The Ref Stop

Water bottle goal

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.
Click to expand...
This suggests that the action is only taken if the goal is not scored so in the OP, if this advice is used, it would not be wrong to award a goal (I would caution the keeper either way.)
 
The Ref Stop
McTavish said:
This suggests that the action is only taken if the goal is not scored so in the OP, if this advice is used, it would not be wrong to award a goal (I would caution the keeper either way.)
Click to expand...
This was not in relation to the OP, this was part of the subsequent discussion raised by the incorrect claim that you should award a PK for a goalkeeper throwing an object which strikes the ball inside the area.
 
Peter Grove said:
This was not in relation to the OP, this was part of the subsequent discussion raised by the incorrect claim that you should award a PK for a goalkeeper throwing an object which strikes the ball inside the area.
Click to expand...
I realise that, but the thrown object discussion came about from the suggestion that the keeper leaving the bottle on the pitch might be considered to be equivalent to throwing the bottle and it was to that that I was referring.
 
Because the GK can legally handle in the penalty area. And a thrown object is considered an "extension of the arm".

So... you can't actually punish the GK for handling in the penalty area, nor can you give misconduct for it.

What you can do is penalize the act that brings disrespect to the game (the throwing of the object), stop the game, caution the GK for that, and give an IFK at the point of contact (where the offence actually takes place, oddly).

Now, this can't be DOGSO, because you're not stopping the game for the free kick... but for the caution. And thus that caution can't magically grow into a dismissal.

In short... it's a weird circumvention, but it exists. And who knows, the big rewrite might alter that.
 
I understand that you can't penalise for handling...
But... LOTG... p132, law 12
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:"
"the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick"

I am going to take the interpretation that this guidance exists to cover the anomaly discussed in this thread, therefore DOGSO, red...
But then no penalty... IDFK where the bottle struck the ball...

How do we like them apples?
 
santa sangria said:
I am going to take the interpretation that this guidance exists to cover the anomaly discussed in this thread, therefore DOGSO, red...
Click to expand...

Well in that case, you would be wrong. You cannot send a goalkeeper off for DOGSO-H for an offence committed inside the keeper's own penalty area. This discussion has been had many times over on various different refereeing websites. Page 40 of the Laws is quite explicit on this point:
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
Click to expand...
 
The laws seem to be conflicting.
I think "wrong" is wrong. We can interpret.
I think the act of a goalkeeper throwing a water bottle at a goalward-bound ball to deny a goal is a fairly easy sell as a red card.

My interpretation then is not to treat this under the handball laws.

Pg 40
"denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick"
is somehow conflicting with p132
"the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick"

The laws fail to deal with adequately with this scenario, even though there are several lengthy passages about anomalies for goalkeepers. We should use common sense.

Do you think that common sense suggests this should be a red card?
 
Common sense says maybe it should be, but the Laws (and the Q&A, and FIFA tests) all clearly say NO, this is not a red card.

Because the goalkeeper is considered to be HANDLING within his own penalty area because a thrown object is an extension of the hand/arm. And as noted above, you CANNOT give misconduct for the act of HANDLING in that case.

You may feel that this is wrong and that this is worthy of a dismissal, but those who maintain the Laws have, to this point in time, disagreed with you.
 
AlexF said:
You may feel that this is wrong and that this is worthy of a dismissal, but those who maintain the Laws have, to this point in time, disagreed with you.
Click to expand...

I've corrected this for you:

You may feel that this is wrong and that this is worthy of a dismissal, but those who maintain the Laws have, to this point in time, not even realised there might be an issue and/or been bothered to do anything about it
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with your correction... simply because those who maintain them put a bit in the 2006 Q&A that explicitly addressed this.

They later (2014) put out a revised officials quiz with that question in it... with the same answer.

They've obviously considered the situation and deemed that this is what they want at the moment.

Is it the "right" thing morally/spirit-of-the-game? That's definitely debateable.
 
AlexF said:
I disagree with your correction... simply because those who maintain them put a bit in the 2006 Q&A that explicitly addressed this.

They later (2014) put out a revised officials quiz with that question in it... with the same answer.

They've obviously considered the situation and deemed that this is what they want at the moment.

Is it the "right" thing morally/spirit-of-the-game? That's definitely debateable.
Click to expand...
In that case, sir, I rescind my correction for this scenario :)
 
AlexF said:
I disagree with your correction... simply because those who maintain them put a bit in the 2006 Q&A that explicitly addressed this.

They later (2014) put out a revised officials quiz with that question in it... with the same answer.

They've obviously considered the situation and deemed that this is what they want at the moment.
Is it the "right" thing morally/spirit-of-the-game? That's definitely debateable.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks

So, what would you do?
Give an IDFK and lose match control...
or give a red and IDFK... which seems the most balanced and justifiable option but would cause endless confusion
or a red and penalty.... which would be easily sold, easily accepted by both teams, but marked down by an assessor

I trust the people that supervise me enough that I am taking the last option if it happens in tomorrow's game, even in the knowledge that a Fifa test disagrees. We can't treat everything written in Zurich as black and white, can we.
 
I'd give the IFK and the caution. And carefully take the time to explain why this isn't a red. "Da rulez is da rulez" and "my hands are tied".

To be honest, I've never seen it happen, but to have the scenario actually be in that Q&A and in the Laws means that it happened somewhere along the way...
 
santa sangria said:
We can't treat everything written in Zurich as black and white, can we
Click to expand...
The danger is that it becomes a slippery slope when we pick and choose which laws (or interpretations) we think are 'fair'. Inevitably it will lead to greater inconsistency and more problems for refs who do fully implement the LOTG. For example, I personally think it's trifling whether a ball is kicked forward or back from a kick off and don't really mind if someone has black sock tape on red socks (unless the other team have black socks!). But if I choose not to apply these Laws then I'm not doing my job and run the risk of becoming 'last week's ref' ....
 
santa sangria said:
We can't treat everything written in Zurich as black and white, can we.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to every memo and press release put out by FIFA then maybe you have a point. But if you mean rulings and guidance on the Laws of the Game issued by the IFAB (who are also now based in Zurich) or FIFA on their behalf, not only can we take everything issued by them in this regard as black and white, we are duty-bound to do so. For instance, the IFAB issued circular no 3 last year regarding the interpretation of Law 11. Are you saying that if you disagree with its provisions you can choose not to follow them? If we don't treat pronouncements from FIFA/the IFAB related to the laws as definitive, then we may as well ask them to stop bothering to issue the Laws of the Game every year and just let each referee make it up as they go along.
 
I do agree with you. And I am all for following the laws and avoiding having to intepret them on the pitch.
And I hear you that this has "been in a test". But, it still seems like a "hole" in the law book...

(The sock tape is not a good example in this case though. We have local guidelines per division on that so shorts/socks/tape/undershorts colours are not restrictive, and put people off playing, in hobby leagues.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top