Goal Kick

[shorty]

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.

Of course I'm reading the responses. I simply don't agree that this is an "offence". It's simply a procedure infringement, and like any other wrongly taken restart, the caution for delaying the restart should only be applied if it obviously delays the restart. I don't buy that this should be treated differently just because an attacker could have played the ball if the defending team had chosen to allow the ball to go into play. To me, this is no different to taking a free kick from the wrong spot, forcing a retake.

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.

It's not a strawman at all. You've implied that delaying the restart of play should be treated differently when the defending team does it from a goal kick. If this is not your position, you should clarify it. If it is your position, I disagree entirely. I caution for delaying the restart of play any time it causes a significant delay in the restart of play, or for continued tardiness after a warning. I don't believe that rolling the ball all of ten metres back into the goal area for a do-over is a significant delay unless the team has been warned already about this or other delaying activities.

 

[Russell Jones]

Ok, think I've got an alternative scenario that might help you get your head around our logic @shorty . I think the crux of this revolves not so much about the absolute amount of time wasted but the tactical advantage that accrues from it.

So, imagine a situation where there's only one defender and two attackers in the defensive half (end of game, one team throwing everything forward and exposed at the back). Ball goes out for an attacking throw in but defender, seeing the danger, kicks or rolls the ball a few metres away in order to delay the restart and buy time for more defenders to get back. Therefore, ball not in play, small amount of time wasted but significant tactical advantage gained. Huge frustration for attacking team who have every right to expect to be able to crack on with the game.

I'd be cautioning for the above scenario for exactly the same reasons as I'd be cautioning in the Goal Kick scenario. In both cases the defending team are going against the spirit of the game (aka cheating!) to gain an unfair advantage .....

 

[GraemeS]

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.

I understand the initial question, but I'm arguing that the only way for the attacker to hypothetically gain a CLEAR advantage would be to step in front of the defender and into the area. If they're competing on the edge of the area, there cannot be a clear advantage either way as they will both be competing for a ball rolling towards them - in fact, I suspect if the attacker finds himself with a clear advantage, he's probably pushed/pulled the defender!

So the argument is that by stepping into the area and playing the ball, there is unlikely to have been a clear tactical advantage prevented as a result of the defender delaying the restart. And I'd suggest that to get a yellow card out for a single occurrence of this, you have to be pretty certain.

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.

This is absolutely not the same situation. The ball is in play and the defender has committed a DFK offense - obvious red card. What we're discussing is not even an offense, it's a reason a restart hasn't technically gone right. I think there's an important difference in the way they are perceived in the laws.

 

[Goldfish]

Hi
The laws are clear on this. The ball is not in play so the best we have is DTROP. It is still a retake.
It is probably gamesmanship if done deliberately and the ref has to decide if he wants to caution for that. His game his decision

 

[shorty]

Ok, think I've got an alternative scenario that might help you get your head around our logic @shorty . I think the crux of this revolves not so much about the absolute amount of time wasted but the tactical advantage that accrues from it.

So, imagine a situation where there's only one defender and two attackers in the defensive half (end of game, one team throwing everything forward and exposed at the back). Ball goes out for an attacking throw in but defender, seeing the danger, kicks or rolls the ball a few metres away in order to delay the restart and buy time for more defenders to get back. Therefore, ball not in play, small amount of time wasted but significant tactical advantage gained. Huge frustration for attacking team who have every right to expect to be able to crack on with the game.

I'd be cautioning for the above scenario for exactly the same reasons as I'd be cautioning in the Goal Kick scenario. In both cases the defending team are going against the spirit of the game (aka cheating!) to gain an unfair advantage .....

This feels different, because it's the opponents' restart. In this case it's simply their own restart they've delayed. I see your point of view, but I don't think I'd be cautioning for this.

 

[J-K]

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

Defender deliberately stopped the ball comeing into play from a restart, that's a delay any which way you cut it. If you don't think it's deliberate, fair enough, our colleague above did, so it's a caution.

 

[GraemeS]

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

Defender deliberately stopped the ball comeing into play from a restart, that's a delay any which way you cut it. If you don't think it's deliberate, fair enough, our colleague above did, so it's a caution.

I think at the very least, we have to consider why he did it though. Did he go towards the ball and knock it back to the keeper because he was under pressure, potentially unaware that it would cause a retake? Or did he go into the box just trying to get any slight touch and trigger a retake?

There's a significant difference between those two cases IMO and you have to be 100% sure it's the latter to get a yellow card out for a singe occurrence.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Given that everybody knows you can't touch the ball inside the PA for a goal kick, I think we can effectively rule out the former. He deliberately delayed the restart of play in order to rob his opponent the opportunity of taking the ball with a good opportunity on goal.
I know it's the sort of thing where we normally wouldn't caution because....well, [insert arbitrary reason here]. But there's a fair chance it's the most significant infraction you'll see all game with the biggest outcome. Not so long ago 'outcomes based refereeing' was the philosophy - that we look out the outcome of an action to determine how seriously to treat it. The outcome here is quite severe. No different to a foul that stops an opponent gaining possession in terms of the outcome, the only difference is how they went about it.

The LOTG fully permit a caution here. Arguments like 'oh well you better caution every 5 second DTROP' is just nonsense. That argument will come up every time you caution for DTROP, so if you're using that argument here I can only presume you're fundamentally opposed to any DTROP caution. You won't see another situation like this in the game, so that argument simply doesn't hold water. It's a unique scenario. We all know why it was done - current refereeing philosophy is that the approach to cards is highly arbitrary; the fact that a lot of people most likely wouldn't caution for this is an example of that. I may not caution for this if it happened (being honest here)- but I couldn't really justify, with a rational argument, not doing so.

 

[Peter Grove]

He deliberately delayed the restart of play in order to rob his opponent the opportunity of taking the ball with a good opportunity on goal.
I know it's the sort of thing where we normally wouldn't caution because....well, [insert arbitrary reason here]. But there's a fair chance it's the most significant infraction you'll see all game with the biggest outcome.

I'm sorry but I'd respectfully have to disagree. In almost all cases that I have seen, the opponent was never likely to have an opportunity on goal. As former goalkeeper and long-time goalkeeping coach, I can assure you that keepers are taught not to attempt a short goal kick to a team mate on the edge of the area unless there is no opponent nearby. So the more usual scenarios are either that an opponent that the keeper didn't think was close enough to affect things, makes a late move to put the defender under pressure, or that the keeper under-hits the pass, giving the opponent time to close in.

In almost every case that I have seen of a defender doing this, even if the defender had let the ball come to him outside the area, the opponent would have had at best, nothing more than a chance to put the defender under pressure. I would guess that on the majority of occasions, the defender would still have been able to retain possession (and probably just play it back to the keeper).

In the somewhat unlikely occurrence of a goalkeeper playing the ball straight to an unmarked opponent standing just outside the area and a defender then rushing in to get a touch on the ball before it leaves the area to force a restart then yes, you would have a justification for a caution. However, I cannot recall having seen that happen - in virtually all cases I would say it is more likely to be as described above, would not prevent any opportunity on goal and for me, would not be worthy of a caution, at least on the first occurrence.

As I said earlier, if it's done repeatedly and/or as an obvious tactic then that's a different matter.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

"Almost every case" is irrelevant. In this case, the description is that there was an attacker with a fair chance of getting the ball. thus suggesting a 50-50 at worst if they were outside the area.

It's a hypothetical scenario. I've never seen this happen and I bet most haven't. The description is that there is immediate threat by an attacker.

 

[GraemeS]

Given that everybody knows you can't touch the ball inside the PA for a goal kick, I think we can effectively rule out the former. He deliberately delayed the restart of play in order to rob his opponent the opportunity of taking the ball with a good opportunity on goal.
I know it's the sort of thing where we normally wouldn't caution because....well, [insert arbitrary reason here]. But there's a fair chance it's the most significant infraction you'll see all game with the biggest outcome. Not so long ago 'outcomes based refereeing' was the philosophy - that we look out the outcome of an action to determine how seriously to treat it. The outcome here is quite severe. No different to a foul that stops an opponent gaining possession in terms of the outcome, the only difference is how they went about it.

The LOTG fully permit a caution here. Arguments like 'oh well you better caution every 5 second DTROP' is just nonsense. That argument will come up every time you caution for DTROP, so if you're using that argument here I can only presume you're fundamentally opposed to any DTROP caution. You won't see another situation like this in the game, so that argument simply doesn't hold water. It's a unique scenario. We all know why it was done - current refereeing philosophy is that the approach to cards is highly arbitrary; the fact that a lot of people most likely wouldn't caution for this is an example of that. I may not caution for this if it happened (being honest here)- but I couldn't really justify, with a rational argument, not doing so.

I have to say, I take issue with idea that everyone knows this quirk of law. I didn't before I became a referee and while some players may know this in relation to a GK, I think very few realise it relates to a defensive FK in the box as well. I certainly wouldn't go on a pitch assuming every player knows this - I strongly suspect that if a retake was ordered for something similar in the PL, there's a high chance the ex-pro footballers commentating wouldn't understand what happened!

I think there will be a very small number of incidents where the defender has made an obvious and conscious decision to force a retake, as opposed to either not understanding the laws, making a genuine attempt to get the ball back to the keeper, or doing something taht you're not totally sure about the intent behind. The last three situations should only get a caution for DTROP if they're done repeatedly and after the players have been educated IMO. And in the first case, the offense isn't delaying the restart, it's that the referee has perceived the player has gained an unfair advantage. I think that's both technically more accurate and gets you out of the "He's delaying the restart again ref!" trap.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

The incident described was a goal kick, not a defensive free kick.

 

[ASM]

Why are we looking to create ourselves problems at a goal kick?!?

If it happens once then get the kick retaken and get on with it!

I'm only thinking of a caution if there are multiple repeats and I've warned the players involved.

 

[Russell Jones]

Why are we looking to create ourselves problems at a goal kick?!?

If it happens once then get the kick retaken and get on with it!

I'm only thinking of a caution if there are multiple repeats and I've warned the players involved.

We're trying to 'do the right thing'. And there is no carte blanche answer, it totally depends on the circumstance. However, IF it's clear to everyone that the defender has deliberately stepped into the area to delay the restart, then, by definition, he's trying to gain an advantage by so doing. And in that case I don't care whether it's the ¨"first one ref"' , I'd still see every reason to caution. Any shred of doubt in my mind about the deliberateness (based on where the defender kicks it and the proximity of attacking players) would give me licence to have a word (quiet or public) instead. But otherwise, I honestly think I'd be copping out and letting the defender take the p##s somewhat

 

[xPositor]

For those that would caution the defender for this the very first time it happens, would you also caution the first time a defensive player on a free kick immediately stands in front of the ball, or a player that has just committed a foul carrying the ball with him - both removing elements of advantage of free kicks?

In the OP's scenario, I would simply be ordering a retake. Why? Most likely, the defender has panicked and passed it back to his GK, or - least likely - the defender fully understands the LotG and has made an astonishingly quick tactical decision. For the first, educate the player (if you so choose). For the second, try not to let your jaw hit the ground as it drops, then educate the player (if you so choose).

 

[Ian Topping]

Cheers for all the advice, greatly appreciated. Great forum btw