RefSix

Goal kick - opponent in the box 2018-19 laws

#1
Interesting scenario in a video review today made me confused and question my understanding of the GK law.
We are still on 2018-19 laws.

GK is taken with attacker in the box.
Ball is played to the other side of the box, whence defender is challenged on the edge of the box by a second attacker - it's not clear if the defender plays the ball in the box, or if the second attacker steps into the box to make a challenge.

While we are all debating the second attacker - I am thinking it's a retake because the first attacker was in the box when the GK was taken: "opponents must be outside the penalty area until the ball is in play."

Debate then proceeds to "If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the goal kick is taken, or enters the penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the ball before it has touched another player, the goal kick is retaken." This line is then cited to contradict the previous passage - the inference being it's not always a retake if an opponent is in the box when the GK is taken. But my thinking is, it doesn't say that - and why bother with the earlier catch all of " opponents must be outside..." Does an opponent have to play, touch or challenge to trigger a retake - why was the law contradictory?

Help!

(Isn't this also one of the key changes for 2019-20... now an attacker can be in the box when the kick is taken if the didn't have time to leave...)
 
#2
I don't think it is a key change at all--it is a more explicit statement of what has been the case--if the team taking the GK chooses to take before the player has left, we ignore it unless that player who was in the PA interferes. So in the initial scenario, we don't care about the first opponent.
 
#3
I don't think it is a key change at all--it is a more explicit statement of what has been the case--if the team taking the GK chooses to take before the player has left, we ignore it unless that player who was in the PA interferes. So in the initial scenario, we don't care about the first opponent.
You ignored it because of the law or in spite of the law?
 

Goldfish

Well-Known Member
#7
Hi
It is up to the referee to decide based on the circumstances.
The reality is that a referee is not going to be too focused on Attacker 1. Focus of attention will be on Attacker 2 and what happens around the ball with the defender. Attacker 1 has had no impact on play and the GK decided to take the kick before Attacker 1 had a chance to leave. As he has done nothing to impact on the game it is trifling. If a referee wanted to go with a retake based on position of Attacker 1 he could do so under the Law.
Put it like this. If Attacker 2 situation does not arise is the referee going to go with a retake based on Attacker 1 being inside the penalty area?
 

one

RefChat Addict
#8
18/19
I think I understand what you are talking about "previous passage". I don't think you can call it a contradiction but a redundancy. " opponents must be outside..." is not really needed but preventive. For example it stops players from standing in front of the ball.

19/20
There is already a long thread on this. The wording of the new law is very poor and there are parts of it which no longer serve a purpose and shouldn't be there. All it does is to create confusion.
 
#10
Hi
It is up to the referee to decide based on the circumstances.
The reality is that a referee is not going to be too focused on Attacker 1. Focus of attention will be on Attacker 2 and what happens around the ball with the defender. Attacker 1 has had no impact on play and the GK decided to take the kick before Attacker 1 had a chance to leave. As he has done nothing to impact on the game it is trifling. If a referee wanted to go with a retake based on position of Attacker 1 he could do so under the Law.
Put it like this. If Attacker 2 situation does not arise is the referee going to go with a retake based on Attacker 1 being inside the penalty area?
So you are saying the old law means that the referee can give a retake if an attacker is in the box when the kick is taken, right, and interference does not have to be a factor?

Does anyone interpret the old law differently?
 
#12
I'm not sure about "setting you straight" - I can give you my opinion of it, for what it's worth. In the 2018/19 law scenario, opponents were supposed to be outside the box but if they weren't and a quick goal kick was taken in which the opponent did not because involved in any way, most referees would let it go, either as a trifling offence with no effect on play, or as a kind of application of the advantage rule (though no-one would actually signal advantage here).

So I think you're right in what you said in your last post - you could give a retake if you wanted (although in most cases of non-inference it wouldn't be worth bothering). However in the scenario you describe, you could use it as a kind of 'get out of jail card.' Using the spirit of the law, even if you're not entirely sure the second player committed an offence I guess you could give a retake due to the original offence of the first player being in the area because the anticipated scenario of the defending team benefiting from the quick goal kick did not ensue. I don't think you have to but you could - if you judged it to be the best decision for the game overall.
we ignore it unless that player who was in the PA interferes.
Except that's not quite what the law says. It only instructs the referee to intervene (with a retake) if the the opponent "touches or challenges for the ball before it is in play." Since it's now in play as soon as it is kicked and clearly moves (which would be every time a goal kick is taken, since no-one takes a 'trick' goal kick by just tapping the top of the ball) this is extremely, extremely unlikely as it basically means them doing these things before the ball is kicked. Incidentally, it also makes a nonsense of the idea of a retake - you can't retake a kick that hasn't been taken yet.

So assuming the referee has allowed the opponent to remain in the penalty area for a 'quick' goal kick (because they didn't have time to leave) as soon as the ball is kicked they have free rein to do whatever they like. The reply sent to @JamesL pretty much says this. I somehow think that this is not what the IFAB intended when they made this change but the way they've written it, it becomes a possibility. For me, this could well become an example of "the law of unintended consequences" - in the idiomatic sense of something not anticipated and undesirable.
 
#13
So assuming the referee has allowed the opponent to remain in the penalty area for a 'quick' goal kick (because they didn't have time to leave) as soon as the ball is kicked they have free rein to do whatever they like. The reply sent to @JamesL pretty much says this. I somehow think that this is not what the IFAB intended when they made this change but the way they've written it, it becomes a possibility. For me, this could well become an example of "the law of unintended consequences" - in the idiomatic sense of something not anticipated and undesirable.
Whilst it certainly wouldn't be unheard of for new Laws to be introduced without full thought as to the possible consequences, I'm not so sure this is one of those occasions. At the end of the day, exactly as currently with a free kick, the kicking team has a choice. They can either wait for the other team to retreat the required distance (9.15m for a FK, outside the area for a GK) or they can choose to waive this right by taking the kick quickly. If they choose the latter route then they either reap the benefits of going quick or face the potential consequences.

That said, as a referee, if I'm in any doubt whatsoever as to whether a player has made less than strenuous efforts to retreat outside the area, then I'll be going for a retake every time . Especially in the upcoming season when everyone is getting used to the change
 
#14
I'm not sure about "setting you straight" - I can give you my opinion of it, for what it's worth. In the 2018/19 law scenario, opponents were supposed to be outside the box but if they weren't and a quick goal kick was taken in which the opponent did not because involved in any way, most referees would let it go, either as a trifling offence with no effect on play, or as a kind of application of the advantage rule (though no-one would actually signal advantage here).

So I think you're right in what you said in your last post - you could give a retake if you wanted (although in most cases of non-inference it wouldn't be worth bothering). However in the scenario you describe, you could use it as a kind of 'get out of jail card.' Using the spirit of the law, even if you're not entirely sure the second player committed an offence I guess you could give a retake due to the original offence of the first player being in the area because the anticipated scenario of the defending team benefiting from the quick goal kick did not ensue. I don't think you have to but you could - if you judged it to be the best decision for the game overall.

Except that's not quite what the law says. It only instructs the referee to intervene (with a retake) if the the opponent "touches or challenges for the ball before it is in play." Since it's now in play as soon as it is kicked and clearly moves (which would be every time a goal kick is taken, since no-one takes a 'trick' goal kick by just tapping the top of the ball) this is extremely, extremely unlikely as it basically means them doing these things before the ball is kicked. Incidentally, it also makes a nonsense of the idea of a retake - you can't retake a kick that hasn't been taken yet.

So assuming the referee has allowed the opponent to remain in the penalty area for a 'quick' goal kick (because they didn't have time to leave) as soon as the ball is kicked they have free rein to do whatever they like. The reply sent to @JamesL pretty much says this. I somehow think that this is not what the IFAB intended when they made this change but the way they've written it, it becomes a possibility. For me, this could well become an example of "the law of unintended consequences" - in the idiomatic sense of something not anticipated and undesirable.
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
 
#16
Except that's not quite what the law says. It only instructs the referee to intervene (with a retake) if the the opponent "touches or challenges for the ball before it is in play." Since it's now in play as soon as it is kicked and clearly moves (which would be every time a goal kick is taken, since no-one takes a 'trick' goal kick by just tapping the top of the ball) this is extremely, extremely unlikely as it basically means them doing these things before the ball is kicked. Incidentally, it also makes a nonsense of the idea of a retake - you can't retake a kick that hasn't been taken yet.
Yeah, but my answer was to an inquiry about the old laws, not the new laws....
 
Top