Actually without a defined distance I would argue that this becomes a spirit of the game issue and the referee should consider what football expects....
And as BC points out often we have to consider what is fair.
Preventing the goalkeeper releasing ball from his hands (again)
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
And as BC points out often we have to consider what is fair.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
slight swerve ball but the gk doing that pretend pick up thing, purely to kill time, and, lets face it, its the gk who has brought the striker into this passage of play in the first place.
the spirit of the game ideally would be, ( again we know legally no offence taking place)., right, get the ball back into the game rather than killing time
law wise, the gk doing no wrong with his ball at feet pretend pick up routine
law wise, striker not doing anything wrong when the ball hits him
yet we penalise the striker, as, it does not seem fair
do we get to choose which stretching the law act we dislike more than the other?
No I am penalising the striker as he is competing/contesting/challenging for the ball whilst the goalkeeper is in control of it.
What other purpose is the striker jumping in front of a keeper, whilst in the process of releasing it, achieving? I can only describe it as challenging.
If the striker is moving away, turns his back and makes no action to do what he does (an action being a key part of challenging) then I'm all for saying goal.
That's just not what happens here.
Running the clock down is different to time wasting. Whilst the ball is in play time is not being wasted it is being used. The keeper is entitled to control the ball with whichever part of the anatomy the law allows him to and until he controls it in his hands the attacker has every right to challenge him. Once it is controlled in the hands all right to challenge the keeper is lost.
Chasing him around his box and then, blocking / intercepting / challenging his release is an offence for me.
And just to add the law could easily be cleared up here with some minor changes. I don't think we need to define a distance, we need to define at what point the ball is released, or at what point a keeper can be challenged. I am. Thinking offside, "immediately challenging" clarification from this year or simply a retreat that says must be outside of penalty area then the keeper can choose where to kick from ie the penalty spot. Most Keepers (save for Juniour) can fly kick the length of field anyway so 6 yards is hardly going to make a difference
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
For me, an indirect free kick if the referee has not called the attacker to come away, adding a caution for unsporting behaviour if he has told him.
The attacker has moved to stop the keeper releasing into play and at the point of release is 2 metres from the keeper (fop markings help to assess that)
The attacker has moved to stop the keeper releasing into play and at the point of release is 2 metres from the keeper (fop markings help to assess that)
Anubis
RefChat Addict
if we switch the challenging, for, an offside, this same distance ( as seen in the nations final) would be classed as onside from a deliberate play....
if that distance can render you onside ( take active part in the game without being penalised), maybe this guy can also take part in the game without being penalised also,
When does the ball leave the GK's control? I think you could make a fairly strong case that it's left his control when it leaves his boot - so any play on the ball after that point is legal in the laws as written. The striker is not challenging a player in possession of the ball, they are intercepting the ball between the times when it is no longer controlled by the GK and when it reaches the next player.
Again, I want this to be disallowed, but I disagree that disallowing it is covered by current laws.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
If the attacker had simply stood his ground, that distance from the GK, and the GK had decided to kick it straight at him, then fair enough. For me, it is the attacker's prior movements that amount to attempting to prevent the release and are unsporting. That also applies to your last point @GraemeS
Okay, if this was a free kick would you allow it? Exhibit A:
I'm using FK as an example of where we already have intercepting is allowed if taken quickly, I know this is not a restart and not subject to 10 yards but I think its a logical principle to apply in that if a player was doing below before a free kick he is getting caution for DRP or failing to respect distance depending on exact circs.
The link is player is preventing a quick free kick just as this player is preventing the ball being released.
Exhibit B
I intentionally left the time on..
The 2 stills are before the keeper has kicked and after it has already rebounded off the player. So less than a second has elapsed between release and "interception". Also bearing in mind this action of "intercepting" began way before the still (at least in slow mo
) Again, looking at another law, (accepted that different laws but I am applying concepts so bare with) if this player had come from an offside position and it was not keeper in hands, but a defender would you say that the player was committing an offside offence of interfering with an opponent by immediately challenging for ball? My answer is yes I would. .
So my logic is dictating that this is, in my view, a player that is challenging an opponent for the ball whilst trying to release it.
If this was a throw in, again a other law, would we allow the striker to jump around in front of it like this.
Granted all the other are restarts and this is not and your idea of classifying this as a restart would be helpful however, I think the laws give us way more than enough to rule this goal out based on definitions and how they are applied in other areas of law.
But this is the problem with the laws. All of the points you've made are prefaced with "if this was {restart}" - which I can then just dismiss by saying "but it's not a restart". Ditto with your concepts argument: the concepts are strong and make a case for why we should be allowed to apply them to this case - but we're not allowed to do so.
This feel like it should be disallowed, and the fix is straightforward - treat it as a pseudo-restart. But until that happens, I don't think there's currently a justification for disallowing this.
This feel like it should be disallowed, and the fix is straightforward - treat it as a pseudo-restart. But until that happens, I don't think there's currently a justification for disallowing this.
I'm just drawing comparisons with how we apply the definition of challenging to other cases. The fact those are restarts isnt the over riding factor. Obviously the offside comparison to challenging is not a restart.
The action to prevent the release starts way before the release happens so we can draw the comparison in that this is the same as preventing a quick free kick.
In many cases the ball is kicked but we don't say well the kick was taken we look at what was happening in the moments prior to that. Was the player actively seeking to prevent it. Which then allows us to determine did he prevent the kick or did he intercept it legally?
Here we have a player, whom is preventing or attempting to prevent (and succeeding) in my opinion a keeper releasing the ball by challenging him whislt he is in control. What else is he doing.
Are you really allowing players to stalk keepers in this way and jump in front of them whilst they are releasing the ball in your games? Or are you calling for them to move away?
If you are calling them to move away, why, if you believe thay the player in this clip, is doing/has done nothing wrong in law?
one
RefChat Addict
This.
The offence is not challenging for the ball when keeper in control but what's in the quote. We had discussed this before. The keeper had the ball at the far right, he ran to the left for 5 or 6 yards to release the ball. The attacker followed him in front "preventing him from releasing" it. At that moment he has commited an offence.
At this point I usually shout move away because I have seen the offence and and I attempt to make the game flow (play advantage). The same way when I see a small niggly foul (hold) in general play and I shout steady/easy/no foul... Because I have seen a foul and I attempt to make the game flow.
Moving on from that point, the keeper then runs to the left a few yards to release it. Why does he do that? Because he was "prevented from releasing it" from where he originally wanted to release it.
For me, as soon as an attacker starts chasing the keeper being in front of him, the act of prevention and hence the foul has already started. I will attempt to make the game flow but if it doesn't work and the attacker impacts the keeper, I'd call the offence.
As far as a caution, there is a myth this is a caution every time. Unless I see it being reckless or a clear SPA, I won't caution for it. It certainly isn't dissent and not a general USB for me either. It's a simple offence.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I'm asking him to move away because, as I've said before, I think the spirit of the game, football expectations etc all want me to try and get the attacker away.
If he still refuses? Well, I actually think this is where the dissent by action argument comes in, make a case for PI or a yellow for non-specified USB which always feels like a cop-out reason to do anything. And then restart with an IFK.
But if the keeper decides to kick anyway between that first shout and me deciding to actually stop play and do something about it? That's where I think we fall into a gap in the laws and just have to accept whatever happens. Unless of course, you're using unspecified USB again, but that's basically just making laws up as you go along at that point!
bester
RefChat Addict
He did (eventually)
If the keeper waits for you to do something about it, which I am not sure what, seeing as you don't think the striker is actually committing/has committed an offence he is running the risk of you calling "six seconds" so is then actually punished for releasing (or attempting to release the ball compliantly with law).
The reason football expects you to be on the attacker is because he is committing an offence (as per one's post). We don't need to loosely apply USB here. It can't be persistent (if it's the first time) and again, it just can't be dissent unless as you said earlier you are 100‰ sure he is protesting/disagreeing with a decision you haven't made yet...
If I am standing in a legal position on the pitch doing nothing wrong then there is no reason for the referee to usher me away and I'd be even more aggrieved if he then dreamt up a caution for me not moving from my legal positioning committing no offence
one
RefChat Addict
Explained a different way, if the attacker has not commited an offence and continues following the keeper, and the keeper continues going left to right attempting to release it into clear space, at what point does this become an offence?
Surely we can't call the keeper for 6 seconds here. We can't stop play because there has been no offence committed. And we can't tell the attacker to play the way we want them to play if they are not committing an offence.
Surely we can't call the keeper for 6 seconds here. We can't stop play because there has been no offence committed. And we can't tell the attacker to play the way we want them to play if they are not committing an offence.
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?