Preventing the goalkeeper releasing ball from his hands (again)

[one]

There is an initial prevention of allowing the goalkeeper to release inside the penalty area. After that the striker is outside the penalty area. Consider what happens if the goalkeeper then drops the ball to kick it from the ground. The striker is well within their rights to challenge for the ball. Are we saying that there is a minimum distance opposition players need to be from goalkeepers when the ball is in hand?

No we are not (or at least I am not). Neither am I saying this has anything to do with being inside or outside of the penalty area. This is all about preventing the keeper from releasing (you can call it attempting to block) in this case very blatantly as well.

If his intention is to pounce if the keeper drops it, he can stay to the side not in front.

Edit: I have to say, I have no issue with intercepting the ball after the release. But there is a difference between that and preventing the release. A good analogy is a QFK.

 

[Redster]

No we are not (or at least I am not). Neither am I saying this has anything to do with being inside or outside of the penalty area. This is all about preventing the keeper from releasing (you can call it attempting to block) in this case very blatantly as well.

If his intention is to pounce if the keeper drops it, he can stay to the side not in front.

The action of jumping into the likely path of the ball before the keeper released the ball goes a long way, too.

 

[GraemeS]

Nothing he does at any point in that video stops the keeper from releasing the ball. It's the keepers decision not to release as a result of the position of the attacker. At no point does the attacker try to steal the ball between the GK's hands and foot, or in any way stops the keeper running from side-to-side. He's clearly 3 or 4 yards away from the moment the GK picks the ball up until the moment it's kicked.

At all points, the keeper retains the option to kick, throw the ball or drop it and play from the ground. I can't see a single moment in that video where the attacker is close enough that it isn't physically possible for the GK to do all 3 of those things. In the end, the keeper makes an unimpeded kick, the ball leaves his control as it leaves his foot, and a split second later, the attacker intercepts.

Again @one , a QFK is explicitly a restart - and this is explicitly not in current law. There is no defined minimum distance, no IFK/caution available for failure to respect the distance and (outside of Spirit of the game and unspecified USB - both of which amount to "making it up as we go along") I do not see a LOTG reason to disallow this. This thread has been going on for a few days so I'd invite you to refresh your memories with a re-watch as you're probably recalling more interference than is actually there. Throughout the clip, the attacker maintains enough distance so that at no point is he actually physically impeding release. This is a hole in the law - it needs fixing but until it is, disallowing the goal is unsupported by the LOTG.

To put it in "observer terms", you can either gain Match Control points or Application of Law points. But choosing one requires losing the other.

 

[ARF]

Attacker has challenged for the ball while the goalkeeper still has possession (as per @JamesL's screenshots). Had the ball hit the attacker without him challenging for it, or if he had been far enough away that there was time for him to choose to attempt to play the ball after the goalkeeper had released it, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but he has jumped to block it before the goalkeeper has kicked it.

 

[Redster]

Nothing he does at any point in that video stops the keeper from releasing the ball.
...

Throughout the clip, the attacker maintains enough distance so that at no point is he actually physically impeding release. This is a hole in the law - it needs fixing but until it is, disallowing the goal is unsupported by the LOTG.

...

I was of your school of thought until a few months ago when I realised that taking a literal interpretation of the law would require never awarding an IFK unless the player had literally held the ball to the keeper's body. Nothing short of this in fact prevents a keeper from releasing' the ball into play, because all the is required to release the ball is to drop it.

This law requires a sensible, purposive approach. In my view, the IFAB does not want the sort of thing in the OP occurring. They want the ball put back into play without faffing about. They do not want striker's stalking and jumping at keepers, because it will, in turn, slow keepers down in releasing the ball. The logical conclusion, were this to be allowed to become widespread, is stalemate where the keepers refuse to release the ball and referees refuse to apply the 6 second rule because that would also be unfair.

The best interpretation is, again in my view, to construe 'prevents the GK from releasing' to mean something approximating 'commits an action intended to prevent the goalkeeper putting the ball into play while the ball remains in the GK control'.

The intention of IFAB s evidenced by the final clause of the law ''kicks or attempts to kick the ball while the GK is in the process of releasing it'. This last part was added relatively recently and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the IFAB does not want strikers playing at the ball before the GK has released it. Of course, it is written in IFAB language, so I do not expect unanimous support.

 

[GraemeS]

Attacker has challenged for the ball while the goalkeeper still has possession (as per @JamesL's screenshots). Had the ball hit the attacker without him challenging for it, or if he had been far enough away that there was time for him to choose to attempt to play the ball after the goalkeeper had released it, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but he has jumped to block it before the goalkeeper has kicked it.

Disagree completely. At no point has he challenged for the ball - he's shadowed the GK across the area at a reasonable distance and then when the ball is kicked and has left the GK's control, has jumped, again at a reasonable distance. This is an interception, not a tackle.

 

[GraemeS]

I was of your school of thought until a few months ago when I realised that taking a literal interpretation of the law would require never awarding an IFK unless the player had literally held the ball to the keeper's body. Nothing short of this in fact prevents a keeper from releasing' the ball into play, because all the is required to release the ball is to drop it.

This law requires a sensible, purposive approach. In my view, the IFAB does not want the sort of thing in the OP occurring. They want the ball put back into play without faffing about. They do not want striker's stalking and jumping at keepers, because it will, in turn, slow keepers down in releasing the ball. The logical conclusion, were this to be allowed to become widespread, is stalemate where the keepers refuse to release the ball and referees refuse to apply the 6 second rule because that would also be unfair.

The best interpretation is, again in my view, to construe 'prevents the GK from releasing' to mean something approximating 'commits an action intended to prevent the goalkeeper putting the ball into play while the ball remains in the GK control'.

The intention of IFAB s evidenced by the final clause of the law ''kicks or attempts to kick the ball while the GK is in the process of releasing it'. This last part was added relatively recently and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the IFAB does not want strikers playing at the ball before the GK has released it. Of course, it is written in IFAB language, so I do not expect unanimous support.

IFAB want this, IFAB want that. Well then they should write it in law. I agree completely that football wants this to be disallowed, I just don't agree we're actually empowered to do so without making things up and guessing at what we think IFAB want. There's an easy way to fix this and it's to just write it down in the book!

 

[Redster]

IFAB want this, IFAB want that. Well then they should write it in law. I agree completely that football wants this to be disallowed, I just don't agree we're actually empowered to do so without making things up and guessing at what we think IFAB want. There's an easy way to fix this and it's to just write it down in the book!

Amen
I will credit them this, though. It can be difficult to formulate words that neatly fit all eventualities, are comprehensible to the audience, that translate, and that are functionally appropriate. Parliaments have this problem all the time.
Sometimes it is simply left to authorities who are not hamstrung by such considerations to fix the mess.
In IFAB's case, they leave it to the referees. We just have to deal with it the best way we can. Some referees will differ on how best to do so

 

[one]

Nothing he does at any point in that video stops the keeper from releasing the ball. It's the keepers decision not to release as a result of the position of the attacker. At no point does the attacker try to steal the ball between the GK's hands and foot, or in any way stops the keeper running from side-to-side. He's clearly 3 or 4 yards away from the moment the GK picks the ball up until the moment it's kicked.

At all points, the keeper retains the option to kick, throw the ball or drop it and play from the ground. I can't see a single moment in that video where the attacker is close enough that it isn't physically possible for the GK to do all 3 of those things. In the end, the keeper makes an unimpeded kick, the ball leaves his control as it leaves his foot, and a split second later, the attacker intercepts.

Again @one , a QFK is explicitly a restart - and this is explicitly not in current law. There is no defined minimum distance, no IFK/caution available for failure to respect the distance and (outside of Spirit of the game and unspecified USB - both of which amount to "making it up as we go along") I do not see a LOTG reason to disallow this. This thread has been going on for a few days so I'd invite you to refresh your memories with a re-watch as you're probably recalling more interference than is actually there. Throughout the clip, the attacker maintains enough distance so that at no point is he actually physically impeding release. This is a hole in the law - it needs fixing but until it is, disallowing the goal is unsupported by the LOTG.

To put it in "observer terms", you can either gain Match Control points or Application of Law points. But choosing one requires losing the other.

If the attacker continues following the keeper, and the keeper continues going left to right attempting to release it into clear space, at what point would you intervene?

Would that intervention by telling the attacker to not do what he is doing even though you believe he is not doing anything wrong?
Or would it be to call the keeper for 6 seconds?
Or encourage the keeper to kick it sideways or backwards if he doesn't want to kick it into the attacker ?

There is some sarcasm above (won't be a referee forum without it ) but I am genuinely interested to know what you do if that keeps going.

 

[RefJef]

At the moment the keeper kicks the ball, could he have thrown or kicked it without impediment to his left or right? Yes he could. The only reason he didn’t is because he had no one there from his team to pass the ball to. So the attacker hasn’t prevented him from releasing the ball.

Simple law change to prevent this recurring: make it so that all attackers must retreat out of the penalty area when the keeper has the ball in his hands (just like a goal kick). Then, keeper can always retreat further into his area so he is not impeded by an attacker

 

[Anubis]

At the moment the keeper kicks the ball, could he have thrown or kicked it without impediment to his left or right? Yes he could. The only reason he didn’t is because he had no one there from his team to pass the ball to. So the attacker hasn’t prevented him from releasing the ball.

Simple law change to prevent this recurring: make it so that all attackers must retreat out of the penalty area when the keeper has the ball in his hands (just like a goal kick). Then, keeper can always retreat further into his area so he is not impeded by an attacker

might as well blow 30 secs earlier for ht as soon as the gk goes near the ball thats half time
the gk is either going to ***** about with the ball, or then, when prompted by the attackers bid to get the ball back into open play, win a fk by the attacker being too close
nail on head, gk CAN release the ball, to anywhere, any angle on pitch, kick or throw.
he chooses tho to win the fk, and with it, go in as the away team 1-0 up at ht

 

[GraemeS]

If the attacker continues following the keeper, and the keeper continues going left to right attempting to release it into clear space, at what point would you intervene?

Would that intervention by telling the attacker to not do what he is doing even though you believe he is not doing anything wrong?
Or would it be to call the keeper for 6 seconds?
Or encourage the keeper to kick it sideways or backwards if he doesn't want to kick it into the attacker ?

There is some sarcasm above (won't be a referee forum without it ) but I am genuinely interested to know what you do if that keeps going.

These questions have kind of been asked before, but I'll try and give you the same answers.

Initially, for match control reasons, I'll try and get him to move back - even if he's not doing anything wrong, there's nothing stopping me using "management" to try and create a smoother outcome.

But if he chooses to ignore that and keeps shadowing the keeper, I don't think I'd feel entitled to do anything other than jump on it if he does get too close. I wouldn't call 6 seconds either though - if the attacking team complains, I'd tell them to let the GK get on with it and if the GK's team complains, I'd tell them they need to give him options. Seems like common sense to me, and the only slight stretching of the law is to ignore the 6 second law....which we all pretty much do most of the time anyway!

Why, what would you do? The only real alternative I can see is to invent an offence, so I'd quite like to see if you're going to try and justify that, or come up with something else?

 

[ARF]

Disagree completely. At no point has he challenged for the ball - he's shadowed the GK across the area at a reasonable distance and then when the ball is kicked and has left the GK's control, has jumped, again at a reasonable distance. This is an interception, not a tackle.

He's jumped before it's kicked, i.e. when the goalkeeper is still deemed to be in control of the ball.

 

[GraemeS]

He's jumped before it's kicked, i.e. when the goalkeeper is still deemed to be in control of the ball.

I don't see how jumping on the spot 3 yards away from the ball qualifies as "challenging" for it?

 

[RustyRef]

I don't see how jumping on the spot 3 yards away from the ball qualifies as "challenging" for it?

If he was stood still I would agree with you, but he wasn't. He moved with the keeper as he moved to his right, and then jumped in front of him as he kicked it. That ticks all of the boxes for preventing him releasing it.

 

[Kent Ref]

Free kick to the keeper every day of the week,

 

[bester]

Not many attempts to answer my query; if he's 5-yard away and has been tracking the 'keeper's movement is it still an offence?

As expected a few bending over backwards to find a reason for a caution.

 

[Kent Ref]

Not many attempts to answer my query; if he's 5-yard away and has been tracking the 'keeper's movement is it still an offence?

As expected a few bending over backwards to find a reason for a caution.

I would say tracking the keeper from 5 yards is still an IDFK.

 

[one]

These questions have kind of been asked before, but I'll try and give you the same answers.

Initially, for match control reasons, I'll try and get him to move back - even if he's not doing anything wrong, there's nothing stopping me using "management" to try and create a smoother outcome.

But if he chooses to ignore that and keeps shadowing the keeper, I don't think I'd feel entitled to do anything other than jump on it if he does get too close. I wouldn't call 6 seconds either though - if the attacking team complains, I'd tell them to let the GK get on with it and if the GK's team complains, I'd tell them they need to give him options. Seems like common sense to me, and the only slight stretching of the law is to ignore the 6 second law....which we all pretty much do most of the time anyway!

Why, what would you do? The only real alternative I can see is to invent an offence, so I'd quite like to see if you're going to try and justify that, or come up with something else?

Sounds like a Mexican stand off to me

I have said what I'd do before. For me the forward is committing an offence if he is doing it deliberately and the fact the keeper is trying to get away from him, it means he has already been prevented from releasing the ball.

 

[GraemeS]

So that's a yes to "invent an offence" then, thought so!