A&H

Water bottle goal

The Referee Store
I'll be honest, I only saw it hit the water bottle from the angle "beside" the goal (bottom left camera in the thingie below). The rest? Inconclusive at best.
 
Goal for me.

The referee should only stop the game if the outside agent interferes with play. I think it would be fair to say that as the ball was headed for the goal anyway, the bottle has not interfered and therefore there is no need to stop play
 
I as the referee. my eye would have been following that ball if i deemed it was going in anyway... it's a goal..... if i thought the bottle deviated the ball into the goal... no goal......
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Outside agent, drop ball restart regardless of where the ball was going
Click to expand...
Only if the outside agent interferes with play.

If we followed your interpretation, some matches would be non-stop drop ball games...
kemepes_emps275.jpg
 
McTavish said:
Only if the outside agent interferes with play.
Click to expand...
Touching the ball counts as interfering with play for the purposes of offside, so why would that not be the case here?

That being said, I'd be loathed to reward the keeper for leaving his bottle on the FoP by ruling out the goal.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
And you use a 38 year old photo to illustrate your point? (That's if it's from Argentina '78)
Click to expand...
Not sure what has the age of the photo got to do with it?

Alex Rush-Fear said:
Touching the ball counts as interfering with play for the purposes of offside, so why would that not be the case here?
Click to expand...
Not sure that you are being serious but I can think of several. For example, in offside "interfering with play" only happens when the player touches the ball; if that were the case here if an elephant were lose on the pitch play would continue until it touched the ball as up until that point it would, by your suggested definition, not be interfering with play.
 
McTavish said:
Not sure that you are being serious but I can think of several. For example, in offside "interfering with play" only happens when the player touches the ball; if that were the case here if an elephant were lose on the pitch play would continue until it touched the ball as up until that point it would, by your suggested definition, not be interfering with play.
Click to expand...
You've misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't suggesting that as a definition for it - my point was that if the outside agent touches the ball it HAS to be classed as interfering with play. However, you're quite right that the outside agent could interfere with play without touching the ball.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
if the outside agent touches the ball it HAS to be classed as interfering with play.
Click to expand...
I refer you to my picture of Argentina 78 above...or any number of stray crisp packets to be found around the country on a windy day.
Should play be stopped every time the ball touches a twig on a pitch? I would say it should if the twig makes the ball do something significant that it otherwise wouldn't - it interferes with play by the normal definition. However, if there is no significant effect - for example a ball already going into the goal hits a twig and continues to roll into the goal - then play should not be stopped and likewise the water bottle goal should stand.

We really do debate some odd things here don't we..?:)
 
Massively playing Devil's advocate here, not necessarily something I'd do:

The water bottle has presumably been thrown down by the GK at some point during the game. Under Law 12:

"hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement" (Under Handling the ball)​

Therefore could we say deliberate handball by the keeper, (ball goes in the net), advantage played, GOAL, caution the GK?

Just something that popped into my head, and I can't imagine in this situation where the deflection has clearly not impeded the GK that either team would complain.
 
When it's a thrown object by the GK that makes contact in the area, it's a caution, and an IFK from the point of contact. Oddly.

But no. That bottle's stationary and been there for a while. No gotcha refereeing here.

If you see the contact, you must stop the match.
 
AlexF said:
When it's a thrown object by the GK that makes contact in the area, it's a caution, and an IFK from the point of contact. Oddly.

But no. That bottle's stationary and been there for a while. No gotcha refereeing here.

If you see the contact, you must stop the match.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find a thrown object connecting with the ball results in a DFK or Penalty kick (pg.121 LOTG). LOTG also don't specific when the object had to be thrown! But as I say not something I'd do just devils advocate!

For me it comes down to the old rule of 'No surprises'! If everyone's heading back to the centre circle for the goal, I'm following them!
 
Not from the GK. A thrown object is considered an extension of the hand. A GK can legally handle within his own penalty area...

So the actual infringement here is the "throwing of the object"... which is simple misconduct. Caution to GK, IFK from point of contact with the ball (unless in goal area/etc).

There was a question in the old Q&A that specifically addressed this. A player? DFK/PK (depending where the contact is). GK, not so much.
 
McTavish said:
I refer you to my picture of Argentina 78 above...or any number of stray crisp packets to be found around the country on a windy day.
Should play be stopped every time the ball touches a twig on a pitch? I would say it should if the twig makes the ball do something significant that it otherwise wouldn't - it interferes with play by the normal definition. However, if there is no significant effect - for example a ball already going into the goal hits a twig and continues to roll into the goal - then play should not be stopped and likewise the water bottle goal should stand.

We really do debate some odd things here don't we..?:)
Click to expand...
On my pitch inspection prior to kick off, i remove all twigs that might cause an eye injury, and yes i have removed quite a few sometimes but better than a player getting injured......
 
AlexF said:
There was a question in the old Q&A that specifically addressed this.
Click to expand...
This is correct. FIFA Q&A 2006 had the following:
An attacker goes past the goalkeeper and kicks the ball towards the open goal. The goalkeeper then throws a boot or similar object, which strikes the ball and prevents it entering the goal. What action does the referee take?

The goalkeeper is cautioned for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted by an indirect free kick to be taken from the place where the ball was when it was struck by the boot or similar object.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top