Junior/Youth Testing start to the new campaign

[SLI39]

A demanding U14 match which I am glad to have got out of the way early so as to scrape all the rusty effects of the summer away. As for the adults/children, I have the impression that the start to the season couldn't have come soon enough.

My principal reason for creating this thread was to raise a point about goalkeepers and releasing the ball. I had an incident where the GK picked up the ball in his area, completely unchallenged; he then proceeded to roll the ball, obviously to himself, and pick it up again before launching a kick. I now remember, if I'm not mistaken, that this is considered different to bouncing the ball, and I regret not penalising with an indirect free kick. A chance missed to educate the keeper, and one that rarely occurs.

Other:
1. The level of disbelief about certain decisions I gave for charges and pushes gave me a wry smile. These children hadn't played football in the presence of a referee for several months, and it showed.

2. Apparently no replacement ball (is this compulsory?), so it was me who ended up retrieving it from some brambles. Some superficial cuts to add to my fee for the game. More fool me, I suppose!

3. I also played an advantage for a goalkeeper foul in the box, as the ball was heading in. However, it made me think: under the new rules, what takes precedence when deciding to apply DOGSO? If the charge was forceful enough, would you award a red for SFP and penalty even though, in your opinion, the goalkeeper was clearly 'attempting to play the ball'?

 

[LC]

A demanding U14 match which I am glad to have got out of the way early so as to scrape all the rusty effects of the summer away. As for the adults/children, I have the impression that the start to the season couldn't have come soon enough.

My principal reason for creating this thread was to raise a point about goalkeepers and releasing the ball. I had an incident where the GK picked up the ball in his area, completely unchallenged; he then proceeded to roll the ball, obviously to himself, and pick it up again before launching a kick. I now remember, if I'm not mistaken, that this is considered different to bouncing the ball, and I regret not penalising with an indirect free kick. A chance missed to educate the keeper, and one that rarely occurs.

Other:
1. The level of disbelief about certain decisions I gave for charges and pushes gave me a wry smile. These children hadn't played football in the presence of a referee for several months, and it showed.

2. Apparently no replacement ball (is this compulsory?), so it was me who ended up retrieving it from some brambles. Some superficial cuts to add to my fee for the game. More fool me, I suppose!

3. I also played an advantage for a goalkeeper foul in the box, as the ball was heading in. However, it made me think: under the new rules, what takes precedence when deciding to apply DOGSO? If the charge was forceful enough, would you award a red for SFP and penalty even though, in your opinion, the goalkeeper was clearly 'attempting to play the ball'?

Indirect free kick should have been given for picking the ball up a second time. By the sounds of it no one moaned so don't worry about it.

Replacement balls are down to the league rules I believe. However every league I am in requires at least two balls so one can always be replaced. If there isn't a replacement and it goes into a hedge etc. Never get it yourself. You never know what will happen on the pitch while your back is turned. Either a player or one of the coaches should get it.

For the third point if its a challenge you would show a red for anywhere else on the pitch then do so here. If it isnt and it was a clear attempt to play the ball then penalty and yellow as according to the new laws.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Indirect free kick should have been given for picking the ball up a second time. By the sounds of it no one moaned so don't worry about it.

Replacement balls are down to the league rules I believe. However every league I am in requires at least two balls so one can always be replaced. If there isn't a replacement and it goes into a hedge etc. Never get it yourself. You never know what will happen on the pitch while your back is turned. Either a player or one of the coaches should get it.

For the third point if its a challenge you would show a red for anywhere else on the pitch then do so here. If it isnt and it was a clear attempt to play the ball then penalty and yellow as according to the new laws.

Charging is not an attempt to play the ball, so if it denied an OGSO, then it's a red. If the goal is still scored then, the OGSO hasn't been denied, so if you think it is warranted, its a yellow.

 

[LC]

Charging is not an attempt to play the ball, so if it denied an OGSO, then it's a red. If the goal is still scored then, the OGSO hasn't been denied, so if you think it is warranted, its a yellow.

Apologies you are correct. I misread part of the question

 

[SLI39]

Thank you for your replies. I think a a finer consultation of the law changes will iron out most difficulties. However, I feel this particular scenario will raise questions even for PL referees. For one, goalkeeper challenges are not mentioned in the updated laws. I know you say, very sensibly, that charging isn't an attempt to play the ball, but for a keeper (for whom the nature of the charge is usually different from that of an outfield player) it doesn't make that explicit. I always tend to look not only at ball direction, but also the impact of the keeper on the attacker.

It will be interesting to see which way the referees go on this. It seems from the Courtois incident at Swansea yesterday that the new law has been applied, as Courtois made a legitimate attempt to tackle fairly and it wasn't done cynically. I presume it will be the same for most fouls committed with hands when the attacker goes around. In general, I agree it's far preferable to consider the foul in question before the possible DOGSO repercussion.

Yes, no protests about the keeper rolling and picking up. I knew fairly quickly it was wrong (even without anyone else being within playing distance), but one lives and learns. Besides, if the substitution completion rule is too obscure for a manager, I'm almost certain I can get away with that one!

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Is a charge not just a charge, regardless of what position the player plays in. Why is a goalkeeping charging a player any different to the left back?

 

[SLI39]

Is a charge not just a charge, regardless of what position the player plays in. Why is a goalkeeping charging a player any different to the left back?

To clarify, I am not saying that there couldn't be an identical situation. However, keepers generally charge head-on and gloves first, so it's more difficult to determine whether the ball is within playing distance. As I alluded to, there will even be cases where (s)he makes contact with the ball, but wipes out an opponent. Then the referee has to think carefully how to proceed: given the new law, my suggestion was that you're no longer able to fall back on DOGSO because of the 'attempt to play the ball' clause. So I presume it depends on whether you think it was reckless or use of excessive force.

 

[lincs22]

2. Apparently no replacement ball (is this compulsory?), so it was me who ended up retrieving it from some brambles. Some superficial cuts to add to my fee for the game. More fool me, I suppose!

As somebody else has said, never retrieve the ball (even as an AR). It is the clubs responsibility to provide the ball, so they can fetch it wherever it goes. If they cannot retrieve = abandon.
Check the leageu rules about the number of match balls required, the SCOR says two - so you may need to report the club to the league. Nice £20 fine (would have been cheaper to buy another ball !)

It will be interesting to see which way the referees go on this. It seems from the Courtois incident at Swansea yesterday that the new law has been applied, as Courtois made a legitimate attempt to tackle fairly and it wasn't done cynically. I presume it will be the same for most fouls committed with hands when the attacker goes around. In general, I agree it's far preferable to consider the foul in question before the possible DOGSO repercussion.

This wasn't a DOGSO - The wording is OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY, in this they were going away from goal and defenders would have got back = NOT OBVIOUS. The caution, I suspect, was for a reckless challenge.

 

[GraemeS]

As somebody else has said, never retrieve the ball (even as an AR). It is the clubs responsibility to provide the ball, so they can fetch it wherever it goes. If they cannot retrieve = abandon.
Check the leageu rules about the number of match balls required, the SCOR says two - so you may need to report the club to the league. Nice £20 fine (would have been cheaper to buy another ball !)



This wasn't a DOGSO - The wording is OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY, in this they were going away from goal and defenders would have got back = NOT OBVIOUS. The caution, I suspect, was for a reckless challenge.

The caution was because referees in the PL seem to believe at the moment that any penalty MUST have an associated caution. It's starting to annoy me - see the Fonte discussion in the TV section.

 

[lincs22]

The caution was because referees in the PL seem to believe at the moment that any penalty MUST have an associated caution. It's starting to annoy me - see the Fonte discussion in the TV section.

I think they have been all advised to follow this from the LOTG, since the skill level is so high in the PL

commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack

 

[SLI39]

As somebody else has said, never retrieve the ball (even as an AR). It is the clubs responsibility to provide the ball, so they can fetch it wherever it goes. If they cannot retrieve = abandon.
Check the leageu rules about the number of match balls required, the SCOR says two - so you may need to report the club to the league. Nice £20 fine (would have been cheaper to buy another ball !)



This wasn't a DOGSO - The wording is OBVIOUS GOAL SCORING OPPORTUNITY, in this they were going away from goal and defenders would have got back = NOT OBVIOUS. The caution, I suspect, was for a reckless challenge.

Thanks for the advice about match balls. I genuinely wasn't aware of that, so I'll check with my ref sec and the league concerned.

As for the Courtois challenge, I cannot be entirely persuaded that there wasn't an obvious goal-scoring opportunity if you pause at the moment the final pass is played, but perhaps the attacker did take it wide enough to leave some doubt. Then again, I believe I'm with GraemeS in thinking that a caution for recklessness looks very harsh. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.