A&H

New goal kick trick

The Referee Store
santa sangria said:
...how many times shall the referee order the goal kick to be retaken if the GK does this repeatedly...?
Click to expand...

How many times does the R allow a TI to be taken that doesn't enter the field?

But there is a lurking problem different from the TI. On the TI, we caution for DR, and then they take the TI. On the GK, we have this bizarre retake model--but the GK is in play and we retake it anyway. So if we caution would we still retake, or would we say the ball is in play, so it has to be an IFK if we caution? But here in the real world, it isn't going to happen--when you tell the defender/GK to take the GK again and you better not see it repeated, are they really going to say f you and do it again?
 
socal lurker said:
How many times does the R allow a TI to be taken that doesn't enter the field?

But there is a lurking problem different from the TI. On the TI, we caution for DR, and then they take the TI. On the GK, we have this bizarre retake model--but the GK is in play and we retake it anyway. So if we caution would we still retake, or would we say the ball is in play, so it has to be an IFK if we caution? But here in the real world, it isn't going to happen--when you tell the defender/GK to take the GK again and you better not see it repeated, are they really going to say f you and do it again?
Click to expand...
Why would they do it in the first place if there’s clarity that it’s not permitted?

(Sorry)
 
socal lurker said:
But here in the real world, it isn't going to happen--when you tell the defender/GK to take the GK again and you better not see it repeated, are they really going to say f you and do it again?
Click to expand...

They might do. If it's the winning team I'd call it time wasting and caution for that. If it's the losing team they can keep it up all day.
 
Justylove said:
Why are you so worried about this.

If it happens, give a retake goal kick until you get further guidance....
Click to expand...
Why is anyone concerned? Realistically this isn’t ever going to happen in our games in the first place, never mind the retake
 
So, it's a retake until the matter is "discussed" by the IFAB.

Couldn't they just conference call each other or create a WhatsApp group and discuss it instantly? They should've given a definitive interpretation rather than 'let's wait and see'.
 
I am hoping we can all agree on (and IFAB) that we can't have this as an offence and caution for a free kicks but not for goal kicks.

Imaging it's not an offence for a goal kick, they do do the OP thing and keeper drop kicks it to the other end and a flick on to a striker in offside position in the goal area. Offside given. And opponents take it exactly the same way as what happens 10 seconds ago at the other end. But now we have a caution and IFK from the goal area line. It would be the most inconstant solution.
 
The dilemma:
  1. a while back players passed the ball to keepers hands to time waste
  2. IFAB introduced the 'back-pass' law to stop it
  3. Players found a way around it
  4. IFAB introduced the 'circumvent' law to stop it. But for some reason 'from free kicks' was included in it even though it can't be used as a time wasting tactic.
  5. Many years have passed and goal kick is changed which makes 'the move' possible for goal kicks and player are using it
  6. Many referees are saying this should be allowed because it does not violate the spirit of the 'back-pass' law (time wasting). A good point but no-one has every said anything about it happening from a free kick not violating the spirit of the back-pass law for last 20 years or so.
IFAB has a decision to make. Go against the spirit of the back-pass law and disallow the move. Or allow the move (for both goal kicks and free kicks) and change the way goal kicks are taken dramatically (IMO).

The funny thing is had IFAB foreseen this (possibly in a trial period) and included 3 words to the circumvent law as "or goal kicks", they would not be in pickle they are in now and no one would have batted an eyelid on making it a cautionable offence (as they did not when it was done for free kicks).
 
one said:
The dilemma:
  1. a while back players passed the ball to keepers hands to time waste
  2. IFAB introduced the 'back-pass' law to stop it
  3. Players found a way around it
  4. IFAB introduced the 'circumvent' law to stop it. But for some reason 'from free kicks' was included in it even though it can't be used as a time wasting tactic.
  5. Many years have passed and goal kick is changed which makes 'the move' possible for goal kicks and player are using it
  6. Many referees are saying this should be allowed because it does not violate the spirit of the 'back-pass' law (time wasting). A good point but no-one has every said anything about it happening from a free kick not violating the spirit of the back-pass law for last 20 years or so.
IFAB has a decision to make. Go against the spirit of the back-pass law and disallow the move. Or allow the move (for both goal kicks and free kicks) and change the way goal kicks are taken dramatically (IMO).

The funny thing is had IFAB foreseen this (possibly in a trial period) and included 3 words to the circumvent law as "or goal kicks", they would not be in pickle they are in now and no one would have batted an eyelid on making it a cautionable offence (as they did not when it was done for free kicks).
Click to expand...

Surely 'including from a free kick' doesn't mean 'excluding other restarts (goal kicks)'? I thought the words 'including from a free kick' was just clarification (an example of what is considered a trick) and the law would be the same without these words?

I still feel the law as it's written outlaws this practice.
 
The Referee said:
Surely 'including from a free kick' doesn't mean 'excluding other restarts (goal kicks)'? I thought the words 'including from a free kick' was just clarification (an example of what is considered a trick) and the law would be the same without these words?

I still feel the law as it's written outlaws this practice.
Click to expand...
Tend to agree with you. But the question is (as pointed out in the above), why was "including from a free kick" added in the first place. It would have made more sense to exclude all restarts as you can't waste time doing it from restarts. Nonetheless, it is included and hasn't explicitly included other restarts and we now have a problem because not everyone interprets it the same.
 
Personally, this is not a 'trick', but I'd be content to apply the law that way if so required.
 
Mintyref said:
Personally, this is not a 'trick'
Click to expand...
The law requires you to caution if a player uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball to keeper using his head from a free kick. Can you tell me one/any example when a trick (with your definition) happens from a free kick as above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top