A&H

New goal kick trick

And here we go... FIFA/IFAB have issued guidance today that this action is against the spirit of the game. Therefore the kick should be retaken BUT no disciplinary action taken. This was taken from Reading RA's Twitter feed.

1564764513677.png
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
QuaverRef said:
(This isn’t a dig/moan etc, it’s just hard to word this question without sounding like I’m arguing, which I’m not). If this happened in a game when you were doing an observation, what would you say to the referee if they gave the indirect free kick and if they didn’t?
Click to expand...
Incorrect in law if they gave it
 
one said:
I hope you have plenty of time to reply to all. :)

I take it you are saying the same act/play in another situation with other players it can be an offence?

So if in one game a player flicks the ball up and headers it to keeper and there is no time wasting (lets say they are losing 1-0 as in the past you mentioned that's an indicator), you wont caution. But if another player from the opposing team does it to time waste you would caution?
Click to expand...
Lots of time as I'm currently on 6 weeks summer holiday. If he does this in open play, it is circumventing, penalise, caution the offender, restart with an IDFK. Does it at a goal kick, (on clarification from IFAB - as yet unverified), re-take the kick.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Good question. The fact that the free kick isn't referenced makes me doubt the veracity of the text/screenshot.
Click to expand...
Free kicks have been referenced as part of the wording relating to circumvention since 1997. Not sure why they'd need to make some new reference to it now.

Which is another reason why I'm surprised the IFAB hasn't just come straight out and said this is circumvention - since it's already an offence to use a deliberate trick to circumvent the law at a free kick, why on earth would it not be the same at a goal kick?
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Good question. The fact that the free kick isn't referenced makes me doubt the veracity of the text/screenshot.
Click to expand...
I have to admit I have been sceptical of the authenticity due to the absence of the document on the ifab website and the fact that the ifab social media channels have been silent on the issue.
Remember the change to the penalties at WWC. There was briefings and articles on the site.
That said some credible sources seem to be circulating the info...
 
And now--a nickel for anyone who can explain how this "clarification" is remotely consistent with the actual language of the Laws (i.e retaking a kick for something that occurs after the ball is in play from the restart...).

Mind you, I do think it is a practical solution, just not within the Laws (unless you want to take very broadly that language about spirit of the game and what soccer expects, etc. . . .)
 
I just saw it via the IFAB Farcebook and raced here!

THEY DON'T KNOW!

Ha.

(It's obviously an offence and someone at IFAB HQ needs to brought into line before the verdict is passed on the great unwashed.)

It's the goal kick hokey cokey - not permitted but not penalised - in out in out shake it all about!

Oh dear ;)
 
santa sangria said:
I just saw it via the IFAB Farcebook and raced here!

THEY DON'T KNOW!

Ha.

(It's obviously an offence and someone at IFAB HQ needs to brought into line before the verdict is passed on the great unwashed.)

It's the goal kick hokey cokey - not permitted but not penalised - in out in out shake it all about!

Oh dear ;)
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's not OBVIOUSLY an offence, and even if it is, it's not obvious (in the LOTG) as to whether a caution should be issued and if so, to whom.

The level of potential ambiguity here could have caused significant ramifications on individual games of football, there were 4 potential outcomes to this happening, all could be considered to be applying the law:

1) play on, no offence
2) IFK, no cautions
3) IFK, caution GK
4) IFK, caution Defender

Whatever the eventual outcome, there will be a clear outcome for this happening.
 
Justylove said:
The problem is that it's not OBVIOUSLY an offence, and even if it is, it's not obvious (in the LOTG) as to whether a caution should be issued and if so, to whom.

The level of potential ambiguity here could have caused significant ramifications on individual games of football, there were 4 potential outcomes to this happening, all could be considered to be applying the law:

1) play on, no offence
2) IFK, no cautions
3) IFK, caution GK
4) IFK, caution Defender

Whatever the eventual outcome, there will be a clear outcome for this happening.
Click to expand...

Only three possibilities--there's no theory I can think of that would lead to an IFK without a caution. It is clearly not passback offense as the ball was headed. The only way to get to an IFK is via the caution. Well, actually there is a fourth: caution both for their conspiracy.

(I do think, as the "trick" language is written that the technical answer is it is a trick and therefore a caution and IFK, as there is no reason for the express language "including at a FK" otherwise. But I do think the IFAB "clarification" does work out nicely from a practical interim solution so that they can come up with something that works (or doesn't work in a different way...) next year.)
 
socal lurker said:
Only three possibilities--there's no theory I can think of that would lead to an IFK without a caution. It is clearly not passback offense as the ball was headed. The only way to get to an IFK is via the caution. Well, actually there is a fourth: caution both for their conspiracy.

(I do think, as the "trick" language is written that the technical answer is it is a trick and therefore a caution and IFK, as there is no reason for the express language "including at a FK" otherwise. But I do think the IFAB "clarification" does work out nicely from a practical interim solution so that they can come up with something that works (or doesn't work in a different way...) next year.)
Click to expand...
I also can't think of a theory where it could happen, other than the referee not knowing who to caution, therefore cautioning neither player involved, however, regardless of that fact, any ambiguity on a matter of fact is something that really needs to be avoided, and regardless of whether we think that it's a complete pile of **** that it's a retake and not an IFK and a caution to the players involved or not, the fact is we've got a definitive position to take that will allow consistency for teams from week to week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top