RefSix

Oxford v Bradford Goal Kick

#1
Morning all, down in L1 yesterday this happened:


What you don’t see here is that after Oxford score (winning goal in 90+4 minute), the kick off didn’t happen for approx 5 mins as the referee spoke to his assistant nearest the Oxford goal about the legality of the goal kick in this clip, then spoke to the other assistant and apparently the 4th official before eventually deciding to allow the goal - messy.

Bowyer the Bradford manger reckons the ref had admitted he didn’t know the relevant part of the law on whether the goal kick was legal but probably take that with a pinch of salt.

What you don’t see from the goal kick is that the Oxford player was apparently very close to touching the ball before it has left the area - we all know that’s a retake in the laws if that’s what happened.

However, the bit I started doubting myself on was the fact that Bradford have 4 players in the area as the goal kick is taken. Offences/sanctions in law 16 suggest if an opponent is in the area and challenges for the ball then it’s a retake, but don’t explicitly cover opponents just being in the area. That said, law 16 also talks about procedure being no opponent in the area and ends by suggesting (paraphrasing) ‘any other offence is a retake’.

Should it have been a retake in law based on purely several Bradford players being in the area at the time?
 

Alex Rush-Fear

Well-Known Member
#2
"If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the goal kick is taken, or
enters the penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the
ball before it has touched another player, the goal kick is retaken."

Therefore, if the opponent is in the area but doesn't touch/challenge for the ball, then I think it's safe to deduce that the goal kick doesn't need to be retaken.
 
#4
"If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the goal kick is taken, or
enters the penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the
ball before it has touched another player, the goal kick is retaken."

Therefore, if the opponent is in the area but doesn't touch/challenge for the ball, then I think it's safe to deduce that the goal kick doesn't need to be retaken.
Cheers. I’d gone to the offences part of the law where your quote is from and as you’ve said it clearly doesn’t suggest a retake for opponents just being in the area.

My doubt though was down to the procedure part of the law stating no opponent in the area and then the offences element saying ‘any other offence = retake.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#5
This is the part of Law 16
1552815421861.png

The first paragraph talks about this case. By way of logical inference if "touch or challenge" is a retake, then if NOT "touch or challenge" is NOT a retake (in the context of opponents in the PA). And as the first paragraph covers this case then "for any other offence" at the end no longer applies.

We also have this from Law 13 pg 115. Again by way of logical inference and exactness of the concept, it applies to goal kicks:

1552815761011.png

I agree that goal kicks should have been made as clear as a defensive free kick from inside the area.

EDIT: great clip and it shows why you need to know every intricacy of the laws of the game if you want to progress in your refereeing.
 
Last edited:

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#6
There's a better video here, from 1:10. https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11667839/oxford-1-0-bradford. Bradford attack and put the ball wide as the attacker is challenged, Oxford take a quick goal kick and break to score. It isn't clear from the video whether the ball left the area or not.

The, as Bradford are waiting to kick off, ref is spoken to by AR2 who tells him that it should be a penalty to Bradford for the first challenge and the referee then rules out the goal and signals a penalty to Bradford. So AR2 must have been happy that the goal kick left the area, although why he waited that long to flag is beyond me.

Luckily it would appear that AR1 or 4th official has told him over the comms that he can't go back for the penalty as play had restarted, so he gave a goal to Oxford. All very messy, and kind of had the drama of VAR without there actually being VAR/
 
#8
This is the part of Law 16
View attachment 3292

The first paragraph talks about this case. By way of logical inference if "touch or challenge" is a retake, then if NOT "touch or challenge" is NOT a retake (in the context of opponents in the PA). And as the first paragraph covers this case then "for any other offence" at the end no longer applies.

We also have this from Law 13 pg 115. Again by way of logical inference and exactness of the concept, it applies to goal kicks:

View attachment 3294

I agree that goal kicks should have been made as clear as a defensive free kick from inside the area.

EDIT: great clip and it shows why you need to know every intricacy of the laws of the game if you want to progress in your refereeing.
Yep been reffing on and off for a while whilst also playing. My first instinct was that it was OK but then started to doubt myself given as you’ve said, you can take an inference from law 16’s wording but it isn’t spelt out as you have pointed out in law 13. Cheers.
 
#9
There's a better video here, from 1:10. https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11667839/oxford-1-0-bradford. Bradford attack and put the ball wide as the attacker is challenged, Oxford take a quick goal kick and break to score. It isn't clear from the video whether the ball left the area or not.

The, as Bradford are waiting to kick off, ref is spoken to by AR2 who tells him that it should be a penalty to Bradford for the first challenge and the referee then rules out the goal and signals a penalty to Bradford. So AR2 must have been happy that the goal kick left the area, although why he waited that long to flag is beyond me.

Luckily it would appear that AR1 or 4th official has told him over the comms that he can't go back for the penalty as play had restarted, so he gave a goal to Oxford. All very messy, and kind of had the drama of VAR without there actually being VAR/
I saw this bit was getting debated yesterday i.e. what was the referee signalling for when he appeared to be ‘bringing it back’.

First impression was penalty to Bradford although the way the Bradford player boots the ball back towards the Oxford goal from the halfway line after speaking to the referee in the Sky video suggested to me they were kicking it to the keeper to retake the goal kick?

As you’ve said, if it was for a pen seems very strange that an assistant in the professional game wouldn’t know that it can’t be taken back following the restart (which was the goal kick).
 
Last edited:

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
#10
There's a better video here, from 1:10. https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/11667839/oxford-1-0-bradford. Bradford attack and put the ball wide as the attacker is challenged, Oxford take a quick goal kick and break to score. It isn't clear from the video whether the ball left the area or not.

The, as Bradford are waiting to kick off, ref is spoken to by AR2 who tells him that it should be a penalty to Bradford for the first challenge and the referee then rules out the goal and signals a penalty to Bradford. So AR2 must have been happy that the goal kick left the area, although why he waited that long to flag is beyond me.

Luckily it would appear that AR1 or 4th official has told him over the comms that he can't go back for the penalty as play had restarted, so he gave a goal to Oxford. All very messy, and kind of had the drama of VAR without there actually being VAR/
I'd be interested to know how you know it was about to be brought back for a penalty rather than a GK (as everyone else in the thread has suggested)? No one seems to be particularly appealing for a penalty, when we do see the AR over that side he's not standing still making a clear signal and I honestly don't see anything particularly penalty-worthy.

The body language and long chat both stink of "something might be wrong with the GK but I'm not 100% sure on this minutiae of the laws" to me.
 
#11
Of course, in a couple of months it won't matter if the defender plays the ball before it leaves the penalty area either.
Very true - would have removed all doubt from this issue yesterday if indeed it was all to do with law 16.

If there was actually a proposed penalty involved as RustyRef says, it’s a different matter.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#13
I'd be interested to know how you know it was about to be brought back for a penalty rather than a GK (as everyone else in the thread has suggested)? No one seems to be particularly appealing for a penalty, when we do see the AR over that side he's not standing still making a clear signal and I honestly don't see anything particularly penalty-worthy.

The body language and long chat both stink of "something might be wrong with the GK but I'm not 100% sure on this minutiae of the laws" to me.
I'm going on a referee I know who was at the game who said they set up for a penalty initially, although the video skips that bit.

If it was for the ball not leaving the area at the goal kick surely the decision should have been a goal kick, not a goal as was awarded. The first restart of play after the goal is scored would have been the kick off, therefore the correct decision would be to go back and have the goal kick retaken. Whereas if the assistant has said penalty, the correct decision is goal as play was restarted after the penalty shout with the goal kick.

The you follow the logic through ...

If a penalty
- Challenge on Bradford player in area occurs
- Goal kick is taken and ball leaves the area so play has restarted and cannot go back for the penalty at this point
- Oxford score
- AR2 tells referee that there was foul and a penalty
- Correct decision is goal to Oxford as cannot go back for the foul as play had correctly restarted

if ball didn't leave area at Oxford goal kick
- Challenge on Bradford player in area occurs
- Goal kick is taken and ball doesn't lave the area although AR2 doesn't tell the referee at this time
- Oxford score
- AR2 tells referee that ball didn't leave the area at the GK
- Only permissible outcome here is goal kick to Oxford as play wasn't correctly restarted and there has been no subsequent restart
 
#17
Opponents must be outside the penalty area until the ball is in play. Therefore the ball cannot be in play until they have done so. In this case they hadn't so ball cannot be in play. 'For any other offence the kick is retaken' covers it?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#19
That isn't correct, read One's post from the laws in post number 5.
I agree, but if the teammate received the ball in the PA, is it the case that play was never restarted because the ball did not become 'in play'? Therefore theoretically, the officials could have gone back to something which occurred before the GK (the penalty shout)?
Not for a moment suggesting this would have been a good idea
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#20
I agree, but if the teammate received the ball in the PA, is it the case that play was never restarted because the ball did not become 'in play'? Therefore theoretically, the officials could have gone back to something which occurred before the GK (the penalty shout)?
Not for a moment suggesting this would have been a good idea
Am in this camp. Happy to be corrected but, play has not restarted if the restart is null and void.
Toughie
 
Top