Question Number: 30009

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/4/2016

RE: Select Under 12

Brad of Plymouth, Michigan United States asks...

Shot on goal and yellow attacking forward had followed up on shot (but keeper successfully secured ball). GK got up fairly quickly for a counter with yellow player still behind him. Attacker was running back towards midfield and passed GK just as he was releasing the ball for a punt. Yellow did not 'interfere' with GK--passing about 1-2 feet adjacent to GK. However, just as GK kicked the ball attacker made a deliberate 'hop' to his left to put himself right in front of the punted ball. Ball hit attacker on the lower back (about 3-4 yards in front of GK) and dropped to ground. Attacker turned around ready to shoot on goal. I immediately blew the whistle and verbally cautioned the attacker, telling him that he cannot jump in front of the punt and that it could warrant a yellow card. Given the age I opted against a YC, so officially my ruling was PIADM against yellow.
Both coaches seemed perplexed with my call--not dissenting but clearly uncertain. I later explained my ruling to the GK's coach and he seemed to understand. But as I reflect and look through LOTG I don't find much specific guidance around this scenario.
A few questions:
1) Does this qualify as 'prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball'? I don't think it does, but wanted others' thoughts.
2) Is PIADM appropriate for this (particularly given the intentional move into the ball's path)? If so, at what level/distance is this NOT PIADM? I imagine at some point a player is free to stand in a ball's path (perhaps '10 yards is a reasonable distance). I suppose this is 'in the opinion of the referee' but I can't find any specific guidance.
3) If forward had NOT jumped into the ball, but instead ball had simply taken a path into him, I would have allowed play to continue in this circumstance. Is this correct?

Answer provided by Referee James Sowa

Brad,

In this scenario, and especially at this age, I think you made the right decision to stop play. The keeper has a right to release the ball without interference. A deliberate jump in front of the keeper would constitute interfering in my games. Now, that said, the explanation I would use would not be PIADM. I would say that the defender jumped at the GK and committed a DFK foul. Take the two passages below from the the now defunct Advice To Referees:

GK Possession :
'While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul.'

'Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground.'

I would wager that the timing was such that you could still say that the GK had possession of the ball when the player jumped in front of him. But further, again from the ATR:

'12.17 PREVENTING THE GOALKEEPER FROM RELEASING THE BALL INTO PLAY
An opponent may not interfere with or block the goalkeeper's release of the ball into play. While players have a right to maintain a position achieved during the normal course of play, they may not try to block the goalkeeper's movement while he or she is holding the ball or do anything which hinders, interferes with, or blocks the goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play. An opponent does not violate the Law, however, if the player takes advantage of a ball released by the goalkeeper directly to him or her, in his or her direction, or deflecting off him or her nonviolently.'

This pretty much answers the question. The attacker was not in a position achieved from normal play and therefore interfered with the goalkeeper's release of the ball. This should also answer your final question that yes, if the attacker had not jumped in front of it play should have continued.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brad
You got the decision correct albeit with the incorrect offence. Its is not PIADM yet rather the Law 12 offence of **prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands** which has an indirect free kick restart. The referee if he feels that the offence was also a tactical foul or that it had the potential to be reckless can caution the offender for unsporting behaviour.
Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uO9A6s8_vI&feature=youtu.be
Referee Lee Mason felt that the actions were deliberate to prevent the release of the ball by the goalkeeper. My take on it is that the attacker has placed himself subtlety in the GK kicking line. Watch his foot movements. It mirrors the GK. It is not aimless walking about. He has also pressured the GK on the 6 seconds which then hurries him up on the kick from where he is stood. This is a tried and tested move and it did come off previously for the player in another game with the IDFK not being called.
Now here is an example of a referees not cautioning but having a word only
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryPIcQP1mcM
Here are other example where there were cautions issued
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJOTPOCdNXg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=30URundTX80&t=1m16s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3de7_wD8UWQ
The referee decided in the circumstances that the best decision was an IDFK only as there was nothing reckless nor tactical
Now have a look at this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAgwBLjf3Ao&feature=youtu.be&t=1m27s
The referee allowed the goal to stand.
BTW all these with the exception of the first video and the last caused good debate with a divided audience. Many agree that it is preventing release while other argue to the contrary. I would not allow it and I would not caution just an IDFK only. As Referee Dawson suggest the wise referee can be proactive by trying to prevent it happening. The GK has to help as well by trying to move away from the player which then makes it a more obvious offence when it does happen. The player is entitled to prevent the throw down of the ball by the GK yet he can do that in other ways.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Brad,
I concur with my colleagues it was correct to stop play, just not for PIADM but rather for preventing the release of the ball by the keeper in possession of the ball. As to the videos highlighted by my colleague I would say to the referees to be more proactive and attentive and get the attacking player out of there if possible. Secondly, keep it simple and disallow the goals. There is only one reason the attacking player is there, to get in the way of the clearance and be a problem to the keeper and eventually you as a referee. You have to be more intelligent as a referee and understand the tactics of players. Anticipate and you can prevent yourself problems. Once you permit something vaguely unethical it is a Pandora's box to stuff it back into.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Brad,
'Preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the bal' is stopping him from having the opportunity to get the ball into play in a reasonable manner. Thus, blocking a kick or throw satisfied this.
These offences are not mandatory cautions at all. Blocking in this fashion is not dangerous - some referees argue that it's always a caution because it's intentional and blatant, but personally I don't think that's enough for a caution. While the keeper won't get as much distance from a free kick as from a punt, a punt is generally a fairly 50-50 ball in midfield anyway so usually there's no real attack being broken up. This is purely my opinion; given the deliberate and blatant nature of the foul I can see a justification for a caution though, and doing so certainly isn't incorrect in law.
Bear in mind though, that sometimes the keeper has seen a good attack option - an unmarked player, for instance. If the keeper is attempting a quick return for a counterattack then this is an intentional foul to break up an attack and needs to be cautioned.
Naturally you would take into consideration the age/skill of the players and other factors.
If the attacker had remained in his place once the keeper had begun his release, and the ball strikes him then no offence has been committed.