Preventing the goalkeeper releasing ball from his hands (again)

[one]

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

Or conversely your handling of it would be inability to understand the laws of the game and misapplication of it.
I feel we have started going down the wrong path here.

 

[Russell Jones]

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!

Why does football want this to be disallowed? In my opinion , it is because we believe that the actions of the attacker, in shadowing the keeper as he attempts to get a clear path upfield to release the ball safely, are both unsporting and potentially dangerous both to the attacker and to the goalkeeper.

We spend a large proportion of our time as referees penalising unsporting behaviour and as a result, it's by far the most common Caution Code. IFAB / The FA have even given us a special C1 sub code for 'Other Unspecified Unsporting Behaviour' ... why not use it? Or, if you don't believe the attacker is doing anything unsporting, then why are you warning him in the first place as you say you would?

 

[Kent Ref]

For me it's a warning for the attacker first time and yellows thereafter.

 

[GraemeS]

Why does football want this to be disallowed? In my opinion , it is because we believe that the actions of the attacker, in shadowing the keeper as he attempts to get a clear path upfield to release the ball safely, are both unsporting and potentially dangerous both to the attacker and to the goalkeeper.

We spend a large proportion of our time as referees penalising unsporting behaviour and as a result, it's by far the most common Caution Code. IFAB / The FA have even given us a special C1 sub code for 'Other Unspecified Unsporting Behaviour' ... why not use it? Or, if you don't believe the attacker is doing anything unsporting, then why are you warning him in the first place as you say you would?

For a start, as you say, "Unspecified USB" is a FA caution code not part of the laws. So therefore I would argue it is simply supposed to be used for the unsporting offences that are listed in the LOTG but are not covered by the other FA caution codes. Things like swapping places with the GK without informing the referee, making unauthorised marks, verbal distraction.

That's distinct from "inventing a caution to penalise something we personally don't like".

This isn't a brand new thing that someone invented 3 days ago - it's been going on for years. If IFAB wanted cautions for this, it would have been trivial to add a "blocking the GK from kicking/throwing the ball to his intended target" in the USB section of the LOTG. Or for that matter, including "fly kicks from the goalkeepers hands" in the "delay of a restart" or "failing to respect the distance" sections. The fact they haven't is a fairly clear indication that this isn't a cautionable offence in law.

 

[Russell Jones]

For a start, as you say, "Unspecified USB" is a FA caution code not part of the laws. So therefore I would argue it is simply supposed to be used for the unsporting offences that are listed in the LOTG but are not covered by the other FA caution codes. Things like swapping places with the GK without informing the referee, making unauthorised marks, verbal distraction.

That's distinct from "inventing a caution to penalise something we personally don't like".

This isn't a brand new thing that someone invented 3 days ago - it's been going on for years. If IFAB wanted cautions for this, it would have been trivial to add a "blocking the GK from kicking/throwing the ball to his intended target" in the USB section of the LOTG. Or for that matter, including "fly kicks from the goalkeepers hands" in the "delay of a restart" or "failing to respect the distance" sections. The fact they haven't is a fairly clear indication that this isn't a cautionable offence in law.

I get your point Graeme and my intent in these situations would always be to manage them in order to avoid the need for even a FK, let alone a caution. However, you don't appear to have answered the fundamental question ... do you personally believe the specific actions of the attacking player in the OP to be unsporting? Because in the LOTG glossary, UB is clearly defined as Unfair action or behaviour that is punishable by a caution ....

 

[JamesL]

I get your point Graeme and my intent in these situations would always be to manage them in order to avoid the need for even a FK, let alone a caution. However, you don't appear to have answered the fundamental question ... do you personally believe the specific actions of the attacking player in the OP to be unsporting? Because in the LOTG glossary, UB is clearly defined as Unfair action or behaviour that is punishable by a caution ....

And further to this the LOTG list of unsporting behaviours is not an inclusive list hence the word "including". So we are able to caution for anything in our opinion that is unsporti g behaviour. Additionally ifab gave us shows a lack of respect for the game which is a fairly catch all and can easily be translated into the FA's unspecified behaviour code.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Losing the game, so going to slow down the keeper releasing than ball, weird logic by the attacker.

Just don't see how this can be anything other than a defensive IDFK.

 

[Anubis]

Losing the game, so going to slow down the keeper releasing than ball, weird logic by the attacker.

Just don't see how this can be anything other than a defensive IDFK.

if the striker does not make the initial move to the gk the gk will simply count down the clock

of all the angles, options, directions to kick, throw, the gk has managed to boot the ball into the one opponent it was possible to hit

he could have released, he was not prevented from releasing

its clever by the gk and we are rewarding him with a fk. have no doubts at all e knows what he is doing, and why
to keep control of the ball and go in ahead at the break

this half is over soon 30 secs before time, the ball is not going back into open play

 

[RustyRef]

if the striker does not make the initial move to the gk the gk will simply count down the clock

of all the angles, options, directions to kick, throw, the gk has managed to boot the ball into the one opponent it was possible to hit

he could have released, he was not prevented from releasing

its clever by the gk and we are rewarding him with a fk. have no doubts at all e knows what he is doing, and why
to keep control of the ball and go in ahead at the break

this half is over soon 30 secs before time, the ball is not going back into open play

What is the keeper supposed to do? Wherever he moved the attacker moved with him, then when he kicked it the player blocked him, this is 100% not a deliberate act by the keeper of his fault in any way. I know others have said he could have avoided it by getting a full back to come short and wide and roll it out to him, but why should he have to? Had the attacker stood still and the keeper blasted the ball at him I would have no sympathy, but the attacker didn't stand still.

 

[GraemeS]

What is the keeper supposed to do? Wherever he moved the attacker moved with him, then when he kicked it the player blocked him, this is 100% not a deliberate act by the keeper of his fault in any way. I know others have said he could have avoided it by getting a full back to come short and wide and roll it out to him, but why should he have to? Had the attacker stood still and the keeper blasted the ball at him I would have no sympathy, but the attacker didn't stand still.

I'll flip that round and say "why should the attacker give him space?" The only situations in a football match where it isn't legal to close down an opponent are restarts - which this explicitly isn't. Ditto for intercepting the ball - typically legal. So where there is no law to cover a scenario, why wouldn't we just apply the standard approach, rather than try and imagine another complex set of unwritten rules about what isn't legal?

 

[JamesL]

I'll flip that round and say "why should the attacker give him space?" The only situations in a football match where it isn't legal to close down an opponent are restarts - which this explicitly isn't. Ditto for intercepting the ball - typically legal. So where there is no law to cover a scenario, why wouldn't we just apply the standard approach, rather than try and imagine another complex set of unwritten rules about what isn't legal?

Because the laws state a keeper can't be challenged or prevented from releasing the ball. In the absence of a definition of what that means in law I think its reasonable to assume what the larger proportion of the membership are suggesting.

 

[Anubis]

What is the keeper supposed to do? Wherever he moved the attacker moved with him, then when he kicked it the player blocked him, this is 100% not a deliberate act by the keeper of his fault in any way. I know others have said he could have avoided it by getting a full back to come short and wide and roll it out to him, but why should he have to? Had the attacker stood still and the keeper blasted the ball at him I would have no sympathy, but the attacker didn't stand still.

gk could pick ball up when it first goes into the box and get it back into open play
but no, he waits until the striker shuts him down, thus by his own actions reducing the possibilities to plsy the ball

this is (legal) time wasting, deliberate ( clever ) by the gk

would you stand still if gk was about to belt ball into you?
a player is what, 30cm wide
yet of an entire football park, blasting it at the player is the only place the ball can go?

just to add, am prob giving the fk here, because its expected and safe
that tho does not mean its complete skullduggery by the gk

 

[socal lurker]

Because the laws state a keeper can't be challenged or prevented from releasing the ball. In the absence of a definition of what that means in law I think its reasonable to assume what the larger proportion of the membership are suggesting.

IMO the ban on challenging the GK while he has the ball directly at issue here. Anything an opponent does after the ball is released is fair game. The issue is what he does before the ball is released. And as the GK remains in possession in the act of punting, that means the release on a punt is when he kicks it. A player is free to jump after the ball is kicked. But he can't jump in front of the GK while the GK is in the act of punting--that is a challenge and I'm going to call it that way until there is official guidance that I'm wrong. (And I absolutely think that Law 12 gives the R discretion to identify USB beyond the examples given and I absolutely think that this can be a cautionable offense.)

All that said, I would like IFAB to make this more clear than it is in the book to make this discussion go away. The last thing the game needs is knucklheads jumping in front of punts to try to block them.

 

[bester]

Are there any other in play offences that are listed as idfk / dfk offences (with no text specific text supporting a yellow card) that people are cautioning as unspecified behaviour showing a lack of respect for the game?

Can't think many off hand, pull back that's not SPA ..

 

[RustyRef]

I'll flip that round and say "why should the attacker give him space?" The only situations in a football match where it isn't legal to close down an opponent are restarts - which this explicitly isn't. Ditto for intercepting the ball - typically legal. So where there is no law to cover a scenario, why wouldn't we just apply the standard approach, rather than try and imagine another complex set of unwritten rules about what isn't legal?

Because he has prevented the keeper from releasing the ball, at least from successfully doing so.

Look, if you want to allow this in your games full your boots. But if for whatever reason I end up observing you it will be going down as an incorrect KMI.

 

[RustyRef]

gk could pick ball up when it first goes into the box and get it back into open play
but no, he waits until the striker shuts him down, thus by his own actions reducing the possibilities to plsy the ball

this is (legal) time wasting, deliberate ( clever ) by the gk

would you stand still if gk was about to belt ball into you?
a player is what, 30cm wide
yet of an entire football park, blasting it at the player is the only place the ball can go?

just to add, am prob giving the fk here, because its expected and safe
that tho does not mean its complete skullduggery by the gk

He doesn't have to release it quickly, he gets 6 seconds.

The keeper has only blasted it at the attacker because he moved in front of him. Had the attacker stood still the kick would have gone down field and there would be no talking point.

 

[Anubis]

He doesn't have to release it quickly, he gets 6 seconds.

The keeper has only blasted it at the attacker because he moved in front of him. Had the attacker stood still the kick would have gone down field and there would be no talking point.

i mean from moment ball goes into box,

not from when the 6 starts

 

[GraemeS]

Because the laws state a keeper can't be challenged or prevented from releasing the ball. In the absence of a definition of what that means in law I think its reasonable to assume what the larger proportion of the membership are suggesting.

Again, in no way was he prevented from releasing the ball. And a challenge actually is defined in law: "An action where a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball." He has not competed or contested for the ball while it's in the GK's posession, he's waited for the GK to release it and then intercepted after.

Also, the other main example I can think of something similar is the CL final between Real Madrid and Liverpool from a few years back. The GK went to roll the ball out, the attacker intercepted a yard or two away, put the ball in the net and the goal was allowed. And my recollection doesn't include anyone from FIFA/IFAB coming out a few days later and stating it should have been disallowed.

So on my side of this discussion I have an example from one of the most high-profile matches in the last few years with one of the top officials in Europe and who went on to be implicitly supported by all the top European law bodies. And on yours, you have (with all due respect) a referee who is most likely a L5-L4 candidate working at step 5, who is visibly uncertain and has eventually, made up a reason to disallow the goal in the name of making his life easier. That's an established precedent that intercepting the ball a few yards from the GK's release is legal.

 

[Big Cat]

Because he has prevented the keeper from releasing the ball, at least from successfully doing so.

Look, if you want to allow this in your games full your boots. But if for whatever reason I end up observing you it will be going down as an incorrect KMI.

Then you'd be wrong in Law... in the opinion of many of us
That said, I'm with you because Match Control is more important than AOL IMHO
I'd ignore the wording in the book, hide behind the ambiguity and award an IDFK. (My) Refereeing's an art, not a science; and I want my games to finish

Edit... BTW; as an observer, wouldn't you be better off leaving AOL alone whenever there's ambiguity and going after Match Control instead? The latter will lead you to an accurate score anyway

 

[Anubis]

Again, in no way was he prevented from releasing the ball. And a challenge actually is defined in law: "An action where a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball." He has not competed or contested for the ball while it's in the GK's posession, he's waited for the GK to release it and then intercepted after.

Also, the other main example I can think of something similar is the CL final between Real Madrid and Liverpool from a few years back. The GK went to roll the ball out, the attacker intercepted, put the ball in the net and the goal was allowed. And my recollection doesn't include anyone from FIFA/IFAB coming out a few days later and stating it should have been disallowed.

So on my side of this discussion I have an example from one of the most high-profile matches in the last few years with one of the top officials in Europe and who went on to be implicitly supported by all the top European law bodies. And on yours, you have (with all due respect) a referee who is most likely a L5-L4 candidate working at step 5, who is visibly uncertain and has eventually, made up a reason to disallow the goal in the name of making his life easier. That's an established precedent that intercepting the ball a few yards from the GK's release is legal.

Thats the best post I have read on this subject.

How anyone can say release was prevented, when factually the gk has drop kicked the ball is bewildering

I want this goal to stand.
however, guilty as charged, am taking the sensible ( weak) way out and giving a fk.
But only because I know 9 out of 10 other refs are doing it too. I am not willing to be the 10th.