Question Number: 28941

Mechanics 11/3/2014

RE: Rec Under 13

Jason of Wylie, T Texas asks...

While AR'ing the other day, Red team is attacking Blue team. Red shoots and the ball hits the Blue goalie square in the face. Goalie goes down in a heap. But as the ref steps up to stop play, Red shoots again off the rebound and scores before the ref can blow his whistle.
Play is now stopped, the goalie is attended to and once back on his feet, the goal is awarded and it's back to center for a kickoff.
I think good goal because it happened before the whistle, but as a parent and coach also I can understand the questioning by the Red teams sideline.
Wondering what your thoughts are on situations like this.
Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jason,
In truth it does not matter if the whistle sounded, if the referee had decided to stop play before the goal for the apparent serious injury to the keeper (who by law must be a functioning player), then there is no goal! The decision was already made, just in-between the decision and the whistle a goal happened to occur. Play would be restarted with a drop ball for the injury to the keeper!
Whether it would be contested or dropped directly to the keeper is a matter for the teams playing to work out!

If the goal occurs and only then the referee realizes the keeper's predicament the referee sees he receives treatment before continuing with the kick off for a good goal.

If the team feels at all bad about scoring a goal off an injury they could let the other team dribble down field and score an equalizer!
. Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jason
The key point is that the decision is made when the referee decides not when he signals. That delay can be a few seconds.
Now if the referee here decided that he was going to stop play before the signal was made that is all that matters.
I suspect that the referee may have in the circumstances decided that with the late whistle, if that is what it was, to award the goal and restart with a kick off. Only the referee knew the decision timing anyway. Also the GK was going to get treatment anyway as quickly had the whistle no sounded so it is not as if there was a lengthy play or time before play was going to be stopped.
So in these circumstances I see no problem with awarding the goal and restarting with a kick off.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

It sounds like this all took place within a few seconds. I don't think that allows enough time to tell if the keeper is injured or not, in most cases. The fact that the keeper dropped to the ground after a ball to the face doesn't mean he's injured - I've seen plenty of players get up almost straight away from this, so as referee's we don't want to be blowing the whistle just because the keeper has fallen over.

I once had a situation where a keeper went down after a challenge, it went to an attacker who scored while the keeper was still on the ground. Took place over the course of a few seconds. I still believe I made the correct decision, as I don't believe I had the time to really judge that the keeper had been injured. If I had stopped play just because the keeper isn't getting up straight away, then wouldn't that be encouraging keepers to stay down - even take a dive - if the attacker has passed them?

While we may be faster to stop play if the keeper is apparently injured than for any other player, I don't think we can stop play immediately just because they go down or don't get up straight away (unless, of course, you can tell straight away that the injury may be serious). If, however, the ball still needs to be played around the Penalty Area (say, there are defenders challenging the ball and the attacker is still trying to find a way to attack the goal) then it's easier to stop play. But I can't see any justification for stopping an attacker who's facing an open goal unless you're absolutely certain the keeper is injured. And can you tell that the keeper is injured in the space of a couple of seconds? Or is he just taking a few moments to get up?

I can understand why the defensive team aren't happy with it - but had the goal been disallowed, it would be the blue team complaining. Some situations are such that one team is going to think the decision was unfair.

It sounds like a good goal to me, just for a different reason to what you thought.