You make the call

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Greyhnd00, Aug 5, 2002.

  1. Greyhnd00

    Greyhnd00 New Member

    Jan 17, 2000
    Rediculously far nor
    Girls U15 tournament game......(Second hand as I was working the game on the field next door)
    Shot on goal hits post and rebounds out and remains in play. Goalkeeper hits head on post when trying to make a save and functionaly knocks herself out(was having small convulsion type leg movements) CR DOESNT SEE Goalkeeper. AR notices keeper down but assumes CR has seen her down and leaves flag at side. Opposing team shoots and scores with keeper still down.......Im glad it was them and not me on this one!! What would you do?
  2. Claymore

    Claymore Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Montgomery Vlg, MD
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No goal, drop ball restart. Of course, consult the AR beforehand to "sell" the call.

    "In the spirit of the game..."
  3. jc508

    jc508 New Member

    Jan 3, 2000
    Columbus, Ohio area
    I would think that a significant factor in the question is the amount of time there was between the rebound and the subsequent shot on goal. If it went quickly, I would be inclined to award the goal.

    The more time there is between the rebound and the shot on goal that goes in, the LESS I believe that I would be to award a goal.

    Either way, I would hope that the AR would advise the Ref at what point that the keeper was down.

    Just my opinion.
  4. Scott Zawadzki

    Feb 18, 1999
    Midlothian, VA
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The simple answer is that the referee choose NOT to stop play because he didn't recongise the seriousness of the injury. Since play was never stopped AND the ball crossed the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar, you award a goal and deal with the jeers.

  5. billf

    billf Member+

    May 22, 2001
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If the referee has no idea that there was an injury, then I don't see how you can not allow the goal.

    To be honest, I don't know what I would do. It really depends on a number of things. If the play develops quickly, then the goal is good. If a little time passes then I can't imagine how I wouldn't see a keeper down and out or at least hear a player say something about it before a goal is scored. That would at least allow me to stop play.

    I don't see how I could raise the flag as an AR either. I could choose not to run up the sideline after the goal if I thought the CR missed it and then give him the information, but it isn't my job as an AR to stop play for an injury, that's the referee's job.

    As officials we're not omnipotent. Every match we're forced to make an unpopular decision or two based on what we see. That's just the way it is. The key piece of information here is that the referee did not see the injury. Given no other information, I'd say award the goal. In a youth match, you'd hope the parents associated with the match would be more concerned with the player than a goal being scored. There's no way to really be fair in this situation because what is fair to one team is not fair to the other no matter how it is sliced.
  6. Steve Long

    Steve Long Member

    Nov 22, 1999
    springfield Va
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The cardinal rule I was taught when I began officiating was, "Is it safe? Is it fair?". If I see a player convulsing and the CR doesn't, I will flag it and enter the field of play to be certain that action is taken by competent authority (doctor, trainer, coach in that order).

    Protocol must never precede safety. Example: 4th official enters field at MLS All-Star game to get it halted for lightning. Don't know the instructions from Brian Hall, but the decision was a good one.

    Steve Long
  7. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Similar play happened to me a few weeks ago in a U17 Boys Super Y game. Defender and GK collided heads when trying to clear a corner kick and immediately went down. Ball went right to an attacker who had a shot on a near empty net. I allowed the shot, which was blocked out to the side of the 6. At that point, I blew the whistle, even thought the attacking team still had possession of the with a chance to score. It had just been to long to fairly, in my opinion, allow a goal with an injured player down.

    As jc508 says, it's very hard to stop the play immediately if a scoring opportunity exists. Who's to say that the opportunity wouldn't have existed even if the goalkeeper wasn't injured? However, age and skill level must also play a role in your decision. Remember that we are supposed to stop play immediately if a player is, in our opinion, seriously injured. What's considered serious at one level may very well not be considered serious at the next.
  8. jkc313

    jkc313 Member

    Nov 21, 2001
    I guess I'm wondering how the CR didn't see the keeper down. Surely he saw her down when the goal was scored. AT that point he could call over the AR and ask if he'd seen the keeper go down and when.
    While I agree it's the CR's job to stop play for serious injury, I really think the AR should have done whatever necessary to get his attention. Safety does come first.
    That said, it seems the CR can't stop play retroactively so I'd award the goal.
  9. Greyhnd00

    Greyhnd00 New Member

    Jan 17, 2000
    Rediculously far nor
    Well, he didnt see her on the ground and as the AR kept his flag down he DID actually see her AFTER a ball crossed the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar :) . It was at this point that I heard the coaches raising all kinds of hell and citing rules that dont exist "its not a goal the keeper was down!" "but he didnt blow the whistle!" "but there was an INTENT to blow the whistle" (this was when I was thanking god I was on my nice easy U19B match)
    Regardless the reff got the girl medical attention(she played the next day) and DID NOT allow the goal as he felt(and I agree) that it was not within the spirit of the game to allow the goal with an incapacitated keeper.
    The oposing teams coach was classy about it and didnt protest.....They were young ladies after all.
    I thought the reff did a great job and I hope given the same circumstances I would do as well.
  10. jamesf24

    jamesf24 New Member

    Apr 16, 2000
    Brighton, MI
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This opinion is spot on. As sad as it is to say, even at this youth level, if a goalkeeper misjudges a ball, and gets hurt or not, they may have been coached, or on their own recogniscense, fein an injury to "hope" to prevent a goal. It's sad, but in that regard, the goal should stand.

    Now, if the keeper is down, and the attacking team is passing around the 18 for 2 to 4 minutes, that's different.

    In most pro circumstances, the attacking team would only kick the ball out of bounds if the injured player (and ball) were in the middle third of the field.

    This call is more difficult because it's the keeper, if it were just a defender, then most would let the goal stand, regardless of the time it takes.

  11. Greyhnd00

    Greyhnd00 New Member

    Jan 17, 2000
    Rediculously far nor
    I guess I need to tell you that I am in rural northern michigan and the U19s dont even take dives let alone the U15s! Ive seen kids get absolutely hammered from behind in the area and not go down. The time was about 1 minute or so and I dont think ANY keeper at ANY level would fake for that long....The leg convulsions were pretty realistic as well.
  12. Bob G

    Bob G New Member

    Jan 11, 2000
    Colorado Springs
    I would have allowed the goal.

    The only reason for the referee stopping the game immediately for a serious injury is to get immediate medical attention to the injured player. Disallowing the goal after the fact won't result in quicker medical attention.

    I'd also say, that if the game proceeded for 1 minute or so without the AR getting the CR's attention by any means necessary, then the AR blew the situation pretty badly.

    I'm fairly quick to stop the game for a goalkeeper injury - first, because it doesn't seem right - second, because an injured goalkeeper is more likely to be stepped on by desparate defenders (and this is the reason I cite). But, I can't see any legal justification for disallowing the goal after the fact.
  13. Greyhnd00

    Greyhnd00 New Member

    Jan 17, 2000
    Rediculously far nor
    I think law 18 applies here......It would have been unfair to allow the goal.

Share This Page