require it.
We should all be looking to disallow this under simply "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of
releasing it"
This isn't a keeper error where its bounced off his back and he has been fortuitous in his position. He has actively engaged, and interfered, and prevented the release from control so I do hope that were all going to stop play, award an indirect free kick?
I thought we were just discussing sanction, which for me, as a first offence is none as the law does not require it.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
well........
fair opens another can of worms....
the gk team is 1-0 up, granted cant find exact timing but there are ' seconds to go' and ' the referee will blow the whistle"
that gk is counting down to ht with all his actions, first, the pretend pick up ( perfectly legal of course), drawing the striker in, knowing if striker impedes him its a fk and indeed half time, then picking up the ball, holding it for over six secons, ( just, but, still over), and then releasing it.
that ball is ' active' after it leaves the gk hands, and, absolutely active when it leaves his feet
the striker has not prevented a release of the ball.
the lotg allow this to stand.
I was ribbing certain folk because I've been using the term 'fair' to describe my style of Refereeing, a term that was questioned intently. Yet, now, WRT this OP, 'fair' is allowed back on the table
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Ok, I can see that consensus re dissent is against me here 
. For what it's worth, I deliberately don't tell / instruct players NOT to do things in the general run of play. I might generally 'advise' players to be careful ("Steady, Nothing Silly etc etc") and to alert them to my nearby presence but I certainly don't say eg "No Foul" as the choice whether to do that belongs entirely to the players ....
Where I do tend to clearly give instructions, for example to players 'Standing' on free kicks, if they ignore that instruction they are highly likely to get both penalised and yellow carded (though I'd accept that other caution codes negate the need for using dissent in those cases)
So, going back to the OP, I actually agree with Anubis that the striker has not, in the end, prevented a release of the ball. However I genuinely believe that the actions of the attacker in the run up to the actual release amounted to Unsporting Behaviour (which is why I'd have told him to stop) so I'm definitely going IFK and YC.
. For what it's worth, I deliberately don't tell / instruct players NOT to do things in the general run of play. I might generally 'advise' players to be careful ("Steady, Nothing Silly etc etc") and to alert them to my nearby presence but I certainly don't say eg "No Foul" as the choice whether to do that belongs entirely to the players ....Where I do tend to clearly give instructions, for example to players 'Standing' on free kicks, if they ignore that instruction they are highly likely to get both penalised and yellow carded (though I'd accept that other caution codes negate the need for using dissent in those cases)
So, going back to the OP, I actually agree with Anubis that the striker has not, in the end, prevented a release of the ball. However I genuinely believe that the actions of the attacker in the run up to the actual release amounted to Unsporting Behaviour (which is why I'd have told him to stop) so I'm definitely going IFK and YC.
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball...
The red player is clearly in the process of challenging the goalkeeper whilst he is releasing the ball in this still (granted the the ball left the keepers hand a millisecond before, the player is already contesting with the keeper by this point)
Straightforward IDFK and we are done.
The red player is clearly in the process of challenging the goalkeeper whilst he is releasing the ball in this still (granted the the ball left the keepers hand a millisecond before, the player is already contesting with the keeper by this point)
Straightforward IDFK and we are done.
Not sure you can challenge an opponent from 4m
Otherwise, we'd need more than 4m for a dropped ball
Anubis
RefChat Addict
lets put the striker back to the white line two yards behind him
making the same movement, same body shape
ball rattles off him and in
goal? hopefully
because as rightly pointed out in the opening thread, we dont have a defined distance.
realistically, on the white line, he would still be challenging for the ball, in the absence of a required distance.
and, without that distance in law, both, are legal releases of the ball, both hit the striker, both go in the net...
When does a challenge become a challenge?
"An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball"
He is clearly competing/contesting with the keeper for the ball.