Goal Kick

[Ian Topping]

Hi, so I was reffing my 2nd game last week and an incident occurred from a goal kick .
The keeper kicked it out quite timid to the right back. Because the ball was travelling at a slow pace, the left winger got on to this and put the rb under pressure. To get rid of this pressure, the rb deliberately went into the 18yd before the ball left and passed it back to the keeper. I blew n give an indirect free kick. The keeper was demanding a retake.
I stuck to my guns, have re-read the laws and it seems I made a wrong decision?
Cheers

 

[richard ramjane]

firstly i'd edit "rules" for "laws"
and secondly, yes, its a retake....

2. Infringements and sanctions If the ball does not leave the penalty area or is touched by a player before it leaves the penalty area the kick is retaken.

also good to note the following also;

If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team inside its penalty area, the ball is not kicked directly out of the penalty area the kick is retaken.

 

[Ian Topping]

firstly i'd edit "rules" for "laws"
and secondly, yes, its a retake....

2. Infringements and sanctions If the ball does not leave the penalty area or is touched by a player before it leaves the penalty area the kick is retaken.

also good to note the following also;

If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team inside its penalty area, the ball is not kicked directly out of the penalty area the kick is retaken.

Editing

firstly i'd edit "rules" for "laws"
and secondly, yes, its a retake....

2. Infringements and sanctions If the ball does not leave the penalty area or is touched by a player before it leaves the penalty area the kick is retaken.

also good to note the following also;

If, when a free kick is taken by the defending team inside its penalty area, the ball is not kicked directly out of the penalty area the kick is retaken.

Hi, cheers, edited laws lol. Just think it seemed unfair!

 

[Russell Jones]

It absolutely HAS to be a retake. However, I wonder if it was obvious to everyone that this was a deliberate choice by the defender (rather than an accident) whether you might have a case for a caution for general 'unsporting behaviour' ...?

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Bastian Schweinsteiger did exactly the same thing in a European game last season. I thought it was quite clever and shows his experience as many players either don't know the laws or wouldn't think to react quickly enough. Cant imagine you could ever sell a caution to be honest, unless he kept doing it.

 

[GraemeS]

Bastian Schweinsteiger did exactly the same thing in a European game last season. I thought it was quite clever and shows his experience as many players either don't know the laws or wouldn't think to react quickly enough. Cant imagine you could ever sell a caution to be honest, unless he kept doing it.

Yeah, I think doing it once and forcing a retake under pressure is simply clever application of the laws by the players in question. I think you'd only start to consider a caution if they're doing it repeatedly and/or are doing it under no pressure from the opponent. It would then come under time wasting/delaying the restart, as opposed to general USB.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Glad to see you reviewing the LOTG after something happened you weren't sure about - I wish more did the same!

It absolutely HAS to be a retake. However, I wonder if it was obvious to everyone that this was a deliberate choice by the defender (rather than an accident) whether you might have a case for a caution for general 'unsporting behaviour' ...?

The caution would be for Delaying the Restart of Play, given this action stops the ball from being in play. Justifiable given the tactical nature of the offence, but it might not be one that has to be given. It's funny how most people think it shouldn't be when really, it's stopping a great chance at goal so is actually quite a serious impact on play!!

 

[shorty]

I probably wouldn't caution for this unless it was being done to eat up time or had been done a number of times already. There are no tactical considerations as the ball is not in play.

 

[J-K]

You could easily give a caution to the defender for delaying the restart

 

[Cheshire Ref]

You could easily give a caution to the defender for delaying the restart

Of course you could as long it was blindingly obvious, as no doubt the defender will argue he didn't mean it.

 

[shorty]

You could easily give a caution to the defender for delaying the restart

I wouldn't be telling the defender's team that was what it was for, or you'll be expected to apply the same standard to every restart by an opponent that takes longer than the five to ten seconds that would be wasted by this. And rightly so.

 

[Russell Jones]

So long as it was obvious to all that a) the ball had enough momentum to leave the Penalty Area and b) the defender had deliberately stepped well inside the Area to play the ball and gain an advantage then I'd have no concerns about issuing a caution and being clear about the reason why.
For me, this would be a great example of invoking the new 'Spirit of the Game' thinking in a positive way (rather than using it as an opportunity to wimp out of our responsibilities as many on here are concerned about).

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I wouldn't be telling the defender's team that was what it was for, or you'll be expected to apply the same standard to every restart by an opponent that takes longer than the five to ten seconds that would be wasted by this. And rightly so.

I don't see the connection there at all.....

 

[Peter Grove]

So long as it was obvious to all that a) the ball had enough momentum to leave the Penalty Area and b) the defender had deliberately stepped well inside the Area to play the ball and gain an advantage then I'd have no concerns about issuing a caution and being clear about the reason why.
For me, this would be a great example of invoking the new 'Spirit of the Game' thinking in a positive way (rather than using it as an opportunity to wimp out of our responsibilities as many on here are concerned about).

Not for me - I don't think it would be within the "Spirit of the Game" to suddenly start issuing cautions without any previous warning, for something that has never been seen as a cautionable offence (at least so long as it's only done on a one-off or very occasional basis) ever since the law on goal kicks contained the provision about the ball having to leave the area. At least, not without some clear evidence that something within the game has changed, such as multiple teams starting to do this on a regular basis (which is not currently happening as far as I'm aware) or without some clear instruction from the IFAB that this is now a mandatory caution.

Whenever this has been discussed before, it seems to me the consensus has always been that you should probably let the player get away with it the first time but should then warn and ultimately caution for it if starts to be repeated as a tactic, or is clearly being used as a ploy to waste time.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Playing devil's advocate here - , why shouldn't this be cautionable?
A player is breaking the LOTG to prevent an opponent from..well, basically from having a good chance at goal. Why shouldn't that be a caution? Odds are no other offence in the game will have anywhere near as big an impact upon the other team

 

[GraemeS]

Playing devil's advocate here - , why shouldn't this be cautionable?
A player is breaking the LOTG to prevent an opponent from..well, basically from having a good chance at goal. Why shouldn't that be a caution? Odds are no other offence in the game will have anywhere near as big an impact upon the other team

Perhaps because the ball's not in play? The opposition player gains no advantage from running into the box to collect the ball as it would still force the referee to intervene and order a retake.

Therefore for it to become a goalscoring opportunity (obvious or not), the referee has to consider the situation as if the ball left the box and was competed for on the edge of the area. I'd argue that you cannot consider it to be a goalscoring opportunity at that point, as the defender will at least be competing for the ball?

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
The ball is not in play until it leave the penalty area. So the only possible caution is delaying the restart. The restart does not change.
One can also argue depending on the actions of the forward that his movement can contribute to the retake such as cutting across the penalty area until the ball has exiting. That is illegal Aldo yet we would not caution for that. Also a poor kick by the GK is also a factor so should the defender bear any consequences for that?
Simple. Ball is not in play so it is retake. No need to caution.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Perhaps because the ball's not in play? The opposition player gains no advantage from running into the box to collect the ball as it would still force the referee to intervene and order a retake.

Nobody said the attacker ran into the PA. The wording of the question certainly indicates that the attacker was waiting outside, given he was pressuring the defender THEN the defender ran inside.

Therefore for it to become a goalscoring opportunity (obvious or not), the referee has to consider the situation as if the ball left the box and was competed for on the edge of the area. I'd argue that you cannot consider it to be a goalscoring opportunity at that point, as the defender will at least be competing for the ball?

I didn't say goalscoring opportunity, I said a chance at goal - I deliberately avoided using LOTG terminology. If you're looking at comparisons, it's like when a defender fouls an attacker to stop them getting to the ball.
Look at it this way. Say the defender and attacker are both 35 yards out. Nobody else anywhere near. Keeper fluffs the kick and ball is rolling straight to them both. Defender pulls the attacker back to stop him reaching the ball. Sure, had the attacker reached the ball he still would have had that same defender to beat, but given he committed the offence we take him out of the equation. Thus, red card for DOGSO.

The defender has prevented the same sort of opportunity, but by a non-foul breach of the laws. Obviously it can't be a red card - but also obviously he's breached the laws to prevent the attacker from having a good chance at goal. It's a tactical breach the defender chose to make.

 

[shorty]

I didn't say goalscoring opportunity, I said a chance at goal - I deliberately avoided using LOTG terminology. If you're looking at comparisons, it's like when a defender fouls an attacker to stop them getting to the ball.

One of these things is not like the other. The ball is in play in this example, in the original example, it is not in play. If the ball is not in play, there is no chance or promising attack.

I don't see the connection there at all.....

If your standard for delaying the restart of play (ie. issuing a card without a warning) is the taker of a goal kick forcing a re-do and wasting five to ten seconds, surely that same standard should apply when the other team takes five to ten seconds longer than is expected on an attacking throw-in when they're up 1-0?

If I was playing with a team of like-minded individuals and a referee failed to enforce the same time constraints for all restarts, I can guarantee that their match control would be effectively over from that point onwards. (Most) players have an inherent sense of fairness and a caution here and no cautions later for effectively the same result would completely breach that.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

One of these things is not like the other. The ball is in play in this example, in the original example, it is not in play. If the ball is not in play, there is no chance or promising attack.

I feel like you're not reading the responses. The only reason the ball isn't in play is because the defender, in breaching the laws, stopped it. Had he not done that the ball would have entered play.

If your standard for delaying the restart of play (ie. issuing a card without a warning) is the taker of a goal kick forcing a re-do and wasting five to ten seconds, surely that same standard should apply when the other team takes five to ten seconds longer than is expected on an attacking throw-in when they're up 1-0?

that's just a blatant strawman. You know very well that's not what the issue is here because I've made it very clear, on a number of occasions, what my reasoning is here. So I'm not going to dignify that with a response - only to point out that such a response makes me wonder if you're opposed to all cautions for DTROP, given that excuse would apply there.