A&H

release

The Referee Store
A common mistake when the keeper has the ball in hand is to turn away and run up field. You should run backward. If there are opponents deliberately getting in the way of keeper's release I usually yell "move away". If it continues and keeper unable to release or even keeper later releases but the opponent has a notable negative impact, it's IFK. If I don't give a free kick because there was no impact, it's a quite talk to the opponent on the run.
 
A common mistake when the keeper has the ball in hand is to turn away and run up field. You should run backward. If there are opponents deliberately getting in the way of keeper's release I usually yell "move away". If it continues and keeper unable to release or even keeper later releases but the opponent has a notable negative impact, it's IFK. If I don't give a free kick because there was no impact, it's a quite talk to the opponent on the rA''
And do you give a card after a few times?
 
If he does it a "few times" and I award a free kick each time, yes very likely a caution for persistent offences.

But that's the same for any other type of offence that you would apply "persistence offences" to.
 
And do you give a card after a few times?
For me it's what we mean by 'notable negative impact'. If it's a deliberate attempt to block the ball (before I have a chance to shout) I might even caution the first (unsporting behaviour). If it's hanging around and trying to influence, then I would be having a word to warn of the potential offence before it happens. If it's then done again, it's an easy sell for a caution.
 
Need to think about SPA too, in case of the opportunity to play a quick ball out
Yes, majority of release interference are gonna be SPA and a caution for that reason
Ironically, I had a bit of a 'dressing room disagreement' with a 'shoe-in 5-to-4 candidate' recently. He was quite 'upset' about my insistence that interfering with the release is not a caution in itself. Can't teach these CORE kids anything these days!
 
Yes, majority of release interference are gonna be SPA and a caution for that reason
Ironically, I had a bit of a 'dressing room disagreement' with a 'shoe-in 5-to-4 candidate' recently. He was quite 'upset' about my insistence that interfering with the release is not a caution in itself. Can't teach these CORE kids anything these days!

It used to be an example as USB (though as I think about it, I’m not sure if it was in the magic book or was part of USSF’s additional examples of USB).
 
Yes, majority of release interference are gonna be SPA and a caution for that reason
Ironically, I had a bit of a 'dressing room disagreement' with a 'shoe-in 5-to-4 candidate' recently. He was quite 'upset' about my insistence that interfering with the release is not a caution in itself. Can't teach these CORE kids anything these days!
Hmmmm :rolleyes: . It's one of those where if you decide the interference is serious enough to stop the play for a free kick, then you'd better be seen to AT LEAST have a very strong word with the offender. Otherwise you've disadvantaged the team trying to release the ball for very little positive purpose.
 
Hmmmm :rolleyes: . It's one of those where if you decide the interference is serious enough to stop the play for a free kick, then you'd better be seen to AT LEAST have a very strong word with the offender. Otherwise you've disadvantaged the team trying to release the ball for very little positive purpose.
The occasion on which I stopped the game recently, the GK was arguably as much at fault as the interferer. However, I'm such a 'safe referee' and a member of the 'Goalkeeper's Union', that the whistle blew without my 'conscious commanding' it to do so. I then almost proceeded to drop the ball to the Keeper, but luckily, I don't make errors in Law and an IDFK ensued!
 
Does anyone know if Janelt was cautioned for this?
He was cautioned in the game, but I'd be interested to know if he got done for interfering with the release. May have been SPA

2:00 in

 
(geo blocked for me). No he wasn't. This was in the 40th. He got his only caution in the 74th.

Right decision. It may have ended up a promising attack but the odds were against it. At the time of the offence it was not a promising attack so the offence did not stop a.....
 
(geo blocked for me). No he wasn't. This was in the 40th. He got his only caution in the 74th.

Right decision. It may have ended up a promising attack but the odds were against it. At the time of the offence it was not a promising attack so the offence did not stop a.....
OK, you don't really need to see it
Classic instance of the attacker blocking the ball a millisecond after the GK's release and volleyed kick. Janelt then scored in an empty net
Arguably SPA (don't think it was), but very interesting that he didn't get cautioned for it. Which is correct IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I saw it live on tv but also have a replay. As with you as soon as I saw it I thought of this thread. This is a couple of seconds before the foul. I would need more than this for a spa. Others may think differently.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210830-231350.jpg
    Screenshot_20210830-231350.jpg
    498.9 KB · Views: 11
Back
Top