Good Goal or retake or INDFK out?

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Grizzlierbear, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    Goal kick taken quickly by a defender the attacking players are indeed retreating but are not all outside the penalty area. The defender miskicks a hammered low ball into an attacker OUTSIDE the penalty area who prompty kicks it back where it strikes an attacker still inside the area and deflects into the goal.

    (1)GOAL
    (2)RETAKE
    (3)INDFK OUT
     
  2. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    (2)RETAKE

    The goal kick was not properly taken.

    Included amongst the conditions for a GK is "opponents remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play."

    Frequently we see a GK taken while opposing players are in the process of exiting the PA, simply to expedite the game. However, this does not mean that the opponents should benefit by this breach of protocol. At the younger ages, where a miscue is more likely, we should be more vigilent at enforcing all of the conditions for the GK to prevent situations as described in Gb's scenario.
     
  3. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    I totally agree with what NSA stated in his post.

    Let me add that a wise, internationally experienced referee once told me:
    "My grandmother would have been a great referee. She did not know the details of the LOTG, but she had a keen sense of what was fair and call the fouls accordingly."

    When I have any doubt about what the LOTG would say about a certain situation, I think of that referee's grandmother and ask myself, "Was that fair?" If it does not seem fair, it probably was a foul or (as in this case) an improprer restart.
     
  4. pepperref

    pepperref New Member

    Jan 6, 2000
    Another view.

    I enjoy reading the threads on this site because of the different viewpoints expressed about situations that I didn't consider.

    That said, I agree that the GK was not taken correctly. However, let's say the attacking team has pushed the entire team up near the PA to improve a chance for an equalizer. The defender notices a couple of unmarked teammates at the center line. In his haste to bang the ball upfield, he misplays it low into the back of the attacker, outside the PA, and it deflects back into the box to a teammate, as in the original scenario.

    Couldn't this be looked at as denying the attacking team an opportunity after a mistake by the defender. After all, the defender could easily have waited for the attackers to clear the PA. He chose to kick it early to start an unmarked breakaway at midfield.

    In terms of fairness, is it fair to allow the defender to try and take advantage of the attacking team and then give him another try when he blows his chance?

    I'm thinking along the lines of an attempted quick FK where the kick taker passes the ball into the back of a defender, who is 5 yards away and is clearly making an effort to mark a streaking attacker, the intended target of the quick FK. In that situation, I wouldn't give the kick taker another chance.
     
  5. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    p-ref, I view the GK scenario as different from the FK scenario. A major diference is the proximity to the goal.

    Nowhere in the current LOTG is there any wording regarding the "quick" free kick. This admonition comes from the ATR and our national instruction program. Conversely, the ATR makes no recommendation in this regard with respect to goal kicks. In fact, the ATR repeats the requirement that "opponents must remain outside the penalty area."
     
  6. jacathcart

    jacathcart New Member

    Oct 11, 2002
    Tacoma WA
    Let's go back to Pepper's scenario and assume that the goal kick is taken well and links up with the striker who takes it 1 v 1 on the keeper and scores. If we are going to disallow the goal in the scenario which started this threaad then we have to disallow this goal too.

    LOTG says defenders must "remain outside" the area until the ball is in play which implies that they have left and may not re-enter which is not exactly what happens here.

    I guess the way to prevent incidents such as this is to hit the whistle immediately upon the goal kick being struck if there are opponents still in the area so there are no consequences to nullify.

    I am sort of sympathetic to the idea that the kicking team should be able to take a quick goal kick before the opponents have cleared the area if they think it is to their advantage - but have to live with the consequences if it turns out not to be.

    Jim
     
  7. nsa

    nsa Member+

    New England Revolution; Boston Breakers
    United States
    Feb 22, 1999
    Notboston, MA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Common sense says that you don't give a medal of honour to a guy who shoots himself while sleeping with a loaded gun.

    In Jim's scenario, I'd be inclined to allow a player who wins the ball outside to take it to the 'keeper (or shoot from distance, for that matter). In this respect the opponent inside the PA is like a player in an offside position on the far side of the pitch. If the great goalkeeper in the sky were to remove that player, it would make not one iota of difference to the play.
     
  8. Grizzlierbear

    Grizzlierbear New Member

    Jul 18, 2001
    canada no it is not
    good thoughts and opinions expressed

    I really liked jim's response about a referee must whistle play dead immediately on GKs taken with opposing players in the goal area even if they are retreating out.

    This was in my original thoughts as well often the retreating opposing players are jogging or running out the ball sails over their heads or out to the wings as they finish clearing the area. I can accept the restart violation of opposing players inside the penalty area as nsa says as not having any impact.

    Yet if the quick kick is poorly struck into the waiting attacker who was legally outside and he blasts the ball back, just striking his teammate 1 yard inside the area as it deflects off into goal or lets say the retreating attacker had just stepped outside the area. In either case the attacker was inside the penalty area when the ball was struck by the defender. If the referee decides the penalty area infringement as trival and allows the goal in either case is the game protestable due to a law violation and not referee's opinion? I quess the point is can we bend here and when would the bending have to stop?

    My opinion is if the retreating attackers are just exiting or making their way out and NOT trying to cut across or make interception type runs and a defender kicks the ball into one of these players we are retaking as the ball has not cleared the area.

    If the GK ball sails out to a waiting teammate and he is off on a fast break downfield to the opposing I likely would not blow for a retake.

    If the ball goes completely outside the area and is intercepted by a legally placed attacker who immediately shoots I see no more reason to stop play.

    The fact that the shot happens to glance off an opposing teamate who was just exiting is not a result of any deception or unfair tactic simply circumstances that I believe I can overlook provided the player was not in an offside position?

    Is this the common sense you implied nsa?

    When all is said and done I think jacathcart's solution is the best. BLOW every time! Ensure the opposing players are outside the area BEFORE the kick proceeds. Is that common sense or what? LOL ;o)
     
  9. reFnCoach

    reFnCoach Member

    Sep 18, 2003
    SoCal
    Interesting!

    Seems like a goal to me.

    The team taking the restart puts the ball in play in an attempt to gain an advantage with the ex-attackers still being in the penalty area. That's OK, a quick restart is their perogative. As a referee I wouldn't stop them from doing this if the opponents haven't cleared the area yet, they are chosing not to wait. If they clear the ball out and start they attack with numbers, we'd say "smart play". But there are consequences to attempting this, and as a referee I don't think it's my job to bail them out. IMO there is no difference between this and the team that attempts a quick free kick and then complains the the opponents weren't the required distance. They chose not to wait!
     
  10. kevbrunton

    kevbrunton New Member

    Feb 27, 2001
    Edwardsburg, MI
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Interesting!

    Law 18, Common Sense might say there's no difference, but in this case, there's a TECHNICAL point of law that not been met -- sort of like the kickoff not going forward -- in that case the kickoff hasn't even happened yet. That's not the case in the taking of a free kick quickly.
     
  11. reFnCoach

    reFnCoach Member

    Sep 18, 2003
    SoCal
    Question

    I guess that would be my question. Both the 10yds on a free kick and opponents not being in the penalty area on goal kicks are part of the procedural requirements of the restarts.

    Why would you treat these requirements differently? If this had been a free kick from the exact same location, and the opponent wasn't 10yds away, and the same chain of events occurred, would you call back the free kick?
     

Share This Page