Question Number: 30775

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/17/2016

RE: Competitive Adult

Peter of Manchester, England asks...

Hi, if a player is through on goal with only the keeper to beat and the keeper goes to ground, player chips the keeper with ball going wide, the keeper in essence pulls out of the challenge avoiding contact with the and they dive over the keeper where there is no real need is this a penalty or an in direct free kick? Would the decision change if the ball was on target and stopped somehow?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter,
are you saying the attacker is simulating to draw a foul but the ball is NOT going into touch or IF it WAS going into touch the referee would arrive at a different decision? If there is NO foul by the keeper or incidental contact we allow play on! . IF there is ANY hint of unfair actions by either the attacker in DIVING or the keeper in fouling then we punish those actions as the LOTG dictate. The INDFK for the simulation restart after cautioning showing the yellow card is appropriate, The referee MUST be sure though, if the ball is headed out of play and the restart is a goal kick, a referee might be less inclined to caution the attacker unless the attacker has OBVIOUSLY embarrassed the referee by appealing for what was clearly a non decision. It is a big deal to cheat or deceive but helping sell even minor contact to achieve an advantage is less certain.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Not sure if you saw the Hull City v Arsenal game and the penalty award on the Petr Cech incident. In that incident Cech the Arsenal goalkeeper came out and dived to try to win the ball which he did not achieve. His momentum took him into the path of the Hull player. That in itself is a foul for impeding which has an indirect free kick restart . Now the Hull player did try to go over the goalkeeper albeit lamely and there is nothing in the Laws that requires that he does so. Once there is contact on an impeding foul it get elevated to a direct free kick and in this case a penalty. Under the new Laws Cech was cautioned as he made a genuine attempt to play the ball. Under the old laws he could easily have been dismissed for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Had Cech managed to save the ball then there would have been no offence as the subsequent contact is a coming together. Unless of course there was a second move by the GK to deliberately trip the attacker on the follow on play. What it does show that players when making a challenge for the ball must weigh up what happens if they do not get the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Peter,

It makes no difference, when deciding if a foul has been committed, whether the ball was going wide of, or into the goal (so long as the ball is still in play). The referee just has to decide if the relevant criteria have been met. If, in the circumstances you describe, the ref judges the keeper's challenge on an opponent was careless, reckless (or used excessive force) then he is entitled to conclude that a foul has been committed.

As for the player going over the keeper 'where there is no real need' I think the question to consider is whether the player could reasonably have been expected to avoid the onrushing keeper. There is nothing in the Laws that suggests a player must take unreasonable measures to avoid a challenge. In the case of the Petr Cech incident mentioned by Ref McHugh, the attacker actually tried to hurdle the keeper but was unable to do so.

If on the other hand, a player whose speed and direction of travel was taking him wide of the keeper changes direction so that he can dive over the keeper or 'trails a leg' in order to manufacture a collision that would otherwise not have taken place, then that would constitute simulation, resulting in a caution for the player followed by an indirect free kick to the opponents.