Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mhall]

Ok!

On a goal does the ball have to break the plan of the goal-line or must it pass completely across the line much as what happens with a ball that goes out of bounds?

Let me know please because we had a goal called against us that the ball touched the line and that was it.

Thanks!

[Oneblindmouse]

mhall - the ball must completely cross the line, if any part of the ball can be considered "on the line" then it is still in the field.  The line is considered part of the area that it bounds, so in this case the goal line is considered part of the field.  The LOTG are quite clear on this point, especially as it pertains to a goal being scored. 
This type of situation is why I always stress the importance of the AR running all the way down the touch line and making sure that they are as close to the goal line as possible.  Even being a few feet up from the goal line can make the angle difference on goal/no goal.

[mhall]

Thanks OBM!!

I was pretty sure that was the rule.  The AR had not run his line and was not in position to make the call and the call was made.  Now I understand that many things contribute to wins and loses, but it's frustrating when a call like that is made especially when the game ends in a 3 to 2 lose for the rooting team.

Here's another at the same game.  A foul called in the box and the kick is given from the spot of the foul inside the box.  What is this?  A minor offense thus making the kick an indirect kick and not a PK?  How is a pushing foul, or at least the foul was called as the kid ended up on the ground, in the box result in a non-PK?

Thanks!

[Firedog]

Here's another at the same game.  A foul called in the box and the kick is given from the spot of the foul inside the box.  What is this?  A minor offense thus making the kick an indirect kick and not a PK?  How is a pushing foul, or at least the foul was called as the kid ended up on the ground, in the box result in a non-PK?

Thanks!

Obstruction results in an indirect free.  Must have been the call.  Here's the section from the Laws of the Game on Indirect Kicks (not related to the Keeper).

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of
the referee, a player:
• plays in a dangerous manner
• impedes the progress of an opponent
• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands
• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
play is stopped to caution or send off a player
The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred

[mhall]

Hi Firedog!

Since it was explained, and not expected to be explained, I would have to assume it was an obstruction call.  Which is still an interesting call because the kids collided with them both falling to the ground with the offensive player moving in an offensive direction.  Offensive not meaning smelling or anything like that but moving towards the goal.

Interesting and as always I love to hear the answers to these questions because it helps to educate me.  And the funny thing is, wrong or right, I am now "educating" the parents on our sideline.  Funny!!!

[NKSoccerFan]

... because the kids collided with them both falling to the ground with the offensive player moving in an offensive direction. 

Where was the ball?  Within playing distance?

 

[Oneblindmouse]

That goal/no-goal situation unfortunately plays out all too often, in both directions, but that is what makes soccer interesting, right???.....

For the restart to have been a kick from the spot of the foul, and not the Penalty Mark, it would have to be an Indirect Free Kick.  Hard to say what the Ctr was thinking without having seen the particular play, but calling a foul that involves contact inside the box as an IFK is gutsy....I would imagine the attacking team's coach probably blew a gasket or two??

[mhall]

Hi NK!

On the offensive players foot.  So, well within playing distance!

[mhall]

Hi OBM!

A gasket is a minor statement!  He nearly ran down the field to speak directly with the AR!!  And trust me, he's not the fleetest of foot and he would have had to run over the opposing coach and the opposing team's kids sitting on the bench to get there!!  Tough day with the refs, although my perspective is one thing and the other team may have seen things completely differently.  I find myself getting a little, and sometimes more than a little, frustrated.  But then I remind myself that the guys on the field are the ones who have decided to become referees and devote their time to being on the field and I am just a parent standing and watching.  Granted they do get a bit of money for what they do!!!

[plentyofgames]

That goal/no-goal situation unfortunately plays out all too often, in both directions, but that is what makes soccer interesting, right???.....

For the restart to have been a kick from the spot of the foul, and not the Penalty Mark, it would have to be an Indirect Free Kick.  Hard to say what the Ctr was thinking without having seen the particular play, but calling a foul that involves contact inside the box as an IFK is gutsy....I would imagine the attacking team's coach probably blew a gasket or two??

It seems the "impedes the progress" (obstruction) foul is called a lot less than it used to be inside the area. Anything that involves contact is now expected to be a penalty. It's a tough decision/distinction for a referee to make between running across a player to "impede" him, and running into him or having him run in to you and calling it a trip, hold or a push. Giving the penalty is easier if there's contact because you can always point to the contact and call it a hold or a push and then it's a penalty.

[mhall]

So, let's look at this way.  The player has the ball on his foot.  It does not travel beyond say 1 foot or so from his foot.  There is a collision in the box.  Both players fall down.  The ball is cleared out of bounds.  The Center blows his whistle.  It looks like a foul in the box, thus meaning a PK, but instead the Center points to the spot of the foul for the ball to be placed.

Simple explanation with now pictures or video, but should this be impedance or should it be a foul with a PK?  I personally thought the call should have been a PK!  But once again I am sitting on the sidelines where it would be advantageous for the kid to kick the PK because it's the team I am rooting for!!!

Trust me, this is all just informational and I understand that the ref made the call he thought was right, but this day some of the calls where hard to take.  But I have to admit I did the best to keep my mouth shut on this day, because the previous day, I was told to be quiet by the center in another game!!  Trying to be on my best behavior prior to Christmas, you know with Santa and all!!!

[NKSoccerFan]

Simple explanation with now pictures or video, but should this be impedance or should it be a foul with a PK?  I personally thought the call should have been a PK!  But once again I am sitting on the sidelines where it would be advantageous for the kid to kick the PK because it's the team I am rooting for!!!

We had a similar call a while back, but it worked out to our benefit.  We were expecting a PK and to be playing a man down and we were just as baffled as the other team's coach when they set up for the indirect kick.
End result - 1:0 victory for us. 

 

[mhall]

Soccer gods, right!  So, somewhere in the near future I should be looking for something in our favor.  Fortunately, the game is over and it didn't affect our standings and ultimately the kids should have played better.  Fun and games and it is youth soccer!!  Why do we take it so damn serious??

[Oneblindmouse]

So, let's look at this way.  The player has the ball on his foot.  It does not travel beyond say 1 foot or so from his foot.  There is a collision in the box.  Both players fall down.  The ball is cleared out of bounds.  The Center blows his whistle.  It looks like a foul in the box, thus meaning a PK, but instead the Center points to the spot of the foul for the ball to be placed.

Simple explanation with no pictures or video, but should this be impedance or should it be a foul with a PK? 

Well, as regards the possibility of this being Impeding an Opponent, the Advice to Referees has this to say "The offense of Impeding an Opponent REQUIRES that the ball not be within playing distance and that physical contact between the player and opponent is NORMALLY absent" (emphasis added).  So, if the ball was at the foot of the attacker, then in no way could this have been an Impeding foul, but contact does not neccesarily rule out Impeding.

The only other options available for an IFK, would be; (omitting offences committed by a Keeper)
- Plays in a dangerous manner (requires that no contact was made, otherwise it becomes a DFK foul)
- Prevents the Keeper from relealsing the ball
- commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player

I really don't see how the foul you described could have resulted in the restart that was given.  This could simply have been a brain fart on the part of the Ctr, which more training or after game discussion could prevent from happening again.

[NKSoccerFan]

... which more training or after game discussion could prevent from happening again.

The key is the refs need to know what to work on.  Most referee associations have a way to provide evaluations on the referee crew for the match.  Use 'em!

 

[Oneblindmouse]

... which more training or after game discussion could prevent from happening again.

The key is the refs need to know what to work on.  Most referee associations have a way to provide evaluations on the referee crew for the match.  Use 'em!

 

I believe most Associations and/or ref associations have some tool for accepting feedback about refs.  Please use them, not only for negative but also for positive (especially for younger refs).  Referee mentors are stretched so thin that positive feedback just doesn't happen often enough to help the younger refs realized how good a job they may actually be doing.

[Bathos]

Coincidentally, awarding an Indirect Free Kick in the box was one of the panels in this week's You Are the Ref series in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/17/trevillion-hackett-ref-howard-webb