Question Number: 18027

Law 16 - Goal Kick 11/29/2007

RE: High School

Patrick Chambers of Kailua, HI USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 18012

Dear Sirs,

You all provide a valuable service for us in the trenches and well deserve our collective appreciation of your efforts.

My question involves what appears to be the routine exclusion of advantage (by referees under the guidance of the USSF) for double touch by the keeper after a GK.

Just because GK or TI are predominantly covered by laws outside Law 12 does not mean that Law 12 does not come into play. This also applies to certain violations of Law 3. The ATR directs us to play advantage not only for fouls but also for misconduct, whether or not it is accompanied by a foul (5.6). The 7+7 paper (2007) by the USSF states under C1 (UB) that the list of actions are examples and are not a complete list. Therefore, if ITOOTR the scenario in question is unsporting he has the option of adding a disciplinary sanction to the Law 16 infringement => Law 12 offense => advantage can be played.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Most referees need to remember that law 12 mentions fouls and misconduct and there are versions of misconduct within many of the laws.

Some things are absolute.

For example a ball that does not clear the penalty area on a goal kick and say the keeper was to kick it a second time is always a retake the fact he kicked the ball into an attacker and it rebounded in for a goal will not be considered it will a retake as the bal is NOT yet in play.

Yet in law 3 an illegal 12th person enters the field and gives chase to a ball about to enter the goal he tries to kick it out of play but he scores on himself, good goal kick off and caution are in the cards for me!

Restarts where there is a second consecutive touch are violations of the restart and generally advantage can not apply! For example on a throw in or free kick the player makes a poor throw/kick and realizes an attacker will get to that ball decides to touch, kick it a second time, the ball bounces off the attacker and the attacker is in on goal will not be allowed to continue we are back for the INDFK!

Yet if the restart was deliberately kicked or thrown to the keeper and he tried to use his hands on the ball but failed to stop it from entering the goal we allow the goal.

When a keeper releases the ball back into play after holding it for 6 seconds and realizes he messed up attempts to regrab that ball be it inside or outside his area if he flubbed it and an attacker potted the goal I see it as a good goal /kick off.

On throw ins if the throw in is done incorrectly we can not apply advantage we must award the throw in the other way.
Mind you we reserve the right to see trivial or doubtful situations and can see where a delay of the whistle as advantageous as opposed to strictly by the book yelling and signaling advantage.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

In the responses to 18012 misconduct was not called into the discussion by the writer except for denying a goal by an offence punishable by a free kick. We discounted that possibility because the player never played the ball and no one can say with any conviction he would have scored or even if the chance was there.

By adding an opinion of the referee that the keeper's play of the ball before it was touched by another player was unsporting the referee is free play advantage, given the ball not going to touch as it was in this case. Again, the opinion of the referee, must be the act was unsporting instead of the keeper getting to the ball and tackling it away just before his opponent got there.

We try not to read into the question any more that the writer presents us. When we offer opinion as to what we would do we usually state it is an opinion and offer what the opinion is based on.

Your opinion that referees overlook playing advantage for misconduct alone is not without merit. But I would be willing to wager few referees could identify misconduct that may happen without a connected violation of Law 12.

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 18042