This looks like it was windy enough to find it in your own net. Perhaps it isn't as hypothetical as everyone thought. If only it had actually gone in: I always wondered whether the right call would be made if it actually came up. Also, would you guys have let him take the kick in this, because I think I would've suspended when it was clear he'd struggle to keep it still long enough.
Quiz time: what is the restart? As to when to suspend: we should look for reasons to keep the match going, not the reverse. Giving the goal keeper a few tries to get the ball still for the restart is not the end of the world.
To answer the question: If the ball leaves the penalty area, then the restart is a corner kick regardless of where it crosses the goal line (you can't score an own-goal directly from any restart. Yes, even a dropped ball. I said DIRECTLY!). If the ball never left the penalty area, then the restart is another goal kick, as the ball was never legally in play. There are other scenarios involving the goalkeeper touching the ball a 2nd time, trying to prevent the ball from entering the goal, etc. but I'll leave that for the others upon which to flex their officiating might!
I don't remember if there is anything in the ATR regarding this (time to re-read), but: If the ball clears the PA then is blowing back toward the goal and the keeper touches the ball, even with his feet, it's a double touch violation and the restart is an indirect free kick for the attacking team. If an attacker is closing in on the ball, moving toward the goal, and could have reached the ball before it went out of play had the keeper not touched it, and no other defenders were in a position to stop the attacker from scoring, technically it's dogso-f. Good luck getting out alive if you call it.
Unless it was clearly out of the PA, it would probably be easier to call for a retake. Even if it did, I'm sure you could claim it rolled (if it's that windy) so a retake. It would be easier to sell just about anything other than dogso on that play.
I have been in extreme wind situations where I have told players that they should have a teammate stand with his foot lightly on top of the ball to keep it still while a teammate kicks it. The person holding the ball still is not moving it, so really the ball is not in play when they're holding it there, even on kicks outside their own P.A..
I've had a situation on a penalty kick where the wind was so strong the ball wouldn't stay on the spot. That was fun to sort out (I eventually got both coaches and both captains together to agree that having a second player hold the ball still was OK, as long as the second player didn't do anything to disturb the goalie). By the time I'd sorted all that out, the weather had cleared, the wind had died down and the ball stayed perfectly still on the spot (second player not required) - until the striker blasted it yards over the bar.
EPL last weekend had this issue on a ck, ball kept moving. On one kick the ball WAS moving when kicked, but slightly and still in the arc. They let it continue, call it trifling On the original question of a GK that leaves teh PA and blows back, keeper touches it (feet or hands) then it goes in net. NOT an IFK necessarily, you can declare advantage and give the goal. The ball was in play, so advantage is an option.
Trivia (trivial?) question: is there any differnce if it was an IFK following OS in the GA rather than a GK?
Offside from the IFK. No offside from the GK. I did on one occasion as an AR, when an IFK was being taken from the far goal area, that the players nearby were not concerned too much with their relative positions. I told them "this is not a goal kick" and miraculously they knew what I meant and the attacking player moved himself out of the offside position. I recall nothing else about the game. So I don't even think it is a trivial concern.
Thanks socal. For those interested, here is the text: 16.3 SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A GOAL KICK Only the team taking a goal kick can score a goal directly from this restart. There can be no "own goal" on a goal kick. If a properly taken goal kick goes directly into the goal of the kicking team (i. e., the ball left the penalty area into the field of play but was blown back), the proper restart is a corner kick for the opposing team. Because a team cannot score directly against itself from a goal kick, no infringement of the Law by a member of the kicking team can be considered to have prevented a goal or a goalscoring opportunity within the meaning of Law 12 without some intervening play of the ball. A goalkeeper who takes a goal kick, which passes outside of the penalty area and then returns in the direction of the goal, attempts to prevent the ball from entering the goal by handling it. Although the attempt is unsuccessful and the ball enters the net, the goal cannot be counted as the offense of “second touch” has occurred and must result in an indirect free kick restart where the second touch occurred. Advantage is not applied because “second touch” is not a violation of Law 12 (see Advice 5.6). If the goalkeeper’s handling of the ball in these circumstances had been successful, the “second handling” offense would be called, but the goalkeeper could not be sent from the field and shown a red card for interfering with a goalscoring opportunity (goalkeeper handling, unless it occurred outside the penalty area, is exempt from the misconduct of handling to prevent a goal). So no advantage. Regarding dogso, though, there is the phrase "without some intervening play of the ball". What if the keeper deliberately kicks the ball away to prevent an attacker from taking a shot? This would not be goalkeeper handling so not exempt. What if the keeper deliberately fouls the attacker to prevent the shot? Wouldn't that be a dogso offense even though there has been no second touch on the ball yet?
kicking the ball away, is the same as using his hands, if this applies to the goalkeeper. he is the defender with the funky looking jersey, who gets to use hands in the 18 in a legal manner threeputtzzz- great questions to ask by the way- great teaching stuff for recert clinics if he fouls the attacker- dogso, pk- once the ball leaves the penalty area it is in play.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. They base the "no advantage" decision on their stance that advantage can only apply to Law 12 however that policy has been changed in recent years. Thus this advice should also change. They were stupid to bring up the GK exemption IMO as it is irrelevant.. The reason stopping the ball from going into goal can't be DOGSO is that a goal cannot be scored and that applies to kicks just the same as if the GK uses his hands. For your example with an attacker present it gets a bit dicey though. IIRC the consensus usually comes down on the "not DOGSO" side of the fence when those discussion come up. The "keeping or gaining control" part is a regularly used out if memory serves. Play is live so I can't see there being anything funny about this scenario. i.e go DOGSO if you like.
Correct, that advice is out of date -- advantage can and should be applied, goal stands. Now, some will debate the Spirit aspect and, since I'm feeling like a cold-hearted jerk today, I will have no compassion! In all seriousness, I compare this to the GK who attempts to save the IFK that comes directly toward the goal. It sucks, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
Whoops, good catch by those who said the text was out of date. I quoted the 2010 ATR. Here is the 2013/2014 version: 16.3 SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A GOAL KICK Only the team taking a goal kick can score a goal directly from this restart. There can be no "own goal" on a goal kick. If a properly taken goal kick goes directly into the goal of the kicking team (i. e., the ball left the penalty area into the field of play but was blown back), the proper restart is a corner kick for the opposing team. Because a team cannot score directly against itself from a goal kick, no infringement of the Law by a member of the kicking team can be considered to have prevented a goal or a goalscoring opportunity within the meaning of Law 12 without some intervening play of the ball. A goalkeeper who takes a goal kick, which passes outside of the penalty area and then returns in the direction of the goal, attempts to prevent the ball from entering the goal by handling it. Although the attempt is unsuccessful and the ball enters the net, the goal cannot be counted as the offense of “second touch” has occurred and must result in an indirect free kick restart where the second touch occurred. Advantage is not applied because “second touch” is not a violation of Law 12 (see Advice 5.6). If the goalkeeper’s handling of the ball in these circumstances had been successful, the “second handling” offense would be called, but the goalkeeper could not be sent from the field and shown a red card for interfering with a goalscoring opportunity (goalkeeper handling, unless it occurred outside the penalty area, is exempt from the misconduct of handling to prevent a goal).
No, no, no. The ATR is not "current" -- the old one was simply made available again. As I posted in the other thread (I'm not sure how to link -- its the end of the You are the Ref thread), USSF addressed the advantage issue in 2012 and got rid of the US concept that advantage only applied to Law 12:
That is all true, but my question was directed to the wind blown back double touch by the kicker, after which the ball continues on into the goal. Is that issue any different if it is an IFK instead of a GK?
So what is the latest official ATR version? The 2010 revision? 2012? Google USSF ATR and the first link takes you to 2010.
I'm pretty sure the last one was revised in 2011 or 2012. Most of the advice is still relevant, although several areas are out of date (this topic as well as a few others, offside comes to mind).
On the USSF site, they re-released the old version with a new date (I think last year), but with no updates. I believe the last actual version was released in 2011, but I'm not psoitive. Everything I have heard is that it will not be updated in its current form, but will be replaced in the next couple of months. On teh plus side, most of it is still relevant. But several issues, such as advantage and the new dropped ball complications and offside will be misleading. (Though, according to USSF, none of the results in the ATR changed, but the language used to describe them may be different.)