Is hanging around legal?
Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by mike on January 7th, 2009
What action should the Referee take, and how should he restart the game?
I've got a question about the send off in the situation. As we all know, Denying an obvious goal scoring oppurtunity is an automatic send off. But I have a question on whether it applies in this case.
According to LOTG it says this about sending off,
denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
to an opponent moving towards the
player’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick or a penalty kick
My previous interpretation of this is that it had to be a direct free kick for it to be a red card. But, the law says "free kick" and therefore an IFK could very well be a valid restart after the sending off of the player.
Anyway, was I wrong in my thinking that sending off for denying a goal scoring oppurtunity had to be from a penal foul (ie. handball)? My first instinct in this scenario is Unsporting Conduct with an IFK as restart. But, it seems to be more fair and just for a red card and IFK as restart. Help me out here.
Sometimes the Laws or guidelines are not so clear. First of all, I doubt that this event would ever happen and that is why FIFA most likely will not address the issue. But, for arguement sake let's break it down.
The attacker is moving towards the goal and shoots the ball. The keeper pulls the cross bar down low enough for the ball to miss going directly into the goal. Referee stops play for the misconduct and restarts with a free kick. That free kick can only be an indirect free kick because it was only a misconduct not a foul within the penalty area. If hanging on the cross bar only is a cautionable offense then pulling the cros bar dow n in order to deny a goal is a much more serious offense. The keeper has more lattitude under the Laws fro preventing a goal, that is his job. But, pulling down the cross bar is not one of them and should be looked at as the same as a field player using his hands to prevent a goal.
I disagree here. A referee can't guess whether a striker will whiff on a ball or not, he just has to send off the defender for DOGSO.
It's all about intent here. The defender intends to prevent a goal by cheating. Similarly, the goalkeeper's intent was to prevent a goal by doing something unsporting. The ball could actually go 5 yards wide and still, you'd be hard-pressed to justify not sending the keeper off. It's not like a foul where it might be more difficult ot judge intent... was it reckless? was it also intentional? or was it just an unintentional foul?
But as far as chesting the ball... what's wrong with that? The defender used the bar to get position to do something that is allowed: chest the ball. Unless the LOTG - FIFA or local - state he shouldn't use the bar, I would not even caution the player.
Whistle,
There was a discussion situation presented on one of the USSF circulars about four or five years ago where a defender, not the keepr, denied a goal by leaping up and hanging from the crossbar to chest the ball. Again the question was stoppage, punishment and restart.
As I recall, we had consensus on both stoppage (blow the whistle rather than waiting for the next stoppage), and on the restart (IFK from the 6), I do not believe we ever reached agreement on the punishment. It was split between sending off the defender for SFP/DOGSO and a caution for UB.
Those of us on the cautioning side argued that the player could have as easily headed the ball and therefore the scoring opportunity was not obvious. Those on the sending-off side stated that the criteria were met and it was not for the referee to base a decision on what the defender could have done, or might have done, but simply that which was done.
I do not know whether we ever had an offical USSF postion on this, but I think this also applies to our net pulling/bar bending keeper. Before sending-off, I think we have to be certain that had there been no miscoduct a goal would have scored. Might have scored is not enough. If there is any doubt, then we must err on the side of a caution.
Sherman
Sure. I agree. But, in what we have been discussing it was said that the ball was going to go into the goal and that is what I have based my statements on. Remember that the keeper can use his hands and that gives him an extra reach. The fact that he pulled the cross bar down instead of using his hands shows that from his perspective, the ball was going in, otherwise why pull the cross bar down?
These sort of things do need to be thought out properly at the time the happen. And I'm sure that 50% will agree and 50% will not.
whipple, I can see where you are coming from but, the original post also says "would (or could) have gone into the goal. If not by the discription alone, I would be using that "would have gone into the goal" as my judgement if on the field and still send the keeper off.
Have a great holiday as well whipple! I agree with whistlblower.........although this board was alot more fun when we were arguing about everything!
Sometimes the Laws or guidelines are not so clear. First of all, I doubt that this event would ever happen and that is why FIFA most likely will not address the issue. But, for arguement sake let's break it down.
The attacker is moving towards the goal and shoots the ball. The keeper pulls the cross bar down low enough for the ball to miss going directly into the goal. Referee stops play for the misconduct and restarts with a free kick. That free kick can only be an indirect free kick because it was only a misconduct not a foul within the penalty area. If hanging on the cross bar only is a cautionable offense then pulling the cros bar dow n in order to deny a goal is a much more serious offense. The keeper has more lattitude under the Laws fro preventing a goal, that is his job. But, pulling down the cross bar is not one of them and should be looked at as the same as a field player using his hands to prevent a goal.
Whistle,
There was a discussion situation presented on one of the USSF circulars about four or five years ago where a defender, not the keepr, denied a goal by leaping up and hanging from the crossbar to chest the ball. Again the question was stoppage, punishment and restart.
As I recall, we had consensus on both stoppage (blow the whistle rather than waiting for the next stoppage), and on the restart (IFK from the 6), I do not believe we ever reached agreement on the punishment. It was split between sending off the defender for SFP/DOGSO and a caution for UB.
Those of us on the cautioning side argued that the player could have as easily headed the ball and therefore the scoring opportunity was not obvious. Those on the sending-off side stated that the criteria were met and it was not for the referee to base a decision on what the defender could have done, or might have done, but simply that which was done.
I do not know whether we ever had an offical USSF postion on this, but I think this also applies to our net pulling/bar bending keeper. Before sending-off, I think we have to be certain that had there been no miscoduct a goal would have scored. Might have scored is not enough. If there is any doubt, then we must err on the side of a caution.
Sherman
First, this is a very strange question. Why would teh keeper take the time to jump up and bend the cross bar out of the way ....
Whistle (Let me take this opportunity to wish that you and all others who visit this board share in the blessings of peace and love for the coming year), the crossbar pulling incident actually occurred in 2000 at a B16 semi, at the Massachusetts State Cup where, due to field limitations, some very lightweight portable aluminum goals were used. Though properly anchored, they were very flimsy.
A few minutes into the second half, there was a scramble in front of the net. The keeper made a diving save, rebound bounces away. A green attacker chips the ball towards the top of the net, with the keeper still down on the ground.
The keeper reaches up and yanks on the net, bending the crossbar, deflecting it by maybe a six inches to a foot at the center. The ball passes over within a hair of clipping the bar. The referee did see what the keeper did. He restarted with a GK, The Green team went beserk, the ref issued two cautions for dissent, before he could get the game restarted.
This was presented as a case study for discussion at the 2001 recert clinics here in MA.
In both this, and Julian's example, I would agree with MR. in any event, and maybe with you if I clearly belived that the misconduct solely prevented the ball from entering the net. I would base this on by how much the crossbar moved and where the ball struck it.
In Julian's example, with the ball landing on top of the net, the ball had to be arcing down which would mean that to prevent a goal, the deflection would have to be several feet. I would be inclined to caution the keeper and restart with an IFK at the 6,
In the Masss State Cup example, I am inclined to believe that a goal was denied. Stop the game for the misconduct, send off the keeper, restart with an IFK at the 6.
Otherwise I'd agree with the caution for a misconduct.
That was the basis of my analogy for the situation at the beginning of the thread. If the goalkeeper pulls the bar down in order to try and keep the ball from going in, the ref can't say, "well it wasn't going in" so he doesn't deserve a card for it. He should card him for the offense.
Wrong. If the ball was not going in the net (a goal was not immenent), then the keeper's misconduct could NOT have denied it. Therefore DOGSO does not apply. It may still be necessary to caution for unsporting behavior, but we must NOT send the player off.
"Before sending-off, I think we have to be certain that had there been no miscoduct a goal would have scored. Might have scored is not enough. If there is any doubt, then we must err on the side of a caution."
I disagree here. A referee can't guess whether a striker will whiff on a ball or not, he just has to send off the defender for DOGSO.
It's all about intent here. The defender intends to prevent a goal by cheating. Similarly, the goalkeeper's intent was to prevent a goal by doing something unsporting. The ball could actually go 5 yards wide and still, you'd be hard-pressed to justify not sending the keeper off. It's not like a foul where it might be more difficult ot judge intent... was it reckless? was it also intentional? or was it just an unintentional foul?
Ombak,
And well we may disagree, but consider that if it is not the offense, be it a foul or, in this case, misconduct, that denies the goal or goalscoring opportunity, then the offense is, at worst, unsporting behavior. Law 12 says: "... denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent...".
We are not there to compensate for the skills of the players. If the opponent screws up and we cannot say that it was as a result of the offense, then DOGSO does not apply. there must be cause and effect.
When a player with an obvious goalscoring opportuity is the victim of a penal foul and misses, then we have clear cause and effect and out comes the red regrdless of whether it was careless, reckless or with undue force. If we have misconduct, it is not so clear. As Whistle has pointed out, in this particular case, the premis is that the ball would have gone into the net. My point is that this is the key judgement we must make to determine the punishment.
Intent should not be our basis of judgement as stated in ATR :12.1 "... the referee makes a decision based upon what he sees the player actually do -- the result of the playes's action -- not upon what he thins is in the player's mind."
Originally posted by Ombak
But as far as chesting the ball... what's wrong with that? The defender used the bar to get position to do something that is allowed: chest the ball. Unless the LOTG - FIFA or local - state he shouldn't use the bar, I would not even caution the player.
Though I do not have a current citiation at hand dealing specifically with hanging from the goalposts, the ATR :1.6 "No player modifications to the field" would suggest that this, too, is misonduct.
Sherman
Whistle (Let me take this opportunity to wish that you and all others who visit this board share in the blessings of peace and love for the coming year), the crossbar pulling incident actually occurred in 2000 at a B16 semi, at the Massachusetts State Cup where, due to field limitations, some very lightweight portable aluminum goals were used. Though properly anchored, they were very flimsy.
A few minutes into the second half, there was a scramble in front of the net. The keeper made a diving save, rebound bounces away. A green attacker chips the ball towards the top of the net, with the keeper still down on the ground.
The keeper reaches up and yanks on the net, bending the crossbar, deflecting it by maybe a six inches to a foot at the center. The ball passes over within a hair of clipping the bar. The referee did see what the keeper did. He restarted with a GK, The Green team went beserk, the ref issued two cautions for dissent, before he could get the game restarted.
This was presented as a case study for discussion at the 2001 recert clinics here in MA.
In both this, and Julian's example, I would agree with MR. in any event, and maybe with you if I clearly belived that the misconduct solely prevented the ball from entering the net. I would base this on by how much the crossbar moved and where the ball struck it.
In Julian's example, with the ball landing on top of the net, the ball had to be arcing down which would mean that to prevent a goal, the deflection would have to be several feet. I would be inclined to caution the keeper and restart with an IFK at the 6,
In the Masss State Cup example, I am inclined to believe that a goal was denied. Stop the game for the misconduct, send off the keeper, restart with an IFK at the 6.
whipple, I can see where you are coming from but, the original post also says "would (or could) have gone into the goal. If not by the discription alone, I would be using that "would have gone into the goal" as my judgement if on the field and still send the keeper off.
Have a great holiday as well whipple!
The keeper prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity by pulling the cross bar down so that the ball would not enter the goal. Send off the goal keeper and restart with an indirect free kick from the place of the misconduct with the special circumstances of Law8. The restart would be on the goal area boundary at the spot parallel to the spot of the infringement.
I've got a question about the send off in the situation. As we all know, Denying an obvious goal scoring oppurtunity is an automatic send off. But I have a question on whether it applies in this case.
According to LOTG it says this about sending off,
denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
to an opponent moving towards the
player’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick or a penalty kick
My previous interpretation of this is that it had to be a direct free kick for it to be a red card. But, the law says "free kick" and therefore an IFK could very well be a valid restart after the sending off of the player.
Anyway, was I wrong in my thinking that sending off for denying a goal scoring oppurtunity had to be from a penal foul (ie. handball)? My first instinct in this scenario is Unsporting Conduct with an IFK as restart. But, it seems to be more fair and just for a red card and IFK as restart. Help me out here.
I've got a question about the send off in the situation. As we all know, Denying an obvious goal scoring oppurtunity is an automatic send off. But I have a question on whether it applies in this case.
According to LOTG it says this about sending off,
denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
to an opponent moving towards the
player’s goal by an offence punishable by
a free kick or a penalty kick
My previous interpretation of this is that it had to be a direct free kick for it to be a red card. But, the law says "free kick" and therefore an IFK could very well be a valid restart after the sending off of the player.
Anyway, was I wrong in my thinking that sending off for denying a goal scoring oppurtunity had to be from a penal foul (ie. handball)? My first instinct in this scenario is Unsporting Conduct with an IFK as restart. But, it seems to be more fair and just for a red card and IFK as restart. Help me out here.
It is entirely possible albeit rare for an INDFK restart situation to arrive at DOGSO criteria. There are a few options that could apply from impeding or dangerous play to a second touch or possibly a keeper handling violation inside his penalty area. :o
I presented Mr Allen at the USSF sanctioned referee site with the senario of the FIFA solution whereby an object was thrown at the ball or a shinguard was used as an extension by the keeper could only be punished by a caution even if it denied the goal as it was considered an extention of the hands. Mr Allen mentioned the USSF is submitting these senarios for a better clarification.
Where there is real unfairness is if a drop ball incident denies the goal. One can only hope for some form of VC to accompany those actions so the red is read and rightly so.
"Although as a player once I remember hanging on the bar after heading a ball off the line... the game was 3x2 for us, it was us against another high school class. They had a corner kick, now the field we played on was tiny and the bar was a little lower than usual. My keeper was caught out and I dove to head a ball off the line that was to my left, I don't know how, but after I made contact with the ball I ended up grabbing the bar and pulling myself up... so I hope if that ever happens in a refereed game I don't get carded... I'm not good at diving like a goalkeeper, so I might try that again."
there's the problem - if you were able to reach up and grab the upper bar after a diving save you were obviously playing with a hockey goal!
Jim
I agree. My point is that a ref has to send someone off for DOGSO. He can't assume the striker would have whiffed and on that basis forgive the offender.
That was the basis of my analogy for the situation at the beginning of the thread. If the goalkeeper pulls the bar down in order to try and keep the ball from going in, the ref can't say, "well it wasn't going in" so he doesn't deserve a card for it. He should card him for the offense.
In the second case I would probably agree with you and personally I would consider that misconduct.
Although as a player once I remember hanging on the bar after heading a ball off the line... the game was 3x2 for us, it was us against another high school class. They had a corner kick, now the field we played on was tiny and the bar was a little lower than usual. My keeper was caught out and I dove to head a ball off the line that was to my left, I don't know how, but after I made contact with the ball I ended up grabbing the bar and pulling myself up... so I hope if that ever happens in a refereed game I don't get carded... I'm not good at diving like a goalkeeper, so I might try that again.
But, I'll bite on the scenario.
The keeper prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity by pulling the cross bar down so that the ball would not enter the goal. Send off the goal keeper and restart with an indirect free kick from the place of the misconduct with the special circumstances of Law8. The restart would be on the goal area boundary at the spot parallel to the spot of the infringement.
Though I do not have a current citiation at hand dealing specifically with hanging from the goalposts, the ATR :1.6 "No player modifications to the field" would suggest that this, too, is misonduct.
In 1996 it was a mandatory caution for a player to lean on the shoulders of a teammate to head the ball. I would that say this is similar.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
