Tokyo 2020 Olympic Referees & Discussion [R]

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Apr 22, 2021.

  1. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    #351 Cliveworshipper, Aug 9, 2021
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2021
    here is Law 10.

    Labbé is not on the field of play, but in touch.
    Retake kick.



    Let me know the clause in law 10 that disallows this. There is no stipulation the keeper must be injured. Any eligible player can be a kicker or a keeper at any point in a shootout as long as an allowed player rotation of eligible kickers is maintained. Jim Allen wrote an “ask the referee “ column on this exact scenario. His take was that all the ref could do was put the incident(s) in the match report and let the organizing committee decide.
     
  2. allan_park

    allan_park Member

    May 15, 2000
    Sorry, no Referee with any illusion of progressing to any level of the game would order a retake of a KFTM because the non-involved 'keeper was 12 inches off the field of play. Not a chance.

    And, yes, any player can become keeper/player during KFTM, but to do so when it is simply to cause a delay would not be tolerated by any credible Referee.

    Jim may well have said that in response to some question, but as the "great man" himself has said on numerous occasions - often in response to people just like yourself - he answers questions on the wording of the Law, not its practical application, which often rely on Referees using "common sense" and judgement based on "what the game expects".

    We cannot expect the LotG to cover every single thing that can happen in a game, and we would not want them to do so. So, we cannot always "show you" where it says "xyz" in the Law. But, as much as some people may not like it, "Law 18" does still have its place in our game, and that would apply here. That is, thankfully, one of the many things that separates Football/Soccer from many other sports.
     
  3. blissett

    blissett Member+

    Aug 20, 2011
    Italy
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Apart from the interesting details that are being discussed here, and assuming that Labbé didn't anything in particular that was formally not allowed by the rules, I am curious to know: does anyone remember any penatly shootout in the past, men or women, any level, where the referee had to use a Yellow Card (towards the GK or the taker), because of some infringement that hadn't been possible to correct through simple warning?
     
  4. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Correct. It is always the referee who decides if something rises to the level of USB. I believe I've seen a caution once or twice--it takes a lot to push a referee to caution and typically involves refusing to back away when told to.

    I think you overly limit the purpose of the rule. At lower levels, GKs and field players are more interchangeable and may actually swap during the KFTM to have different keepers. (As a coach, I would do this if I didn't have one key keeper, as it prevented one kid from being the goat.) But I also wouldn't allow the shenanigans proposed of switching back and forth between kicks. "Thanks keep, we'll make the switch before their kick when it matters who the GK is. Stay there for right now." I'm not denying the change, only managing when it is going to take place.
     
    blissett repped this.
  5. allan_park

    allan_park Member

    May 15, 2000
    You are correct, of course, about the use of this element of the Law at different levels, and I am certainly not wishing to deny the legitimate use of that provision - such as you outline here. At Youth level, yes, there are various reasons to change goalkeepers, including during KFTM.

    I was simply trying to answer the question based on the context in which it was asked - namely in the thread on officiating at the Olympics, and so my response was tailored to that.

    But, bottom line, at any level of the game if this "provision" was used to repeatedly change the goalkeeper back and forth simply as a delaying tactic, it would never be tolerated.
     
  6. fire123

    fire123 Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    While keeper's intimidation tactic is not spelled out in the law of the game, there are other documents/ training that tell the referees how to deal with it. In any case , the offense can be penalised under USB ( unsportsmanlike) or delaying of the game.
    The enforcement of these laws are left at the referee's discretion, oftentimes it depends on the "tolerance" of the referrees.
    My argument are these:
    1) Why should they be left as referee's discretion? The action is either right or it's wrong, if it's wrong then penalize it. My next argument is for the referees who are more tolerant: If the action is ok, why do you have to keep telling the keepers to walk back to the goal line? If you have to tell them more than once without cautioning the keepers, you in fact are telling them your words mean nothing, don't believe me the first, the second time or the umpteenth time.
    2) Similar actions on the field: coming face to face with other players, delaying a free kick restart, throw in, ... always result in a word of warning, followed by a yellow for multiple violations, why do referees let the keepers get away with so much more?
     

Share This Page