A&H

So I saw this on instagram and watched the comments

A&H International
I fully agree with that. Grabbing the water bottle, fully stepping off the field of play. Clearly an offence, refs been lucky that most won't know that he's dropped a clanger there.
  • entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
I was thinking that a player needs to leave the box whilst the keeper has the ball in their hands, but nothing in law mentions that, just says no interfering with distribution.
  • 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
 
Amazing in the comments, when leaving the field of play is brought up, the people that then roundabout their thinking to say that this player leaving the field of play "was part of the play"
 
WiisardNic said:
Amazing in the comments, when leaving the field of play is brought up, the people that then roundabout their thinking to say that this player leaving the field of play "was part of the play"
Click to expand...
I read that. Someone compares it to getting a ball for a throw in.

Leave them to it.
 
Considerations:

1. This is in MLS which has VAR.

2. The referee has sole authority over whether a player has permission to leave and re-enter the field. There is no attempt to warn the player not to re-enter.

3. There are potential offences by both the attacker and the goalkeeper, as the goalkeeper has clearly controlled the ball with their hands for more than 6 seconds. It is unclear from the available footage whether this infringement occurs before the attacker leaves the field.

4. The attacker stepping slightly off the field probably made no difference to the outcome, it would have been the same had they stayed on the line.

5. However allowing the player to leave and enter the field in this manner encourages more players to leave the field as part of a deception, which is arguably not desirable.

Conclusion:

1. There is no VAR intervention so presumably the referee has said that the leaving and entering was permitted. Therefore awarding the goal is correct in law.

2. If leaving the field had been without permission, but the 6 second rule was breached first, then the correct outcome would be IDFK to attacking team from GK's position, and a caution to the attacker. Probably the most difficult decision to sell.

3. If leaving the field had been without permission and before the 6 second rule was breached, then the correct outcome would be IDFK to defending team in the goal area and a caution to the attacker.

There is some analysis here
 
This is, I think, what we call trifling. He is cm off the pitch for 1. Something seconds and by a cm or so. He's also gone to grab a drink, and whether this is for deception or not, I am never denying a player access to water.

This is the defending teams fault, not one player looking back, keeper not looking around. Not one appeal for anything. Let's say the player didn't step off the field by an almost microscopic amount, the outcome doesn't change, because no one has seen him. The "offence", I'm not even sure it can be referred to as that, is so inconsequential, you're just looking for reasons to rule goals out and football does not want that.
 
The step off the field is marginal and if you go on what the Law intends rather than the literal definition of the words (and there are many examples of this in the LOTG), I don' think this is what is meant by leaving the field of play.

For completeness, if you do go with this is a player returning without permission, it's a direct free kick not an IDFK as he has interfered with play
 
How many here who think this should be a card for leaving the field of play, would do the same if the water bottle was just outside of the half way line. Where a player leaves the FOP makes no difference here.

Keeper was unawares even if the attacker remained completely on the FOP. Not to mention the keeper's team mates had the opportunity to let him know but also were unaware. The defending team is to blame here.

This reminded me of the thread when a goal was scored with a sub on the half line was slightly on the field celebrating a little early. Football (spirit of the game, the law, intent of it, whatever you call it) expects this goal to be given.
 
JamesL said:
This is, I think, what we call trifling. He is cm off the pitch for 1. Something seconds and by a cm or so. He's also gone to grab a drink, and whether this is for deception or not, I am never denying a player access to water.

This is the defending teams fault, not one player looking back, keeper not looking around. Not one appeal for anything. Let's say the player didn't step off the field by an almost microscopic amount, the outcome doesn't change, because no one has seen him. The "offence", I'm not even sure it can be referred to as that, is so inconsequential, you're just looking for reasons to rule goals out and football does not want that.
Click to expand...
Agree, I'm not seeing anything wrong here, he hasn't gone off the pitch to gain any kind of advantage. Had he done something like run behind the goal to come back on from the other side I would be saying penalise, but this was just a pure defensive error and not one for the match officials to be getting involved with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top