What is the restart when a goalkeeper traps the ball with one hand on the ground and an attacker toe pokes it away. It isn't a foul/direct kick offense, right? Is it indirect for playing in a dangerous manner? I think giving a free kick at the spot is worse than the goalkeeper having possession and being able to move around the penalty area. I can't play advantage because the ball isn't with the goalkeeper any longer. I feel like the only answer is a free kick but it seems like the attacking team is getting an advantage by kicking it out of the goalkeeper's hands. Thoughts? Thanks.
Restart After Attacker Kicks Ball Out of Goalkeeper's Hands
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
one
RefChat Addict
It's IFK for challenging the keeper while in control or also IFK for PIADM if you felt it aligns with its definition. If there was contact with the keeper I'd change it to DFK either way, and if you feel it is reckless or worse, then the appropriate card too.
As for it being an advantage to the attacking team, not too different with some other free kicks. A foul sometimes breaks the flow of the attacking team and a FK does not balance it. It would also give the defenders to organise themselves.
As for it being an advantage to the attacking team, not too different with some other free kicks. A foul sometimes breaks the flow of the attacking team and a FK does not balance it. It would also give the defenders to organise themselves.
Thank you. I definitely understand the restart if there is contact. The confusion I was having was when there isn't contact and let's say not a dangerous play...are we are putting these two statements from the Laws together and using spirit of the law.....
from section 12.2 Indirect Free Kick
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
- prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s).
When the goalkeeper is standing and trying to release the ball, that's obvious to me. When the goalkeeper on the ground and is trapping the ball against the ground with one hand for example, that scenario seems to hang in between the two statements from the Laws, so is this an example of applying the spirit of the law? What the game expects?
And yes, you are right. There are several examples of where the team who fouls the opponent gains an advantage and is just part of the game. Thanks.
one
RefChat Addict
It seems that we can't go more than a couple of weeks before a member of this forum finds a problem with the way the laws of the game are written 
The release prevention clause wasn't really written for this scenario but as you have found it, it is the closest we can come to, to justify the IFK. This is an 'ambiguity' issue that can easily be fixed though. All IFAB has to do is remove "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged ...." from 12.3 and change the 12.2 point to "Challenges the goalkeeper when in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s), prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball...."
The release prevention clause wasn't really written for this scenario but as you have found it, it is the closest we can come to, to justify the IFK. This is an 'ambiguity' issue that can easily be fixed though. All IFAB has to do is remove "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged ...." from 12.3 and change the 12.2 point to "Challenges the goalkeeper when in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s), prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball...."
Thank you! I appreciate it.It seems that we can't go more than a couple of weeks before a member of this forum finds a problem with the way the laws of the game are written
The release prevention clause wasn't really written for this scenario but as you have found it, it is the closest we can come to, to justify the IFK. This is an 'ambiguity' issue that can easily be fixed though. All IFAB has to do is remove "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged ...." from 12.3 and change the 12.2 point to "Challenges the goalkeeper when in control of the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s), prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball...."
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Once gain, IFAB gets sloppy in drafting. The WC generates billions and they can’t pay to have a competent copy editor to make sure the pieces of the Laws fit together once they make decisions.
But 100% this is a FK. (One can make an argument that kicking something possessed by the GK is the same as kicking the GK and a DFK, it really doesn’t matter in pr rival terms.)
But 100% this is a FK. (One can make an argument that kicking something possessed by the GK is the same as kicking the GK and a DFK, it really doesn’t matter in pr rival terms.)
RefJef
RefChat Addict
As a slight aside, as you allude to it is typically better for a keeper to be able to kick the ball from hands (can usually kick further, and run around penalty area with the ball) than a free kick. So perhaps not possible in this situation described, but if a keeper has been fouled, but still has the ball and is not hurt, I will typically play on but be very clear to all that I have “seen that, would be a free kick, but keeper if you’re happy, we’ll play on - much better that you can play from hands than have a free kick” - just let everyone know you are aware and you’ll probably pick up a few brownie points from the keeper and his mates.
Until you give a corner
