Question Number: 31033

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/17/2016

Jacob of Wallasey, England asks...

I saw a video in which the goalkeeper attempted to release the ball from his hands, but ended up throwing the ball at the head of an opponent in front of him by accident, and the ball bounced back into the net.

So what happens here? I wouldn't have thought that it would be classed as 'preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball', as he did actually manage to release it. Would it then simply be obstruction? In which case would you have to decide whether the player made some kind of move towards the keeper?

Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jacob,
you ask what happens? Well, based on JUST your description it appears it could be a valid goal with a very embarrassed keeper and 10 teammates in a state of disbelief and grimacing! Perhaps a sore headed but jubilant opponent with 10 teammates also shaking their heads in disbelief but smiling . lol !
Now I have yet to see the video, so my question is: WAS the opponent doing anything to prevent the keeper from releasing the ball without hassle? Was the opponent tracking the keeper, staying too close, mirroring his movements, forcing the keeper to alter or change his movements? Did he deliberately do anything to interfere to blindside the keeper as in altering his run out to impede the keeper in anyway?

This is referred to in LAW 12 Fouls & Misconduct
An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:
• impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
•  prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it

A referee could allow play to continue here to allow the non-offending team to benefit from the situation provided his whistle did not go off, thinking the head injury potential too serious! This is not truly an advantage where we would penalises an infringement or offence. You state this throw was accidental, not a deliberate targeting, so likely it is not considered as a foul of striking or violent conduct.

You are semi correct, we do not use the term obstruction but suffice to say if the player interferes in a way the referee finds fault it would be an INDFK restart with no goal.. Our referee would have to be convinced the opponent had in fact created the circumstances for this to occur by unfairly hassling the keeper. We expect the opponents to withdraw to a reasonable distance but they should be held accountable if they are seen to challenge the keeper in any way. Once a keeper HAS ball possession within his own PA , ALL the opponents must avoid him and give him a wide berth or risk being seen as to interfere. I consider about 10 yards as a reasonable distance, similar to free kick situations. I have seen keepers kick or throw the ball into nearby attackers and suffer a free kick against themselves for deliberately targeting the player in retribution for his presence. Yet often the referee will hold the opponent at fault for trying to draw this very sort of response. The fact the player is close does not automatically make him guilty of violating the keeper space but it is ALWAYS suspect. As in most things we look to where why how and when in pushing the who's involved as responsible.
Cheers
PS is this the video you were referring to?

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015/9/24/9393043/video-rodrigo-prieto-necaxa-zacatepec-accidental-head-goal

The camera angle and slow motion may have biased my view. It looks like a deliberate get in the way but do not look too obvious about it, after all he does not prevent the keeper from choosing to release it but it is obvious, in slow motion, that he just cuts across at a suspicious time and jumps. At high speed it could have been difficult to tell. Interesting, but I am thinking I would not allow it! The outbound player is looking at the keeper and appears to change his run pattern and jump. My gut says no goal! I do notice the keeper does not appear to take umbrage so the match referee may well feel content in his decision and I may well be wrong but this is an INDFK for me. NO GOAL!
The issue, I think arises in decisions like this, if, we find no fault, the players keep trying to push the envelope of how close is too close? I think a harder line on these types of events and we see no opponent even near the keeper, which was the INTENT of this law all along!
.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jacob
An interesting question and the answer lies in whether it was totally the making of the goalkeeper or did the attacker contribute to the scenario.
It may have been this incident
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqRoFZPJVHE
If the attacker had turned and he was totally oblivious to the actions of the goalkeeper then we have a valid goal. The goalkeeper was not prevented in releasing the ball nor was he challenged in possession of the ball. To do so are offences punished by an indirect free kick. Now were the attacker to move close to the goalkeeper to interfere with the release then we have an offence. Players can disguise their actions such as turning their backs yet they may have shadowed the goalkeeper movements until the last moment. In the video I believe that it was an offence as the player clearly jumps
Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgFpuyQFRKw
Most are offences and the only ones legal ones are where the goalkeepers have thrown the ball to ground and released possession. Holding the ball in an outstretched hand, bouncing, throwing the ball up to punt are all forms of possession and the goalkeeper cannot be challenged in those instances.
Have a look at this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9BwyqAXF9s
The GK hits his own player so the goal is good. Even if it hit a Red player in a similar manner the goal would also be good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWpnR0qy1kY
This goal should not have been allowed as the White player interfered with the GKs release of the ball
I recall seeing two incidents in the English Championship where an attacker (same player two different games) moved with the goalkeeper and at the last moment turned away as the ball was being punted which hit him and subsequently scored off the recovery. In one incident the goal was allowed whereas in the other it was disallowed. I felt both should have been disallowed.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jacob,
If the incident is the one ref Dawson refers to in his answer then I would tend to agree with his conclusion that the goal should have been disallowed.

The law on preventing the goalkeeper releasing the ball says that is an offence to kick or attempt to kick the ball while the keeper is on the process of releasing it. Although it doesn't mention using the head to do the same thing, if we use the principle that referees should apply the spirit and intent, not just the letter of the law I think the intent of the law has been broken here. The point of the law is that the keeper should be allowed to fully release the ball back into play, unhindered by an opponent.

Although it is still slightly unclear to me from the video whether the player really did do this on purpose, my feeling is that he probably did. Perhaps more importantly, I feel that any move towards allowing players to start finding ways to block the goalkeeper in these situations would be the thin end of the wedge, leading on to more and more such incidents and so is definitely to be discouraged.