A&H

Hearts V Celtic 1st Goal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where in the law does it say the defender has to be 'influenced' by the attacker in the PA? What I see is "touches or challenges" and in this case he clearly challenged.
 
The Referee Store
Ciley Myrus said:
Can i ask at what point you are stopping the game and ordering a retake? Gordon, the Celtic keeper, is happy to play his short goal kick (which is what Celtic do), knowing Cowie is there. Do we stop it then?
Click to expand...
Pretty much yes, assuming the opponent has entered the penalty area before the ball is in play, you stop play as soon as it becomes apparent he is challenging for the ball - so (if possible) before the defender even gets the ball. Once that happens it's irrelevant whether the defender messes up his clearance or not, because play should have stopped before that happens.

I remember an EPL game at the beginning of the season - I'm not sure but I think it involved Tottenham. On two occasions early on, the Spurs (?) keeper took a short goal kick and an opposing forward cut across the edge of the penalty area to try to close down the defender. On both occasions, the referee stopped play and ordered a retake before the ball even reached the defender (I think) but certainly before he'd had a chance to do anything with the ball. Yes, for all we know the defender might have been about to take off on a mazy run, beat ten opponents and score a 'worldie' and the referee has denied him that opportunity by not letting him get the ball and see what would happen but for me, the referee took the correct action on both occasions, based on the wording of the law as it currently stands.
 
Last edited:
No hole to be dug, am doing exactly what our countries top guys did and playing on
If anyone is stopping it on Cowie moving to Boyata, thats also fine
Celtic will do the same goal kick ten times tomorrow night, potentially with Aberdeen players in the box. And it will not be pulled back then either
 
If players are in the area and are not the first to challenge, nor are they the first to touch the ball, then it's quite OK to continue.

Once they involve themselves in the play, it's game over. This is the directive from IFAB.

P.S. @Peter Grove -- It was Tottenham v West Brom in January 2017. There was also a similar situation between Leicester and Liverpool that SHOULD have been dealt with in the same manner, but led to a Leciester goal against Liverpool, which ended up being (I believe) the game winner.
 
The ball is gone, its away, its on its merry way up the park, there is no challenge, there is nothing to challenge, the pass has been played, Boyata makes the same pass he makes ten times a game from the same goal kick routine.
My second pic from prev shows there is no challenge for the ball, its away when Cowie zooms in on Boyata.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5325.JPG
    IMG_5325.JPG
    708.6 KB · Views: 5
Ciley Myrus said:
The ball is gone, its away, its on its merry way up the park, there is no challenge, there is nothing to challenge, the pass has been played, Boyata makes the same pass he makes ten times a game from the same goal kick routine.
My second pic from prev shows there is no challenge for the ball, its away when Cowie zooms in on Boyata.
Click to expand...
None of which changes the text of the law that many people have quoted at you already in this thread. Just because an individual referee has missed something here, doesn't make it right.
 
Very much aware of the law
And very happy to allow this point of play to proceed as it did.
In my interpretation, and the ref and AR, Cowie was of course guiity of being in the box, but, as we know, this is not mandatory to retake the goal kick. I dont deem him challenging, when he is in challenging distance of Boyata, play has moved on, ball is away up the line and we move on to the next passage of play
Had the passes intended target not lost his footing 30 yards away from goal, nobody would to this day be any the wiser about this henious infringment by Cowie
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Had the passes intended target not lost his footing 30 yards away from goal, nobody would to this day be any the wiser about this henious infringment by Cowie
Click to expand...
But you've been saying for the last two pages that this WAS NOT a heinous infringement.

And now you are?

*sigh*
 
At the end of the day, you're saying that your intent if this happens to you is to ignore the law in the name of making your own life easier. That's obviously your choice to make, but I don't know why you're expecting a forum of referee to go along with it?
 
GraemeS said:
At the end of the day, you're saying that your intent if this happens to you is to ignore the law in the name of making your own life easier. That's obviously your choice to make, but I don't know why you're expecting a forum of referee to go along with it?
Click to expand...


If its good enough for county's only Elite referee and his travelling buddy then, either they are both wrong, or, everyone else on here is.... :(
I know whose judgement I go with every time
 
Ciley Myrus said:
If its good enough for county's only Elite referee and his travelling buddy then, either they are both wrong, or, everyone else on here is.... :(
I know whose judgement I go with every time
Click to expand...
And you don't think it's at all possible that he just made a mistake?
 
Mistaking actually seeing an attacker in the penalty area? AR also, between both of them, they cant see the attacker in the box?
This is not an interpretation call on who did what, Cowie is factually in the penalty area, there is no chance at all that these 2 officials, cannot see this
Its not a judgment call, he is factually there, in the box. Impossible not to see him in the box. Esp as both ref and AR are looking at it !!
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Mistaking actually seeing an attacker in the penalty area? AR also, between both of them, they cant see the attacker in the box?
This is not an interpretation call on who did what, Cowie is factually in the penalty area, there is no chance at all that these 2 officials, cannot see this
Its not a judgment call, he is factually there, in the box. Impossible not to see him in the box. Esp as both ref and AR are looking at it !!
Click to expand...
But as you (and others) have rightly said, simply being in the area is not sufficient cause to stop play and order a retake. No one is debating the Law, not even you, the point at issue is whether the attacker is genuinely challenging for the ball. Most on here are contending that he is and at that point play should be stopped. You are contending that he isn't ... which is entirely your prerogative ... it just doesn't seem well supported by the evidence provided.
 
It's such a rare one that he probably just forgot! And we don't know the instructions for the ARs. I know some who tell them not to get involved with free kicks at all, under any circumstances. Or maybe he thought, the Law says that should be a retake but I'm not going to do that because I don't think he's challenging for the ball even though he's a yard away!
There was the debacle with the Newcastle penalty last season. There's no way I'm giving a free kick under those circumstances, even though one of our top referees did so, because I know he was wrong. And so does he! He had a moment - we all have them from time to time. By the same token I also know that in these circumstances it should be a retake. The Hearts game plan was to challenge for everything, and it worked beautifully, but the first goal should not have stood because the goal kick should have been retaken before it got that far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top