Question Number: 22780

Law 16 - Goal Kick 1/30/2010

RE: rec Other

jim smolinski of naperville, il usa asks...

This is a question about 'advantage' being applied to situations involving the keeper.

I have seen where the CR applied advantage on a passback. The keeper touched the ball, but the ball still went into the goal. The CR applied 'advantage', allowing the goal.

Does the same apply to a double touch. A keeper had a goal kick into a stiff wind. The ball cleared the penalty area, becoming in play. But the wind blew it back, the keeper touched the ball trying to stop it from going into the goal.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Smolinski
The passback one does happen and advantage is the correct decision if a goal results.
In relation to the goal kick this is a very unusual and unique situation. I would contend that if this happens the game should be abandoned. But anyway if the goalkeeper knew the laws he would let the ball go into the goal and the restart is a corner kick as the team cannot score directly on itself from a GK. Should it ever happen the correct decision is an IDFK
Where a defender throws the ball to his goalkeeper who touches the ball with his hand trying to prevent it entering the goal, then advantage is played and the goal is awarded. If the goalkeeper did not touch it the restart would be a corner.
However as Referee Voshol states USSF has a defined advice on double touch violations and that advice should be followed in matches under their jurisdiction. Normally there is never an advantage in a double touch violation anyway.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

USSF had ruled that advantage applies only to infractions of Law 12. Since the goal kick is Law 16, you would not apply advantage to a second-touch. The so-called 'passback' being a violation of Law 12, advantage can be applied.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

As already noted, the USSF teaches that 'advantage' is used only for fouls and misconduct. But, USSF also recognizes that the referee is called not to stop play for infringements of the laws that are trifling - things that don't have an unfair benefit to the infringing team or an adverse affect on the opposing team.

In many cases, the referee who chooses not to stop play in these circumstances can do so under either notion.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Since you are a referee in the USA, the Advice to Referees has this to contribute, for your understanding and use:

16.3 SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A GOAL KICK
Only the team taking a goal kick can score a goal directly from this restart. There can be no 'own goal' on a goal kick. If a properly taken goal kick goes directly into the goal of the kicking team (i. e., the ball left the penalty area into the field of play but was blown back), the proper restart is a corner kick for the opposing team. Because a team cannot score directly against itself from a goal kick, no infringement of the Law by a member of the kicking team can be considered to have prevented a goal or a goalscoring opportunity within the meaning of Law 12 without some intervening play of the ball.

A goalkeeper who takes a goal kick, which passes outside of the penalty area and then returns in the direction of the goal, attempts to prevent the ball from entering the goal by handling it. Although the attempt is unsuccessful and the ball enters the net, the goal cannot be counted as the offense of "second touch" has occurred and must result in an indirect free kick restart where the second touch occurred. Advantage is not applied because "second touch" is not a violation of Law 12 (see Advice 5.6). If the goalkeeper's handling of the ball in these circumstances had been successful, the "second handling" offense would be called, but the goalkeeper could not be sent from the field and shown a red card for interfering with a goalscoring opportunity (goalkeeper handling, unless it occurred outside the penalty area, is exempt from the misconduct of handling to prevent a goal).

So, no, advantage is not applied, no goal is scored and the restart is an IDFK from where the keeper touches the ball, subject to the restrictions of Law 13.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hi Ref Jim! the USSF has decided that advantage may only be given for breeches of Law 12. When the ball is deliberately kicked to the keeper by his teammate and the keeper handles it, that's a breech of Law 12 and, yes, advantage may be given and the goal allowed. As our non USSF referees tell us, in other parts of the world advantage may be given for breeches of any of the Laws. The goal kick is Law 16 so, here, we may not give advantage. Since Advice discusses this specific instance, it would be unwise for any USSF referee to decide this was a trifling offense as 16.3 is clear that the keeper must be sanctioned for this second touch and play must stop.