Ref4Me

MLS New York City vs Toronto - Interfering with a keeper clearance

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
this is almost identical to the benzema champions league final goal isnt it? that one was almost universally agreed the ref got it right

that said, i think this and that should both have been disallowed. the player clearly jumps to block the kick. had he been taking evasive action or not jumped at all to get out of the way i'd have been ok with it
 

RefIADad

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
this is almost identical to the benzema champions league final goal isnt it? that one was almost universally agreed the ref got it right

that said, i think this and that should both have been disallowed. the player clearly jumps to block the kick. had he been taking evasive action or not jumped at all to get out of the way i'd have been ok with it

Very similar plays, and I was of the same opinion as you regarding the Benzema play. I was very surprised the referee team allowed that one to occur.

In my games, if a player is loitering around the keeper, I'm loudly telling that player to back away and let the keeper clear the ball. If he jumps at the keeper and doesn't make contact, he's getting an earful from me at the next stoppage. Obviously, if he interferes like Medina does here I deal with it as the Laws allow.

This is one of those plays where the average, uninformed fan gripes about referees being too picky until it happens to their team. Then, they want it called strictly. Just shows that in some cases, referees can't ever win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Easy thing to do is to give an IDFK.

Personally don't think an offence has been committed the goalkeeper hasn't been prevented from releasing the ball from his hands, and the player hasn't tried to kick the ball during the release.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Easy thing to do is to give an IDFK.

Personally don't think an offence has been committed the goalkeeper hasn't been prevented from releasing the ball from his hands, and the player hasn't tried to kick the ball during the release.
"His hand" or "attempt to kick the ball" are extras not in the lotg.

The law is badly worded. However technically the offence (prevention) occured before the keeper released it.
 

ISAB

New Member
I got into an argument with a referee who strongly support the decisions of both referees in the Benzema and Medina's cases. However, I am personally of the opinion that both goal shouldn't not stand because clearly there was an obstruction during the transition of play from the goalkeeper. This is not to exonerate keepers that are very careless with the ball. Hence, to avoid controversies and setting precedence, there is need for keepers to be protected in transitioning the ball except when it obviously a careless loose of the ball to the opponent during play.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I'd probably give an IDFK as I'm inclined towards MC rather than AOL, however none of this criteria has been met;
prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
I've thought about this a bit previously and if I was being observed, I'd just say that from my perspective, the above criteria had been met. Unlikely the observer could disagree with something subjective
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
This is another area that could use more clarification on the standards. I typically look at it as an issue of timing--once the GK releases the ball, anything is OK. But actions to interfere before the release violate the Law. Here, he jumps to block the ball while the GK is in the process of punting. I agree with calling an offense against the attacker. (Apparently the whistle blew before the ball entered the goal, so there was no potential VAR review, which also means that PRO is unlikely to opine on the play in its weekly VAR review.) I think that calling this is particularly important at lower levels--if this is allowed once in a game, the GKs are going to be harassed the rest of the game, particularly the other GK.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
PRO (the US Professional Referee Organization) came out with a piece on this. They larfely apply the same considerations as a quick free kick and an opponent not 10 yards away. They conclude the goal should have been awarded. To me, the jump before the release tips to an offense, but it’s nice to have some criteria floated.

Apart from 'distance' consideration, I am more than happy with this interpretation as long as it is consistently applied and clear guidance by IFAB.

If the distance is not a consideration in QFK, I don't see why it should be here.

If attacker moves towards where keeper is releasing the ball, it's an offence, if he makes an intercepting action from where he was (keeper has moved to the attacker), then no offence. I can work with that. I don't see how it could lead to keepers being harassed if you can't move towards them when they have the ball to release.
 

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
For me, I see he has jumped, but he's jumped about 3-4 yards away from him with his back turned. On this replay he is guessing the keepers release. If the keeper was just half a yard either left or right then it completely misses the attacker.
The keeper has rushed his clearance. He has 18 yards to find a spot to clear and he does so right behind an attacker.

That being said, if it was in my game, and I have just 1 look at it, I'm giving a free kick. For me, it's what I feel is expected.
But I can definitely see how people will go either way with this.
 
Top