Perhaps because it doesn't matter either way? Okay, but it is the opinion of the USSF (as you can see from the link above) that any violation of Law 14 by the kicker results in a retake of the kick if a goal is scored. So, let's adjust the scenario a bit. Kicker shoots the ball, it bounces up, and he swats it into the goal. Retake or not? As I read it, that's a retake. So how do you justify distinguishing between handling and some other sort of offense for the purposes of applying this law? I just can't fathom any reading of the LOTG that allows you to simply declare a kick from the mark that goes into the goal to have been unsuccessful, without invalidating the entire kick and thus necessitating a retake.
Sigh, I think we are beating a dead horse now. Fine. The position paper you reference is CLOSE but not relevant here. The Kicker indeed violated Law 14, but a goal was not scored (Law 10 was not satisfied you know). In your adjusted scenario, just like the original scenario in the OP, what happens to the ball after the referee has decided the kick is over, matters not. Law 14: In the opinion of this referee, the kick is over the second the kicker violates Law 10 (via violating Law 12) AFTER the ball has been kicked (and in both cases prior to the ball entering the said goal). I also rely on the punishments outlined in Law 14 for AFTER the kick has been taken by the kicker, and prior to ball entering goal are in both cases outlined free kicks coming out (no retake). To me, this section of Law 14 is a bit sloppy. they mention handling and double touch specifically, but what about other violations? We are left to use common sense that those too result in free kicks coming out. There IS NO RETAKE because the kick is completed when you determine Law 10 had not been satisfied (due to a Law 12 violation). My brain hurts and now I'm repeating myself and my quotes from the LOTG. So I think I'm done. In both scenarios, do what you think the law says. I'm confident my approach won't have me on the crew as a 4th official for the replay after a protest. We'll have to see. Fun to talk about such an unlikely scenario. And maybe I'm full of it.
Maybe I've lost the plot, but aren't we talking about the kicker tackling the keeper in order to prevent him from making a save? If so, would you kindly direct me to which part of Law 14 the kicker has violated? Law 14 specifically deals with the kicker handling the ball before it touches another player (presumable to make clear that handling trumps the second touch offense) but mentions no other foul. And, Law 14 specifically does not provide for a retake in your handling scenario. It awards a direct free kick to the opponents.
I'd like to point out that any quote of Law 10, 14 or others, are well, somewhat irrelevant. KFTM is part of the game, but sort of an ugly step child. You are trying to solve a tie game, goals can no longer be scored, so Law 10 is out (think about it, in a 2-2 game, with KFTM that goes 5-0, what's the score of the game? Goals are scored during the run of play, sorry, if we are at KFTM, goals can't be scored). Also Law 14 becomes somewhat irrelvant, look at the positioning aspects of law 14, everything from referee positioning to players positioning is changed. Ball is NEVER in play, cause if it was, then others can play it, or the kicker could deal with a ball that rebounds. So what are you left with? A bastardization of the game to solve a tie. In the scenario described, I'm going with a red card to the kicker for VC (SFP not an option, remember the game is over). No retake, next shooter please. You want to protest as the losing coach? Great, go for it, I'll justify my decision, you justify which LOTG I broke and I'm happy to let the cards fall where they do.
Since we're on the topic of silly hypotheticals, I have one - team is awarded a penalty kick. The goalkeeper comes up to take the kick and blasts it off the center of the crossbar, and it bounces all the way back to the other penalty area (we're playing on the Moon). The goalkeeper is also a world-class sprinter (silly hypothetical!) and gets back before anyone else and picks up the ball. PK for the other team? I know, silly, but it's only slightly less plausible than a kicker rugby tackling a goalkeeper during KFTM.
By definition, the keeper in his area cannot commit handling. Therefore, the provision in Law 14 is moot in your scenario.
See . . . no hypothetical is too silly to get an answer here!!! (. . . and we will shortly move on to an extended discussion of whether the second touch offense in the hypothetical could constitute DOGSO . . . )
Well, but for the handling would the ball have gone in the goal? To answer the original question in more detail, we would be looking at an IFK for the 2nd touch by the GK. The touch was legal (GK within his own PA) however he can't play it twice.
Well, for the second touch offense itself (ignoring the fact that it was with the hands): It's obviously DOGSO-F, but only if there is an attacker nearby, moving toward the goal and about to score. - QC
Well that said, I will stand by my outcome, VC (not a play for the ball), no retake, cause Law 14 retakes are after referee signals, but before kick is taken. This is then teh same as the kicker kicks the ball towards the net, then before it goes in, turns and tackles a defender. Not a retake.
no... noo nooo the Fédération Lunar de Football Association has different rules for games played in low gravity situations. It also addresses the use of jet-packs by players.
As a referee, it's not your job to make sure that the fair outcome of the game is the actual outcome. It is only your job to enforce the laws of the game. You would have absolutely no justification under the LotG to do what you said. There really is no better option than to follow the laws, and then make an extensive report and trust that the competition authority will come to a fair conclusion of how the act should be punished.
You are the referee. Four incidents I saw/was a part of last night. All of these occurred in U13 Boys games. What would you have done, and then I'll tell you what the referee or myself did: 1) Offside called just outside of the PA on Blue. Red takes the kick quickly in an attempt to switch the field and passes the ball into the box where it is blasted to the other side of the field by the red GK. What do you do? 2) League Rule: No slide tackles (IFK or DFK). Black forces a bad pass by red and now has red trapped in the PA. Red defender is dispossessed of the ball and black is stepping towards the goal. Red slides and hits the ball and takes the black forward down. The ball proceeds to roll to an oncoming black attacker who takes a shot on goal (does not score). What do you do? 3) Red attacking now and gets a shot in black box. Bouncing ball and the goalkeeper dives late. He misses the ball as it goes by him (clean shot by red) but his momentum carries him into the red forwards legs. Red is "felled" by the contact. What do you do? 4) Scoreboard clock. When time hits zero, the game is over. Green throw, 45 seconds left. As green is taking the throw, just after the ball leaves his hand, a blue defender sticks his arm in front of the green players face in an attempt to distract him. The ball is unaffected and proceeds into play where green immediately loses possession. Score was 3-2 Blue. What do you do?
I might be missing something but I'm not sure I see where the problems are (apart from #4 possibly). 1) Run... They get a FK, take it and play it away. So what's the issue? 2) Depends on the league rule I suppose. I assume it means that slide tackles count as a foul and thus you have to decide if the advantage was realised or not and act accordingly. After that it is a question of if the league rule specifies a punishment beyond an FK. If so make the call as above and then add any plastic prescribed if the needed still exist. 3) Careless/reckless/excessive??? Did the ball enter the goal? As described it sounds like a fairly standard call tbh. 4) 2 yard violation? Did blue impede or distract the taker? If yes to either then re-take/IDFK as appropriate, if no then play on.
I would have created a new thread rather than tacking my questions onto thread about how Keith Hackett doesn't understand the Laws of the Game. Anyway, here goes.... The way you've described it, there is nothing wrong. Allow play to continue. Why do you ask this? Are you leaving something out? (such as...the kick wasn't taken from the correct place, perhaps from within the penalty area and the ball never left the area...in this case I would require the kick to be retaken.) Sorry, I don't answer Calvinball questions. You're describing a situation that I have to recreate in my mind, but my version is probably not the same as what actually happened. First, if the ball is going into goal anyway, do not stop play (because there was either no foul, or even if there was, advantage.) Second, if I think the contact is a foul, and the ball isn't going into the goal, I would call the foul and restart with a PK. It isn't clear if the attacker still has any kind of goal scoring opportunity, so I can't say whether misconduct has also taken place. If I don't think there is a foul, play continues. I would have to be there to decide if there was a foul or not. Sorry, I don't answer Calvinball questions.
Sounds like there is no issue with this restart. Play on. According the USSF, the only advatage in the PA is a goal. If a goal was not scored from the allowed advantage, it would have to be either a PK or IFK. Depending on the nature of the slide tackle and whether it was a repeat offender, a caution could be approriate. It doesn't sound like it's possible for DOGSO since the team did get their scoring opportunity. They just missed. From the description, it sounds like a goal was scored and the contact was accidental. Unless you think the GK committed misconduct, allow the goal and kick-off. If the blue player is close enough to put his hand in the thrower's face, he's probably closer than the allowed distance. Considering the time in the match, he's trying to eat the clock. I would probably caution quickly and get on with it. Still for FRD, even at U13.
But they didn't get that GSO, they got another GSO - maybe as good as or better than the first, maybe not. Is it true that when we give the (quick and silent) advantage in wait-and-see mode in the PA, and another GSO immediately develops but is not converted, we can never call DOGSO on the original foul - even when we go back (per USSF guidance) and award the PK on that foul? That doesn't seem right to me. If anything, I'd be inclined to conclude that if we're awarding the PK on a foul that was manifestly DOGSO, then we still must penalize it as such, notwithstanding the subsequent missed opportunity.
No, it doesn't. But say we have a DOGSO foul, where we play a silent advantage. The keeper than commits another DOGSO foul... then we have major trouble. Two send-offs. That's why we only play advantage in the box if it is literally 100% going to be a goal.
Well, I'm not sure "literally 100%" is the right standard here - sometimes they miss the 100% shot, and the guidance says then we go back and give the PK. Do we not also then penalize the DOGSO? Remember what we're talking about is basically a slow whistle. Nobody wants to be blowing the foul just before the ball finds its clever way into the net.
Yes. But to me, 100% means that you are staring at an open net with no one close enough to interfere with a clean shot. I can't envision a scenario where I would ever play a silent advantage on a DOGSO in the box unless the player could pretty much dribble into the goal unimpeded. But stranger things have happened.. Like a player skying the ball on an open net from three yards out.... But yes, I agree. We come back and give the PK.
And if we do, do we not also penalize the DOGSO? One way I see this actually materializing might be in a bang-bang play where an attacker has a breakaway one-on-one against the keeper and is mugged by the keeper under clear DOGSO circumstances, and another following attacker immediately collects a rebound off the post and shanks it over the goal.
Even though I'm bound to enforce it, I disagree with that p0int in the law. The phrase is "Scoring Opportunity". If, after a foul in the PA, an attacker misses what is obviously an easy, vitually certain goal (like the one you describe), he's gotten his opportunity. He just failed to capitalize. "Aw, you missed? Here, have a PK."
I agree with your sentiments here that it is in essence two bites at the apple. In this case, I would prefer to give the GK and send of the keeper for the original foul. Instead, because said player needs to work on his accuracy, I am giving the team a PK and sending off the GK after they got a golden chance to score. I can see why coaches hate us.