Preventing the goalkeeper releasing ball from his hands (again)

[GraemeS]

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.

Thanks!

To be fully transparent, I actually want it to be disallowed! But I think the laws are lacking provisions to allow us to do this currently, and I'm not happy with us making things up (especially on such an important KMI) just to match what we think football "should" be.

 

[JamesL]

Here is some guidance from a USSF national instructor :
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/interfering-with-the-goalkeepers-release-of-the-ball-2/

Probably put better than I have at any point my opinion on the matter.

You did avoid my question earlier in this thread at what point do we consider a challenge, a challenge?

If we look at laws of game definition

An action = jumping in front of keeper release well before it is released.

This action is him contesting/challenging for the ball before it is released which results in his succesful interception.

 

[Big Cat]

Here is some guidance from a USSF national instructor :
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/interfering-with-the-goalkeepers-release-of-the-ball-2/

Probably put better than I have at any point my opinion on the matter.

You did avoid my question earlier in this thread at what point do we consider a challenge, a challenge?

If we look at laws of game definition

An action = jumping in front of keeper release well before it is released.

This action is him contesting/challenging for the ball before it is released which results in his succesful interception.

The Author is making it up though. Quite likely, guidance somewhere else in the World is preaching something else

 

[JamesL]

The Author is making it up though. Quite likely, guidance somewhere else in the World is preaching something else

Yes. But I wasn't presenting it as fact. It was what he says I actually agree with.

And he is of a much higher authority (within his own association) than pretty much all of us on this forum and is paid to provide his opinion and interpretation so that also holds weight with me as well.

I also reckon some of his teachings will have been taught (probably from FIFA).

 

[Big Cat]

Yes. But I wasn't presenting it as fact. It was what he says I actually agree with.

And he is of a much higher authority (within his own association) than pretty much all of us on this forum and is paid to provide his opinion and interpretation so that also holds weight with me as well.

I also reckon some of his teachings will have been taught (probably from FIFA).

Those Memo's don't reach >95% of us however

 

[GraemeS]

Not to be too dismissive, but that's a 2010 opinion based on 2010 laws based on a semi-formal memo from the US equivalent of the FA, who don't historically have the best reputation for LOTG-accurate interpretations. And even in that answer, it includes the phrase "until the moment when the ball has been clearly released into play" - which again, I'd argue is fulfilled in this example.

And I certainly didn't mean to ignore the challenge question. I think it being the GK makes us add complexity and is causing us to second-guess a fairly straightforward concept. So let's start by defining it with respect to an outfield player: I would consider a challenge to be when one player is considered in possession of the ball, and an opponent is attempting to take possession off them.

So if we then take this definition and extend it to GK's who cannot be challenged when in certain types of possession. You can't take the ball out of the GK's hands, including if he's juggling or bouncing it. A specific note has been added to say that you cannot try and nick the ball between the "drop" and the "kick" of a drop kick. But the existence of that last specific point also implies an end to the point where the keeper is in possession of the ball - which is functionally equivalent to the point where it is legal to challenge.

And given he is not "challenging" until the point where he is contesting with an opponent for the ball - there is no "challenge" in this clip. The ball has left the GK's possession when it leaves his foot, and at no point before that is the opponent contesting for the ball with him. Moving into position to challenge is not the same as challenging - in the same way that moving into an offside position is not the same as committing an offside offence.

 

[Russell Jones]

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.

Graeme, I completely agree with you that intercepting the ball a few yards from the GK's release is legal. If that was all the attacker had done then I'd definitely be awarding the goal.

However, I continue to believe that his prior actions of shadowing the GK's movement around the Penalty Area are primarily designed to impede the release of the ball and are unsporting. It's for that reason that I think we (all of us?) would be proactively managing this situation to get the attacker to desist. Still waiting to hear if you personally believe those prior actions to be unsporting .....

 

[JamesL]

Not to be too dismissive, but that's a 2010 opinion based on 2010 laws based on a semi-formal memo from the US equivalent of the FA, who don't historically have the best reputation for LOTG-accurate interpretations. And even in that answer, it includes the phrase "until the moment when the ball has been clearly released into play" - which again, I'd argue is fulfilled in this example.

And I certainly didn't mean to ignore the challenge question. I think it being the GK makes us add complexity and is causing us to second-guess a fairly straightforward concept. So let's start by defining it with respect to an outfield player: I would consider a challenge to be when one player is considered in possession of the ball, and an opponent is attempting to take possession off them.

So if we then take this definition and extend it to GK's who cannot be challenged when in certain types of possession. You can't take the ball out of the GK's hands, including if he's juggling or bouncing it. A specific note has been added to say that you cannot try and nick the ball between the "drop" and the "kick" of a drop kick. But the existence of that last specific point also implies an end to the point where the keeper is in possession of the ball - which is functionally equivalent to the point where it is legal to challenge.

And given he is not "challenging" until the point where he is contesting with an opponent for the ball - there is no "challenge" in this clip. The ball has left the GK's possession when it leaves his foot, and at no point before that is the opponent contesting for the ball with him. Moving into position to challenge is not the same as challenging - in the same way that moving into an offside position is not the same as committing an offside offence.

And I think that is where we won't agree. If the player jumping across the keeper blocking the path/trajectory of the ball is not contesting for the ball, I'm struggling to determine what else it can be considered as...

If this were an offside situation if be flagging offside as interfering g with opponent bt challenging him but by your logic you will allow the OSP to do this as well.

And you've taken the quote out of context, he is saying that the player can't start his attempt to challenge/intercept until it is in play which pretty much conforms to other parts of law imo.

 

[bester]

5m35 Benzema moving to intercept it before the ball was released..

Few posters changed views? https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/champions-league-final.11749

 

[GraemeS]

Graeme, I completely agree with you that intercepting the ball a few yards from the GK's release is legal. If that was all the attacker had done then I'd definitely be awarding the goal.

However, I continue to believe that his prior actions of shadowing the GK's movement around the Penalty Area are primarily designed to impede the release of the ball and are unsporting. It's for that reason that I think we (all of us?) would be proactively managing this situation to get the attacker to desist. Still waiting to hear if you personally believe those prior actions to be unsporting .....

I'm clearly being asked too many questions as I'm missing a chunk of them!

Again, I don't see that as illegally impeding anything - he's blocking the keeper from playing the ball exactly where he wants to play it, but as far as I can see, the law only requires that he doesn't block the keeper from releasing the ball full stop. He maintains enough distance (I would be penalising if there was contact at any point, but there isn't) and the options of a throw, controlled drop or even kick out wide are still available to the GK, which meets the requirements in law IMO.

 

[GraemeS]

And I think that is where we won't agree. If the player jumping across the keeper blocking the path/trajectory of the ball is not contesting for the ball, I'm struggling to determine what else it can be considered as...

If this were an offside situation if be flagging offside as interfering g with opponent bt challenging him but by your logic you will allow the OSP to do this as well.

And you've taken the quote out of context, he is saying that the player can't start his attempt to challenge/intercept until it is in play which pretty much conforms to other parts of law imo.

You're getting your definitions backwards - the offence would be challenging the GK, contesting is part of the consideration for what a challenge is, but isn't an offence in itself. To get really granular, a challenge is defined in 3 parts:
1. an action where a player is competing/contesting
2. with an opponent
3. for the ball

In order to challenge the GK, the full definition must be met - and at a distance of 3-4m, I don't see how at any point he has engaged with an opponent and therefore, has at no point in that clip "challenged the GK".

Similarly, contesting with an opponent where the ball is nowhere near isn't a challenge (and will usually be AA at least!), and taking the ball off an opponent where they don't resist (ie after a FK has been given) does not involve competing/contesting and therefore isn't a challenge either. The full definition must be met - exclude any one of the 3 parts and you don't have a footballing challenge.

 

[one]

5m35 Benzema moving to intercept it before the ball was released..

Few posters changed views? https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/champions-league-final.11749

Find the thread for this game on this forum. You will see a similar discussion where most think it should have been disallowed . In fact there is also another thread with similar discussion for goal I think against Westham .

 

[bester]

I linked it. You were consistent.

 

[socal lurker]

Here is some guidance from a USSF national instructor :
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/interfering-with-the-goalkeepers-release-of-the-ball-2/

Probably put better than I have at any point my opinion on the matter.

You did avoid my question earlier in this thread at what point do we consider a challenge, a challenge?

If we look at laws of game definition

An action = jumping in front of keeper release well before it is released.

This action is him contesting/challenging for the ball before it is released which results in his succesful interception.

US teaching was very clear on this, not just from Jim Allen but in the USSF's old Advice to Referee. The ATR was very clear that the USB examples in the LOTG were exactly that--examples. The offense is USB. The old ATR gave additional examples, which included interfering with the GK.

As I noted above, I firmly believe that jumping in front of the GK is an offense by challenging the GK, and I firmly believe that a R has the discretion to determine if it warrants a caution for USB.

It happens so rarely at top levels that it can be a hard in-the-moment decision on what the player actually did.

And as I noted above, while I think the answers are clear (and certainly even more obvious when outside the professional realm), I also think it would be good for the magic book to be more explicit so we don't have this debate amongst well meaning Rs who take understanding the LOTG very seriously--the answer should be more clear. (And if they decide it really is OK to jump in front of GKs trying to punt the ball, I may have to stop reffing U14 boys . . . .)

 

[Kent Ref]

Did this use to be a mandatory caution in the UK?

 

[Anubis]

Did this use to be a mandatory caution in the UK?

urban myth I think, some ref decided it was then it happened next week with same team and a diff ref and the shout goes from there..

 

[Redster]

5m35 Benzema moving to intercept it before the ball was released..

Few posters changed views? https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/champions-league-final.11749

I acknowledged in a previous post on this bread that my view on the law has changed after considering the amendment to the law to include the words 'kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it'.

That being said, the two scenarios are patently different. Benzema's action is far less obvious. - - If he begins moving towards the path of the ball before it is released, there is not much in it
- the distance he moves is negligible. Effectively he just changes the position of his leg (old matey in the OP jumps yards in a full rugby charge down)
- he does not shadow the GK around the area, in fact the GK controls the ball and releases very quickly such that Benzama is in largely the same position as he was when the ball was first controlled. This put a very different gloss on how one would consider his actions as a whole.

 

[Russell Jones]

I'm clearly being asked too many questions as I'm missing a chunk of them!

Again, I don't see that as illegally impeding anything - he's blocking the keeper from playing the ball exactly where he wants to play it, but as far as I can see, the law only requires that he doesn't block the keeper from releasing the ball full stop. He maintains enough distance (I would be penalising if there was contact at any point, but there isn't) and the options of a throw, controlled drop or even kick out wide are still available to the GK, which meets the requirements in law IMO.

Brilliant, thank you for being so clear. I think this gets us to the absolute heart of the disagreement. And it proves your point that for absolute clarity, the law needs to be rewritten / clarified (no surprise there!). I, and I think the majority of referees, are interpreting the current law as saying that the GK should be allowed to release the ball pretty much as they want. In the majority of grass roots games in England, this is to hoof it up the pitch a significant distance. As such, an attacker shadowing their movements is preventing a typical release by the GK and it doesn't feel right and even (for me) feels unsporting. You believe there remain other options for the GK and therefore the attacker's actions are fine. I think you are out of line with the majority opinion but I now understand why you believe the law is open to this interpretation

 

[Gamespoiler]

I’m more upset the referee has a different colour top to his assistants

 

[GraemeS]

Brilliant, thank you for being so clear. I think this gets us to the absolute heart of the disagreement. And it proves your point that for absolute clarity, the law needs to be rewritten / clarified (no surprise there!). I, and I think the majority of referees, are interpreting the current law as saying that the GK should be allowed to release the ball pretty much as they want. In the majority of grass roots games in England, this is to hoof it up the pitch a significant distance. As such, an attacker shadowing their movements is preventing a typical release by the GK and it doesn't feel right and even (for me) feels unsporting. You believe there remain other options for the GK and therefore the attacker's actions are fine. I think you are out of line with the majority opinion but I now understand why you believe the law is open to this interpretation

I do understand this conflict, and as I've said a few times, my preferred solution would be to just write in law a nice exception that defines the idea of leaving the GK alone for these kicks.

But in the mean time, a little management of the GK or even an IFK when it's functionally the same as a fly kick - I'm OK with those as bodged solutions that don't make much difference in reality. But I find the idea of a caution for the first "offence" a bit troubling when that offence isn't actually even defined in law!