check Nonsense Play, But...
Message Boards  
   back to boards  |  search  |  help!   

Nonsense Play, But...
Back Back to Board Total Views: 31508 - Total Replies: 14 
Print Print This Post << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> 
   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: JohnF
Posts: 1718
Member Since: 8/14/99

Posted: 12/11/2008 12:27pm
Views:   2167
Replies: 4
  Happy  Nonsense Play, But...  
I'm just making this up, but I can think of several issues which might arise if this really happened. As customary, I'll post my own musings on the issues later.

Team A is awarded a goal kick. Goalkeeper A is taking the kick, with all of the other Team A players up near the halfway line. Player B1 is standing about 20 yards outside Team A's penalty area.

Goalkeeper A attempts to kick the ball far up the field, but he miskicks. The ball skids and spins along the ground, stopping just outside the penalty area.

Keeper A and B1 both charge for the ball. The goalie gets to the ball first, managing to get his foot on it. B1 gets there a step later. B1 legally takes the ball off Keeper A's foot, dribbles quickly around the keeper, and shoots the ball into Team A's goal.   

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: keith__286
Posts: 764
Member Since: 12/19/03

Posted: 12/11/2008 12:50pm
Views:   2138
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
And your question is? First, the ball was put into play as it cleared the penalty area. Second, the keeper touched the ball before any other player so the referee would be within Law for blowing the whistle for a second touch. Third, it sounds as if the opponent was there at virtually the same time so as long as the referee did not blow his whistle, give advantage and allow the goal for team B. If the whistle blew IDFK for Team B where keeper touched the ball outside the penalty area.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: Brianm
Posts: 492
Member Since: 4/20/00

Posted: 12/11/2008 12:58pm
Views:   2151
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
I will agree with Keith.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: ref47
Posts: 295
Member Since: 1/25/05

Posted: 12/12/2008 6:06am
Views:   2134
Replies: 0
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
but...
isn't this a law 16 violation and not a law 12 violation? law 16 prohibits the keeper from playing the ball a second time once it is in play and before another player touches or plays the ball. law 12 only places limits on the keeper WITHIN the pa.
so, per ussf, if this is not a law 12 violation, can we apply advantage? i would say, no. you must call the illegal play by the keeper. ifk to opponents.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: JohnF
Posts: 1718
Member Since: 8/14/99

Posted: 12/15/2008 7:58am
Views:   2114
Replies: 1
  Happy  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
Ref47 is going in the direction I was thinking of. On first thought, advantage cannot be given because the keeper's second touch did not violate Law 12. The goal would have to be disallowed, and an IFK given instead (talk about a riot starting!).

Going a step further,though, (although still starting a riot!) the goalie's play on the ball could be construed as misconduct. Specifically, he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity by means of an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick.

If we follow the USSF's thinking in the thread below, the CR could give advantage since DOGSO is in Law 12. The problem is, however, that for this very minor offense the keeper would have to be sent off.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: ref47
Posts: 295
Member Since: 1/25/05

Posted: 12/15/2008 9:14am
Views:   2141
Replies: 0
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
ok, we view the second touch by the keeper as a law 12 violation because it is a dgf situation and are now able to apply advantage. opponent scores; no longer a rc because a goal was not denied. downgrade to yc on the keeper.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: JohnF
Posts: 1718
Member Since: 8/14/99

Posted: 12/15/2008 12:34pm
Views:   2114
Replies: 1
  Happy  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
Good point. I had only thought 2 steps away from the sensible "rule advantage and allow the goal" decision. This latest is 3 steps away...I wonder if anyone will come up with a number 4?

From what I understand, it is only the USSF which is insisting on the strange Law 12 only interpretation of advantage. I certainly hopes someone in the national office rethinks that idea.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: GaryV
Posts: 1226
Member Since: 5/17/00

Posted: 12/16/2008 7:25am
Views:   2094
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
USSF's already got themselves covered. They wouldn't say the referee was applying advantage. Rather, the keeper's second touch of the ball was trifling and so wouldn't be called. Better not try to link any misconduct into that scenario though - how could misconduct be trifling?

It sure would be easier if they just said advantage applies outside Law 12. I guess they're worried about applying advantage on bad throws or offside, or something.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: keith__286
Posts: 764
Member Since: 12/19/03

Posted: 12/16/2008 8:42am
Views:   2088
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
I was wrong about the second touch this being Law 16. Would also have been wrong about it if Law 13 but I don't think USSF would say the touch was trifling. Trifling has to be in the minds of the players also

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: refmike
Posts: 639
Member Since: 4/30/03

Posted: 12/16/2008 9:12am
Views:   2100
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
There was a recent conversation about a goal kick that was blown back by a heavy wind after leaving the penalty area. The keeper tried to stop the ball from going into the net and did touch it but it went in anyway. FIFA advice said to give the advantage and allow the goal. So FIFA does not restrict advantage to Law 12 and USSF says we should. That is a bigger question than this specific example.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: keith__286
Posts: 764
Member Since: 12/19/03

Posted: 12/16/2008 11:15am
Views:   2106
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
USSF and FIFA are at odds on this. If you specifically ask those at USSF if advantage ONLY applies to Law 12 they will and have said yes. This is a huge disagreement with FIFA and, I agree, is the bigger problem. That said, where did you see this question answered with official FIFA advice we give advantage and award the goal?

[ Modified 12/16/2008 2:00pm by keith__286 ]

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: TheOnceAndFutureMel

Posts: 1888
Member Since: 10/19/00

Posted: 12/28/2008 11:40am
Views:   2049
Replies: 1
  Question  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
It's a long time ago, but on page 46 in Q&A 2004, FIFA answered that question (Law 16 - Q3) with: "He awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team".

In Q&A, 2005 - the question was not presented.

I have not seen it anywhere since.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: keith__286
Posts: 764
Member Since: 12/19/03

Posted: 12/29/2008 9:59am
Views:   2058
Replies: 0
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
Then FIFA is in agreement with USSF as they did not give advantage and award a goal

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: CoachBrianJ
Posts: 2
Member Since: 7/30/03

Posted: 12/31/2008 8:50pm
Views:   2031
Replies: 1
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
No advantage can be given on a double kick, so we wouldn't know what the outcome would have been. IFK is the correct call.

   
Back Reply to this Message BackReport Abuse Display Mode: Flat | Threaded 
  Nickname: keith__286
Posts: 764
Member Since: 12/19/03

Posted: 1/1/2009 2:03pm
Views:   2037
Replies: 0
  Re: Nonsense Play, But...  
Do you mean "second touch" when you say double kick? Many referees have cited examples over the years where FIFA has allowed advantage for non Law 12 violations. In the latest Interpretations they answer when a coach runs onto the field the referee does not have to stop play if 1. the coach doesn't interfere with play, which to me means his prescence was trifling OR 2. If the advantage can be applied. In a 2008 USSF Memo we are instructed that when FIFA says "advantage" for violations of Laws other tha 12 we are to interpret that as meaning trifling. This doesn't make sense when you look at page 60. It's clear to me that when FIFA says apply advantage to a coach running onto the field they mean exactly that or they'd leave out the part about his not influencing play. This is a clear example of FIFA allowing advantage for violation of Law 3. I hope sometime we see an explicit memo from FIFA regarding advantage only for Law 12 or USSF changing it's position. It's also clear that referees in other countries give advantage for violations of Laws other than 12

TO THE PEOPLE THAT RUN THIS SITE < < Previous Topic  |  Next Topic > > Offside Scenario   
 
< Back
Football Soccer Basketball Baseball Ice Hockey Cheerleading Softball Volleyball Lacrosse Swimming Tennis Bowling More Sports