Please feel free to add subtract beat it up and pull it apart all input is appreciated Test Question A goalkeeper and an attacking player on a legal fifty/fifty ball collide and slide over the goalline some 10 feet into the area inside the netting between the goal posts. The ball is stopped on the goal line.The attacker attempts to reach his leg out, intending to draw the ball back over the goalline. The keeper scambles over top of the attacker in an attempt to grab the ball pinning the attacker's legs preventing him from doing so. A defender then manages to clear the ball from the area. What is your decision? Provide full explanation of what you do and why it is so. (1) I would not do anything untill I realized there was no advantage in allowing play to continue. once the defender cleared the ball! (2) I would whistle and stop play. (3) I would ensure the players were ok not needing medical treatment (4) I would then show the red card to the keeper and send him off for VC once I confirm with my AR if at all suspect. (5) I would ensure his removal from the field of play and surrounding area and control my surroundings (6) The restart is a drop ball on the edge of the goal area 6 yards back from the goal line as per special circumstances Law 8 with the teams at 11 versus 10 (7) I report all actions in my game report and submit them after the match MY THinking I apply advantage unless I see there is a severe injury allowing play, no advantage is forthcoming I stop play and deal with this mess. The incident is clearly off the Field of play 10 feet sure seems so the restart can only be a drop ball, however if so much as a toe was touching the goalline upgrade to PK restart and red card for DOGSO or SFP. SFP or DOGSO can not apply in the sending off as drop ball and not on the field of play so only VC or a double yellow could be possible to justify a red card. A caution for leaving the FOP and another caution for the USB of holding which denies the goal scoring opportunity. I find the double caution weak as there was no intent for the keeper to leave the field of play. YET I feel strongly that game management demands the keeper go so classify the jumping and holding as VC Violent Conduct will enable the red card to be shown. In my opinion the solution best fits the needs of the match. Yet I could see a single caution and drop ball as being correct in law
Definitely a good question. After thinking and researching for about 30 minutes, I'm still uncertain what to do. On the field, that's not an option. The one thing I don't like about your answer is your VC conclusion. Violent conduct implies an attempt to injure which is absolutely not implied in your description. I'd probably do what I thought was correct by the spirit of the game. Red card (DOGSO) and PK. Leaving the field while trying to play the ball is not a cautionable offense. Your scenario of sliding 10 feet over the goal line and still in the netting seems unrealistic. But stranger things have happened, and the issue of "fouls that occur by players are off the field" and the restarts need to be addressed.
yes but??? SFP could sell if the incident was on the FOP but DOGSO can not apply as no free kick restart. Granted the VC is a stretch but if not than I only see a single caution for the USB of holding a player off the field of play. Your point about attempt to injure is interesting, is that all VC implies? Is not the serious nature of the offence itself worthy? SFP must be on the FOP is not VC allowed for OFF the field incidents where we might normally apply SFP? DOGSO by illegal circumvention just seems wrong. but I think the point of the question in the test is for us to consider off the field options. I know the drop ball restart is correct, I feel the red card is justified, I admit the VC may be too big a leap. Are we only left in law with a caution for the USB of the holding and a drop ball?
First of all, I agree that it can't be DOGSO. DOGSO is defined as a foul or offense punishable by a DFK or PK that DOGSO. This does not meet that criteria. First off, EITHER SFP or VC occurs: When the offense is too severe for a caution AND which include one or more of the following additional elements: • Retaliation • Tackling from behind • One or both feet, with cleats showing, above the ground • Violent or excessive force • No chance of playing the ball Beyond that, the only difference drawn between VC and SFP is that SFP must be: 1) When challenging for the ball 2) On the field of play 3) Against an opponent ANYTHING that meets the above criteria but is missing one or more of the conditions of SFP is therefore VC. In my book, because this involved denying a goal scoring opportunity it elevates it above the level for issuing a caution. Since it ALSO involved the keeper not having a chance of playing the ball, it has met the criteria for violent play. Since it was also off the field of play, the sending off is for VC. Drop ball on the six yard line straight in front of where the ball was laying on the goal line. IASoc, the ATR only defines violent behavior as offense which are too severe for a caution. Too severe doesn't necessarily mean that it involves or could involve injury. Perhaps that's GENERALLY what we're talking about, but that's not the ONLY thing falling under that description.
Griz, Let's break this down. There are four components to any decision a referee makes during play 1) Recognition, 2) Call, 3) Action and 4)Restart. 1) Recognition - What foul have you observed here? Is is holding? Impeding? Are not both the keeper and the attacker entitled to play the ball? Are either in playing distance? They are ten feet back, the ball is on the goal line. So what are we looking at? Is the keeper playing the opponent or simply trying to play the ball? 2) The Call - Irrespective of whether you felt the keeper held the attacker or impeded, since it occured off the field of play, there is no foul, therefore play continues, unless it was violent conduct, but there is nothing in the description to suggest this. At best, it would be unsporting behavior, so you would have to make no call, and then caution the keeper at the next stoppage. 3) Action - At the next stoppage the referee could caution the keeper for UB. Unless it was necessary for game managment, I would probalby not do this at all, and just share a few words with both the keeper and attacker reminding one to be careful and the other that it was nothing to get upset about. 4) Restart - For whatever reason the ball went out of play.
No whistle...keep playing! Both players legally off the field in the course of play, both entitled to play the ball, both players trying to play the ball...NO FOUL.
Bill, by definition a player cannot commit a foul when off the field of play. Misconduct yes, foul no. Whipple's analysis is spot on.
To me, this part of the scenario seems to indicate that the keeper has had inappropriate contact with the attacker -- it seems to IMPLY that the keeper is going over the attacker as much to keep his legs away from the ball as he is to play the ball. Even if he didn't intentionally intend to prevent the attacker from playing the ball, he did in fact do so. To me, this would be analagous to a keeper going THRU a player to get to the ball on the field of play -- this would be a foul. So in this situation, the keeper committed an infraction. The question is what do we do about it. It is AT LEAST a caution for USB and I still feel comfortable with a send off because it LIKELY prevented a goal from being scored.
Re: Re: upgrade in progress #2 Kev, What is implied is doubtful,a nd we do not punish doubtful offenses. We are not there to judge intent. It did not happen on the field of play, and, therefore cannot be a foul under any circumstance so it is not an offense punishable by a free kick. Futher, it may or may not be misconduct if both were contesting for the ball, even if in so doing, the actions of one player restricted the activities of another. Here you have to decide if the keeper played the opponent not the ball. If, in fact, you feel the keeper played the opponent and was not playing the ball (and the exception being violent conduct because it was done with undue force or to cause the attacker harm, where you stop play) then play must continue and you deal with the misconduct when the ball next goes out of play. Again, unless it is violent conduct, the MOST SEVERE punishment available to us would be to caution the keeper for Unsporting Behavior. A send-off would not be appropriate because the keeper has every right to attempt to prevent a goal from being scored and challenge for the ball. Now this is very interesting because a year or two ago there was a nearely identical scenario where the keeper struck an attacker inside the goal and off the field of play following a collision after the keeper made a save. In this example it was a send-off for VC and a DB restart, but this is only because play be stopped for VC even if it occurs off the field of play and whether it involves players or non-players. It makes me UNcomfortable, that you are comfortable with a send-off for a doubtful infraction. What can I say to make you more at ease with keeping that red card from getting sunbleached in a stiuation like this?
Sherm, First, I fully understand that it's not a foul and never will be. The problem that I have is the fact that the keepers actions denied a goal via "dubious" means. What if the ball is laying there on the goal line with both the attacker and the keeper in the goal. However rather than both of them on the ground, both are standing up. The attacker is between the ball and the keeper. To prevent the attacker from moving to the ball for a simple tap in, the keeper reaches out and grabs him. It's still off the field so it's not holding and since it can't be a foul, it can't really be DOGSO. But in fact, the keeper used clearly unsporting or illegal means to prevent the goal from being scored. It wasn't violent -- the keeper didn't slug attacker or even tackle him -- just grabbed him. Now what's your solution?
If you see it that way, then it is misconduct, and the keeper must be cautioned. You could stop play and restart with a DB but it is recommended that we allow play to continue and deal with the misconduct at the next stoppage. Kev, Same solution. It sounds like the keeper is holding the opponent. It is unsporting and illegal. Stop play if necessary for game control, otherwise at the next stoppage. Book'em, show the card, and while you are at it, tell him such conduct would be barely dignified by pond scum. Make a big show, then restart, and hope it plays in Peoria so you don't have to worry about retaliation, but that's about all you can do. As a note, depending on how much force is used in the holding, it coiuld rise to violent conduct, but you would have to be pretty sure of yourself on this. Let me ask you, why don't you feel that a caution is sufficient? A formal caution is pretty serious... on more strike and you're out. It is important to remember that the send off for DOGSO is a relatively recent addition to the Laws, added to address the problem of defenders committing career ending tactical fouls on attackers, which had previously only been cautionable. It was a serious change because a send off can change the outcome of a match, so we must be very careful in its application. Try to do the least you can do, not the most, to control the match and you will be amazed at just how much fun everyone can have. Sherman
Does being overly officious seem to fit? This is why this is about art, and not science (or multiple choice). It's a you had to be there, but from what you described,. . I suggest. . . DO NOTHING? Where's your huge crime? Sounds more like entertaining, then a need for punishing someone. You can't give a card for "leaving the field of play w/out permission," for this. It's the course of play, not a deliberate/intentional act. Where do you get a foul by the keeper? You said the keeper "in an attempt to reach the ball" (this suggests the only intent, which is so far legal). . .pins the legs of the attacker down preventing him from getting to the ball. Is the "intent" of the keeper? Doesn't sound like is; more of a consequence. Hold the keeper responsible for this unintentional act of "holding?" That's a stretch and a tough sell. Suggesting "careless" play? Kind of hard not to be "careless" when you've been knocked into the goal, and an attacker sprawled in front/on top of you, and he's trying to drag the ball into the goal, and just a few more inches and he scores! Desperate situations call for desperate action, and can we really fault the keeper for trying to do his job? What would the reasonable person expect the keeper to do? Just lie there with the realization that if he tries to get to the ball, he "could" be considered committing a foul? Hmm, what does this leave. . goal or PK? Keeper. . pick one? I think just about any decision against these two in the net is going to be controversial and create real game management issues. I don't see any clear crime here, or any need to find some fault or crime with what's taking place. It's a unfortunate and unnatural situation, best ignored. Restart accordingly.
Does being overly officious seem to fit? Keith, First of all, the reason that we all discuss things here on this board is to LEARN. So your snide remarks about being overly officious can be left elsewhere, if you don't mind. Second of all, you answered all three questions posed by Grizz stating that it's "more art than science". Are you saying that referees are either born to be referees (artists) or they'll never get it? Are you saying that artists (referees) should be creative and not follow the laws/rules? I don't buy your more art than science argument. Should we always apply the letter of the law -- no, we should not and one of the ways we learn when we should and when we should not is to discuss the situations. It is a science involving a lot of skill and technique which needs to be LEARNED.
This is a huge hole in the LOTG. For that rare case when the players through inertia have left the field of play and while still off the field the keeper holds the player from re-entering the field to deny any opportunity at goal there must be more than caution for USB, because the LOTG do not recognize a foul off the field of play. In fairness, the keeper should be sent off if all the criteria for DOGSO is met. Also there are circumstances when a player knowing he is off the field of play might make a hard challenge. "Can't be a foul he was off the field Mr. Referee!" These should be addressed.
Re: Re: upgrade in progress #2 This is a good list to follow and surely all referees can agree to that. Just that they like the FOLLOW UP portion in most answers about recording info and submit the report. Granted it is an opinion when we assume from what is written exaclty what opinion we might form. So IN my opinion we are looking at a keeper who has an attacker between him and the ball and that attacker has a clear opportunity to play that ball the needed 6 inches or so into the keeper's goal before the keeper can stop it so the keeper as per description of the event "scambles over top of the attacker in an attempt to grab the ball pinning the attacker's legs preventing him from doing so. " The 10 foot distance is misleading because the average height of a player is about 6 feet so it possible the attacker needs only a short roll or a crab walk to get to that ball. But for the sake of argument lets say the keeper grabs the attacker by the shoulders and pulls him back then crawls along his body pinning him down as a defender clears the ball away moments laters. So my recognition is the keeper by an unfair means of holding prevents a goal. I also recognize the act of scrambling over top as a potential dangerous or harmfull physical play no different than a player running over top of a player as he lays on the ground it instead of cleats it is hands and knees perhaps. While I do agree it could be unclear as to how physical the scramble was assume that if you saw it as an event on the FOP you would blow for DOGSO and a PK? Knowing it is ONLY misconduct why should that aleviate the unfair action if it does in fact do so? I do disagree with allowing play to continue even if you feel no VC applied. FIFA advice direct quote Holding an opponent A common criticism of referees is their failure to correctly identify and punish the offence of holding an opponent. The failure to deal appropriately with shirt-pulling and arm holding can result in confrontation situations developing and referees are instructed to make an early intervention and to deal firmly with the situation in accordance with Law 12. A direct free kick is normally all that is required as punishment but in certain circumstances an additional sanction is required e.g. (IN OUR CASE a different restart!) a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player holds an opponent to prevent him gaining possession of the ball or taking up an advantageous position a player must be sent off if he denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by holding an opponent Realizing they refer to DOGSO and a DFK I thought about this FIFA Q&A 21.A player running with the ball sees a defender immediately in front of him and runs off the field of play to continue playing the ball. The opponent holds him beyond the touch line to prevent him continuing his run. What action does the referee take? Play is stopped and the opponent is cautioned for unsporting behaviour. Play is restarted with a dropped ball at the place where the ball was located when play was stopped.* Nothing here about letting play continue now is there? I find letting play contiue in our case till the next stoppage as grossly unfair unless the attackers had a solid crack at goal after the defender cleared the ball. While I despise the drop ball scrum in front of the goal knowing the volitile situation likely to develop at least the attackers will be able to secure a better scoring position since they just lost one by the unfair and possibly violent actions of the opposing keeper. My thoughts are FIFA wants us to be firmer in our application of holding when it does occur ESPECIALLY when it denies a goal or the opportunity. OUR situation being off the FOP complicates the spirit of the law in that the exact things that would have you red carded in on the FOP now are suspect. UNLESS we can see VC as a replacement for SFP for the scrambling over top of the attacker and the placing the body on top of the other when it was not there initially. I agree it could be a strretch but if you could see the actions as SFP on the field surely VC could apply off the FOP. As I suggested depending on what opinion we arrive at of the keeper's action although I could see your view as correct if I was of the same opinion. In my opinion I would show the red card to the keeper if the actions were severe enough to do so for VC and send him off ensuring his exit from the area before initiating the restart. Or I would caution and show the yellow card to the keeper and make it well known only a loophole enables him to walk clear of this as a send off. For the stoppage due to the misconduct by the keeper off the FOP a drop ball is listed as the correct restart. If I felt the keeper's actions were only requiring a caution or a simple verbal warning and nothing else I could see awaiting the next stoppage. However if the keeper's actions clearly in my opinion deny the goal than I feel obligated to not wait, apply advantage only if there was one and stop immediately. Thanks for taking the time to answer Whip and all others I feel a lot of intelligent and thought provoking information lies within these boards.
Here's what I've come up with. I'm not a referee, but I consider myself reasonably well read on the laws of the game. I have maybe a completely different outlook here, but the way you describe it I think that the attacking player is playing in a dangerous manner. The keeper is guilty of preventing a player that ended up outside the field of play in the course of normal play from re-entering it. Since the attacker was playing in a dangerous manner, there was no obvious goal scoring opportunity to be considered. Anyway, the keeper gets cautioned for unsporting behavior at the next stoppage of play. I believe that it is not a foul to play in a dangerous manner when not on the field of play. Restart is whatever the restart would have been at the next stoppage.
The attacker does not show an obvious goal scoring opportunity. He has just reached his leg out, he doesn't have control of the ball. He is not moving towards his opponents goal ( he is on the ground 10 feet away) nor has the keeper used his hands to deny a goal scoring opportunity (he is the keeper anyway). The misconduct happens off the field of play. The restart is a dropped ball The punishment can only be a caution. No send off here because there is nothing indicating an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Even with the ball on the goal line you cannot be sure that the attacker who is on the ground beyond the goal line can still reach out and pull that ball over with his foot before the defender on the field of play can reach it and clear the ball off the goal line.