Theoretical questions based on Racing Santander - Valencia game

[Sagy]

I don't know if any of you watched the Racing Santander - Valencia game today. In the 74th-75th minute there were two incidents that I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

The first was a very high ball in the Racing box, a Valencia attacker, one or two Racing defenders and the Racing GK are going for the ball (it looks like all of them are looking up at the ball). It looks like the GK runs over the attacker (he was looking up) the ball landed about 2 yards from the place of the incident. What should the call be?

When the PK was taken a Valencia player entered the box before the kick, anyway the PK is saved by the GK (no need to order a re-kick, right?). The rebound of the save is high and almost straight to the Valencia player that took the PK and he head the ball into the goal (the player that encroached on the PK was not involved). In retrospect, it seems like it would have been better for the GK if he didn't save the kick. Should the goal stand?

If my description of what happened in the game is wrong, my apologies. I'm interested in what are the right calls in the situations I'm describing (I have no problems with the calls of the CR in the game itself).

[Wreave]

No comment on the first one, YHTBT.

On the second, if an attacker encroaches on a PK, and the ball does not enter the goal, it should be an IFK for the defense. The other possibility is that the ref considered the encroachment to be trifling.

[Sagy]

No comment on the first one, YHTBT.

On the second, if an attacker encroaches on a PK, and the ball does not enter the goal, it should be an IFK for the defense. The other possibility is that the ref considered the encroachment to be trifling.
Thanks, this would make sense. It is also possible that the CR didn't see the encroachment (the TV angle made it clear, but it might not have been so clear from where the CR was standing)

As far as the first case, my question is: if two players are moving toward the ball without seeing each other and one ends up knocking the other down was a foul committed or is it just an accidental contact. I understand that in most cases it is YHTBT, I'm interested in understanding what are the factors that will lead a ref to decide one way or the other.

Thanks

[ref47]

"but i was playing the ball, ref." "yeah, but you cannot run over someone to get to it."

it's like driving your car down the street. it's not enough to intend to go straight down the road, you have to avoid the other cars as well.

[Chas (Psyatika)]

Based on what you said, it makes sense to call the penalty. Especially the bit about the ball falling 2 metres away. How did he manage to run over the attacker and not even be near enough the ball to catch it (unless of course his arms are 6 feet long)?

[IASocFan]

The reason you had to be there is the question whether the attacker was moving toward the ball or getting in the keeper's way. It sounds like the CR determined that the keeper fouled the attacker in running over him on the way to the ball, and that a penalty was correctly awarded.

[Sagy]

ref47,

Thanks, this is exactly the type of answer I was looking for.

Chas,

You are right, while it was clear to me that both players were going for the ball, neither one was playing the ball. The situation was something along the diagram below

+-----+
____________|_____|____________
| | G | |
| +--/--------+ |
| D / |
| AD |
| |
| o |
|_______________________| The GK (G) was coming out of the goal toward where he thought the ball (o) was going (along the Diagonal line. The attacker (A) and both defenders (D) were already in the general area of where the ball was going to land so they were moving at a much slower speed toward the landing location. The ball was very high so all of them where looking up and moving away from the goal. The ball landed half second or more after the attacker was run over. The TV announcers kept saying that the GK should have been YC. Both players got up right away so there was no issue of excessive force and I didn't see it as reckless, it was a simple case of being careless; IMO, the ref got it right (a PK and no YC).

[BC_Ref]

When the PK was taken a Valencia player entered the box before the kick, anyway the PK is saved by the GK (no need to order a re-kick, right?). The rebound of the save is high and almost straight to the Valencia player that took the PK and he head the ball into the goal (the player that encroached on the PK was not involved). In retrospect, it seems like it would have been better for the GK if he didn't save the kick. Should the goal stand?


From what you are saying, the Valencia player really had no impact on the play. From what I've seen at the international level, minor encroachment on a PK is generally ignored.

The PK itself sounds justified. The ball at least needs to be close, otherwise you have a case where the keeper played the attacker, not the ball. The lack of a yellow card I could justify on the basis that a PK plus an asschewing is similar to a DFK + YC where the contact isn't that severe.

[ref47]

and that ignoring is what fifa wants us to stop doing. give the ifk to the defense when things like that occur. fifa appears to want triffling out of the equation on these infractions.