Hi Guys, I am a ref, and yesterday, during my game, an incident happened that I would like to see if I made the correct call. The attacker (Yellow) has past the last defender, only keeper (red) left. Keeper gets off his goal and runs full speed towards the attacker, before they meet, attacker shoots and miss, however the keeper speed is soo great, he cant stop , hits the attacker and throws him a feet or so to the side, landing right on his neck. He could not play for the rest of the game, ambulance was called and he was carried away. I produced a RED + PK. Is this a correct call ? The coach was saying since the collision happened when the ball had left the pitch, I can not call a PK. I never heard that before, and I googled it and couldnt find anything. Please share your opinion.
The first sentence of Law 12 says: "Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play." So, if the attacker had already shot and missed and the ball gone completely over the goal line before the collision, then the ball would be out of play and all you could do is send off the keeper for violent conduct. It wouldn't change the restart (either a goal kick or corner kick depending on who touched the ball last).
How much time has passed between the attacker missing the shot and the initial contact by the keeper? If it’s only a few short seconds, my response to the coach - if I’m even in the mood to provide one - is something to the effect of “Ball was still in play,” and then proceed to send off for SFP. But if the ball is truly not in play, than you’re only option is VC and the begs the question of how you are going to justify VC in a report or on paper.
thanks for the replies, makes sense. Honestly it happened so fast, its hard to say, but it was too close. AR said "the ball *JUST* crossed the line and the collision happened" ...
It depends on what the red card was for. If it was for SFP, then that's the correct call. If it's for DOGSO, it's probably incorrect. If the keeper was making a play on the ball (which, according to instruction I received from a national referee, we are supposed to give wide leeway on for keepers), you should go yellow. I'll echo the other posters comments about ball being in play, etc.
How can the the keeper be making a challenge on the ball when the ball wasn't there? I have no problem with red card for VC and PK. Pretty sure there is no way for coach to know whether or not the ball was in play.
Ultimately it’s impossible for us to say with certainty whether the call was right—we didn’t see it and are all picturing it in our minds. What we can offer, and you can see from the comments above, thoughts that you can add to your thought process. -if the ball had completely left play, it cannot be a foul and therefore cannot be a PK. If it’s close enough you can’t be sure which came first, i would go with the PK. -it can’t be DOGSO, as you say the shot was already taken. -if it’s not a foul, it is technically VC rather than SFP. On this play, I don’t think it really changes the analysis of red versus yellow. And we can’t really answer that without seeing it. It’s a judgment call. If you saw it as so violent that you went to red, I strongly suspect you made a reasonable choice. But your description doesn’t describe the kind of contact—what part of the GK hit what part of the attacker? Was the GK just late, or was he so late he knew it and plowed through? Did the GK do anything to slow down or minimize contact?
I have never heard that instruction. Wide leeway for ‘keepers means what, exactly on a play like that? I could see leeway for BEING fouled, but certainly not fouling.
Rufus, have you been sleeping? Or are you subtly quibbling with rh89's characterization of the new DOGSO-in-the-PA law?
Very dubious instruction IMO. Depends on the interpretation of "wide." I don't think it is "carte blanche" for keepers to be able to wipe out attackers. PH
I'll see if I can find video, but from an example I was shown, the keeper misses the ball as the defender dribbles around him, appears to block the attacker with his arms, perhaps even a slight pull on the attacker. Was instructed that FIFA expects it to be a yellow DOGSO, as we're to still read this as keeper attempting to make a play. I hear you guys - I argued my piece until I was basically told "This is what FIFA expects (and they had reviewed the play and issued guidance) and at a certain point we need to just administer it as such."
The leeway you’re talking about is what to consider “challenging for the ball” when he goalie has committed a foul. Goalies have the ability to “trip” with their arms because of the way they dive for balls and the instruction is not to overthink a situation where a goalie has mistimed a dive and committed a foul with their arms or hands. It’s not meant to overlook a push pull or hold.
This is OK, but is not quite the same as the incident described in the OP. I think it was just an unfortunate choice of words to say "wide leeway." A better description might have been "some leeway." But it still should not extend to the extent described in the OP. PH
Why are you guys discussing DOGSO when the OP was looking for something entirely different and has been adequately answered by a few different posts.. Sheesh. @socal lurker answered with anything that needed to be said.
Okay, you do realize that if the ball is out of play and the Referee is going to Send Off for VC, a PK CANNOT be given, right? The restart is whatever the restart is; in this case it sounds like a CK or GK.