I agree -- I think that it's a simplified classification, because it typically applies to situations where the GK is holding the ball and a player kicks it out of the hands (whether a late challenge, or just a douchey challenge
)
Goal or No Goal?
- Thread starter CO. DOWN REF
- Start date
)
Think you can see a little cheeky elbow by the attacker to knock the ball out @Tealeaf
@richard ramjane - for your question i had a similar situation in my game last weekend...keeper decides to punt it with a crowd in front of him and it grazes an attacker, the kick went pretty much as far as normal so I let it play go on feeling like "no harm no foul" - I looked up the laws on this after I got home wondering if the attackers intent was relevant (as you are asking) and I'm still not 100% clear. The law says "prevents the GK from releasing the ball from the hands OR kicks /attempts to kick the ball when GK is in process of releasing it"...my conclusion is it's not an offense to be in the way of a kick or be menacing around the keeper...as the keeper can just pull it back and wait to kick it. Wonder what other think on this - probably some from the USB team going to come in on that one.
@richard ramjane - for your question i had a similar situation in my game last weekend...keeper decides to punt it with a crowd in front of him and it grazes an attacker, the kick went pretty much as far as normal so I let it play go on feeling like "no harm no foul" - I looked up the laws on this after I got home wondering if the attackers intent was relevant (as you are asking) and I'm still not 100% clear. The law says "prevents the GK from releasing the ball from the hands OR kicks /attempts to kick the ball when GK is in process of releasing it"...my conclusion is it's not an offense to be in the way of a kick or be menacing around the keeper...as the keeper can just pull it back and wait to kick it. Wonder what other think on this - probably some from the USB team going to come in on that one.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
i'm unclear too, but its nagging me , hence i was asking... player didnt raise his feet but clearly diverted his run to move in front of the keeper as he was taking the drop kick , which caused the keeper to skew it a bit... i cautioned for USB but i feel ive been a little harsh.... or have i ? i just cant decide!
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
Richard, did he delay the restart? No caution harsh, warning not to do it again...play on?i'm unclear too, but its nagging me , hence i was asking... player didnt raise his feet but clearly diverted his run to move in front of the keeper as he was taking the drop kick , which caused the keeper to skew it a bit... i cautioned for USB but i feel ive been a little harsh.... or have i ? i just cant decide!
Personally I think that's a bit of a stretch... however, for argument's sake, let's say he did.
The keeper has still had a howler by not retrieving the ball and then complaining. The entire incident would have been avoided had he done so!
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
didnt delay but affected how the keeper kicked it... he's dropped the ball as per usual but as the player has come across him, he's had to shorten his kicking motion to avoid connecting with the attacker.
I probably should have had a word only and seen how he reacted, i'd had a word with him previously about his language and he responded positively to that ...
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
i'm unclear too, but its nagging me , hence i was asking... player didnt raise his feet but clearly diverted his run to move in front of the keeper as he was taking the drop kick , which caused the keeper to skew it a bit... i cautioned for USB but i feel ive been a little harsh.... or have i ? i just cant decide!
Sounds like an IFK would be all that's required - with a warning. There's nothing particularly serious about blocking the kick.
Wasn't the argument when this was brought in (possibly due to Thierry Henry doing it if I remember correctly?) that it can be dangerous to disrupt a GK's natural kicking motion. Not making contact with the ball could cause over-extension of some muscle groups or an uneven landing?
So depending how it was done and how deliberate it appeared to the referee, I think you can justify a caution?
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
\
@GraemeS in my instance i think i was harsh with the caution on reflection, it was definitely a deliberate action, but there were no raised studs for the keeper to catch the top of his foot on.... it wasnt a delayed restart, as the ball was in play.... i guess the only person at risk of injury was the attacker as he would have got a solid thump up his backside had the keeper not cut his kicking motion short
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
for the keeper then? 
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
As far as I can tell, if the keeper has to pull back and wait, that means he was was not able to kick the ball when he wanted to, which in turn means that he was prevented from releasing the ball.
I had not heard that explanation before but it always seemed to me that the more serious concern is that if a keeper is attempting to kick the ball 50-60 yards or more down the field he's going to be swinging his leg with at least as much force as any player does at any time in a match (if not more) and if a forward sticks his leg in the way, there's a chance of a serious injury to one or both players. It's not too difficult to imagine that someone could end up with a broken leg.
I think the old laws were a little clearer on this - they said that a player who kicks or attempts to kick the ball in this situation is guilty of dangerous play and that if a player plays in a dangerous manner where the action carries an obvious risk of injury (as in when a keeper is swinging his leg to launch the ball down field) the player should be cautioned.
In @richard ramjane's example, it doesn't sound as if what the player did was particularly dangerous so I think a caution is a little harsh. As others have said, maybe a word of warning so he doesn't try it again,.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
When I did the exam, there was a question on the paper regarding players blocking a keeper's clearance from hand. The paper had IDFK/No Card & IDFK/Yellow Card as possible answers. After a discussion in the group, the RDO said he would accept either answer....
I guess it really depend on how you interpret the attacker's actions on the day. A cheeky nudge of the ball whilst it's in the keeper's hands is wrong, but a lot less dangerous than tracking the keeper's run and sticking a leg out or running/jumping across the line as the keeper releases and in full swing.
When taking charge of youth matches particularly, finding myself increasing having to warn players to leave the keeper alone, especially after set pieces/corners. If a player repeats it later in the game after the warning, they are getting a card!
I guess it really depend on how you interpret the attacker's actions on the day. A cheeky nudge of the ball whilst it's in the keeper's hands is wrong, but a lot less dangerous than tracking the keeper's run and sticking a leg out or running/jumping across the line as the keeper releases and in full swing.
When taking charge of youth matches particularly, finding myself increasing having to warn players to leave the keeper alone, especially after set pieces/corners. If a player repeats it later in the game after the warning, they are getting a card!
In my game on Sunday the first time the goalkeeper went to kick from his hands red attacker tried to impede. I warned him and spoke loudly so everybody could hear if he did that again he would receive a caution. Nobody else tried it again during the game.
As Peter says, an attacker sticking out a leg to block a drop kick is incredibly dangerous. The keeper will be swinging with a huge amount of force, and if he makes contact with that force into the attacker's studs he is looking at a broken foot (especially with lightweight boots they wear now). So if this happens I always caution, and once actually sent off a player in a cup final when he did this leading to a second caution.
I thought it was appropriate to resurrect this discussion in light of Bristol City's disallowed goal this evening. Was Mike Dean correct to invoke this law? It seems that referees now use it to solve all tricky situations where goalkeepers lose possession in crowded boxes. The law has been interpreted to mean that a keeper should have ample time and space to release the ball safely, so opposing players have a duty to retreat swiftly. But it is a bit of a stretch to call a failure to do so 'playing in a dangerous manner', and what if it is as genuine an accident as when a keeper collides with a team-mate?
one
RefChat Addict
first time to this thread.
On the OP it seems far more plausible to give a free kick for this reason
Rather than a free kick for preventing the keeper from releasing the ball. I am surprised it wasn't mentioned before. Either way the outcome is the same.
On Bristol City case, it can be a free kick for either reason as the keeper is in the process of releasing the ball. So yes Mike Dean was absolutely correct IMO. Preventing the keeper from releasing the ball or challenging the keeper when in control don't have to be dangerous or intentional for hem to be an offence. However they would have to be done by an opponent for a free kick to be given . If done by a team mate, accidental or not, its play on.
On the OP it seems far more plausible to give a free kick for this reason
Rather than a free kick for preventing the keeper from releasing the ball. I am surprised it wasn't mentioned before. Either way the outcome is the same.
On Bristol City case, it can be a free kick for either reason as the keeper is in the process of releasing the ball. So yes Mike Dean was absolutely correct IMO. Preventing the keeper from releasing the ball or challenging the keeper when in control don't have to be dangerous or intentional for hem to be an offence. However they would have to be done by an opponent for a free kick to be given . If done by a team mate, accidental or not, its play on.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
The attacker clearly ran into the keeper. There's no doubt that this is a foul.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I would have to say I haven't noticed referees using it "to solve all tricky situations" - only the ones where it applies. I also haven't heard of it being interpreted the way you say. As far as I'm concerned, the opponents don't necessarily have to retreat swiftly, they just aren't allowed to either challenge the keeper when he has the ball in his hands, or prevent him from releasing it. As far as "playing in a dangerous manner" goes, that is no longer mentioned in relation to the keeper releasing the ball but even when it was, it only applied to players who either kicked or tried to kick the ball as the keeper was releasing it so yes, it would be stretching it (or rather, it would just be wrong) to try to apply it in other scenarios.
Finally, as @one has already mentioned, it does not apply to team mates colliding with their own keeper.