The You don't see that very often thread

Take the foul by the attacker out of the equation and it's a free kick and should be handled as such. To me that means you don't intervene unless you need to. Yes, it's "just" a technical violation, but I don't see why we would need to bail out a keeper who does this.

 

Question (a bit off topic): After watching this several times, do you think the GK actually thought the whistle was for the foul (maybe a bit late) and that's why he didn't understand why the attacking player was grabbing the ball/let him have it so easily?

 

Totally unrelated to this conversation, but I have always wondered why this is allowed. Logically, it is same as pass back from teammate to the keeper. Except he is passing it to himself.

 

It's not at all the same. the rule was instituted because in the last 5-10 minutes of the game teams were launching the ball back to the keeper to use up time. The GK would then hold the ball for a while, and roll it to someone. Two passes later, it was back to the GK, who would pick it up and hold it for a while. GK's who collect a ball from opponents and take it into the PA to pick up, are generally doing so to initiate play, not to wast time. Apples and oranges. (And if you said a GK who kicked the ball can't pick it up, you get a lot of messes--you really want to say that a GK who stops a shot with his foot can't then pick the ball up?!)

 

Was not aware of the history of the passback rule. Only been reffing 10 years and that has always been the rule.

Do know that the first time I saw a GK dribble ball back in and then pick it up, I almost blew the whistle, but since no one got upset, I assumed I was ignorant. When I next passed the home coach (who I knew was goalie coach for UCONN), I asked him if that was allowed. He gave me a disgusted look and said yes

 

I have been officiating for 18 years and been involved with soccer long before that. Some of the newer referees in my area were complaining about some of the revisions to the LOTG a few years ago. I told them about when I played and the goalkeeper could handle a pass from teammates or I used to throw the ball into the goalkeeper so that he could handle the ball and punt it up the field. They would give me puzzled looks having not even realized that the LOTG changed that much!

I remember back in the day when NFHS rules had both a four-step AND six-second rule for goalkeepers!

 

The Irish second division is amateur. Even the first division is, at most, semi-pro. Soccer is a distant third in the Irish sports world, behind Gaelic football and hurling, both of which are resolutely amateur from top to bottom, although there are occasional suggestions that players for the top counties should receive a stipend for training time spent away from their real work. Soccer was long disdained in Ireland as one of the "games of the garrison" (the others being rugby and polo) that no good Irishman would play. That has changed over time, particularly with Ireland's occasional World Cup appearances.

 

Shoot.

I played when spitting at a ref wasn’t defined as violent conduct.

 

Hmm. At least by the 70s the Decisions of the International Board (the precursor to the Q&A which was the precursor to the I&G) were explicit that spitting was VC. (And that was back when there were only 3 sending off offenses: VC, 2CT, and foul or abusive language.)

 

Not DEFINED in the laws as an offense until 1980 and I played in the 60’s.
https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/the-laws/1970-1980.html

Now you have a bar bet you can win.

 

Then the summary is incorrect. In the 1975 LOTG (the only one I have from that era), the Decisions of the International Board say:

(13) The offense of spitting at opponents, officials or other persons, or similar unseemly behavior shall be considered as violent conduct within the meaning of section (n) of Law XII.
​

Now I’m wondering how reliable the rest of the summary is.

 

It's not reliable at all - it's riddled with errors.

Spitting became a violent conduct offence in 1968 - at the time, it was inserted as IFAB decision 14 to Law 12.

 

Good research. Can you post a scan of that page?

Either way, my statement stands. I played before 1968 ( and after) , so unless somebody get a few years earlier, it wasn’t in the laws that spitting at a ref was specifically listed as a VC offense.

Maybe it was a different time, but I don’t think it ever occurred to anyone to do that.

 

I doubt a ref back then would have any problem figuring out on his own that spitting at someone was VC--the addition was, I think, more of a formality than a change. (Just like biting this year.) As I understand the spitting issue, the specificity was added due to sensibilities in parts of the world where spitting at someone is an extremely provocative act, so formalizing in the rules was done.

 

I was going to say exactly that - even before it was specifically mentioned, I don't think hardly any referees would have allowed a player to spit at someone without sending them off.

 

I coached my son to do this. The defense gave up three goals in the first ten minutes, with multiple through balls and breakaways. It was getting ugly. He was 12, but he knew what was up. I got the coaches permission and then told him to play like they were up 1-0 with minutes to play. Defense regrouped a little and they went on to lose 6-1. No, the comeback didn't run out of time. And why should the keeper panic and get rid of the ball when unmarked? Draw a defender and make a pass. That is what should be taught and what we should accept as long as they aren't putting themselves in danger and allow them to be fairly challenged.

 

Not a biggie, but I had an adult co-ed game this week in which a cross struck the crossbar directly above the far post. The ball then rebounded and struck the crossbar again, directly over the near post, and, finally, out for a goal kick.

 

I am having a hard time imagining how a cross could hit above the cross bar and come back toward the kicker unless it hit some sort of pointy ball appurtenances.

 

I was having trouble picturing it too... I gave up and went on to other (slightly) more productive pursuits.

 

How about there was an upward angle on the cross, which hit the crossbar above the post creating a slight rebound with backspin. The ball hit the ground and bounced up with the spin taking it back toward the goal where it hit the other end of the crossbar and continued out for a GK.

Or maybe more likely, the ball hit off the crossbar going upward, continued across the goal where it struck the crossbar a second time (no ground contact in between) and then went out.

 

It is the middle of the day....what else are you doing that is more productive? Work??

 

Occasionally and desultorily...

 

Your second scenario is what I saw, except that the cross bar was struck at the far post and the ball rebounded back in the kicker's direction, hitting the crossbar again above the near post, without ever having hit the ground. I don't pretend to understand the physics.